Interesting blog on younger people not connecting with older movies

[J.T.B.]

Spot's Meow wrote:

---

I think that's pretty much true that the same viewers from 1988 may have the same opinion on Singing in the Rain today. But, if people of that same age group that you were in in 1988 (let's say, early twenties) were to watch it today for the first time, I don't think they would find it as ridiculous.

I don't quite follow, do you mean if a person saw it for the first time today in their 40s or their 20s?

I think this has a lot to do with the relatively young age of the movie industry. How "old" those movies were seemed irrelevant at the time because even the oldest movies weren't really THAT old.

There's probably something to that, but OTOH there was a huge difference in appearance, sound, style, tone and practically everything else between, say, Top Hat from the mid-'30s and The Professionals from the mid-'60s (both of which I remember watching on TV within a relatively short span). In a lot of ways, a 30 year old movie then (say a late '40s movie in the late '70s) seemed more "distant" in time than a 30 year old movie now.

Not to say that you are ancient,

It's OK, I have a kid in high school, I know I'm old!

Justin

[Mr. Adventure]

RJDemonicus wrote:

---

I find the inability to "connect" with older entertainment hard to understand, and a bit disturbing. Since I was in grade school, I was drawn to old movies and movie serials, old TV shows, old books and comics, even old music. To this day, I spend a lot of time reading stories from the 19th and early 20th century and older, and watching movies and shows from the 30s, 40s and 50s. And it seems to me there was a strong interest in the history of the arts in those days, at least among genre fans. We felt connection to the old and classic stuff through the evolution of the art form.

That seems to be sadly missing for most of the current generation. You see it in the complaints about special effects and the willingness (and eagerness) to colorize old films and upgrade SFX (like they've actually done with TOS), and in the constant characterization of old stories as "cheesy" (when, in many cases, the writing is indeed more sophisticated than in contemporary entertainment).

One of the things that always drew me to the creative genres was the variety of styles and approaches to be found. Retro fashion just adds to that variety (if you were to read my books, you'd find sprinkled in there various homages to Shakespeare, Bradbury, Clarke, Lord Dunsany, Donovan, Poe, Frost and American Indian folklore, among other things). These days, not only is there a generic sameness about (most) everything, but there seems to be a strong disdain of the variety to be found in history, and that's a terrible shame.

I think the frame of reference has changed. I grew up in the 70s and most of what I watched in reruns and so on was culled mostly from the 50s to 70s, occasionally dipping into the 40s or 30s. Extrapolating, that means a kid today is going to see programming from the 90s or later, occasionnally dipping into the 80s or 70s. Earlier stuff is going to be from the stone age.

And with all that material produced today plus DVD/Netflix and video games, internet, etc. they might not even need to go back that far. It's probably harder to appreciate black and white stuff when there's maybe four channels on TV to even see it.

[MacLeod]

Being in the UK I'm old enough to remember when we only had 3 TV channels. So that impacted on what you watched growing up.

Now in the days of hundreds of TV channels it easy to find something you know you'll like.

[Spot's Meow]

J.T.B. wrote:

---

I don't quite follow, do you mean if a person saw it for the first time today in their 40s or their 20s?

Yeah, I couldn't really find a good way to phrase that. I meant, if you showed it to a classroom of college students in their early twenties today for the first time, I think they (or at least many of them) would have a different reaction than 20-somethings watching it for the first time in 1988. This is just a guess of course, but I feel like musicals have come back into fashion lately so they are likely to be more accepting of it.

[Owain Taggart]

Mr. Adventure wrote:

---

I think the frame of reference has changed. I grew up in the 70s and most of what I watched in reruns and so on was culled mostly from the 50s to 70s, occasionally dipping into the 40s or 30s. Extrapolating, that means a kid today is going to see programming from the 90s or later, occasionnally dipping into the 80s or 70s. Earlier stuff is going to be from the stone age.

And with all that material produced today plus DVD/Netflix and video games, internet, etc. they might not even need to go back that far. It's probably harder to appreciate black and white stuff when there's maybe four channels on TV to even see it.

Yep, exactly. It's the frame of reference that has shifted. That's not to say that we can't enjoy them, but that someone who hasn't had much exposure to it to begin with, that it's more effort, especially when they're not familiar with cultural references that aren't relevant to them. Personally, that doesn't mean I don't enjoy them, but that it just takes more effort to get into them. There are some that are easy to get, like It's A Wonderful Life, because it's a timeless message not shrouded in culture.

Another example is American Graffiti. Brilliant movie in its own right, and my Dad loves watching it whenever he can, but personally it's a movie I find myself hard to get into precisely because it's not culturally relevant to me. I think it's a movie that means more to someone who's lived through the era. Personally though, I don't get much out of it.

[MacLeod]

Are there really that many Musicals released at the cinema these days. There's wha maybe a couple a year.

True maybe on TV, but is that down to shows like X Factor, Pop Idol, American Idol etc... being popular

[Mr. Adventure]

MacLeod wrote:

---

Are there really that many Musicals released at the cinema these days. There's wha maybe a couple a year.

True maybe on TV, but is that down to shows like X Factor, Pop Idol, American Idol etc... being popular

Don't forget Glee. And a lot of the Disney shows.

RJDemonicus wrote:

---

That seems to be sadly missing for most of the current generation. You see it in the complaints about special effects and the willingness (and eagerness) to colorize old films and upgrade SFX (like they've actually done with TOS), and in the constant characterization of old stories as "cheesy" (when, in many cases, the writing is indeed more sophisticated than in contemporary entertainment).

Yeah, I've always found it funny when people think those shows will find a new audience because of it ignoring the fact that the costumes, hair, dialogue, sets, pacing, music, editing, delivery and everything else that makes those shows dated.

