6 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
6 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Why films back then are STILL Cool

by The 13th Warrior
5 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
Why do movies back then have a level of coolness and creativity that seems to be lost now, even with advanced technology?

The orchestration and creativity of orchestra scales seem to pale in comparison to yesteryear.

One reason is that they used REAL instruments and had REAL talent that probably would not be cost effective today.

The old films, back then , seem to have a more serious feel for drama, from B movie to serious storylines than today.

They also seem to be able to garner the drama and feel you would get when reading the original book it was written from far better than today.

I really never liked film opening credits, but I watched this several times because of the musical score, drama, surrealness, craftsmanship, seriousness, creativity and just general coolness factor I don't see much of today.





The 13th Warrior
  • Profile picture of the author Dalun
    dunno

    maybe because of all the movie technology today, people take for granted how making films was time consuming and difficult
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1811967].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author R Hagel
    Ooooh, I love old movies. You can get 50-movie packs on Amazon for dirt cheap (anywhere from $15 to $30 or so for the whole pack).

    What I like about them -- as you suggested -- is that the storyline is what holds the film up. Some movies you see now are carried by special effects, car chases, explosions, etc (not that there's anything wrong with that -- I like those kinds of movies too).

    The old films didn't do deal much in special effects, so they focused primarily on dialogue, story and character development to move the film along.

    cheers,
    Becky

    ETA: I guess that's why I like newer films like "Doubt" -- they focus on story and character. They're basically plays on film.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1812032].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Steven Wagenheim
      The answer is simple.

      It was harder to dazzle back then because of limited technology, so it had
      to be more about the story and the acting.

      The greatest actors, with a few exceptions, were from years ago.

      But let's not look at old cinema with rose colored glasses. There were also
      some horrible movies made back then with some really bad acting.

      In fact, some of the worst movies of all time come from the 50s.

      Ed Wood probably made about a dozen of them alone.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1812266].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author The 13th Warrior
        Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post


        The answer is simple.

        It was harder to dazzle back then because of limited technology, so it had
        to be more about the story and the acting.

        I think you may have something there, but possibly something is still missing.

        Like in music, take any of these "fake" singers today, would most of them be discovered by the scouts back then? I doubt it.

        Seems most back then looked mostly for uniqueness in voice and interpretation, along with some unique originality, same as musicians.

        When you listen to some oldies in any music genre, whether the instrumentals are brilliant or cookie cutter similar, the singers voice was such a unique and dominating force , that hardly any instruments were really needed at all.


        Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim View Post



        But let's not look at old cinema with rose colored glasses. There were also
        some horrible movies made back then with some really bad acting.

        In fact, some of the worst movies of all time come from the 50s.

        Ed Wood probably made about a dozen of them alone.

        Not necessarily looking with rose colored glasses but more of lesser of evils, comparatively.

        First, the actors took their roles, no matter how bad, with academy award winning seriousness.

        Then the casting.., they seem to find actors with more earthy character that can be projected, or character that pretty much was not far from the actors real personality, like Bogart, or Clark Gable, rather than find someone just on looks alone.

        Also the sense of drama was more creatively presented and taken serious, even in a bad movie..., even some Ed Woods movies, if you look at some of the actors performance.

        Classic B movies then compared to now, who would have more?

        No current B movie comes to mind that is classic that I can recall, one I would not mind watching over and over except Rutger Hauer in "Blind Fury".

        Others:

        Flash Gordon - ONLY because of the voice acting of Peter Wyngarde behind the mask, like "V for Vendetta", so maybe that does not count.

        Possibly others, not entirely sure, haven't seen them in a while:

        Heavy Metal 1981.., maybe..., can't think of anything else at the moment.

        The 13th Warrior
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1813008].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Anthony K
    Its because movies only focus upon the eyegasm factor now a days and not the immensely important character development and plot. Hollywood is going down the ****ter, they are remaking everything now.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1814170].message }}

Trending Topics