|
Post by mikef6 on Nov 26, 2018 6:31:26 GMT
There is no such thing as “dated.” Every film was modern when produced and should always be taken as that. To call a film "dated" assumes that the modern method of film making - or that today's culture - is superior - which it is not.
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Nov 27, 2018 12:11:57 GMT
mikef6I think modern film making is superior overall (NOTE: ill assume 'modern' starts as early as the 1960's but no later than the 1980's). especially given the following info which I think is likely true when you look at the masses as a whole... look at the volume of movies that tend to stick with people... I tend to assume the vast majority of them will be post-1960 (and I think a strong case could be made for post-1970 to (maybe even post-1980 etc)). I doubt anyone would say I was wrong either when it comes to wide opinion among the masses. I don't have any hard data on this, but I would be surprised if I was wrong. hell, even if you wanted to exclude the really young viewers (i.e. those who are in their 20's and younger), which I suspect would help the 'old days' (i.e. say pre-1960's), I still expect the post-1960 to dominate overall. because like I have mentioned before... I can't quite explain what it is but more modern movies just have more all around emotional punch etc which something is missing from those pre-1960's movies in general (like there might be exceptions but they are more of a exception to the general rule). but just to throw something else out there... even if we assume I am right on the post-1960 vs pre-1960 claim, I wonder at which point things would no longer be clear cut with the masses? ; like with the following choices at which point does things become less clear cut?... -post-1960 vs pre-1960 (I would guesstimate at least 80% of the masses would side with 'post' over 'pre'. if it ain't at least 70%+ in 'post' favor I would be surprised.) -post-1970 vs pre-1970 (I would guesstimate at least 70%+ of the masses would side with the 'post' on this choice) -post-1980 vs pre-1980 (I suspect this is the point things start to become a bit more competitive with the masses and is harder for me to say anything too confidently even though I would still guesstimate most people (as in AT LEAST a slight majority(say something like 60%)) would side with the POST option) -post-1990 vs pre-1990 (at this point it's hard to say but I don't expect things to be too much either way with the masses. like maybe something in the ball park of 60/40 either way, or thereabouts(?)) -post-2000 vs pre-2000 (at this point I would generally assume most people (as in the majority at the very least) would side with the PRE option as I tend to think those who would vote in favor of POST would generally be the younger generations but since we are talking the masses (as in pretty much everyone, say 18+ years old) I would assume the pre-2000 would be ahead, it's just a question of how much. my best guesstimate... about 70/30 in favor of 'pre'. although... if you looked only at those people in their 20's and younger I think the 'post' option would do fairly well and might be competitive etc.) so given those options... I assume the 60's and 70's pre-vs-post choices are pretty clear cut but after that I suspect things would become more competitive among the masses in which they prefer overall. so while I personally would still easily choose post-1990 over pre-1990, since the vast majority of my favorite movies are from the 1990's to date, I am not sure if that would hold true for the masses or not so I won't attempt to make that kind of claim in that regard. hell, even if I did a post-2000 vs pre-2000... for me personally I would still likely take post-2000 even though it's much more competitive at that point for me. but anything in that 1990's category (or older) things become clear cut for me on a personal level in favor of 'post'. like if your still reading... to show you my post-vs-pre 2000's thing to break things down in terms of volume of movies on each score... Pre-2000... 10/10 = 4 movies 9/10 = 6 movies 8/10 = 12 movies 7.5-8/10 = 24 movies 7/10 = 34 movies Total = 80 movies (42.6% of My Favorite Movies are pre-2000) Post-2000... 10/10 = 4 movies 9/10 = 7 movies 8/10 = 19 movies 7.5-8/10 = 25 movies 7/10 = 53 movies Total = 108 movies (i.e. 57.4% of My Favorite Movies are post-2000) even if we exclude my 7/10 scored movies, which helps the pre-2000's category, I would still give the edge to post-2000's overall given in terms of volume of each score the post-2000's are the same or ahead in every score category as the 9/10's and 10/10's are very close with slight edge to post-2000's (at least in terms of volume) it pulls ahead noticeably on the 8/10 as the 7.5-8/10 is barely in favor of the post-2000's. with that said... I suspect it might be possible for the pre-2000's to top the post-2000's if I start looking at more details given the volume of movies are pretty much the same lacking a movie or so in certain score brackets at which point it's possible, even though the scores are pretty much tied, that I may favor the pre-2000's over the post-2000's if I looked strictly at the 9/10 and 10/10's combined and the 7.5-8/10 by themselves given each of those pairings are damn close in volume as I might have to start taking into account variety etc to narrow things down further to see which one I would truly choose in that regard. but looking at the whole thing straight up the post-2000's tops the pre-2000's because there is a decent volume gap that would take priority over any potential variety etc to where ill just like the post-2000's overall more. sorry for the novel. but if your still reading congrats p.s. I am not dissing anyone who likes the pre-1960 movies. but a quick question... it seems your a fan of the 'old days' so my question to you is... do you personally prefer pre-1960 movies over post-1960 OVERALL?
