watching really old movies always make me sad.

pointless

¿por qué no?
Joined
Dec 4, 2002
Posts
58,994
all those talented hot people are like super dead and shit and that fucking blows. also, it makes perving on them like actually perverted and that's double plus ungood, yo. still, it's something to do.
 
and there goes the football.

thank god the old movies are unaffected by cloud cover and lightning.
 
Grew up on Abbott & Costello. I think Bogart was the first guy I had a legit crush on. Maltese Falcon is still a favorite.

As for football...Christian Ponder needs to not be employed in the NFL.
 
i had a crush on audrey hepburn before i even knew who she was, but i think that's normal.

on the plus side she may have actually been alive at the time.

also, don't feel too bad for xian. that talentless shit has hot wife whom he totally doesn't deserve. fucking prick.
 
On the plus side, they're not zombies.

I never gave much thought to the fact that they're no longer alive. I did feel uncomfortable seeing a new Philip Seymour Hoffman movie a few weeks ago though - his death was too recent.
 
P.S. Everybody has a crush on Audrey Hepburn. It should be the new Turing test.
 
On the plus side, they're not zombies.

I never gave much thought to the fact that they're no longer alive. I did feel uncomfortable seeing a new Philip Seymour Hoffman movie a few weeks ago though - his death was too recent.

just wait for the next hunger games movie. that should be fun.

P.S. Everybody has a crush on Audrey Hepburn. It should be the new Turing test.

indeed. she was just so damned pretty.

and cute.

also, hot.

and, yes, those are all different things.
 
Yes ,but they could act .

And the women did not look like survivors from a concentration camp .

I was just having a discussion about old movie actors vs modern ones. The difference was that they could act, and they did a lot of different roles.
 
all those talented hot people are like super dead and shit and that fucking blows. also, it makes perving on them like actually perverted and that's double plus ungood, yo. still, it's something to do.

If it makes you feel any better, it won't be long until all the actors in current movies will also be dead. Just a few decades for most of them, if that, and not much more than that for any of them, absent a miracle. But they will still be alive, periodically, on the screen.

I went to see The Wizard of Oz not too long ago. For a while it appeared I would be watching it alone, but just before the movie started another guy came in and sat down a few rows in front of me. For some reason I kept thinking I was watching dead people, except for the guy eating his popcorn.
 
A lot of the olde time male actors were real dogfaces.

Maybe.... but
Here is Burt Lancaster.. pretty hot...
attachment.php


Lawrence Olivier was a handsome man also..
http://www.leninimports.com/laurence_olivier_gallery_new_8.jpg
 
Last edited:
I was just having a discussion about old movie actors vs modern ones. The difference was that they could act, and they did a lot of different roles.

If you ask me, the difference I see is that you no longer have stars- people with real charisma and appeal that goes beyond just looks or great acting. Everyone, these days, is so forgettable. They burn really bright for a nanosecond and then fade into oblivion. It's the same with Bollywood too.
 
If you ask me, the difference I see is that you no longer have stars- people with real charisma and appeal that goes beyond just looks or great acting. Everyone, these days, is so forgettable. They burn really bright for a nanosecond and then fade into oblivion. It's the same with Bollywood too.

they did the same back in the day as well. the catalyst for this thread was raquel torres who was basically a blip who is only remembered these days for being in duck soup and duck soup is not remembered because of her at all. still, she was a star in her day and then she wasn't.

anyway, i think the big difference is at the time they were just the only game in town. no tv, radio was very, very limited (and actually came later then film in most places at least) so movie stars really were something special. now any old hot girl can get herself in movies and maybe a shitty tv show and probably even take a stab at singing shitty pop music before fading into nothing once she's no longer hot enough to be interesting.

same for the dudes just minus the shitty music. well, mostly.
 
they did the same back in the day as well. the catalyst for this thread was raquel torres who was basically a blip who is only remembered these days for being in duck soup and duck soup is not remembered because of her at all. still, she was a star in her day and then she wasn't.

anyway, i think the big difference is at the time they were just the only game in town. no tv, radio was very, very limited (and actually came later then film in most places at least) so movie stars really were something special. now any old hot girl can get herself in movies and maybe a shitty tv show and probably even take a stab at singing shitty pop music before fading into nothing once she's no longer hot enough to be interesting.

same for the dudes just minus the shitty music. well, mostly.

