People often talk about how whether a movie has ''aged well'' or does it ''hold up today'', which people often counter by saying it's not a valid thing to ask since it's the same movie it was before. I'm asking you where you stand on that debate.
My stance is that movies don't ''age'' per se, but can be widely misinterpreted at release, or widely misinterpreted now, due to cultural context. For a movie, or any piece of art, to be good, it needs to have something in it that's universal (though not always easy to see).
To give some examples, the original King Kong is talked about for being the first movie to utilize so many special effects, composites, and camera tricks to create believable fantastical imagery. But watching it today, not knowing that, you still end up seeing a well-paced adventure with a lovingly crafted tropical island and giant monke. That doesn't lead you to think it has ''aged well'', just that it's good. No need for forthetimeisms to enjoy it, or to recommend it.
Ghost in the Shell is another example. absolute turd, but how did it gain so much cultural relevance? My guess is that it was the 90s, the grunge era, when everyone loved beating off to depression. Plus it was when that fruity anime cargo cult was still new, so it had a guaranteed niche.
There's a point to be made about movies that focus their stories on current world issues, in that the closer you get to the core of it, the better you will be. Idiocracy is a mid-2000s satire about the dumbing down of society, which only succeeds in some areas. It's still good, still funny, but there are moments when you go ''this is so Bush-era''.
Blade runner (far-fetched comparison, I know) is a story about a world gone confusing and dehumanizing due to too much technology. They had good knowledge of exactly what's wrong with such a world, what lead to it, how one can react to it, etc, and incorporated all that in a cohesive story. It's obvious why it's more appreciated today than it was at release, because the things that inspired it have only become worse and harder to ignore. So you never go ''this is so 80s''. Or maybe because they've been bombarded by bad, vapid imitators like ghost in the shell which completely missed the point of what cyberpunk is. So one good cyberpunk story now seems like mana from heaven.
A specific example, which you amy have an equivalent to, is gone with the wind. I disliked it for its sappiness, which I guess people were more tolerant towards in the 1930s, but I'm not. However I'd write that down as ''not for me'', not necessarily ''bad''. Not at all. I see there's a lot of stuff to enjoy here. After all, a piece of media referenced in Tank Vixens can't be bad.
My stance is that movies don't ''age'' per se, but can be widely misinterpreted at release, or widely misinterpreted now, due to cultural context. For a movie, or any piece of art, to be good, it needs to have something in it that's universal (though not always easy to see).
To give some examples, the original King Kong is talked about for being the first movie to utilize so many special effects, composites, and camera tricks to create believable fantastical imagery. But watching it today, not knowing that, you still end up seeing a well-paced adventure with a lovingly crafted tropical island and giant monke. That doesn't lead you to think it has ''aged well'', just that it's good. No need for forthetimeisms to enjoy it, or to recommend it.
Ghost in the Shell is another example. absolute turd, but how did it gain so much cultural relevance? My guess is that it was the 90s, the grunge era, when everyone loved beating off to depression. Plus it was when that fruity anime cargo cult was still new, so it had a guaranteed niche.
There's a point to be made about movies that focus their stories on current world issues, in that the closer you get to the core of it, the better you will be. Idiocracy is a mid-2000s satire about the dumbing down of society, which only succeeds in some areas. It's still good, still funny, but there are moments when you go ''this is so Bush-era''.
Blade runner (far-fetched comparison, I know) is a story about a world gone confusing and dehumanizing due to too much technology. They had good knowledge of exactly what's wrong with such a world, what lead to it, how one can react to it, etc, and incorporated all that in a cohesive story. It's obvious why it's more appreciated today than it was at release, because the things that inspired it have only become worse and harder to ignore. So you never go ''this is so 80s''. Or maybe because they've been bombarded by bad, vapid imitators like ghost in the shell which completely missed the point of what cyberpunk is. So one good cyberpunk story now seems like mana from heaven.
A specific example, which you amy have an equivalent to, is gone with the wind. I disliked it for its sappiness, which I guess people were more tolerant towards in the 1930s, but I'm not. However I'd write that down as ''not for me'', not necessarily ''bad''. Not at all. I see there's a lot of stuff to enjoy here. After all, a piece of media referenced in Tank Vixens can't be bad.
__________________
I'm the Yugoslav cinema guy. I dig through garbage. I look for gems.
I'm the Yugoslav cinema guy. I dig through garbage. I look for gems.