Extreme double standards saying old-movies are only rated by old people because they grew up watching them, the new movies are better.

- Isn''t that the exact opinion you are saying? you grew up with movies after 1990 so you think they are better

Now a days the average teenager/man rates movies by the more special effects the better

I don't agree with him because I actually like Old Movies....but I see where he is coming from.....some old movies are genuinely incredibly overrated.

Citizen Kane for example is incredibly overrated, people like Orson Welles his invention and imagination, but that does not compensate for the fact that he created a utterly dull boring movie....

From a technical standpoint it's ahead of it's time and what not, but do you honestly care about that when you're watching a movie? People even go as far as to day it's the best use of visuals and sound in history, that's garbage, just plain insulting to Zimmer Williams Hormer,....Kaminski....

Disgrace.

Can anyone recommend me a movie similar to Shutter Island or No Country for Old Men?

One flew over the Cuckoos nest, Memento, There will be blood.

cuckoo's nest looks interesting,will check that out

deadrave wrote:
yes but no person born 1980 and after would like those movies
with exceptions always, both ways

i look at it like football

football has improved a lot during the years, in every aspect, you go watch pele year's football and have the guts to tell me you will live through it and love it like you do now

and considering movies im not talking about graphics, thats the last thing i care really, im not the sci-fi fantasy guy, i hate these kind of movies

but from the plot,storyline, intelligence etc everything has improved during the years, even acting which really doesnt fit this generation
the only thing those old movies overcome the not so old is probably "originality"



for example there is movie "troy" the old one and the new one

a lot of people will say the old one is miles better you know why? cause they saw that first
what you watch first sticks to your mind as better

but the new one is better from almost every aspect
same goes with a lot of other movies



so in my mind old movies suck, you will have plenty of ones with similar storyline and far improved in the new generation movies after 90's

Absolute nonsense.

You make a huge oversimplification and assumption in the first sentence, then immediately contradict yourself.

Then you make an incongruous analogy, as a sport is a far different from the movie production industry, especially in how they've evolved over the years and the product originally put out.

Next you speak of your personal opinion as though it's fact. How solid movie plots are, how good the acting is, and how enjoyable the films are overall is a matter of opinion, please stop making it sound as though movies are objectively better in a different era.

Finally, you AGAIN attempt to make an opinion sound like a fact; and, as I can only assume you are referring to Helen of Troy as the older version of the movie, you use a poor comparison to intentionally skew the results. Helen of Troy was never considered a particularly good movie, even when it came out. It was also a drama, whereas Troy (the Brad Pitt one) was an action film (and also an average one). They're two completely different movies that really shouldn't be compared, and even when they are Troy edges it merely because Helen of Troy was bad when it was made, not due to it's age.

RedOranje wrote:

deadrave wrote:
yes but no person born 1980 and after would like those movies
with exceptions always, both ways

i look at it like football

football has improved a lot during the years, in every aspect, you go watch pele year's football and have the guts to tell me you will live through it and love it like you do now

and considering movies im not talking about graphics, thats the last thing i care really, im not the sci-fi fantasy guy, i hate these kind of movies

but from the plot,storyline, intelligence etc everything has improved during the years, even acting which really doesnt fit this generation
the only thing those old movies overcome the not so old is probably "originality"



for example there is movie "troy" the old one and the new one

a lot of people will say the old one is miles better you know why? cause they saw that first
what you watch first sticks to your mind as better

but the new one is better from almost every aspect
same goes with a lot of other movies



so in my mind old movies suck, you will have plenty of ones with similar storyline and far improved in the new generation movies after 90's

Absolute nonsense.

You make a huge oversimplification and assumption in the first sentence, then immediately contradict yourself.

Then you make an incongruous analogy, as a sport is a far different from the movie production industry, especially in how they've evolved over the years and the product originally put out.

Next you speak of your personal opinion as though it's fact. How solid movie plots are, how good the acting is, and how enjoyable the films are overall is a matter of opinion, please stop making it sound as though movies are objectively better in a different era.