|
|
|
Post by Lebowskidoo 🦞 on Nov 27, 2018 21:46:53 GMT
"Dated? Dated?! This whole thread is dated!" Some people are put off by older fashions and technologies in movies, this doesn't bother me at all. I find it fascinating, like little snippets of genuine history.
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Nov 29, 2018 0:00:00 GMT
I have seen some Hammer movies from the 60's and 70's last year (i.e. 2017) but I have not seen that particular one you mentioned. Would definitely recommend. It stars Bette Davis. Haunting movie.
|
|
|
Post by telegonus on Nov 29, 2018 8:51:36 GMT
I have noticed that this seem to be a problem for some people. But for me this is not a problem if the movie is good its good even if its dated. So is a dated movie for you a problem or are you like me that don`t care if a movie is dated ? I guess it depends on how one defines dated. It's difficult for me to take a movie seriously when, as a product of, say, the year 1935 it presents young women of 14th century Europe looking more like Gold Diggers out of Busby Berkeley than the way women actually looked during the time in which the movie takes place. On the other (big) hand, that kind of "dating", can be charming, endearing, and why the movie plays so well.
Another thing, less a matter of datedness than how Hollywood does things is the way people in the ancient world, the villains mostly, are played by sneering Brits with upper class accents. After a certain point,--some time in the last century, it seems--this became convention. In English language films anyway, so maybe dated isn't the best way to describe this.
On a more personal note, I find the performances of James Dean in his three major starring roles,--in East Of Eden, Rebel Without A Cause and Giant--acceptable to varying degrees, often varying from scene to scene. I find him most annoying and over the top in Eden. Rebel is in my opinion Dean's best starring role and best movie. I've gone through many phases with this one, from "it's too melodramatic and unrealistic", through "it's badly acted by all (but Jim Backus):--to, at last, over the past few years, acceptance.
By now Rebel is a period peace from the middle of the last century. Can it be otherwise? However that may be, and understanding that much of the angst presented in the film, of grownups and teens as well, is true to life, even if overacted, maybe overwritten at times, I've come to love the movie after all. Dean's playing is heartfelt and never IMHO false. One may not like him in every scene, but phony? No. Dean's performance, and the movie itself, is stunning. The color is beyond praise.
Giant just strikes me as a bloated, overproduced misfire. Not terrible, but too unsure of itself (the movie specifically, I mean, not the actors), and not even, Elizabeth Taylor aside, pretty to look at. Rock Hudson's pretty good, considering. Yet I find the film unattractive. Dimitri Tiomkin's heroic score keeps me awake when things gets dull; and it makes the movie feel better than it is.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 29, 2018 15:05:48 GMT
… p.s. I am not dissing anyone who likes the pre-1960 movies. but a quick question… it seems your a fan of the ‘old days’ so my question to you is… do you personally prefer pre-1960 movies over post-1960 OVERALL? I’m not Mike, but as another fan of what you’ve deemed “the old days”… Yes.
|
|
|
Post by Pep Streebeck on Nov 29, 2018 16:32:18 GMT
Depends on what makes it dated. A plot that "wouldn't make sense in the age of mobile phones" doesn't make a good movie any less good. And if you're talking about outdated clothes or hairstyles, not at all. Movies that perfectly capture their era are a treat to watch.
