COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Were older films just better?

KimGordon67

KimGordon67

Rampant feminist
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Posts
8,379
I was watching To Kill a Mockingbird last night (for the first time), and was thinking about how beautifully and simply put together it was as a film. Of course, some great acting helped (Gregory Peck - what a spunk he was!), but it just felt like every shot was more considered, and it all felt so much more solid than many films do today. I'm not saying that's the case with every contemporary film, but so many seem like they substitute visuals for real thought ... or am I just being overly nostalgic for a 'simpler' time.
 
Given the fact that one of the greatest rock / metal bands was named after a Vincent price movie I think you’re onto something.
 
KimGordon67 said:
Of course, some great acting helped (Gregory Peck - what a spunk he was!), but it just felt like every shot was more considered, and it all felt so much more solid than many films do today.
Click to expand...
You're comparing a film that won three Academy awards, including Gregory Peck as best actor, to a broad selection of movies today. It's understandable. We tend to only remember and watch the best of the old stuff. Released in the same year as To Kill a Mockingbird was Eegah one of the worst movies of all time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_considered_the_worst#Eegah_.281962.29
 
Yes. They did not have special effects, so they were more like a play. They engaged the mind instead of turning it off. Have you ever heard of 12 Angry Men? Great actors, great premise and great dialog/drama. It was adapted from a successful play as were many of them (many cam from novels, which were heads and shoulders abouve 50 Shades of Gray). Today, however, you get Transformers, Comic Books (and yes, I know they are supposed to be referred to as graphic novels in order to make the stupid feel well read) and watered down remakes. They would never ever dare dream of remaking a M*A*S*H movie without excluding Spearchucker Jones because it is racist and making Hawkeye a black guy because an all-white ensemble would be racist too! Never mind that Jones was one hell of an accomplished individual in the novel of the time; it has to be judged by the new sensibilities of the day, which is pretty much why we get pablum and special effects. Don't think! It not only hurts, but stunts emotional growth!
 
wheres_the_beef said:
You're comparing a film that won three Academy awards, including Gregory Peck as best actor, to a broad selection of movies today. It's understandable. We tend to only remember and watch the best of the old stuff. Released in the same year as To Kill a Mockingbird was Eegah one of the worst movies of all time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_considered_the_worst#Eegah_.281962.29
Click to expand...

Instead of naming the bad of the past, name the equivalent in the present; a challenge. (Please understand though, that I watch few modern movies, they bore me to extremes.)
 
From kill a mockingbird to kill a thread ... to disection of a random thought... be well citizen Kim Gordon
 
A great thing about B&W film was that if you needed a bloody shower scene, you just had to whip out the chocolate syrup.
 
SpeareChucker said:
Instead of naming the bad of the past, name the equivalent in the present; a challenge. (Please understand though, that I watch few modern movies, they bore me to extremes.)
Click to expand...

They're of little interest as their scripts are nothing more than preposterous PC checkoff sheets.
 
Do not the Liberals see themselves as the vanguard of a constantly evolving society and is not evolution to the benefit of life (and in this case, the intellect)? And trust me, I say this with tongue firmly in cheek.
 
wheres_the_beef said:
You're comparing a film that won three Academy awards, including Gregory Peck as best actor, to a broad selection of movies today. It's understandable. We tend to only remember and watch the best of the old stuff. Released in the same year as To Kill a Mockingbird was Eegah one of the worst movies of all time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_considered_the_worst#Eegah_.281962.29
Click to expand...

Well, I was thinking of Orson Welles and ... actually, probably only Orson Welles. So yes, good point.
 
I'm a big fan of older films. I think they're far superior than today's films. Who do we have today? Jennifer Aniston?
 
... and FFS - seriously? I actually tried to make a NOT political thread and somehow it turned into a liberal vs conservative thing while I was folding laundry. Unbelievable.
 
