PDA

View Full Version : movies were better before


DahLliA
06-16-2009, 10:49 PM
now I know I'm not really old enough to talk like this. but after going on a retro trip I got the feeling that most good movie were made before 1990.

is this just drunken nostalgia or are anyone else in agreement?

Weird Harold
06-16-2009, 11:06 PM
now I know I'm not really old enough to talk like this. but after going on a retro trip I got the feeling that most good movie were made before 1990.

is this just drunken nostalgia or are anyone else in agreement?

I don't watch movies in theaters, I wait for them to hit TV or be released as videos -- and I don't watch that many even then.

From what I've seen recently, there are more intersting movies beingmade right now than has been the case in the last decade but there have always been a few good movies made every year that are the equal of most movies from the golden age of Hollywood -- the first half of the twentieth century.


But I don't think it's all drunken nostalgia either -- very few people are going to see the good movies and are flocking to the high-body-count-low-thought-required blockbusters. That means you probably haven't seen the good new movies that are being made.

Of course I'm old enough to think that nostalgia for the 90's is hardly worthy of the word, nostalgia. :D Most of the best movies ever made were made before I was born (in 1949) with a very few brilliant efforts since -- maybe one every other year or two.

Belazamon
06-16-2009, 11:42 PM
Nah, that ain't the case. It's just that we only remember... well, the memorable ones from twenty or more years ago. 1954's equivalent of Role Models just isn't in the public consciousness anymore.

Neilbert
06-17-2009, 12:18 AM
I don't know. A friend made me watch "On the Waterfront" and I was blown away by the acting. And I don't mean the acting of Marlyn Brando, though that was certainly spectacular, I'm talking about the acting chops of extras and very minor characters.

They don't train actors like they used to, but at the same time they also made a metric ton of crappy movies that history has completely forgotten, so it's not all that different from today.

Weird Harold
06-17-2009, 12:31 AM
They don't train actors like they used to, but at the same time they also made a metric ton of crappy movies that history has completely forgotten, so it's not all that different from today.

That "metric ton of crappy movies" is how they trained actors in the golden age. Actors don't get the training because the industry doesn't think they can make money on "B Movies" anymore, and most actors are getting their start in episodic telivision which is an entirely different kind of acting than movies.

GonzoTheGreat
06-17-2009, 04:10 AM
now I know I'm not really old enough to talk like this. but after going on a retro trip I got the feeling that most good movie were made before 1990.

is this just drunken nostalgia or are anyone else in agreement?I do think that the LotR movies can't be properly compared to (for instance) Jaws 3-D.
So you may have a point.

Terez
06-17-2009, 08:07 AM
now I know I'm not really old enough to talk like this. but after going on a retro trip I got the feeling that most good movie were made before 1990.
Looks to me like nostalgia for the 80s (or before), rather than for the 90s...

Gilshalos Sedai
06-17-2009, 08:28 AM
The Era of John Hughes.

DahLliA
06-17-2009, 09:42 AM
Looks to me like nostalgia for the 80s (or before), rather than for the 90s...

I think I might have missed by a few year. was thinking more 1980-1995ish I guess.

but off the top of my mind: terminator, predator, robocop, critters, gremlins, short circuit(the movie that made me make this thread btw), hellraiser.

now after looking at that list it might be simply that action and horror movies were better before, but I still think that, with a few exceptions, films made today are either utter crap or ruined by too much hollywood

Ivhon
06-17-2009, 09:44 AM
I actually think that movies might be getting better. We tend to romanticize the stuff made in bygone days and as has been pointed out we certainly forget the crap that was made way back when when we cant forget or escape the crap that we are flooded with now.

On the other hand, as studio dominance slowly gets eroded, we are treated to different and imaginative themes that simply weren't allowed "back then"

Take The Big Lebowski, for example. At first glance, one might write it off because its a comedy and therefore cannot be held up as a piece of great film-making. But the acting in that movie from top to bottom is spot on, the direction and cinematography are outstanding. I hope and think that we are moving away from the idea that "only deep dramas are worthy films." Cuz that is crap. Drama and melodrama is the easiest thing in the world to both direct and act.

