I strongly disagree, there are lot of shit older movies, and there are some quality newer movies. It's just that studios prefer quantity and visual over quality these days, it's simple as that.
Film Why do old films work, where their modern day equivalent wouldn't?
- Thread starter VeevaVee
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
He’s closer to Brando than he is to Rebel Wilson.
Eh? Who said all older movies are great and no new movies are?
Agreed
No one. But level of comedy in the Police academy, or the likes of Naked Gun have nothing to do with how they are filmed and which equipment is used, it's the acting and the originality of jokes that makes it better than any recent comedies. If they made it with newer equipment but with same quality jokes it would be even better.
Aged very well. Might be Carpenter best work.
Revenge of the Nerds would definitely look different nowadays, in that it would be Facebook and Google taking over the world.
I know what you mean there's something about film (and film grain) that gives it this lovely quality. It often looks unrealistic and a little more expressionistic. Certain colours pop whereas digital movies seem to be, I dunno, more uniformly vivid.
I watch a lot of Asian films myself and saw one the other day called The Taste of Tea. It was immediate how the pastel hues stood out, which I don't think is as easy to do with digital.
Drive is an excellent example of that uniform vividness. Arguably you couldn't make that film with, uh, film.
Last edited:
For want of a better word, there was definitely an innocence - or even naivety - about a lot of pre millennium movies that gives them a charm that, sadly, is eroded away nowadays through a few things.
Focus groups, test screenings, an unwillingness or fear of taking risks or offending. These things would prevent so many of these movies that we hold dear from ever being made.
I watched two movies with my daughters this weekend. Trading Places was one. A classic of its genre, but that whole sequence on the train with the costumes and the gorilla were both ridiculous. That would never happen today, in fact the writers would be fired, but it worked because it wasn't taking itself seriously at all.
The other was iRobot. Not a bad film, but polished to the point of ruin, and the amount of Converse and Audi product placement really grated. Just felt much more by-the-numbers
Focus groups, test screenings, an unwillingness or fear of taking risks or offending. These things would prevent so many of these movies that we hold dear from ever being made.
I watched two movies with my daughters this weekend. Trading Places was one. A classic of its genre, but that whole sequence on the train with the costumes and the gorilla were both ridiculous. That would never happen today, in fact the writers would be fired, but it worked because it wasn't taking itself seriously at all.
The other was iRobot. Not a bad film, but polished to the point of ruin, and the amount of Converse and Audi product placement really grated. Just felt much more by-the-numbers
I feel like with a lot of films from mid 00's and earlier they have better stories. If you tried to copy those stories in modern day they just wouldn't work because modern technologies would solve almost any long plot problem in minutes and there would be no film. This is exaggerated by the fact that there's hardly any new original stories being told to fit the times. A lot of it gets directed at television shows now as well instead of films. The industries have done a big swap in significance since the late 2000's. All of the creative, producing and acting talent is on TV largely.
We're talking about the aesthetics of film making, ie film v digital, changes in sound recording/mixing and the cumulative effect that these effects have on the viewing experience, rather than the relative merits of old films.
Michael Bay and the transformers saga, great special effects but all round terrible scripts that revolve around Shia LaBeouf and mark Wahlberg.
I believe the James bond film tomorrow never dies entire budget was covered by product placement.
What about the Simpsons? Storylines have taken a dip from the early seasons but it seems people shit on all new seasons where the animation is 1000x better regardless of the actual quality of the episode.
They don't need to be good anymore - the general population is dumber, so accepts lower standards.
Honestly? A lot of movies have too much going on. 'Less is more' sometimes, I really believe that. The cgi scenes are TOO packed with shit going on (Guardians of the galaxy is particularly guilty of this - but it works because it takes the time to 'focus' the audience deliberately), and some movies are far too self aware for their own good.
Movies as a form of escapism don't work at times because they're not visceral enough and they seem 4th wall breaking. The gay/lesbian kiss? It's so inevitably coming at some point it's no longer unexpected or 'shocking', but it feels like filmmakers are trying to 'shock' their audience with something that's no longer stigmatic. The tiny 5 foot tall girl? She's going to beat the shit out of the 6'5 former navy boxer at some point. Actors don't act - they just play themselves and joke about the plot all movie. If they don't take their story seriously how can we?
Movies as a form of escapism don't work at times because they're not visceral enough and they seem 4th wall breaking. The gay/lesbian kiss? It's so inevitably coming at some point it's no longer unexpected or 'shocking', but it feels like filmmakers are trying to 'shock' their audience with something that's no longer stigmatic. The tiny 5 foot tall girl? She's going to beat the shit out of the 6'5 former navy boxer at some point. Actors don't act - they just play themselves and joke about the plot all movie. If they don't take their story seriously how can we?
Wasn't Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind in part a veiled commentary on this effect?
Commando is almighty cheese, and knows it. Arnie being ridiculous and impressive at the same time carries so many of his movies.
The end fight between the fat Eddie Mercury and ripped Mr Universe Arnie shouldn't work but does, ludicrous as it.
A major issue for a lot of older movies with newer audiences is how all that was fresh and interesting in them has been copied a 1000 times since, thus the impact will be gone for first time viewers.
I bet there's many reasons but here are two for me.
Let's compare Commando (with Arnie) with John Wick (Keanu). Commando works because it was made a long time ago. Back then, silly action and one liners were cool and 'in'. If you threw these one liners into John Wick, it wouldn't work because it's a trope that's been milked. We now expect better action scenes also as we've seen all the hammy action already.