Finally, you AGAIN attempt to make an opinion sound like a fact; and, as I can only assume you are referring to Helen of Troy as the older version of the movie, you use a poor comparison to intentionally skew the results. Helen of Troy was never considered a particularly good movie, even when it came out. It was also a drama, whereas Troy (the Brad Pitt one) was an action film (and also an average one). They're two completely different movies that really shouldn't be compared, and even when they are Troy edges it merely because Helen of Troy was bad when it was made, not due to it's age.

well i would for sure point my opinion better if my english was better

the only thing i give to the old movies as i said before is "originiality"

please tell me why should i prefer an old movie to watch instead of a new one ?
and im talking overall, cause thats how this discussion started, cause you recommended an OLD comedy to member here and i reacted


why you watch a movie nowdays? you watch it cause of its graphics? maybe.. thats a big reason this generation
you watch it cause of its intelligence? thats a big reason too
acting? that too
somehow you want the movie you will see to be related with your standarts which are affected by your life
and if you r young then what happened decades before and was converted to a movie at that time simply would not attract you cause its inferior to your standarts

really explain to me why to watch a movie that its graphics are like playing fifa 2000 in 2012, its acting is amateur level and intact cause obviously that time they didnt have the technology to "hide" the unwanted "stuff",
its clothes,cars, enviroment has nothing to do with MY life and the way i grew up
why would i want to watch that?

as i said before there are always exceptions and i mentioned scarface and a big reason i did is cause i like al pacino who is a legendary actor and godfather whom its storyline never got recreated


my point is i undestand why you and other people at a certain age such as over 30
but i really dont undestand why people of my age would like them

Are you really suggesting that all actors in older movies are "amateur level"? And many themes transcend the trappings of time, hence why Shakespeare's plays are still held in such high regard and stories such as the Illiad still have movies made about them.

Graphics and special effects are a shallow reason to dislike a movie, and despite your claims that they don't factor heavily into your opinion your arguments suggest otherwise.

And your argument that people prefer the movies that they grew up with is ridiculous as well. I grew up with Bambi, Disney, and Toy Story but still love Casablanca, The Great Escape, The Magnificent Seven, North by Northwest, etc more than those I grew up with.

I'm a fair bit younger than 30, by the way.

this is less than amateur

deadrave wrote:
this is less than amateur

Unbelievable.

So, just to clarify, you believe the acting in Troy is better than that in Casablanca?

RedOranje wrote:

deadrave wrote:
this is less than amateur

Unbelievable.

So, just to clarify, you believe the acting in Troy is better than that in Casablanca?

dude, it wont make any difference if you put regular people in the actor's places in that casablanca scene

why is it so hard to accept that acting is improved. its just normal to expect that.

there are thousand of quality actors nowdays
but you can count only to 10 or so for quality actors of 80s that even made it till today

That's ANOTHER fallacious argument, as you would have to wait 30 years before comparing how many of today's actors are remember as greats in the same way we see 80's actors today.

And Casablanca isn't from the 80s, so why bring that up?

Humphrey Bogart not a good actor?

I seriously am lost for words...

RedOranje wrote:That's ANOTHER fallacious argument, as you would have to wait 30 years before comparing how many of today's actors are remember as greats in the same way we see 80's actors today.

And Casablanca isn't from the 80s, so why bring that up?

cause casablanca is so old that in its era everyone is unkown to me


you see my brother is 30 and if tell him to watch casablanca he will tell me what the *bleep* is this? as the same would go with the bigger ammount of the population on earth at the certain age

this is the reality, btw compared to some movies ive watched that are after 2000s, they shit allover those oldies in terms of acting

in terms of picking the actor, ammount of people to participate in actor's role, acting school etc everything has improved since casablanca

Casablanca is considered a classic and widely recognised as one of the best movies of all time. You're using too small of a sample group and making a huge over-generalisation on top of that.

I get the feeling this entire discussion is a joke on me so I'm done.

that must suck

no person below 30 would want to watch the "one of the best movies of all time"

deal with the idea that not everyone is the same
and agree with the FACT that the bigger amount of population on earth in the certain age i mentioned so many times would never watch this or any other movie of that age

not becouse of movie taste, not becouse of genre or anything else

JUST becouse is OLD

there is a reason of why an ammount of those old movies are recreated and its becouse people would never watch the original one cause OBVIOUSLY its missing the standarts of this people's age


since the argument started you only criticise my opinion, but you never seem to want to explain why such a movies worth people's watch
and ill tell you why you dont. cause there is nothing in those movies that would attract such young people, people below 30
thats the truth like it or not

the level have rised, and thats a low level film, a very low for today's standarts

This is the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen. Just a few points.