As far as acting training goes, it probably maintains the same proportions as it always has. There are some brilliant instructors out there (and not just in LA) and there are some scams and idiots. There just is a lot more of it now because top-billed actors get paid so much.

JSUCamel
06-17-2009, 10:23 AM
I agree. I think the ratio of good to bad movies is just getting larger. It's easier than ever to make a movie and distribute it, so of course the number of crap movies are going to increase in proportion to the good movies. I don't know that movies and acting are getting better, but I do know that there are so many new stories that need to be and can be told these days that couldn't be told thirty years ago, and they're every bit as good as the Marlon Brando films of the past.

Neilbert
06-17-2009, 10:32 AM
That "metric ton of crappy movies" is how they trained actors in the golden age. Actors don't get the training because the industry doesn't think they can make money on "B Movies" anymore, and most actors are getting their start in episodic telivision which is an entirely different kind of acting than movies.

Guy who made me watch the movie used to be a cameraman and location scout. Told me that studios owned the actors way way back in the day. Like trained them from a young age, took care of their housing, expenses, etc. Provided acting coaches, taught skills, that sort of thing. Talent was nurtured for a while by studios that had the money and patience to make a long term investment (not so much anymore). Of course I don't think I'm refering to the "Golden Age" you are, I'm talking about earlier I think.

When we went to see Star Trek he told me he got to work with Bill Shatner (yeah, he called the guy Bill) on a movie called "Dawn of the Spider" (or something like that, he was second cameraman IIRC). I'd seen the movie, which was pretty cool to me. He told me it was after Star Trek, and Shatner wasn't very interested in the movie, he was mostly interested in finding his way back into the spotlight.

I don't know that movies and acting are getting better, but I do know that there are so many new stories that need to be and can be told these days that couldn't be told thirty years ago, and they're every bit as good as the Marlon Brando films of the past.

I'll agree with this. My friend I'm talking about has a very different idea of what a movie should be. He expects a grand experience and is much more old fashioned, he wouldn't like Lewbowski at all, but like I keep telling him, modern audiences have different expectations from the movies.

Crispin's Crispian
06-17-2009, 10:39 AM
I think I might have missed by a few year. was thinking more 1980-1995ish I guess.

but off the top of my mind: terminator, predator, robocop, critters, gremlins, short circuit(the movie that made me make this thread btw), hellraiser.
I'm not sure I'd add Robocop, Predator, and Critters to that list. Those weren't great movies, and the acting generally sucked. They're fun for nostalgia and one-liners, but I'm not sure you can compare them to things like Iron Man.

Granted, they're probably all better than Saw XXI or yet- another-tween-zombie-climbing-out-of-the-TV movie.

Neilbert
06-17-2009, 10:44 AM
Oh come on. Compare apples to apples. Sequels to sequels.
Robocop 2 to Saw XI or whatever.

(Robocop 2 was unadulterated crap with plot and editing holes you could sail an oil tanker through)

And Predator was a masterpiece. How else do you think it got so many governors elected? (Not really, though I think the scene where they all shoot the jungle for a while was inspired)

Crispin's Crispian
06-17-2009, 10:56 AM
Oh come on. Compare apples to apples. Sequels to sequels.
Robocop 2 to Saw XI or whatever.

(Robocop 2 was unadulterated crap with plot and editing holes you could sail an oil tanker through)

And Predator was a masterpiece. How else do you think it got so many governors elected? (Not really, though I think the scene where they all shoot the jungle for a while was inspired)
Predator wasn't horrible. It definitely had it's moments, and the creature was pretty well done.

"I ain't got time to bleed."

Yeeeaaahhh...

Neilbert
06-17-2009, 11:21 AM
Have you seen pictures of the early version of the Predator, played by Jean Claude Van Damme?

