|
|
Post by mortsahlfan on Nov 11, 2019 16:29:54 GMT
People who don't watch older movies are less likely to take part in the poll, so your results are going to skew in favor of older films. Wouldn't it be the other way around? If people don't watch older movies, they'll vote for modern movies just by default.
|
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Nov 11, 2019 16:43:50 GMT
People who don't watch older movies are less likely to take part in the poll, so your results are going to skew in favor of older films. Wouldn't it be the other way around? If people don't watch older movies, they'll vote for modern movies just by default. Why would they vote against something they haven't watched? Seems disingenuous.
|
|
|
|
Post by ReyKahuka on Nov 11, 2019 16:48:32 GMT
People who don't watch older movies are less likely to take part in the poll, so your results are going to skew in favor of older films. Wouldn't it be the other way around? If people don't watch older movies, they'll vote for modern movies just by default. No, they won't take part in the poll because they don't have a context for older films. So the majority of your answers are coming from one demographic. Those poll results say more about the crowd here on the film general board. I'm guessing it's an older crowd for the most part, who are naturally going to be more inclined to say older films are better. Go ask a bunch of teenagers if they'd rather watch a Marvel movie or literally any movie from before 1970 and see what they say. Then take a poll asking which is better, MCU movies or DC movies and see how many of the people siding with Scorsese bother giving a definitive answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by ReyKahuka on Nov 11, 2019 16:49:00 GMT
Wouldn't it be the other way around? If people don't watch older movies, they'll vote for modern movies just by default. Why would they vote against something they haven't watched? Seems disingenuous. Yeah what is this, IMDb?
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Nov 11, 2019 16:50:03 GMT
Wouldn't it be the other way around? If people don't watch older movies, they'll vote for modern movies just by default. Why would they vote against something they haven't watched? Seems disingenuous. Well there are plenty of people who judges movies they have not actually seen often based on what other people think at least on youtube.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheOriginalPinky on Nov 11, 2019 16:50:46 GMT
Better in what way?
I wouldn't say they are better . . . just different. Films, like just about any other art form, reflect the times in which they are made. Would you say an O'Keeffe is better than a Botticelli? Not necessarily.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnspartan on Nov 11, 2019 17:02:31 GMT
It's simple really: most people have only seen the really good classic movies that have survived. No one alive really remembers or has seen the massive amount of crap that was produced. And if they have, they've done it in that so bad, it's good, MST3K type way. Essentially, they're comparing the best of the past, with the worst/average of the present. No, I compare the best of the present with the best of the past and it's glaring how the best of the present can't compete.
|
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Nov 11, 2019 17:17:19 GMT
Why would they vote against something they haven't watched? Seems disingenuous. Well there are plenty of people who judges movies they have not actually seen often based on what other people think at least on youtube. It's fine if they do that to decide what they'd like to watch. But it's dumb then to compare something they haven't seen with something they have. What if the youtuber just didn't get the movie? Even professional film critics have decried movies that have gone on to become classics.
|
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Nov 11, 2019 17:18:47 GMT
It's simple really: most people have only seen the really good classic movies that have survived. No one alive really remembers or has seen the massive amount of crap that was produced. And if they have, they've done it in that so bad, it's good, MST3K type way. Essentially, they're comparing the best of the past, with the worst/average of the present. No, I compare the best of the present with the best of the past and it's glaring how the best of the present can't compete. Gotta disagree there. There are plenty of great modern movies that easily contend with the greats of the past. It's glaring just how good modern filmmakers can be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ass_E9 on Nov 11, 2019 18:43:16 GMT
The older movies to which I have been exposed tend to be classics, so it may feel that way sometimes.
|
|
|
|
Post by sjg on Nov 11, 2019 18:56:10 GMT
I've been watching this thread with interest. I would have definitely voted for the modern era.
|
|
|
|
Post by mortsahlfan on Nov 11, 2019 20:02:56 GMT
I also remember a thread asking people their favorite movies. An overwhelming majority were from the 1930-70s.
|
|
|
|
Post by Power Ranger on Nov 11, 2019 20:33:35 GMT
The target demographics have changed. Now the audiences are younger, and not as literate.
Decades ago, cinema had less competition as a medium. Everyone went to the cinema. That meant that adults were a bigger market share than today.
