The Aging of Movies.........................

[Scott]

Movies become better with age. A low budget movie that comes out today doesn't have enough elements to make it interesting. An older film has music, clothing, vehicles, buildings, phrases, and cinematography of the decade in which it was made. It seems to take about 25 years for a film to age properly. All the elements mentioned above add texture to the film.

I'm wondering if 90's CGI or even todays CGI can will be able to do the same. (also music of the 90's up to today seems to be abysmal, will it even be played 25 years from now?)

[The Burgomaster]

"All the elements mentioned above add texture to the film."

I totally agree.  

In films from the 1940s most of the men wore suits, ties, and hats.  The women also wore big, gaudy hats.  They would usually go to nightclubs and drink hard liquor while dancing to a live band.  The newspaper reporters had cameras with big flashbulbs on them.

During the 1950s, the teenager always seemed to have house parties where they would dance in the living room.  The girls wore sweaters and skirts.  The guys drove hot-rods.  

The 1970s blaxploitation craze gave us afros, platform shoes, brightly-colored suits, jive talk and soul music.

I'm not sure what the hell today's movies will give us other than bad memories . . .

[odinn7]

Most of todays movies are "disposable" the way I see them. There will be a few that may make some kind of impression but certainly not like the older movies are doing now.

[ulthar]

Part of that is the target attention span for modern visual media.  I heard last week that the TV 'industry' considers average attention span of its audience is around 40 seconds.  The idea is that if the visual does not 'change' every 40 sec or so, they believe the audience will lose interest.

So, many scenes/edits themselves are 'throwaways' in a sense; they are added just to show something different. If you build a whole movie on this premise, of course it will be forgotten soon after viewing.  There was nothing there to remember - just filler to 'keep me occupied.'

On a somehow related note, when recently contemplating a road trip with our two small (9 mos and 3 years) children, pretty much everybody we talked to said "you better have a DVD player in the car."  We refuse to put a DVD player in the car and are quite intrigued by just how pervasive this response was.

For my part, I think a big reason the older movies are more memorable is story.  They actually could WRITE; even crappy movies rested on mostly interesting premises.  The modern emphasis seems to be flashy fx and cheap gimmicks (M. Night Shamamamamamalan anyone?), or reliance on cult fandom (Revenge of the Sith), etc.

I do agree, though, looking at an older flick as dimensions of texture - often very subtle cultural stuff - that even modern period pieces cannot fully capture.

[LH-C]

I'm still heavily annoyed by anyone who says they won't watch a movie because it's either B&W or has subtitles.

[Scott]

We grew up all through the 70's without color TV, so everything was b/w for us. I didn't have a color TV till I started working full time in 1983 and bought my own color TV.

B/W lends to the atmosphere of a film because it works well with light and shadows.

[LH-C]

<>

Your kids are way too young to have a DVD on a road trip. I bet that they will sleep a lot anyway. Now if you had teenagers, then maybe would think about it in that situation.

[Mofo Rising]

Well, I certainly wouldn't agree with the blanket assumption that all movies become better with age.  I used to think the movie THE LAST STARFIGHTER was awesome, but it has not aged well.

For the most part, movies certainly become more distinctive, as the time they were a part of grows more distant.  But have you ever taped a television show and came back and watched it years later?  While it's fascinating to see the commercials that were once ubiquitous, now serving as only background texture, I wouldn't say the commercials have become "better".

One of the effects of time is that only the more notable movies make it through the years.  When people discuss movies from whatever earlier decade, it is usually only movies that made an impact, or were of such quality that people would still be talking about them several decades later.  They never refer to the non-stop parade of crap that is on display during every time period.  Fine wine becomes more distincive, that sugar water in a box turns to vinegar.

The same goes for music.

That's why I think it's a mistake to discount all of the films being made today.  Sure, it seems as if they are all the same, pandering to the least common denominator, but that's because we're living through their releases.  Can't see the forest for the trees.  For instance, we are currently amidst a renaissance of quality fantasy films brought about by computer animation techniques, which are being increasingly well done and are becoming cheaper and cheaper, ie. LORD OF THE RINGS, SPIDER-MAN.  Whedon's SERENITY, a fan favorite, would not have been possible at any earlier time.  To pick on bad CGI is to discount the truly revolutionary effect they have had on filmmaking, ie. SIN CITY.

I think the key is to look beyond the mainstream for the movies/music/literature that are actually interesting and defining the time we live in.  CITIZEN KANE was not accepted in its day, neither was Shakespeare, for that matter.  To give up searching for new good stuff and retreat into the nostalgia of older films is to throw up your hands, shout "kids these days. . ." and go back to whittling on the front stoop.