Weird Harold
06-17-2009, 12:09 PM
Guy who made me watch the movie used to be a cameraman and location scout. Told me that studios owned the actors way way back in the day. Like trained them from a young age, took care of their housing, expenses, etc. Provided acting coaches, taught skills, that sort of thing. Talent was nurtured for a while by studios that had the money and patience to make a long term investment (not so much anymore). Of course I don't think I'm refering to the "Golden Age" you are, I'm talking about earlier I think.

No, we're thinking of the same era -- When a studio had to find scripts for their stable of actors and made B and C movies as a way to evaluate their upcoming talents.

As far as acting training goes, it probably maintains the same proportions as it always has. There are some brilliant instructors out there (and not just in LA) and there are some scams and idiots. There just is a lot more of it now because top-billed actors get paid so much.

There are brilliant instructors out there, but there aren't any studios paying them teach an entire stable of indentured actors and there isn't the system of B and C movies to evaluate them without staking millions on their performances to provide real-world movie making experience.

Oh come on. Compare apples to apples. Sequels to sequels.
Robocop 2 to Saw XI or whatever.

(Robocop 2 was unadulterated crap with plot and editing holes you could sail an oil tanker through)

Without actually commenting on the quality of the Robocop series, I think Sequels are the bane of the movie industry as far as making "good movies" is concerned.

In the 'Golden Age' they didn't bother with making "Maltese Falcon VI" or "Gone With The Wind: the Sequel." They made serials and series, of course, but they made them as B-movie fillers for double features or cliffihangers for Saturday Matinees. The 'A' movies were standalone productions and were almost never revisited.

It took a late twentieth century mindset to finally make a sequel to "Gone With the Wind" which quite properly bombed as completely as a movie can bomb at the box office, AFAIK.

Independent filmmakers are mostly carrying the load of good movies with small budget productions that don't have the resources to rely on special effects to excite the audience. But they don't have the resources to train movie actors the way the old Studio System did.

Crispin's Crispian
06-17-2009, 12:32 PM
No, but that sounds hilarious. I wonder if he would have demanded more dialogue.

Gilshalos Sedai
06-17-2009, 12:54 PM
Scarlett bombed because it wasn't true to a) Katie Scarlett O'Hara, b) the American post-bellum South, or c) Margaret Mitchell, and d) they used Joanne Whaley Kilmer and put it on TV.


A sequel could have been done. Just not by the author they chose and the family should have stayed the hell out of it and trusted the professional they chose (had it been anyone other than a Bodice Ripper author).

Terez
06-17-2009, 01:06 PM
Scarlett bombed because it wasn't true to a) Katie Scarlett O'Hara, b) the American post-bellum South, or c) Margaret Mitchell, and d) they used Joanne Whaley Kilmer and put it on TV.
I read it. It sucked. I tried to sell my copy at the local used bookstore and they wouldn't take it.

I forget the author's name, but she seems to have been one of those that was under the impression that Gone with the Wind was a romance novel. It wasn't.

If anything, it was a war novel. Scarlett's relationship with Rhett was only one of many things that were gone with the wind at the end...

Gilshalos Sedai
06-17-2009, 01:10 PM
Exactly. (And it was Alexandra Ripley.)


GWTW is NOT and has NEVER been a romance novel. It's about a woman who survived a war. And Ripley didn't even bother with Reconstruction (the second most traumatic thing to happen to the South), she took the novel to IRELAND of all places.

Ishara
06-17-2009, 01:51 PM
Ugh. HATED that book. Made me so angry that she ended up with a second child and together with Rhett.

Gilshalos Sedai
06-17-2009, 02:00 PM
I don't mind the part where she ended up with Rhett. It's that the author reduced her to just another brainless Horequin romance heroine.

(In the book she had three kids, IIRC. Only the one with Rhett died. She foisted the others off on Melanie because she was out trying to keep Tara afloat).

Terez
06-17-2009, 02:15 PM
In the book she had three kids, IIRC. Yup, one with each husband.

Horequin That wasn't a typo, was it? lol...