Consider that almost all of Ye Olde Hollywoode was 3-dollar-bill queer and it becomes clear. Read the current Daily Beast piece on Gore Vidal's pimp. Yup, even Spencer Tracy smoked cock.
 
Hypoxia said:
Consider that almost all of Ye Olde Hollywoode was 3-dollar-bill queer and it becomes clear. Read the current Daily Beast piece on Gore Vidal's pimp. Yup, even Spencer Tracy smoked cock.
Click to expand...

New Hollywood is straight-laced?
 
Part of it is that we only see the ones that have stood the test of time. When I started watching them they were only 30 or 40 years old now that some of those are 70 to 80 years old, the ones that you see now, had something timeless in them.

Another part of it was how tremendously expensive in time and money they were to produce. Today's movies might cost many millions of dollars to produce but a million dollars isn't really worth that much anymore.

I don't think it's even a seminal film but I am amazed at how many people under the age of 35 have never even heard of Casablanca, much less something like Treasure of the Sierra Madre.

There are so many inside baseball references in modern movies that when they do see a clip or a bit or hear about something from an old movie, they're surprised that what they're watching is actually derivitive.

There.

More like me?
 
Que said:
Part of it is that we only see the ones that have stood the test of time. When I started watching them they were only 30 or 40 years old now that some of those are 70 to 80 years old, the ones that you see now, had something timeless in them.

Another part of it was how tremendously expensive in time and money they were to produce. Today's movies might cost many millions of dollars to produce but a million dollars isn't really worth that much anymore.

I don't think it's even a seminal film but I am amazed at how many people under the age of 35 have never even heard of Casablanca, much less something like Treasure of the Sierra Madre.

There are so many inside baseball references in modern movies that when they do see a clip or a bit or hear about something from an old movie, they're surprised that what they're watching is actually derivitive.

There.

More like me?
Click to expand...

Phew - I was a bit worried there for a second.

I have to admit I didn't watch a lot of classics, like Casablanca, until I was doing undergrad film studies, but I had at least HEARD of it.

I think the expense is part of it - I remember learning about how thoroughly Welles would plan his shots. What I remember of the story of the opening scene of Touch of Evil is classic for that, where everything would go swimmingly until they go to the border guard, who repeatedly fluffed his lines. Finally I think they just shot him with his back to the camera and dubbed the lines in. Now they'd probably just keep shooting and CGI him later.
 
KimGordon67 said:
Phew - I was a bit worried there for a second.

I have to admit I didn't watch a lot of classics, like Casablanca, until I was doing undergrad film studies, but I had at least HEARD of it.

I think the expense is part of it - I remember learning about how thoroughly Welles would plan his shots. What I remember of the story of the opening scene of Touch of Evil is classic for that, where everything would go swimmingly until they go to the border guard, who repeatedly fluffed his lines. Finally I think they just shot him with his back to the camera and dubbed the lines in. Now they'd probably just keep shooting and CGI him later.
Click to expand...

However, I don't think that's a universal ... I can think of modern films with just as beautifully put together shots ... Sally Potter's Orlando, Jane Campion's The Piano, Derek Jarman's Edward II ... but they're not really 'mainstream' (well, maybe Campion).
 
I think modern production and in a lot of cases even acting is better.

I think some old movies had better stories though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
David McCallum, star of hit TV series 'The Man From U.N.C.L.E.' and 'NCIS,' dies at 90
Replies
8
Views
375
JoeBeans2751
J
M
Wife had secret affair with personal trainer
2 3
Replies
55
Views
8K
blkjames
blkjames
HornyHaileyVasquez
Bottomless Sandwich Artist
Replies
8
Views
4K
Shaglus_Ziegler
Shaglus_Ziegler
AdultArtAmbassador
Would a sexy woman's voice add additional value to the story?
Replies
16
Views
1K
Gory
G
JenniZinc
The reality of happy ending massage parlours (from someone who's worked in one)
12 13 14
Replies
330
Views
39K
JenniZinc
JenniZinc
Back
Top