Wargames was an early 80's movie that had computer hacking, and isn't dated. But Hackers and/or The Net have hacking and are from the 90's and are completely dated.
One very dated movie, and not because of technology is that romantic movie with Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan, You've Got Mail. It was on television and I watched it recently. I remember when it was out, everyone thought it was so cute and romantic (and had email!) Well, when that movie came out, online stalking and catfishing weren't in existence yet. The entire movie is based on Hanks and Ryan being acquaintances and Hanks is emailing her pretending to be someone else. Then they fall in love and when they meet in person at the end, he reveals himself and does NOT get smacked in the face or kicked in the nuts. She doesn't even care! She thinks it's romantic! That movie definitely doesn't work in the modern world.
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Dec 5, 2018 16:19:08 GMT
NalkarjCorrect me if I am wrong, but are you saying you prefer pre-1960 over post-1960 movies as a whole? if so, I would have to assume your in the minority when looking at people as a whole as I would be surprised if the easy majority did not prefer post-1960 over pre-1960 movies. personally I would guess something like 80/20 (if not higher) of the masses would be in favor of post-1960 over pre-1960 movies as a whole. like if you asked random people which set of movies they like overall more be it post or pre 1960 I would have to assume at least 8 out of 10 people (i.e. my 80/20 thing) would aside with post-1960. if it's not at least 70/30 in favor of post-1960 I would be very surprised but I would lean towards 80/20 if not a bit higher. p.s. this is no dis on you (like nothing personal) but I am a little surprised because I can't image many people saying that and being serious when looking at ALL movies out there in those time frames I think the post-1960 blows away pre-1960 overall. NOTE: I know given your wording you never specifically said you preferred pre-1960 over post-1960 overall but that you simply do like pre-1960 movies and consider yourself a fan of those. but I can't imagine many people liking those pre-1960 movies over post-1960 movies as a whole as if you split those things into two halves and have to choose which you like more overall between the two I would assume a high percentage of people would side with the 'post-1960' option.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Dec 5, 2018 16:28:19 GMT
Nalkarj Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying you prefer pre-1960 over post-1960 movies as a whole?
if so, I would have to assume your in the minority when looking at people as a whole as I would be surprised if the easy majority did not prefer post-1960 over pre-1960 movies. personally I would guess something like 80/20 (if not higher) of the masses would be in favor of post-1960 over pre-1960 movies as a whole. like if you asked random people which set of movies they like overall more be it post or pre 1960 I would have to assume at least 8 out of 10 people (i.e. my 80/20 thing) would aside with post-1960. if it’s not at least 70/30 in favor of post-1960 I would be very surprised but I would lean towards 80/20 if not a bit higher. p.s. this is no dis on you (like nothing personal) but I am a little surprised because I can’t image many people saying that and being serious when looking at ALL movies out there in those time frames I think the post-1960 blows away pre-1960 overall. NOTE: I know given your wording you never specifically said you preferred pre-1960 over post-1960 overall but that you simply do like pre-1960 movies and consider yourself a fan of those. but I can’t imagine many people liking those pre-1960 movies over post-1960 movies as a whole as if you split those things into two halves and have to choose which you like more overall between the two I would assume a high percentage of people would side with the ‘post-1960’ option. Now I’m a bit confused as to your wording. I don’t mean that I dislike every post-1960 movie or like every pre-1960 movie–that would be ridiculous. But on the whole, in general, by and large? Yup. I find “the old days,” as you’ve called them, to have produced far more interesting, artistic, and intelligent motion-pictures. I obviously can’t speak for other people’s viewing preferences, but all I will say is that there’s a reason they’re called “classics.” Michelangelo is not inferior to Andy Warhol just because he happens to be “older,” nor Bach to whatever teen-pop crap may be on top of the charts this week. I happily admit that I’m old-fashioned, but in the end I think that wins the war if not the battle. P.S. Just as a friendly piece of advice, you may not want to use the term “the masses.” It seems rather pejorative, like describing the public as “rabble.”