Only the one with Rhett died. She foisted the others off on Melanie because she was out trying to keep Tara afloat). She also didn't like her children much. Uh...Wade and....what was the girl's name? Something like Ella, I think... Rhett's daughter was Bonnie, I remember that much...

Ishara
06-17-2009, 02:42 PM
No, she had a fourth child with Rhett in Scarlett, didn't she?

Terez
06-17-2009, 02:47 PM
That doesn't count!

I think she did, but I honestly can't remember. I only read it once. I'm surprised I finished it - but that was back in the day when I always finished books that I started, no matter how horrible they were.

Gilshalos Sedai
06-17-2009, 03:11 PM
Scarlett didn't want to be a mother, no. She had three children with Rhett. The second was a late-term miscarriage after she fell down the stairs. The third was when he knocked her up in Ireland.

And since I just looked it up in Wiki: the eldest child was Wade Hampton, then Ella Kennedy, then Eugenia Victoria "Bonnie Blue" Butler.

Did anyone else want to slap her for Ashley Wilkes?

And no, that wasn't a typo.

Sinistrum
06-17-2009, 03:14 PM
What the hell are you guys talking about, aside from harlot who pops out kids with ever guy she meets? :p I thought this was supposed to be a movie thread, not a women's lit thread. Lousy hijackers.

Gilshalos Sedai
06-17-2009, 03:16 PM
Hehe, it was a movie. And a damned good one.


Rhett Butler was the Original Han Solo.

Terez
06-17-2009, 04:01 PM
Did anyone else want to slap her for Ashley Wilkes?
Later on in the book, yes, but in that first scene, out in...the stables? a barn? something like that...at that party before everyone went off to war, where she met Rhett...anyway, in that scene with Ashley, I totally wanted them to get it on. :( If for no other reason than that he seemed like the kind of guy that needed some spice in his life, and Melaine wasn't it. And she was his cousin! hmph... And what was up with his whole "I want you but I don't love you" line? I wanted to slap him for that.

But yeah...in general, Scarlett is one of the most slappable characters ever, right up there with Felisin Paran from Malazan Book of the Fallen.

Weird Harold
06-17-2009, 08:48 PM
What the hell are you guys talking about, aside from harlot who pops out kids with ever guy she meets? :p I thought this was supposed to be a movie thread, not a women's lit thread. Lousy hijackers.

Not a highjacking exactly. They're talking about a poorly conceived and poorly executed sequel to an old book and Classic movie--an example of why the current masters of Hollywood aren't making movies as good as the Golden Age studio system produced; they just try to copy whatever has been successful in the past.

Terez
06-17-2009, 09:08 PM
I hate to think of all the guys who missed out on a good book just because Hollywood (yes, it was Hollywood) gave the impression that Gone With the Wind was a love story. Or just because it's told in the point of view of a woman (which clearly makes it chick lit :rolleyes:).

DeiwosTheSkyGod
06-17-2009, 09:16 PM
Seriously. That's one of my all-time favorite books, and I got so many raised eyebrows when I was reading it.

StrangePackage
06-17-2009, 10:30 PM
If movies were better before, they should be bloody brilliant now, because this 2000s have been the decade of the Do-Over.

I think movies were better before CGI became a crutch used in place of writing, acting, or directing (George Lucas, I blame YOU)

Firseal
06-18-2009, 02:33 AM
It is human to believe that which has become the sum of our experience is worthy. I believe that someone else in the thread pointed out that the good movies, and the quirky movies, and the bad-but-worth-it-anyway movies stay on, endure within the zeigeist of society.

That is, the worthwhile (comparatively) material remains while the dross and the fat falls away. If you look at the movies produced in, oh, 1984 (Make Orwell Happy!) at an objective standpoint - all of them, not just the top ten or the most rented, you would see as or much crap as you see in 2009.

