Well I love film and watch very little TV, i know you can judge old films through rose coloured lenses but I see a lot of films today that I know wont stand the test of time, especially in mainstream to the point of having sequels to bad/average films.
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
•
Jake Wrote:You're frikin 18 dude sure you don't see IT... try being 35 and more and you'll see the difference. I sure do see the darn difference... oh wait it also the fact that I am a Director but yeah I can see the difference and it's huge. Sometimes I think the same "you've studied a bit of cinema, your friends are directors and critics, so you see and helped doing something, you went to festivals etc etc etc..." But I think everyone with a little of criticism ...
Oh and guys, I'm italian, today we probably do the worst cinema in the world... Honestly I'm happy to see 'RandomAmericanSuperheroShit 5' hitting our box office, cause you don't know about our mainstream movies.
We do good independent cinema, but independent... Is independent. So for example I met a director who was doing the distribution personally using his car, his -few- money and eating sandwiches everyday...
And I agree with Partis, the problem is mainly on mainstream movies, they uses millions and millions for nothing... Gosh, I cry vomit when I think about Pocahont avatar...
•
With every generation, there is a genre' that seems to be the best.
In the 1920's, it was comedys.
In the 1930's it was love stories.
In the 1940's it was mafia and police movies.
In the 1950's it was scifi and "epic" movies.
In the 1960's it was "love and sex" movies.
In the 1970's it was a new style of scifi.
In the 1980's it was comedies.
In the 1990's, well....it all pretty much sucked.
In the early 2000's it was animation/CGI movies.
Nowdays its a bit of everything, but biopic and superhero/fantasy movies seem to be in the lead right now.
The "industry" seems to focus on one genre' at a time. And during that time, they spend the most money on those types of movies, usually making them better than all the others. But sometimes there are some "low budget" movies or independent movies that will "rock the boat".
•
MisterTinkles Wrote:With every generation, there is a genre' that seems to be the best.
In the 1920's, it was comedys.
In the 1930's it was love stories.
In the 1940's it was mafia and police movies.
In the 1950's it was scifi and "epic" movies.
In the 1960's it was "love and sex" movies.
In the 1970's it was a new style of scifi.
In the 1980's it was comedies.
In the 1990's, well....it all pretty much sucked.
In the early 2000's it was animation/CGI movies.
Nowdays its a bit of everything, but biopic and superhero/fantasy movies seem to be in the lead right now.
The "industry" seems to focus on one genre' at a time. And during that time, they spend the most money on those types of movies, usually making them better than all the others. But sometimes there are some "low budget" movies or independent movies that will "rock the boat". Hahhaha Tinkle berry I love your thoughts LOL
•
Lilitu Wrote:I dunno, films are broad and varied, you can't really say whether as a whole all film is better or worse.
Yes, to be honest, I haven't seen a really good movie at the regular cinema for a very very long time, implying that mainstream movies are getting worse? But at the same time, you have so many other good movies around. Film is still a developing medium, it's very new.
Not all old movies are good, there are plenty of bad ones, and lots of good ones.
A lot of people judge old movies through rose-coloured lenses. Today's movies aren't all bad, you just have to pick the right ones.
And you have to keep in mind that it's still big business, so many of the bad movies are purely commercial garbage. I do admit in the past, childrens shows, and commercialised entertainment was much better. I think a lot of writers are either lazy, uninspired, or creatively hindered now, resulting in the bad remakes/sequels/children's movies.
To be honest, movies nowadays really need better writers...
Gravity, yes it was really pretty. Not very good script (shitscript) and kind of poorly cast.
Wow, I bow to you for your wisdom which I agree!  I also agree with some other posters who lament that movies that they enjoy are not readily known. But it doesn't mean they don't exist. I suggest going to specialty DVD outlets to find them. They are there; we just have to look (and patronize the producers who have made those kinds of movies).
•
MisterTinkles Wrote:With every generation, there is a genre' that seems to be the best.
In the 1920's, it was comedys.
In the 1930's it was love stories.
In the 1940's it was mafia and police movies.
In the 1950's it was scifi and "epic" movies.
In the 1960's it was "love and sex" movies.
In the 1970's it was a new style of scifi.
In the 1980's it was comedies.
In the 1990's, well....it all pretty much sucked.
In the early 2000's it was animation/CGI movies.
Nowdays its a bit of everything, but biopic and superhero/fantasy movies seem to be in the lead right now.
The "industry" seems to focus on one genre' at a time. And during that time, they spend the most money on those types of movies, usually making them better than all the others. But sometimes there are some "low budget" movies or independent movies that will "rock the boat".
Interesting. May I ask if this is from your observation? I never thought to categorize popular movies this way before. :redface:
•
Sillybody 86 said: the problem is mainly on mainstream movies, they uses millions and millions for nothing.