Also people in the past read more books. So they were inclined to appreciate dialogue and character more.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 11, 2019 20:48:46 GMT
It's simple really: most people have only seen the really good classic movies that have survived. No one alive really remembers or has seen the massive amount of crap that was produced. And if they have, they've done it in that so bad, it's good, MST3K type way. Essentially, they're comparing the best of the past, with the worst/average of the present. Yes, but even the crap was less crappy than the crappiest movies of modern times from what I have seen. The really cheap and tacky horror movies of the 1930's were better than the bottom of the barrel straight-to-video horror movies made now. Those movies that have no plot and look like they were filmed in somebody's back yard on their cell phone.
|
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Nov 11, 2019 20:53:03 GMT
It's simple really: most people have only seen the really good classic movies that have survived. No one alive really remembers or has seen the massive amount of crap that was produced. And if they have, they've done it in that so bad, it's good, MST3K type way. Essentially, they're comparing the best of the past, with the worst/average of the present. Yes, but even the crap was less crappy than the crappiest movies of modern times from what I have seen. The really cheap and tacky horror movies of the 1930's were better than the bottom of the barrel straight-to-video horror movies made now. Those movies that have no plot and look like they were filmed in somebody's back yard on their cell phone. Gotta disagree there. I'm sure that's how it feels, but it's just not true. The cheapest of the tackiest movies of the 30s looked like they were filmed on 8 millimeter film stock with props out of a garage sale, and their plot amounted to "run from the monster." No worse than modern horrors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2019 20:58:36 GMT
The type of movie I don't think would get made today are films like Ingmar Bergman's Autumn Sonata. Why? Because it dares you to give up any pretense of hand held entertainment and bears out a story through dialogue and introspective discovery. The synopsis is essentially the story. The brilliance is in the directing, the acting, the depth through which the mother and daughter reveal how they feel about each other. It's a rebuttal against the formalities of affection and the presumed security that comes with family. It's so much more than a mother and daughter just bickering, but if films were reduced only to their plot points then Moby Dick would just be about some guy fighting a whale.
There's just so much more than plot required to tell a story, but I think that's part of it. It's light on spectacle (obviously) but we're living in an age where technology is more capable of servicing our thirst for spectacle.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 11, 2019 21:00:17 GMT
^ what a large tiresome bs post from someone who doesn't watch old movies. His taste in movies is odd and he is under the mistaken impression that most movie fans think like he does which is far from reality. He is a nice guy though for the most part despite his weird phobia about watching any movie made before 1970. I actually think mslo might be right though about the majority. For example, I think most of the people under 40 years old that aren't movie buffs but just general moviegoers will side with new movies. This becomes a problem in a poll though because many of those people won't even give movies made before a certain era a chance. Those people who refuse to watch black and white movies or dislike the acting style and stuff like that. It makes sense. People often prefer what they have grown up with. The older people would likely say movies from the classic era through the 1970s are their favorite, where most younger people will say movies made after 1980.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Nov 11, 2019 21:06:45 GMT
I find it annoying when I encounter people who act like there was nothing beyond the blockbusters, Sergio Leone, and Kurosawa.
There are some who dismiss just about anything else (the EMPIRE forums were full of people like that).
It is very ignorant especially when it comes from people who claim to be film enthusiasts or filmmakers!
How can you be a filmmaker and have no interest in any older works?
Not even for curiosity?
I don't understand that at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 11, 2019 21:08:00 GMT
Yes, but even the crap was less crappy than the crappiest movies of modern times from what I have seen. The really cheap and tacky horror movies of the 1930's were better than the bottom of the barrel straight-to-video horror movies made now. Those movies that have no plot and look like they were filmed in somebody's back yard on their cell phone. Gotta disagree there. I'm sure that's how it feels, but it's just not true. The cheapest of the tackiest movies of the 30s looked like they were filmed on 8 millimeter film stock with props out of a garage sale, and their plot amounted to "run from the monster." No worse than modern horrors. I guess it is just preference then. The older crappy horror movies have a certain charm to them compared to stuff made by Uwe Boll and Ulli Lommel etc. I am referring to the 1930s and 1940s horror movies btw, not the 1960s and 1970s.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Nov 11, 2019 21:34:01 GMT
Yes, but even the crap was less crappy than the crappiest movies of modern times from what I have seen. The really cheap and tacky horror movies of the 1930's were better than the bottom of the barrel straight-to-video horror movies made now. Those movies that have no plot and look like they were filmed in somebody's back yard on their cell phone. Gotta disagree there. I'm sure that's how it feels, but it's just not true. The cheapest of the tackiest movies of the 30s looked like they were filmed on 8 millimeter film stock with props out of a garage sale, and their plot amounted to "run from the monster." No worse than modern horrors. It just occurred to me that maybe you are talking about movies that are impossible to even find. You definitely have a point about the reason old movies are considered better in general for some people is because they are only watching the good and great movies and aren't even aware of the really bad movies. On the other hand, when comparing the best of the classic era with the best of the modern era some people consider the former to be much better though.
|
|