[Spot's Meow]

MacLeod wrote:

---

Are there really that many Musicals released at the cinema these days. There's wha maybe a couple a year.

True maybe on TV, but is that down to shows like X Factor, Pop Idol, American Idol etc... being popular

It seems like it started with Chicago, then there were several remakes and movies based on plays, like The Producers, Rent, Mamma Mia, Burlesque, and Footloose. And as much as I don't personally like the movies, you have to admit that the High School Musical franchise has turned a lot of young folks onto the genre.

[MacLeod]

I did say maybe on TV, as for Disney yes a lot of their films have music and song in them same for programming aimed at young children.

But does that make them a musical or a film which has singing in it?

How do we define the Musical genre? In terms of films the likes of Moulin Rouge, Evita would no doubt be considerd musicals. Ir do we say for a musical the songs sung in the film/TV prgoramme are part of the story and actually drive the story forward?

[J.T.B.]

Spot's Meow wrote:

---

Yeah, I couldn't really find a good way to phrase that. I meant, if you showed it to a classroom of college students in their early twenties today for the first time, I think they (or at least many of them) would have a different reaction than 20-somethings watching it for the first time in 1988. This is just a guess of course, but I feel like musicals have come back into fashion lately so they are likely to be more accepting of it.

OK, I got you. You could be right about that. Musicals were pretty far out of fashion when I was a teen, really the only recent ones that had caught on were Grease and the Blues Brothers.

Owain Taggart wrote:

---

Yep, exactly. It's the frame of reference that has shifted. That's not to say that we can't enjoy them, but that someone who hasn't had much exposure to it to begin with, that it's more effort, especially when they're not familiar with cultural references that aren't relevant to them. Personally, that doesn't mean I don't enjoy them, but that it just takes more effort to get into them. There are some that are easy to get, like It's A Wonderful Life, because it's a timeless message not shrouded in culture.

It's interesting... I grew up watching movies that were way older than my frame of reference, and even though I didn't get all the references I could usually get a feel for the underlying meaning. But, did I have an advantage because when I grew up I was exposed to older media a lot more than a younger person would be now?

Owain Taggart wrote:

---

Another example is American Graffiti. Brilliant movie in its own right, and my Dad loves watching it whenever he can, but personally it's a movie I find myself hard to get into precisely because it's not culturally relevant to me. I think it's a movie that means more to someone who's lived through the era. Personally though, I don't get much out of it.

That's a little surprising to me. The main characters in that movie would've been a few years older than my parents so obviously I didn't live through the era. But I love that movie and always have, and my son likes it a lot. I would have guessed that the characters and their personalities and problems were fairly universal.

Justin

[Mr. Adventure]

I think if we grew up now we'd generally be watching Disney, Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network and so on. We wouldn't be seeing King Kong, Star Trek, Hammer horror movies, I Love Lucy and whatever else was on during the off hours. And we didn't have infomercials. Plus, the way channels work now I don't think anyone but Cartoon Network could show old Bugs Bunny/Hanna Barbera stuff. Only Disney would show Mickey Mouse and the Mouseketeers and so on. So if those channels aren't showing it no one else can even if they were willing.

Back in the big-3, UHF, early cable days channels there was more of a hodge-podge of programming whereas now you have to actually turn on the "old stuff" channels to see that kind of thing. And why show old programs and movies when there's the total output of the 80s, 90s, 00s, and 10s to cherry pick from?

[the G-man]

Owain Taggart wrote:

---

Yep, exactly. It's the frame of reference that has shifted...

Also, and this is just a shot in the dark, but there are so many things that have changed since advent of the computer age that "our" kids don't relate.

For example, even a show as "recent" as Seinfeld now seems dated at times because of plots that hinge on things that wouldn't happen in the cell phone era.

[Owain Taggart]

the G-man wrote:

---

Also, and this is just a shot in the dark, but there are so many things that have changed since advent of the computer age that "our" kids don't relate.

For example, even a show as "recent" as Seinfeld now seems dated at times because of plots that hinge on things that wouldn't happen in the cell phone era.

Yeah, good point. It's what I touched on. I think we have it good in this day and age, and technology has really spoiled us, to the point that for younger people, anything they didn't have access to is so alien to them. The advent of technology has really progressed at an astonishing pace, and not always for the better. It kind of makes it harder for younger people to appreciate what the world was like before all those things. It also doesn't help that many people lack attention these days. Everybody is so urgent these days, always on the go. Anyway, I'm rambling, but the point is that with the pace of culture, it sometimes makes it difficult to for younger generations to enjoy what's been made in the past, because it might be difficult for them to grasp certain concepts that they're not familiar with.

My parents often make comments about movie stars from their era, which lead to movies that those stars have been in, movies that I'm mostly not interested in seeing because they don't mean anything to me like they mean to my parents, and I think everyone can relate to that in some way or another. It's just a different culture.

[degra]

I think this is very true. Kids these days don't have the patience--we are living in a society that prefers shallowness, fast pacing, lots of seizure-inducing action and pretty eye candy in terms of VFX(I myself miss motion control models). That's why MTV no longer plays videos but a bunch of reality drek. Even once brave shows like The Real World that were fascinating in the early years have degenerated into sex orgies/drunken mayhem with cookie cutter casts.

This is a generation that is constantly IMing, tweeting, Facebooking, on their cellphones, worshipping shallow dipsticks like Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, Kim Kardashian. Even sitcoms resort to very juvenile forced humor--none of which I find funny.

Writers don't want to develop slow burning stories that have time to develop and breathe so they are constantly jumping from one story to the next, eschewing good writing and interesting characters in favor of lots of action and visual spectacle. It is quite disheartening.

[JiNX-01]

I have a goddaughter who refuses to watch B/W movies or TV shows.

She has no idea what she's missing.