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Dec 5, 2018 20:13:41 GMT
mslo79If you plunk a reasonable someone down with a movie that they know absolutely nothing about ... odds are they will either like it or not like it regardless of when it was made. Reasonable being the operative word.
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Dec 8, 2018 20:08:23 GMT
NalkarjI was just simply asking, if you had to choose, which set of movies do you like more OVERALL... A)post-1960 (i.e. movies from the 1960's to date) B)pre-1960 (i.e. movies from 1959 and older) so Option A or Option B. that's what I was saying that I would be quite surprised if AT LEAST 7 out of 10, among the wide public, did not choose Option A over Option B OVERALL. like if you have to say which set of movies are overall better be it Option A or Option B I would expect at least 7 out of 10 people (i.e. 70%+ ) to choose Option A, if not 80%+. I know I can't prove this but I would be surprised if I am not close there in my estimates. with that said... I know there is no wrong answer as we all like what we all like and all though. Given that text... it would seem you prefer Option B from my above question, correct? I know there is a lot of crap nowadays to but when I look at the movies that interest me the most I find the 1960's to date is far superior to pre-1960 movies as a whole. movies just have more feeling/emotion etc to them which was largely lacking in the old days. hell, like I have said before... the 1990's to date make up 79.3% (i.e. 149/188) of My Favorite Movies. To me art is not the same as movies in the sense I don't think old art is dated like old movies are. because take some really old art (like you mention), it won't be dated like old movies are in general. maybe it's me, but something about the overall style etc lacks in old movies compared to more recent ones. like they just tend to be pretty bland/forgettable and lack emotion etc. but with that said... while I heavily favor more recent movies (79.3% of My Favorite movies are from the 1990's to date) I would not be surprised if there are some people who are similar to myself but in a opposite way that they might not care all that much for the more recent movies etc. also, with the whole 'Classics' comment... Yeah, I agree with the basic "there is a reason they are called classics" comment but I would imagine there are a higher volume of movies from the 1960's to date than there are from 1959 and older that people would like to a higher degree which is basically more of that classic type of status. p.s. on a side note... I wonder if there is generally any minimum time frame that has to pass before a movie can be called a classic? ; like say a movie has to be at least 10 years old before it could be called a classic, or say 20 years old etc. but then again I personally would probably not put any strict time frame on a movie being called a classic even though I would imagine at least 10 years or so need to pass just to see how it's still perceived by the wide public etc and if it's still hanging around for say 20+ years chances are it's going to hang around for decades to come at that point. It's just a word to refer to a lot of people. I did not mean anything by it. although with that said... I realize that some people like to dis 'the masses' but given my example here it's not a negative because I think if there is one way to judge movies based on what stands out vs what does not, then wide opinion (i.e. 'the masses'), basically determines that I would think even though there is no real objective way to judge movies but I feel that's the best all around way to do it by majority opinion etc and then maybe those 'classic' status types of movies tend to have more of a strong positive opinion among plenty of people etc. BATouttaheckI agree with your basic point there. but... at least in my mind, once movies get beyond a certain age they just become too different from more modern standards and not in a good way. that's my main issue with old movies in general. so it's not like I think 1960 is amazing and 1959 is crap but it's just something I observed that once you go prior to the 1960's as a general guideline, movies tend to get a bit too different (what some might refer to as 'dated') from more modern standards and not in a good way either. so it's just something I observed that I basically see the 1960's as the cut off point as a general guideline as I sort of see the 1960's as the early days of today's movies although it might have been more in the 1970's or 1980's before things got more like today's or something along those lines. p.s. the only movie worth mentioning that I have seen pre-1960 would be The Song of Bernadette (1943) (7/10 ; within my Top 188 movies) but I sort of consider that more of a fluke, like a exception to the general rule. it's basically the only movie pre-1960 that's among My Favorite Movies in general. with that said... I have not seen a lot of movies pre-1960's but I feel I have seen enough to get a general feel of them overall to form the opinion that I have. I am confident there are still some undiscovered gems I have not seen from the past but it won't be easy to find them for me at this point which is why I am in no rush to keep on seeing plenty of movies from the past that I have not already seen (I tend to re-watch more movies than movies I see for the first time and it's been like this for years now). so I watch whatever I watch and whatever happens, happens.
