How old is too old?
- Thread starter Extrocomp
- Start date
IMO the truly masterpiece productions have special effects that are timeless and hold up just as well today as they did at the time when they were originally made. Otherwise, they simply don't use special effects that wouldn't have held up in the future. Productions like this are extremely rare, though. But the point is, it can be done if the maker has the foresight/talent to take care not to include any special effects that will date the production in the future; or to make sure the ones that are included are so excellent & believable that they will never look dated or break immersion.
IMO a production that has effects that look laughably-awful/cheesy by today's standards are impossible to get immersed in and therefore are too old. Having said that, I still love Star Trek: TOS and can get immersed in parts of that show, but when some of the ridiculous effects come on, then that's a deal-breaker in terms of staying immersed.
IMO a production that has effects that look laughably-awful/cheesy by today's standards are impossible to get immersed in and therefore are too old. Having said that, I still love Star Trek: TOS and can get immersed in parts of that show, but when some of the ridiculous effects come on, then that's a deal-breaker in terms of staying immersed.
While I will concede some things are an acquired taste, Age isn't really the yardstick anybody should use when considering whether or not to watch. It all comes down to a matter of personal taste. Whether you like something, or not, it's your opinion, and your choice.
Born in 1961... and Casablanca is my favorite movie lol, followed by Brazil and Citizen Kane...seven of my top 10 are b/w.
Born in 1963, and Casablanca is my favourite movie. (For the benefit of the youngsters, Casablanca was released in 1942.) Other b&w films that rank up there are To Have and Have Not, Double Indemnity, The Lady Eve, the Thin Man series (and just about any other movie that pairs William Powell and Myrna Loy), Gun Crazy, D.O.A., The Big Sleep, Key Largo... I could go on for a while. I like Citizen Kane, too.
Maybe the problem is that it's just too easy to get a whole lot of exactly what you want these days, with satellite TV, digital cable, VOD, DVDs, downloading, etc. I really started to get into old movies at university in the early 1980s, when I was keeping late hours and the only thing on at midnight worth watching if you didn't have cable was CBC's late movie, generally Warner Bros movies from 1930-1950 or so. The world was so different 25 years or so ago that when you went to the video rental place you rented a VCR along with the movies, because virtually no one had one yet. And they were big, bulky, weighed a lot, and cost several hundred dollars.
I agree with Steve Roby's points. Personally, I never remember giving a thought to how old a movie was or whether it was in black & white. But, when I was a kid (also born in 1969) there were lots of old movies on TV, where we now have infomercials, daytime talk or "judge" shows, and there wasn't much else to watch. So older film was just part of the background, and I didn't notice till I was a lot older the big differences in acting and directing style. It was just how old movies were, you understood that and it never crossed your mind that it would be otherwise..
So I'm trying to imagine the perspective of kids raised on almost completely contemporary or recent entertainment. I have to admit that the old kind of stage-trained, presentational acting, combined with the style of dialogue writing, does sound pretty unnatural, if not bizarre. Old soundstage sets can look pretty phony. Black and white, well, it's not how we really see the world. I guess the viewer might benefit from some kind of background primer, sort of "these were the limitations of the time, and this is what they did to deal with them, and these became the standards, and this is why they did that." But, sometimes people just want to watch something and be entertained, and not have to have any specialized knowledge, and I can see how a person would give up on a movie that is presented in, to them, a very foreign format.
I also think that pictures of the US code period can seem quaint or naive because of their mild language, soft-pedaled sex and attenuated violence. But don't believe it! The ways directors addressed more adult themes sideways in old movies is often very impressive. Take "Shane," for example, which is usually regarded as a harmless, classic Western, which my class watched in elementary school. But it has a brutal, almost sociopathic killer, gives the bad guy a nice speech where he raises some points about his position that test the viewer's thinking, and there's a whole other thing going on between Shane and Joey's mom.
I think if someone watches enough good old movies they will become accustomed to the older style and won't think about it anymore.
As for Metropolis, I again agree with Steve Roby. I don't think you have to like it, but when something is as widely influential and highly regarded, it has some pretty solid merits going for it. Everything came from something, and having a familiarity with something pioneering like that can give you a better appreciation of stuff you like that came later.
As for literature, written English hasn't changed enough in 200 years for me to even worry about it.
--Justin
So I'm trying to imagine the perspective of kids raised on almost completely contemporary or recent entertainment. I have to admit that the old kind of stage-trained, presentational acting, combined with the style of dialogue writing, does sound pretty unnatural, if not bizarre. Old soundstage sets can look pretty phony. Black and white, well, it's not how we really see the world. I guess the viewer might benefit from some kind of background primer, sort of "these were the limitations of the time, and this is what they did to deal with them, and these became the standards, and this is why they did that." But, sometimes people just want to watch something and be entertained, and not have to have any specialized knowledge, and I can see how a person would give up on a movie that is presented in, to them, a very foreign format.
I also think that pictures of the US code period can seem quaint or naive because of their mild language, soft-pedaled sex and attenuated violence. But don't believe it! The ways directors addressed more adult themes sideways in old movies is often very impressive. Take "Shane," for example, which is usually regarded as a harmless, classic Western, which my class watched in elementary school. But it has a brutal, almost sociopathic killer, gives the bad guy a nice speech where he raises some points about his position that test the viewer's thinking, and there's a whole other thing going on between Shane and Joey's mom.
I think if someone watches enough good old movies they will become accustomed to the older style and won't think about it anymore.
As for Metropolis, I again agree with Steve Roby. I don't think you have to like it, but when something is as widely influential and highly regarded, it has some pretty solid merits going for it. Everything came from something, and having a familiarity with something pioneering like that can give you a better appreciation of stuff you like that came later.
As for literature, written English hasn't changed enough in 200 years for me to even worry about it.
--Justin
Well, at least it's not Defender.
Similar threads
- Poll