[The Burgomaster]

"I think it's a mistake to discount all of the films being made today."

I agree.  Good movies are still being made, but they are few and far between.  As for CGI, I believe it is the ruination of the film industry.  If they spent half as much time, effort and money on writing good, original scripts and assembling quality casts of actors and directors as they do on CGI, the movie industry would be far better off.  CGI has its place, but it is VERY overused these days.  I think sci-fi movies like the original WAR OF THE WORLDS, JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH, and FORBIDDEN PLANET and epics like THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, BEN-HUR and THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD are more entertaining than 99% of what is being produced today.  And they didn't need CGI effects to create alien attacks, giant monsters, or epic battle scenes.  All I'm saying is that CGI should be used as an artistic tool, not as a crutch to cover up the fact that the movie is pretty lousy.  

[LH-C]

Personally, I think a lot of good movies have been made in the past 15 years or so, but they have become overrun by the few bigger more expensively produced 'blockbusters' or movie star faire.

[ulthar]

The Burgomaster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All I'm saying
> is that CGI should be used as an artistic tool,
> not as a crutch to cover up the fact that the
> movie is pretty lousy.  
>

That same statement can be applied to any fx or plot device - explosions, car chases, gratuitous gore, nudity or profanity, etc.  They 'need' to make a 2 hr flick, but they have about 10 minutes of story (which is not that good to begin with, as often as not), so fill it with a bunch of nothing.

The story need not be earth shattering, world changing or socially conscious; it need just be interesting.  I think that's the common thread that binds all really good, memorable movies.  When the fx, CGI or not, are used to help tell the story and not with ooo-ing and aaah-ing in mind, the whole is better.

[dean]

So you guys are saying that movies like Big Momma's House 2, or the Wild Things movies aren't going to be remembered 25 years from now?  

I'm crushed!

Think of the ratios I guess: how many films were made 'back in the day' that are still memorable compared to those that aren't.  I'd guess we still have the same ratios nowadays, it's just harder to see because we're in the moment, and we're there looking at all the crap that's out there.

I mean, what do you guys consider classic movies that have aged well, or in that case, any fun movies that aged well?

I'm sure I can find many a modern day example to fit any that you throw at me.

Of course, things go in cycles: at the moment, the low budget horror is getting a run again, for example, and not every movie made right now matches perfectly with 'that cool martial arts film I remember as a kid' but they all have their entertaining value.

I mean, I was watching a bit of Masters of the Universe last night, and kept muttering to myself 'That's so 80s' and I got to thinking that people will probably be saying that about the fashion and styles on now, when watching the movies 20 years from now.

I mean, can you imagine: 'that is so mid-noughties, look that guy's wearing a pink polo shirt, isn't that wacky?' and then rolling off in the space-leather.  

Then there's all those movies that are like cultural barometers and strikes a cord with a whole lot of people in one generation [such as, I don't know, Napoleon Dynamite].  Sure things may seem disposable, but there's alot of good stuff out there if you know what to look for.

[Fearless Freep]

I sometimes wonder about what music from today will be remembered a hundered or more years from now; for a lot of the same reasons as we're talking about movies.

I really hop that two hundred years from now, Rush and Yes are looked back and considered "classics" as examples of the heights of technical and artistic mastery of our time, and nobody remember who Brittney Spears ever was

[Mr_Vindictive]

LH-C Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Personally, I think a lot of good movies have been
> made in the past 15 years or so, but they have
> become overrun by the few bigger more expensively
> produced 'blockbusters' or movie star faire.
>
> LH-C - my photography


LH-C hit the nail on the head, in my opinion.  There are a lot of damn good movies being made and released, but they are normally overshadowed by the huge blockbuster films.  Think about "The Final Cut".  That was one superb film that certainly didn't have to play to a 40 second attention span audience.  In my opinion, it's one of the best Science Fiction films in years, yet nearly no one has seen it.  I believe, like Mofo said, we will one day see these overlooked films quite differently and they will become larger than they were at their original release.

[plan9superfan]

That's right, movies improve with age.

Which is the very reason why they SHOULDN'T be remade.

"The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", "Planet of the Apes", "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" and "King Kong" were symbols of their time, they shouldn't have been modernized to please today's audience.

The same goes for soon-to-be-remade movies as "The Warriors", "The Evil Dead", "East of Eden" and "Bread and Tulips". They don't nedd to be retrofitted for modern audiences.

And the other lame-ass argument, "it's for people who didn't know about the original", it's just stupid. In the age of DVDs and Netflix, you can have acess to any old movie without having to have some dork director remake it for you.