That is most likely the case. Because it was rarer, it was a bigger deal. Also those massive cut-outs helped them appear as being a cut above us mere mortals.

But beyond that there is still something missing in the actors today. Maybe it had something to do with all that butterpaper used to create those warm fuzzy shots that gave them a more dreamlike quality.
 
That is most likely the case. Because it was rarer, it was a bigger deal. Also those massive cut-outs helped them appear as being a cut above us mere mortals.

But beyond that there is still something missing in the actors today. Maybe it had something to do with all that butterpaper used to create those warm fuzzy shots that gave them a more dreamlike quality.

I think the cinematographers were better back then, and the lighting techs also.

Look at "The Scarlett Pimpernell". Merle Oberon is more radiantly beautiful than I would have thought anyone could be in black and white.

There are so many crap movies today with horrible lighting, handheld wobbly footage, and they look like no one planned the shots, they just happened.

Also the length of shots is shorter, choppier. Like the actors can't sustain a scene for more than a few seconds.

As to the male actors, a lot of the old-time actors were real men before and sometimes during their jobs as actors. James Garner had 2 Purple Hearts from combat in Korea. Jimmy Stewart was an Air Force General, flew bombing missions. Schwarzenegger was a Hitler Youth body builder, Stallone went to Sweden to teach girl's volleyball. Just a small comparison, there are others. Glenn Ford was in the Navy, I can never get their weird ranks correct. Burt Lancaster was actually a gymnast, did his own stunts. I liked those guys much better than the "pretty boys" who have never done anything that wasn't self-serving.
 
schwarzenegger is a boomer, yo. there was no hitler youth when he was a youngin.
 
I've thought about how weird it is seeing an old movie, or photograph, or painting, and finding someone attractive and then realising they've been dead since before you were born. It does make it creepy.

Also, I've never had a crush on Audrey Hepburn and am now concerned I might be a robot.

But I absolutely agree that pretty, cute, and hot are different things.


Now, as for the waxing rhapsodic about Old Hollywood portion of this thread,
Counterpoint:
Old movies are overrated. The "Golden Age of Hollywood" is a triumph of style over substance.
 
I was just listening yesterday to a coworker telling me all the movies and songs that she could not bear to watch or hear because to see dead people in them makes her cry...

:eek:

Mozart must make her absolutely suicidal!
 
I've thought about how weird it is seeing an old movie, or photograph, or painting, and finding someone attractive and then realising they've been dead since before you were born. It does make it creepy.

Also, I've never had a crush on Audrey Hepburn and am now concerned I might be a robot.

But I absolutely agree that pretty, cute, and hot are different things.


Now, as for the waxing rhapsodic about Old Hollywood portion of this thread,
Counterpoint:
Old movies are overrated. The "Golden Age of Hollywood" is a triumph of style over substance.

robot or monster. flip for it.
 
I've thought about how weird it is seeing an old movie, or photograph, or painting, and finding someone attractive and then realising they've been dead since before you were born. It does make it creepy.

Also, I've never had a crush on Audrey Hepburn and am now concerned I might be a robot.

But I absolutely agree that pretty, cute, and hot are different things.


Now, as for the waxing rhapsodic about Old Hollywood portion of this thread,
Counterpoint:
Old movies are overrated. The "Golden Age of Hollywood" is a triumph of style over substance.

I never developed a crush on Audrey Hepburn, so that makes two of us. She was pretty, even beautiful, but not sexy, to me. Too thin and delicate looking, maybe. Whatever the reason, never crushed on her.

As for old movies being overrated, I disagree. Just look at 1939, for example.
 
Monster, apparently.

I'm relatively okay with this.

yeah. you get used to it.

and yeah, yeah i get not crushing on her. she had a very upper class, almost princess like feel, but she was dreamy, damnit. also, she was like the idealized version of an unapproachable girl i totally crushed on in real life when i was much, much younger.
 
Back
Top