I can't think of a single actor working today who is better than Paul Newman. Or Marlon Brando. Or Elizabeth Taylor. Or countless others. The acting wasn't as good in those days? Seriously? Who do you suggest? Adam Sandler?

Films are only "better" today if by better you mean mindless commercial crap and special effects. That's not to say there aren't some excellent films out there. There are. But films were much more brave, daring and creative in the 1970s. Today's films tend to be more formulaic because they're made more for the sake of attracting mindless idiots to the theater than for the sake of art. Many films today are actually structured to get a PG-13 rating and thereby maximize box office. So you end up with either an unnecessary profanity or two in order to avoid the PG (viewed by kids as being too much for kids) or you get things toned down to avoid an R rating. In the 1960s and 1970s, films were made to be what they were. Today, as a general rule, only low-budget independent films are like that.

There have been great films and bad films from all eras. To deny oneself the pleasure of the great films because of one's own age shows a severe lack of imagination. An intelligent person will seek out art wherever it may be and whenever it might have been created and they will use their brains in an attempt to understand it and the context in which it was created. To do otherwise demonstrates a lack of history and a lack of curiosity. To dismiss Chaplin, John Ford or Frank Capra simply because of the era in which they made films is like dismissing Da Vinci, Picasso and Renoir because they created art before 1990. It's like dismissing The Beatles, Cole Porter and Beethoven because they created music before 1990. Someone with a well-rounded mind simply would not do that.

Mudcat wrote:This is the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen. Just a few points.

I can't think of a single actor working today who is better than Paul Newman. Or Marlon Brando. Or Elizabeth Taylor. Or countless others. The acting wasn't as good in those days? Seriously? Who do you suggest? Adam Sandler?

Films are only "better" today if by better you mean mindless commercial crap and special effects. That's not to say there aren't some excellent films out there. There are. But films were much more brave, daring and creative in the 1970s. Today's films tend to be more formulaic because they're made more for the sake of attracting mindless idiots to the theater than for the sake of art. Many films today are actually structured to get a PG-13 rating and thereby maximize box office. So you end up with either an unnecessary profanity or two in order to avoid the PG (viewed by kids as being too much for kids) or you get things toned down to avoid an R rating. In the 1960s and 1970s, films were made to be what they were. Today, as a general rule, only low-budget independent films are like that.

There have been great films and bad films from all eras. To deny oneself the pleasure of the great films because of one's own age shows a severe lack of imagination. An intelligent person will seek out art wherever it may be and whenever it might have been created and they will use their brains in an attempt to understand it and the context in which it was created. To do otherwise demonstrates a lack of history and a lack of curiosity. To dismiss Chaplin, John Ford or Frank Capra simply because of the era in which they made films is like dismissing Da Vinci, Picasso and Renoir because they created art before 1990. It's like dismissing The Beatles, Cole Porter and Beethoven because they created music before 1990. Someone with a well-rounded mind simply would not do that.

deadrave wrote:

no person below 30 would want to watch the "one of the best movies of all time"

deal with the idea that not everyone is the same

Let me just add this to my previous comments. The one thing you are right about is that not everybody is the same. Some people are more intelligent and well-rounded than others. Each of us has our own tastes and preferences.

But given that fact, why would you assume that nobody under 30 would want to watch anything in particular, much less "one of the best movies of all time?"

You're contradicting yourself.

you know you need only a bursh a pallete and a paper to paint
as well as voice and a recorder to create music

while all these tools creating a decent movie used this generation are missing in the age of casablanca

when i watch a movie i wanna see something which is perfected in terms of everything
such as angle, danger limit, place limit, flaws etc

if i wanted to see a movie only for its storyline i would read a book for god's sake
and movies of that generation only have to offer you is the originality of the movie
the limited EVERYTHING in that generation will have you watching people talking to each other and thats it lmao or to explain it better it will show you nothing new nothing more than you have already witnessed


through out time and getting close to the 90s everything started to improve




in terms of acting i dont even know how they hired actors that time, i bet it was something like neighborhood gather and pick the best out of 20


and please cut the BS of movies being created now only for the attraction of mindless idiots,
cause the gen we live in have us watching movie after movie being created
of course they will be some BS films
and im not talking about now now , from 90s and before 2010 there have been created movies that
the brains of those producers near 60-70s couldnt reach

The only tools you need to create a decent movie are light and imagination. Both those things were plentiful in the age of Casablanca. Stop being ridiculous.

