Why are older movies so much better than modern movies? Is it just nostalgia?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Why are older movies so much better than modern movies? Is it just nostalgia?
The shitty movies of the past get forgotten.
even the shitty movies of the past are better than movies coming out today.
I catch random forgotten films from the 30s and 40s on TCM and yeah, even the worst ones are better than 99% of movies released in the last 5 years
>forgotten
I actually have a few on VHS and have found others free on Youtube. So they aren't forgotten. Not by me at least.
Sure thing moron.
Watch never-ending story 2&3 and then come back to me.
I think he means the Golden Age, everyone knows the late 20th century had plenty of garbage
All the bad early stuff are lost media now though. If not, it's just random things like "Man jumping" to show off their new camera.
The peak of cinema is early 30s to early 60s. While there are some lost films from that era, there are many thousands that are not.
>The peak of cinema is early 30s to early 60s
It wasn't tho, Boomy.
It was though, zoomy
Then why does no one watch 90% of those movies? In fact, most of them aren't even on the top 100 of anything.
The same reason everyone watches slop
>everyone is wrong but me!
Not quite the compelling argument you seem to think it is, fatso.
>"If it's so good, why isn't it popular?"
Calling out someone else's reasoning when argumentum ad populum is coming out of your shiteating face. And now you pull the "YOU'RE JUST A CONTRARIAN!" card like a real turbohomosexual with nothing of substance to say
>
>can’t parse simple information and refute point
>loses temper
just can’t stop craving those (you)s, huh? Fat c**t.
I'm not even the person you were arguing with SHIT taste homosexual, why don't you go shit up a Marvel thread instead of embarrassing yourself
>Everyone but me watches slop
Everytime.
No way. Old BnW farces were unwatchable then and now, for the same reason. They're bad stage plays done as tax deductions.
Older movies had sovl.
Filmmaking was more pure, more creative, with greater focus on storytelling, dialogue and characters, and less obsession with trying to WOW you every five seconds. Special Effects looked real because they were real, and not CGI trash.
>muh practical fx
God you autists are the worst. CGI can be perfectly fine in the hands of a capable VFX department. Go jerk off to Heat some more
99% of cgi is shit
>post image of actress from the 30s
>accuse me of being obsessed with some boring shit "thriller" from the 90s
are you moronic?
CGI is only good when it's mixed with practical effects. CGI on its own always looks like shit
True.
Hey it’s the comic who taught Data how to be funny
>Older movies
How much older OP?
Editing was a pain in the ass when it was physical film, and cutting and splicing it. It punished mistakes harder in the form of time/limited material, so those doing it learned the hardest way best practices. And it was a younger medium in an industry less converged and systematized to other political ends.
in the past, people made movies based upon life experiences, and since it was important to impress upon the viewer the impact of these events, the result was movies were larger than life. Now movies are based upon other movies, and since people only have the frame of reference of those other movies, the result is lesser than even the other movies, even moreso the experiences those movies were based upon.
Can I save this for later it's very articulate
also true for vidya and anime
Miyazaki said something similar to this about animation. Old animators drew inspiration from real life but new ones just get inspired from other anime.
Miyazaki is correct and weebs hate him for it.
and there would be no Miyazaki without Walt Disney, and onward goes this thing of ours
For starters I think we need about 20 years to determine if aovie is 10/10 for example. So not really nostalgia but just letting them stand the test of time and be vetted etc.
>Classic films were based on literature, stage plays and history
>Modern films are based on comic books, video games, board games and children's cartoons
People had to have talent back then.
because modern actors put in zero fricking effort into their roles.
Acting was far worse in the 1950s and 1960s than even a low-end movie today
You've seen frick all movies from the 50s and especially 60s if you believe that.
Henry Fonda's acting in the 30s and 40s outclasses anything you see today. Only actor I might rank above him is George C. Scott
>George C. Scott
Kept Hamming it up. Nah
No CGI. they had to make sets and portray scale and realism
COLOR
Blows me away that directors look at the images on the right and think it’s acceptable. I’m fairly certain it’s a psychological thing where they’re unhappy with the film they’ve made and think dyeing it blue will magically make it good.
