Interesting blog on younger people not connecting with older movies

[MacLeod]

Re: Interesting blog on younger people not connecting with older movie

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]

Re: Interesting blog on younger people not connecting with older movie

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.

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]

Re: Interesting blog on younger people not connecting with older movie

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]

Re: Interesting blog on younger people not connecting with older movie

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.]

Re: Interesting blog on younger people not connecting with older movie

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.

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?

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]

Re: Interesting blog on younger people not connecting with older movie

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]

Re: Interesting blog on younger people not connecting with older movie

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...

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]

Re: Interesting blog on younger people not connecting with older movie

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...

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]

Re: Interesting blog on younger people not connecting with older movie

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]

Re: Interesting blog on younger people not connecting with older movie

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

She has no idea what she's missing.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Re: Interesting blog on younger people not connecting with older movie

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.

This is what our parents said when MTV did play videos.

 

[FreezeC77]

Re: Interesting blog on younger people not connecting with older movie

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.

This is what our parents said when MTV did play videos.

Yea. It's why I pretty much don't pay any attention to criticizing 'today's youth' because it has probably been around since the advent of man. There were probably cave men talking about how the next-gen spent too much time cave painting and not enough time hunting.

 

[JarodRussell]

Re: Interesting blog on younger people not connecting with older movie

Everything about film has changed in the last decades. Acting styles especially. That's why we say that some older films are unintentionally funny when they were taken very seriously back then. Just compare TOS acting to TOS movie acting to TNG acting to Abramstrek acting. There you have a well documented proof for the change in acting styles over several decades in various formats.

Blaming it on the audience, telling them "you are unsophisticated" (a.k.a. "you are a dumb fuck if you don't appreciate it"), blatantly ignores the fact that we simply live in a different generation of art.


People always complain when they say Star Trek 2009 is dumbed down for the masses. It's not, it's a product of its time. In 20 years, audiences might laugh at it, or even say it's too damn slow and boring, or even say it's way too dark, because they are used to an entirely different way of dramatic presentation.


You might argue that you don't like how the artforms have changed, because you perhaps prefer longer shots over quickly edited ones, but don't say "you're stupid, you don't get it" to someone who simply appreciates the products of his time. Because, in fact, you are the unsophisticated one if you do.

 

[Spot's Meow]

Re: Interesting blog on younger people not connecting with older movie

Everything about film has changed in the last decades. Acting styles especially. That's why we say that some older films are unintentionally funny when they were taken very seriously back then. Just compare TOS acting to TOS movie acting to TNG acting to Abramstrek acting. There you have a well documented proof for the change in acting styles over several decades in various formats.

Blaming it on the audience, telling them "you are unsophisticated" (a.k.a. "you are a dumb fuck if you don't appreciate it"), blatantly ignores the fact that we simply live in a different generation of art.


People always complain when they say Star Trek 2009 is dumbed down for the masses. It's not, it's a product of its time. In 20 years, audiences might laugh at it, or even say it's too damn slow and boring, or even say it's way too dark, because they are used to an entirely different way of dramatic presentation.


You might argue that you don't like how the artforms have changed, because you perhaps prefer longer shots over quickly edited ones, but don't say "you're stupid, you don't get it" to someone who simply appreciates the products of his time. Because, in fact, you are the unsophisticated one if you do.

I agree! You've said what I was trying to say in a much more succinct way, thanks!

 

[gblews]

Re: Interesting blog on younger people not connecting with older movie

You might argue that you don't like how the artforms have changed, because you perhaps prefer longer shots over quickly edited ones, but don't say "you're stupid, you don't get it" to someone who simply appreciates the products of his time. Because, in fact, you are the unsophisticated one if you do.

If one appreciates only the "products of his time", especially when it comes to art, I probably wouldn't use the word "stupid" to describe that person, but it sure would be difficult to refrain from using "unsophisticated".

 

[Spot's Meow]

Re: Interesting blog on younger people not connecting with older movie

You might argue that you don't like how the artforms have changed, because you perhaps prefer longer shots over quickly edited ones, but don't say "you're stupid, you don't get it" to someone who simply appreciates the products of his time. Because, in fact, you are the unsophisticated one if you do.

If one appreciates only the "products of his time", especially when it comes to art, I probably wouldn't use the word "stupid" to describe that person, but it sure would be difficult to refrain from using "unsophisticated".