Now take Evil Dead and compare that with Cabin In The Woods. Back in the day, we were happy with the horror and gore but as time moved on, we started getting horror with better acting. So that's now the expectation. If Bruce Campbell (with his Ash performance) was in Cabin In The Woods, it would become a straight to dvd movie. Now with the likes of Hereditary, horrors will need to have EVEN better acting as we're getting used to it.
Not sure if I made my points probably but essentially, with the evolution of cinema, we expect better (quality, acting, stories etc) and will be less forgiving of clichés and tropes.
Let's compare Commando (with Arnie) with John Wick (Keanu). Commando works because it was made a long time ago. Back then, silly action and one liners were cool and 'in'. If you threw these one liners into John Wick, it wouldn't work because it's a trope that's been milked. We now expect better action scenes also as we've seen all the hammy action already.
Now take Evil Dead and compare that with Cabin In The Woods. Back in the day, we were happy with the horror and gore but as time moved on, we started getting horror with better acting. So that's now the expectation. If Bruce Campbell (with his Ash performance) was in Cabin In The Woods, it would become a straight to dvd movie. Now with the likes of Hereditary, horrors will need to have EVEN better acting as we're getting used to it.
Not sure if I made my points probably but essentially, with the evolution of cinema, we expect better (quality, acting, stories etc) and will be less forgiving of clichés and tropes.
I haaate the animation in the Simpsons since they switched to computer animation. It's awful. It's a decent way to compare the feeling I have with old/new films tbh. Sure technically it's "better", but it just looks so sterile and boring, like an AI just churned it out. Such a lack of charm and personality compared to the original, as show in this intro comparison
Analog v Digital pretty much, It's exactly the same with music. Tape adds warmth and realness to the art. If I had £100k to play with I'd try and preserve all the top of the range 90s recording/studio equipment, mix desks, drum machines etc, as the 90s was the peak of the analog era, and I think it'll hold all its value incredibly well in the future.
That's irrelevant. If you liked the movie as a kid/young adult you'll have nostalgic emotions towards it. Space Jam and most old Bond movies are good examples. Because it's Bond and you watched it with your grandad you like them but many of them are terrible films. Star Wars Episode 1 is like that as well. You got a generation of people discovering Star Wars through it and loving it as kids. Your brain simply ignores thing you don't like. You elevate the things you like about the movie more.Already mentioned that
It's a good shout, but I'm not old enough to feel nostalgia about these. I wasn't even born! They just have a charm that I don't think could be recreated, unless perhaps made in exactly the same way. Which I find weird, and difficult to define what that way is.
I’ve not seen any of these as a kid though
Have you seen them as an adult and liked them?
Older films are not easily available to us, most people will have to search and download. In such situations, we tend to select the critically acclaimed ones because obviously we do not want to waste our time with shite films.
Compare that to mainstream films which is force fed to us, the sample is skewed heavily towards the older films. Its really just a case of selection bias.
Compare that to mainstream films which is force fed to us, the sample is skewed heavily towards the older films. Its really just a case of selection bias.
Superhero films have pretty much killed the industry. People who go to them prefer spectacle over an actual plot and acting
Agreed and this is reflected in their runtimes. I used to work in a cinema a few years back and clocked that so many films were absolutely bang on 2-hours long.
It feels like we got to a point a few years back where people felt that it's only worth going to the cinema if they're getting something worth their money. It doesn't always translate into the best experiences as 90-minute films tend to be the ones with more focus. Littler movies with simpler plots. The ones pushing 2-hours have to have more going on - which only really works for certain, arguably grander, movies. And not everybody can always be arsed with them. Sometimes they just suck.
I'm really struggling to think of any well-received movie made in the past few years that's less than 2 hours long. Of the ones mentioned here, Drive comes closest at 1hr 40mins.
It's usually a combination of nostalgia and survivorship bias.
Having said that, some people do prefer older aesthetics even if they didn't grow up with it. For instance, I think the synth wave craze is largely carried by people who are too young to actually remember the 80's. There's a simplicity to older films that can be oddly soothing, particularly if you are able to shut off your brain and not care too much about the blatant sexism, racism and creepy characters you are supposed to root for. But even in these fandoms, 90% of the media they consume is among the highest rated stuff from its time. So survivorship bias definitely plays a role there as well.
Having said that, some people do prefer older aesthetics even if they didn't grow up with it. For instance, I think the synth wave craze is largely carried by people who are too young to actually remember the 80's. There's a simplicity to older films that can be oddly soothing, particularly if you are able to shut off your brain and not care too much about the blatant sexism, racism and creepy characters you are supposed to root for. But even in these fandoms, 90% of the media they consume is among the highest rated stuff from its time. So survivorship bias definitely plays a role there as well.
If they remade Police Academy it would star some insufferable asshat that is in every other comedy movie being made. Same old faces in same old roles. Kinda like when Gutenberg was in every film.
I think these days most major studio films just have a feeling of polish and cleanness that eliminates the quaintness of older films to some degree. I don't want to generalise because it isn't fair and there's always exceptions, but most bigger budget modern films feel like they've passed through a consumer focus test. A lot of techniques have been developed and mastered, people working in films have acquired a greater level of skill, the equipment has developed significantly. You don't really get a Raimi or Argento these days, in terms of directorial technique, because those advances happened and with the technology available, almost everything is possible and has been absorbed into the language. I can't remember the last time I saw a Hollywood film that felt like it had its own character.
But I'm not a cinephile anyway. So most likely wrong.
Tackleberry is 100% a Trump Voter.
Ben Stller
Owen Wilson
Vince Vaughn
Will Ferrell
All guaranteed to be in a remake.
This is what I'm thinking. People are just mentioning the best of the older films and the trash new ones.