I miss color.
Scott is an old head too. You'd think guys like him would have some kind of reverence for the old boomer days.
Or maybe he shoots his film.and the israelites in the studio do whatever they want after. There has to be some kind of psychological component to the filters.
It's almost hard to believe Scott made some of the most beautiful films ever made in his younger days
Which one is webm related? I can’t believe I took so long to watch the duellists and I’ve been melancholy ever since knowing I’ll never create anything as beautiful
I don't know if there's any truth to this, but Scott strikes me as the kind of guy whose only skill is berating people with actual skill into doing ridiculously good jobs. When he's deprived of the sorts of savants he had working on his older films, he's basically useless.
>There has to be some kind of psychological component to the filters.
It's the reflection of a dying society, anon.
I mean a psychological reason the studios feel audiences respond to the filter. There's no way it's an artistic choice. It's a tactic. For what exactly I have no idea
Modern cinema is just soulless goyslop that is immediately forgotten and only produced for tax write off or money laundering purposes
>implying movies have ever been anything other.
Propagandists were more subtle.
Talented directors/writers/actors vs talentless nepotism charisma black holes
Take a look at modern film crews and they're filled with blacks and women, instead of people with actual skill
People don't study the greats anymore. It should be mandatory to watch all the greatest films from 1900 to 1970.
Why do recommend from the 1900s and 1910s?
The Great Train Robbery
A Trip to the Moon
The Birth of a Nation
Broken Blossoms
I heard birth of a nation is racist
no but it is racial
I watch kinos from the 80s. I've watched about 5 in the last week and they're all of higher quality, even low budget releases that never became well known
Fortunately there are enough old movies that you can watch them for the rest of your life and you don't need to bother with new stuff, and even then we still get like at least 6 or 7 watchable/good movies every year, and that's not even mentioning foreign films.
Old westerns alone kept me busy for a good three years, and I've still only watched about half of the ones I want to see
Even the shitty ones had professionists handling camera work, photography, sound etc.
Today there's a nepotism singularity, there's no fricking talent either in front or behind the camera, it's absurd.
>nepotism
I thought that was just an excuse for the shit tier level of things. But it really is true. One or two, coincidence. But once you look into it, it's really gotten out of hand. It wouldn't be a problem if they had the talent, but the talent is NOT there. It's sad. You'd think the family would be embarrassed of such trash their offspring produces
Just watched pic related with my pleb wife in the room. She actually put down her low iq romance/fantasy book and watched the entire thing. Fully engaged. Laughing at the jokes and shocked by the twist.
Point is yes movies were better on average and have gotten steadily worse. Or just dumber.
>She actually put down her low iq romance/fantasy book and watched the entire thing.
At least her baseline was reading a shitty book rather than scrolling on her phone. She’s already better than the average person.
I’m glad she liked Witness for the Prosecution.
Does anyone have any similar movies to recommend, or is it actually really something that can only happen once in 50 years?
trash-talking your own wife to a bunch of strangers online isn't too wholsome, bud
She's a pleb when it comes to media most of the time. You don't know anything else about her
I know how to hit her G spot.
Please teach me
Are you like an actual boomer?
They used to know how to treat prostitutes back then
Is that Walter Matthau?
Yes
movies before 1990 are unwatchable barring a few exceptions like Waterloo.
gay
If you look up a list of classic movies from the 40s/50s they're pretty much guaranteed to be good. I'm partial to noir. Snappy dialogue and clever twists etc. Witness is great because it's basically a comedy with high stakes. I also like seeing where all of the tropes and cliches we take for granted came from
I buy the theory the whole onerous limitations on what you could write/have them say/depict meant you had to be more clever about it. It's a more elaborate example of the difference between some elaborate, story driven and intense erotica and "CUM GUZZLING FRICK HOUNDS DROWN FAT-TITTIED SEX-MEAT-HOLES IN DELUGES OF NUT"
But it also meant real soullessly saccharine nonsense we just lost to time/don't know vividly the same way someone looking back on the 2000s won't remember the dogshit action movies or teen comedies.
They were art instead of propaganda. Mostly.