I dislike a certain commercially successful movie series. Fortunately on a business matter, I had an opportunity to visit the movie studio and meet that director. Today, I admire that director and his team even though I haven't seen any of his movies in its entirety (except the yet-to-release clips shown to us). Therefore now whenever I see any 'good' movies that truly entertain me, I often try to buy DVD versions as a small token of my appreciation for the producers. I suggest others do so, too, as the producers and the production team need our patronage.
•
I have all sorts of favorite movies, some within the last few years and others that are way older than me. It is amazing how many tropes and formulas get used over and over again (perhaps because writers are on a deadline so recycle a lot as that's easier than actual raw creativity) which is perhaps why I tend to enjoy movies less than I used to, it's often too predictable (Joss Whedon could be real good with throwing in the unexpected which is why I liked him so much though after awhile even his unpredictability became predictable to me).
As a general comment when I think of 70s movies I think that odd proto-electronic music (not sure that's the right word) be it a comedy, drama, or the ever popular vigilante films of the time and given the relaxing of some standards they did a lot of experimenting with what they put into movies for better and worse, and LOTS of smoking. 80s was almost pure cheese (though sometimes very good cheese) and I learned a lot of the Cold War mindset from them. 90s seemed to be inclined to by depressing (even some of the comedies) and/or cynical bordering on paranoid (even Disney started to lean more this way) and I think I may even detect the confusion and adapting of the people as the Cold War came to a close, especially in the first half of the 90s.
And around 2000 they really started to play with the CGI and the distinction between video games & movies seemed to blur to me (and Marvel seemed to turn every comic book into a movie, and even the Matrix, first one anyway, was based on the Invisibles). The antiheroes seemed to be especially popular late 90s-early 2000s (and 70s if you count the vigilante movies). Smoking was almost phased out to the point that in one movie Wolverine never even lit the cigar he kept in his mouth and it was considered remarkable that it showed up in Lord of the Rings at all.
Shades of gray and moral ambiguity (even to the point of "sympathy for the devil" which is even showing up in Disney movies now) seem to have come into vogue around the mid-2000s and doesn't show signs of slowing. I was surprised when they even did a movie of Van Helsing with him as an outlaw vigilante hero that belonged more in a video game as opposed to the learned old man in the first movies (or the depressing, cynical Van Helsing of Dracula 2000 which fit into the 90s style).
Another difference is that movies are slower and sometimes even narrated by the characters to an absurd degree the further back you go (I heard that was in part because many of the writers and actors were trained and experience for the stage more than film). Back in 2000 I got a woman in her late 50s to start going to the cinema again after decades of not going and she found it difficult to keep up at first because "it went so fast." She's not mentally slow, she's very witty and smart, but she wasn't used to that speed and so much action though she got used to it after awhile.
Someone commented on how there are a lot more vampire movies when there's a Democrat in the White House and zombies when it's a Republican. Not sure if that's a coincidence or not.
I think Disney has gotten better, perhaps in response to the success of Shrek (and learning from it). There are more shades of gray than there used to be, more complicated characters, and it's a relief that it's not some simple romance where the woman MUST get the man and where the human mother, if she's important (or even mentioned) at all, is either dead or evil (THAT got old even when I was a kid).
On a tangent I'm not going to romanticize what I grew up with as a child, kids generally have much better entertainment than when I was growing up (late 80s, early 90s) and as a bonus some of it is painless, even enjoyable, for adults to watch (well, some, my partner got rid of cable because she couldn't handle Disney and Nick in the background anymore, but then she was never a TV person).
•
Jake Wrote:You're frikin 18 dude sure you don't see IT... try being 35 and more and you'll see the difference. I sure do see the darn difference... oh wait it also the fact that I am a Director but yeah I can see the difference and it's huge.
What has age got to do with anything? I love movies and I've seen plenty of modern and old ones. Most of my favourites are in fact from the 20's-40's. However, I think people have a certain tendency to assume that older automatically equals better and that modern cinema/literature/music is stuck re-inventing the same uninspired trash when in actuality every decade has spawned plenty of horrible works of fiction. Of course the ones we remember from the past decades are going to be the good ones. Some people tend to idolize the past and antagonize the present - this is most common when it comes to music, it seems, but it applies to other artforms aswell.
•
HumbleTangerine Wrote:What has age got to do with anything?
It made you talk hahahaha... do you seriously believe that I go with that bullshit about age and filmmaking... I was just pulling your leg and you fell right into it. I have children age from 1 to 18 dude and I have been introducing them to the movies of my time and there's some they like and some they don't. Age has nothing to do with it since I can watch a movie from 1960 and love it as much as I can watch a movie from last year and like it as much.
Just lately I went to see Carrie the new version and although I have seen the very first version, I loved the new version as much as I did for the old one.
•
|
Is film better or worse than before