I don't think it's about only appreciating the products of your own time, but that it's easier to appreciate them, simply because they are more readily relateable and accessible to you. Or, you appreciate products from another time, but in a different way. Much like the other audience members in the Bond film were appreciating the film in a different way than the article/blog author was. If they didn't appreciate it at all, they wouldn't have given their time and money to be there for the screening. They DO appreciate the film, just not in the way the author wants them to.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Interesting blog on younger people not connecting with older movie

Sadly, the author of that piece made one worthwhile observation, failed to understand it himself, and then carried on pointlessly for many paragraphs:

it made me painfully aware that for a good many people, movies aren’t art or experience, they’re product. And products date.

It's not the fault of the audience at all. Popular culture simply does date, because it is product. People who are defensive on the part of popular culture proclaim it as somehow equal to or better than art of real nuance and ambition, and then get bent out of shape when fashion moves on to the next thing.

Well, guess what - people only liked the thing to begin with because it so exemplified the fashions and superficial concerns/attractions of that moment.

Even people who want to own a 1964 1/2 Mustang like the one in Goldfinger wouldn't drive it every day - it was not designed as "timeless transportation" if such a thing were possible; it was a product appropriate to its moment.

Successful product is not the same thing as valuable art.

People laugh at old James Bond movies because the producers didn't try - or didn't try hard enough - to make them really good. So, they aren't truly enduring.

End of story.

 

[Rarewolf]

Re: Interesting blog on younger people not connecting with older movie

I generally find that now (to my shame) I have little time for movies older than myself (35) unless I grew up with them.

I must have seen all the 007 films until Craig at least twice, I'd have no problem sitting down to watch them again. Except finding the time!

 

[Owain Taggart]

Re: Interesting blog on younger people not connecting with older movie

Sadly, the author of that piece made one worthwhile observation, failed to understand it himself, and then carried on pointlessly for many paragraphs:

it made me painfully aware that for a good many people, movies aren’t art or experience, they’re product. And products date.

It's not the fault of the audience at all. Popular culture simply does date, because it is product. People who are defensive on the part of popular culture proclaim it as somehow equal to or better than art of real nuance and ambition, and then get bent out of shape when fashion moves on to the next thing.

Well, guess what - people only liked the thing to begin with because it so exemplified the fashions and superficial concerns/attractions of that moment.

Even people who want to own a 1964 1/2 Mustang like the one in Goldfinger wouldn't drive it every day - it was not designed as "timeless transportation" if such a thing were possible; it was a product appropriate to its moment.

Successful product is not the same thing as valuable art.

People laugh at old James Bond movies because the producers didn't try - or didn't try hard enough - to make them really good. So, they aren't truly enduring.

End of story.

Well said. I only have one thing to add to that, and it's the fact that, there are certain times when period dramas made in the present can often look the part, but don't always hit the mark in terms of how they feel, even though many productions try their damnedest to be accurate, and I think that's due to the perceptions we have now vs how things really were, and we can't fully encapsulate how it really was due to not being part of the era that's been recreated. I don't think we can ever be truly accurate in that respect. Hope I'm making sense on that.

 

[Spot's Meow]

Re: Interesting blog on younger people not connecting with older movie

Sadly, the author of that piece made one worthwhile observation, failed to understand it himself, and then carried on pointlessly for many paragraphs:

it made me painfully aware that for a good many people, movies aren’t art or experience, they’re product. And products date.

It's not the fault of the audience at all. Popular culture simply does date, because it is product. People who are defensive on the part of popular culture proclaim it as somehow equal to or better than art of real nuance and ambition, and then get bent out of shape when fashion moves on to the next thing.

Well, guess what - people only liked the thing to begin with because it so exemplified the fashions and superficial concerns/attractions of that moment.

Even people who want to own a 1964 1/2 Mustang like the one in Goldfinger wouldn't drive it every day - it was not designed as "timeless transportation" if such a thing were possible; it was a product appropriate to its moment.

Successful product is not the same thing as valuable art.

People laugh at old James Bond movies because the producers didn't try - or didn't try hard enough - to make them really good. So, they aren't truly enduring.

End of story.

Well said. I only have one thing to add to that, and it's the fact that, there are certain times when period dramas made in the present can often look the part, but don't always hit the mark in terms of how they feel, even though many productions try their damnedest to be accurate, and I think that's due to the perceptions we have now vs how things really were, and we can't fully encapsulate how it really was due to not being part of the era that's been recreated. I don't think we can ever be truly accurate in that respect. Hope I'm making sense on that.

Yes, that makes perfect sense. It's called presentism; applying present day attitudes and culture to past events, whether intentional or unintentional. In fact some would argue that it's impossible to avoid presentism.