You're admitting that the only thing you really care about is special effects because CGI and other modern special effects techniques are the only aspects that were not present in the old days. That's sad. And even at that, the special effects presented in 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and Star Wars (1977) were probably more groundbreaking than what you see today. And in any way this might not be true, you certainly can't compare 1990 to 2012, so why the arbitrary cutoff date? Do you really think there's a significant difference in the way films were made in 1989 (or 1975 for that matter) than in 1990? Again, you're being silly. In fact, many of today's films are being screened in 3D for one simple reason: to take a few extra bucks off the mindless idiots who flock to the theaters to see gimmickry. That's not to say that a few filmmakers haven't found a way to use 3D technology in a way that enhances the film somewhat (I can only think of Avatar, Hugo and possibly Prometheus) but none of these films are any less enjoyable in the regular old 2D that has been available since the beginning of film.

I would also ask you this: How do you know that the "brains of those producers" (a statement which proves to me that you know nothing about filmmaking since producers have little or nothing to do with the creative process, but are merely there to find or supply the money and budget the film -- the writers, directors, actors, costume designers, art and set decorators, cinematographers, etc., do the creative work, although producers can screw up the finished product by changing it to cater to the mindless idiots) can't compare if you've never actually seen these films?

I suggest that you actually watch some of the great films before you dismiss them for not having enough mindless explosions and special effects. Hell, if it's shooting you want, give Bonnie & Clyde a look. Now there's a great film. It's not in 3D though.

Maybe you should read a book now and then too.

RedOranje wrote:I grew up with Bambi, Disney, and Toy Story but still love Casablanca, The Great Escape, The Magnificent Seven, North by Northwest, etc more than those I grew up with.

North by Northwest is my favorite Hitchcock film. I'm going to see it on the big screen at the local Cinemark on the 18th. It's part of a summer classic movie series with one-day only showings on Wednesdays. Just the other day I saw The Searchers on the big screen. It was magnificent. Seeing that great John Ford western with those majestic Monument Valley locations in VistaVision on that wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling screen was almost like seeing it for the first time. I'm sure having the chance to see North by Northwest -- the crop-dusting scene, the Mt. Rushmore finale -- on the big screen will be just as much a thrill.

oh trust me is much more than special effects which you seem to concentrated on just to put down everything i said

true masterpieces of this generation are defined my moments and entire scenes that could have never been filmed befire 90s which have a big impact in the understanding and joy of the movie

screw the sci-fi and every other fantasy garbage

im a drama and psychological thriller genre fan
and every single movie of these genres i did and i want to watch need to be perfect in every aspect
from the story-line to the music choice, place filming,realism of important happenings and many other god damn important things

it was not my choice. but i was born in a generation of movies with high standarts in every point of view
and watching movies from 1960 or so will be like playing fifa 2000 right now.
its not that weird considering there are people who still play mario which is a classic game same way people watch casablanca

see i can play the same game. you compare movies to art and music well why not compare them to gaming really?
its vice versa you know

Watched 'Remember me'...and i was like in the end.
Good movie.

Watched 'Amazing spiderman' and didn't meet even my low expectations. Apart from the acting and the witty parker, everything about the movie was...lacklustre. This one made me realise how good the first two spider man movies were. I think this reboot is totally unnecessary.

Ganso wrote:Can anyone recommend me a movie similar to Shutter Island or No Country for Old Men?

What about:
-Insomnia
-Memento
-Fargo
-Burn after Reading
-Seven
-The girl with the dragon tattoo(Fincher version)
-Take shelter
-A history of violence
-Lucky number slevin
-Leon
(these movies are pretty popular, but if you haven't seen it, you should)