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Dec 8, 2018 20:32:19 GMT
perhaps therein lies the problem .
You have decided without seeing many movies them that you will not like them. You have pre-judged them. You are prejudiced against them.
You are talking about decades of films in multiple genres .. not something like "I won't see the films of Tarantino. I have read enough about them and him to know I won't like them" or "I don't care for gory horror movies so I don't watch them" You are sight unseen against a lot of films that are what made films what they are.
It's your decision and nothing will change your mind about it and you have the statistics that prove something to yourself. But, as I have said previously, it's sad reading how you have closed the door on so very many amazing films.
|
|
|
Post by fangirl1975 on Dec 8, 2018 21:44:17 GMT
I just watched the original Christmas In Connecticut last night and I have to say a modern version with the lead female character a blogger wouldn't have the charm of the original from the '40s.
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Dec 9, 2018 2:13:20 GMT
Not at all.
|
|
|
Post by ellynmacg on Dec 9, 2018 5:34:45 GMT
The only aspect of a film being "dated" that might bother me is scenes depicting the religious/ethnic/racial prejudices of the past; even then, if one considers the context of the time and place in which the movie was produced, the stereotype becomes less jarring.
Other than that, I have no problem with old-time movies. Many of my favorites, in fact, were released before I was born or when I was very young. I feel very fortunate to have access to films made a century ago...and to films released a couple of weeks ago...and everything in between.
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Dec 9, 2018 5:46:46 GMT
I grew up watching "old" movies and some of my favorite actors at the time were dead already and I had no idea. When I wasn't watching the Million Dollar Movies on tv I was at the local "movie house" seeing the latest and greatest or going into the city with MomBat to see some British film that would not be making the rounds of the regular theaters.
Dated only adds to the interest.
|
|
|
Post by Cooper, the Golden Retriever on Dec 9, 2018 5:47:17 GMT
I have noticed that this seem to be a problem for some people. But for me this is not a problem if the movie is good its good even if its dated. So is a dated movie for you a problem or are you like me that don`t care if a movie is dated ? Naaah! Doesn't, even it if it one that came out in 1962 when I was two years old.
|
|
notsure
Sophomore
@notsure
Posts: 114
Likes: 104
|
Post by notsure on Dec 9, 2018 7:14:44 GMT
I'm Not Sure.
|
|
|
Post by Grabthar's Hammer on Dec 9, 2018 12:13:14 GMT
It entirely depends on when I saw the film. I pretty much only watched movies growing up, usually on cable, so I saw plenty of stuff airing that was made from the late 30s to early 90s. Then of course I saw most of the new stuff in theaters and bought whatever I liked on VHS or DVD. So anything I enjoyed growing up, I still enjoy watching now including Humphrey Bogart, Abbott and Costello, Alfred Hitchcock, Taxi Driver, Back to the Future, and 90s teen movies.
But if I were to see some pre-80s movie nowadays that I had never seen before, I probably wouldn't have much interest because yes it's "dated". MAYBE if I were able to catch it in a theater, but it'd still be a hard sell for me. I guess I've just become used to the way films on both home video and in theaters look nowadays.
Luckily, I grew up watching A LOT of films from before I was born. Probably most of the popular ones or ones worth watching, save for a few, so I could happily go back and enjoy them again.
|
|
|
Post by Reggie_Stration on Dec 9, 2018 12:39:29 GMT
It can be a problem yes, because it means that I'm taken out of the experience of being absorbed in the goings on in the film, and instead temporarily made to think how silly a piece of music, or some special effects looks. So how much of a problem it is depends on how much of the dated stuff is in there.
|
|