Its Sturgeon's Law combined with nostalgia. Its the fact that the majority of any medium stinks. You take that, and the fact that every year a little more of the junk we dealt with in previous years is shoved away into mental closets or down into the Furnace of the Mind to get burned away. The good stuff stays on the shelves of memory, occasionally perculating through our dreams, memories, or creative centers. The good stuff sticks in our thoughts and lives in our imagination. Its true for the really, really bad stuff too. Though in that case its hiding under the subconscious couch, hissing and killing rats to spread through our nightmares and voting for all the politicians we hate.

Movies, as a qualitative measure, aren't on average better or worse than they were twenty years ago (Total Recall! AWESOME!) or eighty years ago (I think that's around when Whistling Dixie was out). Some things may be better. Some are probably worse. Light knows a lot is different. But if you are throwing up your hands and saying, "You know, when I was younger we had much better movies." You are wrong. You had some better movies. You also had Yor. Plan Nine From Outer Space. Beloved. Mystery Train. Mars Needs Cheerleaders. Love Story 2. Cat People. Pretty much half of the Sci-fi Channel's late night lineup. Death in Venice. Head. There were bad love storys, bad dramas, more bad westerns than you could shake a stick at. There have been flops and weird crap and box office bombs all through cinematic history.

However, and this is key. You only see today's cinematic landscape from a small point. You can see the past of cinema from a much better vantage, with reviews and word of mouth and memory and years upon years of references and thoughts that reinforce some movies as worthy and the rest as forgettable. There is a point, and for folks of our mean age, that's about 20-40 years, where all this combines to us knowing very well the good movies of that period. Ahead of that, our viewpoint and experiences constrict. We don't know as many of the films, our friends and coworkers and family members and spouses and pets don't know as many of the films. Ditto before that.

But I believe I may have overcomplicated this.

DahLia? Its drunken nostalgia. But don't worry about it, everyone does it. Robert Ebert makes a bloody career out of it.

DahLliA
06-18-2009, 09:25 AM
DahLia? Its drunken nostalgia. But don't worry about it, everyone does it. Robert Ebert makes a bloody career out of it.

thanks for the short answer :p

and it's pretty much the same as I thought since pretty much everything was better before ^_^

Sei'taer
06-18-2009, 04:58 PM
One Word: C.H.U.D. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqDToaLuJ7I) (Thats actually an acronym containing four words and isn't a word at all, but who wants to be specific on such a great movie...not me)

DahLliA
06-18-2009, 05:35 PM
One Word: C.H.U.D. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqDToaLuJ7I) (Thats actually an acronym containing four words and isn't a word at all, but who wants to be specific on such a great movie...not me)

that movie just looks awesome :D

Sei'taer
06-18-2009, 08:54 PM
that movie just looks awesome :D

It's one of those guilty pleasure kind of movies. I highly recommend it.

Gilshalos Sedai
06-19-2009, 07:30 AM
I love that firseal's topic was "a short answer" and it's what, four paragraphs long?

Ivhon
06-19-2009, 08:55 AM
One Word: C.H.U.D. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqDToaLuJ7I) (Thats actually an acronym containing four words and isn't a word at all, but who wants to be specific on such a great movie...not me)

Ivhon approves of this (C.H.U.D. was one of many nicknames in high school/college)

Mat is Better
06-20-2009, 10:56 PM
My opinion:

Film making techniques have drastically improved, but unfortunately many of the great stories and pieces of literature have already been converted to film. Of course there is still great material that hasn't been used but after seeing so many of the same plot elements/techniques over and over, you might get kind of tired of them.

Firseal
06-24-2009, 08:42 PM
I love that firseal's topic was "a short answer" and it's what, four paragraphs long?

Isn't that my version of a short answer?

ED: Alright, I did a short answer for Twilight. How's that?

Light Ranger
06-25-2009, 09:17 PM
As for past sci-fi movies, I liked The Navigator, The Last Starfighter, and (iirc) Ice Wars. Otherwise, it's Singing in the Rain, The Music Man, 7 Brothers and 7 Brides, and a whole slew more of them if I wasn't so tired to name them :P

New movies include Serenity, Equilibrium, Stargate, Stargate Continuum, LotR trilogy, and PotC trilogy.