Everything Hollywood has ever pumped out was propaganda but at least they upheld good old-fashioned values On which we used to rely.
You sound like a family guy.
Because advertising campaigns ruin movies before you see them. Look at the original trailers for your favorite older movies and consider whether you would have enjoyed them as much if you had seen all those spoilers.
My grandfather would go to the cinema every week and watch a new movie, as did everyone else. Do you think these movies were good? They weren't so they were forgotten, but they did provide the money to fund actually good movies.
Nope. We have great work being done across the industry, but the writing has become dogshit. Mostly, it's because of DEI policies and corporate heads with an overinflated sense of ego to make demands of artists without consideration to the art.
There's too much money involved now, so the ad men and accountants are listened to above the artists. The only thing to save movies/TV/video games/etc. is an industry wide crash so that genuine enthusiasm for the craft while also making a profit can rise again. It happened with the 40s/50s movie studio crash, and it will happen again.
Because Hollywood never learns it's fricking lesson and they'll forget it again after the next crash.
reflection of a better society
Back then, even the obvious propaganda media had to compete with genuine soul-made media.
Now all media is bought and paid for before it even gets made and doesn't even have to disguise itself or compete with anything besides itself.
Thing is, the ones making the propaganda WERE the ones making the best actual films. Ford, Huston, Capra etc. They weren't just government stooges pumping out drivel
design by committee
People were generally more respectable. They actually played people rather than characters. Its like maybe you want to relate to most characters and see
a little of yourself in them and was not a constant flooding of endorphins or something. The general tone of the show or movie could be magical but also subtle and not as intense.
Thoughts on pre-code vs post-code? Shit like scarface and white heat are kino but most of them are pretty cringe. Film is one of the only real time machines we have. We can really see how primitive things were over 100 years ago
Night Nurse is great
The Pre-code era was so brief, and honestly the early talkie period of the late 20s sucked ass. Only around 1930-1932 did Hollywood films become incredible. 20s was dominated by eurotrash. Anyway because 1934-1965 is such a vast mountain of great movies it handily beats 1927-1934
Damn I said white heat but I was thinking of little caesar and public enemy
If you're talking pre-80s, then it's by virtue of there being no model for the generic blockbuster yet. Films were actually creative and reflections of their creators. If you're talking 80s to 00s, then it's just because it took a few decades for the blockbuster to reach its final form: pandering, paint-by-numbers, lowest common denominator slop.
Every movie made now is either capeshit, social justice pandering oscarbait, low budget horror, or some artsy indie bullshit. Older movies were a lot more varied.
>Is it just nostalgia?
Nope. And don't trust a single homosexual who claims otherwise.
Better tech lead to complacency, cutting corners and a lack of technical knowledge. Keep in mind we've had stable CGI for thirty years and we still have movies that have CGI that looks like Reboot or Beast Wars which came out in the 90s.
Modern movies look like this.
bro frick you for posting that frickin ape itt screw you
i cant stand that square headed dyke, bette was 10 times better.
>bette was 10 times better
lol frick no, she was both uglier and an inferior actress. Kate Hepburn's performance in The Lion in Winter shits all over anything Davis ever did
>Why are older movies so much better than modern movies? Is it just nostalgia?
one of my favorite movies growing up was the 1990 release of Total Recall. everything about that film made me love sci-fi movies from then on.
then I came across "Johnny Mnemonic" and my child mind was further falling in love with Sci-Fi.
I often talk about movie quality (not picture quality but actual quality of storyline and direction of story) and to me, it seems technology has went from being used to add onto the films as it did in the 90's, to becoming a crutch for storytelling in the 2010's and especial now in the 2020's.
it seems most big named studios rely upon visual stimulation and engagement over storyline and it shows - a movie will look fricking amazing on mute, but become dog shit when audio is turned up.
Now, the remake of Total Recall is ok if you take it for a reimagine. but to compare it against the 90's release, Total Recall 2012 kind of sucks
The peak of Hollywood was post-code up until the 90s. The 90s were too cheesy and then after that it devolved too much into cgi sloppa and hyperpolitical shit
they cared more.
ITT: a bunch of people under 30 being maudlin like a bunch of people over 70 who wasted their youth.