I created a post months ago, 1930-70s vs. 1980s-present, and older movies won. I was surprised because I know the average age in here is probably much younger than anyone born in the 1930s, but an overwhelming majority chose older movies.
Why do YOU think the older movies were better?
WHATEVER YOU WATCH AS A CHILD AND INTO ADULTHOOD IS WHAT YOURE PRESET TO CONSIDER "BEST" OR "CLASSIC".
shareI didn't watch those as a child or into adulthood.... It's about quality.
shareI disagree with this idea. I don't think the films of the '80s are best or classic, but those are what I watched as a child, and into my young adult years. I think the best films were made from the late '20s into the mid '40s, and I'm going to second the original poster's notion that most who responded in his previous thread aren't old enough to fit your notion, either.
shareWell here’s the thing, are we talking about films we like the best or films we think are best in terms of actually being superior to other films? Each person could almost have 2 list and some titles would appear on both.
shareBINGO...PEOPLES FAVORITE AND BEST LISTS WOULD BE VERY DIFFERENT...ALSO...JUST CAUSE YOU WERE BORN IN THE 80S DOESNT MEAN 80S FILMS ARE GONNA BE THE ONES THAT STICK FOREVER...HOWEVER WHAT YOU WATCH WHEN YOURE IN YOUR PRIME STICK HARDER AND LONGER AND ALSO YOU CAN WATCH OLDER THINGS AT THE TIME AND THE SAME EFFECT....
shareGenerally speaking the good older movies have better stories, better plots and better characters.
I am 33 and have always loved the Universal Studios Monsters films. I also loved the original trilogy of Star Wars and the Indiana Jones movies except for Temple of Doom.
shareI categorize my dvd and vhs collections by date and they create a bell curve with the top being around 1976 - 1978.
shareI think the eighties in particular was a bad time for movies.
Was there a lot of difference between the 60's and the 90's?
Really, Knish? 2 of the Star Wars movies, First Blood, Ghostbusters 1 and 2, The Terminator, Commando, Predator, Robocop, Die Hard, Nightmare on Elm Street 1 and 3, Friday the 13th Parts 1-4, Batman 89, Aliens, and The Thing are all bad movies to you?
shareSorry to cut in but that is a fine list of awesome movies👍
Carry on...
The thing that is often forgotten is that there were plenty of terrible films made in the first half century of cinema. People tend to look at the classics and take that as representative of the entire era, but like today, for every cinematic masterpiece in the golden era there are multiple stinkers.
One thing I will say is that, for the most part, film acting has improved since the early days. Perhaps it was a hangover from the vaudeville days, but melodramatic performances seemed to be the norm in many pre-1950s movies. Everything was big eyes and over the top reactions, like the difference between stage acting and film acting hadn't yet been properly established. Look at someone who is generally regarded as one of the best actors of the early years, Bette Davis. By today's standards her acting style might be considered hammy at best. Even though I could watch those old movies all day long and be happy, I do find it easier to be completely immersed into the world of a film when the acting is naturalistic rather than exaggerated.
I can't stand old movies. They talk funny, like it's not Btitish English but also not really American English. Very distracting and reminds me all the time that this is a play pretend, no immersion at all. Do people even talk like that in real life 50s?
Oh, and talking is too loud in old movies. It's so obvious that they use mics. I know it's tech limitation but again, no immersion.
Im curious to know this myself. The 1940´s - 1950´s American English accent in the movies seems like a hybrid of modern day British and American English.
sharePerhaps that was the accent back then.
Urban areas were more British, less 'cowboy-ish'. Those areas have been the ones receiving heavier immigration, which means the original urban American culture was replaced. What people call 'real America' nowadays is the countryside, the areas that didn't receive immigration. A century ago, though, that was only a minor part of the country.
The urban American culture, the one you can see in 40s-50s movies, that probably has vanished.
Americans are actually speaking with the original British dialect. It was the British who changed their dialect over the past few centuries. The early Americans and British would've all spoken with the same "American" dialect aka: British.
Regarding 40s and 50s, acting styles have changed over time. At one point, actors were trained to speak with what we now consider a British-sounding dialect. Their acting also seemed less natural and more exaggerated.
That wasn't the accent in urban areas. You can hear non-actors speak without "British" dialects on old radio shows, quiz programs and the news in the 40s and 50s. Also, I know many people from that time period and nobody speaks with a "British" dialect.
BTW, real America would be the indigenous peoples. Later, the U.S. was a mixture of many cultures in its early history. Besides the Indigenous peoples, there were Spaniards, Africans, British, Dutch, French, Swiss, Scots, Irish, and Germans. Early Europeans colonists weren't just British.
That was an interesting and informative comment, sir. Even though we usually disagree, hat off this time.
shareI'm in shock! I thought we would debate this one out.
Thanks for the compliment.
One trick to be right is to be able to readapt when you're not. With the exception of the last paragraph, which is debatable, I think you're right (and informative) in the rest of the comment.
shareMuch of early colonization was financed by large corporations such as the Dutch West Indies Company from the Netherlands which had the strongest economy worldwide at one time or the London Company, etc.. You could google early history of the original thirteen colonies to know who settled where. I enjoy learning history that isn't taught in schools.
shareEarly colonization was primarily English, secondarily German, and in a minor degree, Dutch.
