Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2017 21:35:05 GMT
Is there anything you think that they did better in classic movies than what they do in modern movies ?
And what do you think they do better in modern movies than in classic movies ?
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Dec 2, 2017 21:48:04 GMT
The only things I think they do better in modern movies is sound recording and image compositing. I have to give older films the edge in everything else. Older films were mostly "alpha" enterprises. Today its all so very beta.
|
|
|
Post by jervistetch on Dec 2, 2017 22:01:05 GMT
Classic movies managed to do everything without CGI. Modern movies seem to be unable to do almost anything without it.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Dec 2, 2017 22:08:44 GMT
Better in classic movies: dialogue delivery. No mumbling, slurring words together, etc. I don't need subtitles when I watch older films. I do with newer films.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Dec 2, 2017 22:11:16 GMT
Well, it's hard to find a noir as good as the ones in the 40s. I also like the methodical pace of older films.
Modern movies have more realistic acting, more diversity, and less restrictions.
|
|
|
Post by jervistetch on Dec 2, 2017 22:27:53 GMT
Better in classic movies: dialogue delivery. No mumbling, slurring words together, etc. I don't need subtitles when I watch older films. I do with newer films. Thank God, it's not just me!! It's been a real struggle lately and I refuse to admit it's an age thing. Is it an age thing?
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Dec 2, 2017 23:01:36 GMT
Classic films or even films from the 80s and 90s seemed better capable at "show don't tell".
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Dec 3, 2017 12:45:43 GMT
Better in classic movies: dialogue delivery. No mumbling, slurring words together, etc. I don't need subtitles when I watch older films. I do with newer films. Thank God, it's not just me!! It's been a real struggle lately and I refuse to admit it's an age thing. Is it an age thing? I definitely have hearing damage from a life as a musician, but I've always had a problem with people mumbling, slurring words, etc. And as I noted, I have no problem understanding dialogue in older films or understanding a lot of speech on TV show like news programs, documentary shows, etc. Mumbly dialogue delivery is part of a more recent trend for "naturalism" in films, but it's one of many things that underscore why naturalism isn't necessarily a good idea. And I certainly get annoyed in real life with people who mumble, slur words/talk too quickly, etc. too.
|
|
|
Post by kingkoopa on Dec 3, 2017 18:15:07 GMT
Pacing/running time. Why is everything 2 and a half hours long now? It works for some things, but most of the time it seems unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Dec 3, 2017 18:23:11 GMT
We need more guys like Rick Baker and Stan Winston.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Dec 3, 2017 18:26:08 GMT
Film posters
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Dec 3, 2017 19:36:41 GMT
Most actors working today do not have good voices. They do not project their voices or have enough distinction to be recognizable as a voice. It may be more natural but I think it shows less "alpha" presence.
In SCREAM there is a scene where Neve Campbell and Rose McGowan are talking to Courtney Cox by the news van and you can notice the acting style differences between them. Campbell and McGowan both have a muted, kind of droning line delivery with little emotional emphasis, while Cox is assertive and energetic. I dont think age differences matter because Cox had the same kind of acting mannerism when she was the same age as Mcgowan and Campbell. Her performance style was more traditionally theatrical.
I dont know why people would prefer a more natural acting style when it lacks charisma and is kind of boring.
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Dec 4, 2017 4:48:28 GMT
Nuance.
Though that could be said for all walks of life & pop culture.
re. voices & singing... chalk that up to stage acting/performance training yes?
|
|