French went mostly to Canada, and Spanish went to Center and South of the continent. Irish barely arrived until the Great Famine, end of XIXth century. And Africans formed a separated culture/nation.
Until the XXth century, US contained two nations/cultures: one resulting from blending English and German ones, and the other one derived from African slaves.
You never heard of the 1863 Draft Riots lead by the Irish? More Irish immigrated right after slavery ended to replace blacks who had left the South for the midWest and other parts of the country.
The dominant culture is and was the English AKA: WASPs. Immigrants, especially Europeans, anglicize their names and refuse to teach their children any other language but English. That includes Germans like Trump AKA: Drumpf.
Plenty of French in the U.S. They fought in the American Revolution (Lafayette, Duportail, de Beauvoir, L'Enfant, Battles of the Chesapeake & York). Plenty of headbutting among the British, Spanish, French and Dutch who took turns chasing one another off lands. The American Revolution was really a proxy war between France and Britain. And let's remember the French and Indian Wars. Also, French-Canadians immigrated from Canada.
Before the 20th century, there was plenty of immigration. Chinese built the railroad. Many states were originally colonized by the Spaniards.
American culture is ultimately a blend of many cultures.
Back to dialects, I watched a 3-part documentary a longtime ago called "Do You Speak American?". It discussed how different immigrants settling throughout the U.S. helped to create regional dialects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOtrscAmyBg&list=PLH4NcY9r8tDBCLjnZ_OtObhFDwc7Qm_VU&index=2
The thing that is often forgotten is that there were plenty of terrible films made in the first half century of cinema.
Fair enough, I respect your thoughts on the matter but I still feel people tend to look at older movies through rose coloured glasses. It's like the complaint about saturation of superhero movies in modern cinema, people cry and moan about the lack of good ideas now and oh-my-lord-it-never-used-to-be-this-way, totally ignoring facts like between 1937 and 1947 there were 6 full length Dick Tracy feature films (not to mention the additional 4 Dick Tracy cinema serials of 15 episodes each) and 12 Tarzan films between 1932 and 1948... but no, The Avengers killed cinema!
shareALL THOSE BAD OLD FLICKS ARE GONE FOREVER...THE EVIDENCE LITERALLY BURNED UP,TAPED OVER,MISPLACED OR THROWN OUT.ANYONE WHO SAYS THAT TECHNIQUE WAS BETTER DECADES IN THE PAST ISNT BEING HONEST.ITS TOTALLY COOL TO IDENTIFY AND ENJOY OLD FLICKS BEST.TRYING TO SAY THINGS HAVE FLOWED BACKWARDS QUALITY WISE IN ANY CATAGORY INTHE LAST 100 YEARS ISNT TRUE OR BASED ON THE WHOLE PICTURE AND ALL THE FACTS.
shareNo, they're not. You can still get them on DVD. I was never a Tracy fan, but I used to watch all the old Tarzan movies on TV. The Johnny Weissmuller ones were especially popular. I liked them as a kid, but they are completely outdated now. They were made on film - not video. Old TV shows were videotaped though. I Love Lucy was the first to be filmed. Good movies would be comedies like Abbot and Costello, Laurel and Hardy and Three Stooges and dramas like Miracle on 34th Street, It's a Wonderful Life, Wizard of Oz, Casablanca, Pinky, and Imitation of Life. My neighborhood discovered that last film as a library rental and had every one bawling like a baby. LOL.
shareSERIOUSLY..THERE HAS BEEN MORE THAN ONE FILM WHAREHOUSE FIRE..THOUSANDS OF FILMS GONE FOREVER...THEY RECYCLED FILM STOCK DURING THE WAR.ETC ETC ETC...A HUGE PERCENTAGE OF ALL FILMSMADE BEFORE THE 60S AND 70S ARE GONE FOREVER...CHECK IT OUT...ITS ACTUALLY QUITE INTERESTING,AND DEPRESSING.
shareI was specifically naming Tracy and Tarzan films still being around.
George Lucas was concerned about old films decomposing. After a few years, even Star Wars began to decompose and I remember everything black became a dark muddy blue until Lucas was able to restore it
The bulk of lost films are very old from the 20s and 30s.
Bananaman is spot on and that is the reason why I have a hard time getting into those older movies. It's like the actors are over projecting and over acting because of how much a larger part of their acting development came on the stage of a theater where you have to ratchet up everything to be able to be seen and heard by the spectators further away. On film, such overacting becomes unnecessary and unnatural seeming.
shareYes. Actors in old movies look like they were acting, you know, like they pretend to be the character, while winking to the audience. And the character depicted are most often ridiculous, like they talk way too fast in rapid firing dialogs. It's obviously scripted. Not natural at all.
Not to mention action movies. Old action movies are even more terrible. They move like under water. Very very slowly and extremely deliberate. Often the opponent is guarding or evading long before the other is even starting punching. Gunplay in old movies is also really really bad.
The first group captures the late 60s and 70s. That alone is the difference maker for me.
share