overrated movies: old ones, independent ones, liberal-themed ones

Can you give examples of these tecnologically-disadvantaged films?

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Any particular examples? Not that I disagree to an extent, because I feel like this even happens with modern day movies when some people can't seem to admit that a movie they loved when they were younger might not actually be that great of a film (cough space jam cough), but I feel like this is a pretty broad way to umbrella a lot of films made pre-1970...

u wot m8?

__________________

The swordplay in The Seven Samurai, oft-considered one of the greatest films ever made (a sentiment I agree with), is a shining example of this. No gore, very intentional use of camera and framing to make up for their inability to convincingly depict an arrow piercing a rider's chest or a sword cutting open a man's gut.

The longer the medium persists and the more films we have to draw from, the more likely it is that the oldest films will fall out of such intense reverence. Just look at how the "Greatest of All-Time" lists have evolved since the early days of Hollywood. It is implausible for every film pre-1970 (arbitrarily selected date) to remain on these Best of All Time lists when they were considered the "best" against a considerably smaller sample size.

__________________
~ I am tired of ze same old faces! Ze same old things!

This is almost like saying a play loses legitimacy because they can't use cgi and "Hollywood magic"

But you say the film is rightly considered great, so where's the disadvantage?

Rear Window would have been better with Michael Bay as director... explosions and more technical effects would have lifted that pretentious and overrated classic right up.

__________________

Gotta say, I didn't read the intro to this before posting the first time. I review movies on here, but I was honest in my title because I review them badly. I will admit that. However, I don't think that I am full of myself in any way. It's just fun to post my opinions about the movies. Now on to Citizen Kane.....I tried to watch it, couldn't do it. I think I got about 10-15 minutes in, normally I would give a movie a half hour but I don't like old movies anyways. Never watched 2001 either, probably won't but never say never. A Clockwork Orange I believe I gave this one a 4 when I reviewed it. I didn't think it was a bad film, would I watch it again? Probably not but again, never say never. I may be in the mood for an overly sexual violent movie in the future and Clockwork would be what I wanted to watch. It just depends on the mood of a person and their personal film preferences. Don't say that people are dumb because they enjoy different types of films than you. Unless you're 7, then I guess it's cool.

__________________
You are no Vader. You are just a child in a mask.

Not really. I do not believe that's a very good analogy. Theatrical productions are constantly retold throughout the generations. Productions of Angels in America in 30-40 years will look noticeably more advanced than productions now as people develop better costuming and makeup technologies while refining set design through the use of new materials, paints, etc. Large-scale 3D printing, for example, could soon make its way into the proscenium. Improved technology allows media to be more visually and, in some cases, narratively complex. Video games, film, and even theatre benefit from revolutionary tech.

You don't see a remade film every time you watch it. Plays are essentially remakes.

I just gave you an example of one. You're essentially asking me the same question twice. It's a good enough film otherwise that it makes up for most of its comparative technical shortcomings.

That is a serious re-appropriation of my position on this matter.

If you guys don't think that the advancement of filmmaking and VFX technologies directly correlates with the potential quality of a film, I think you're a little bit delusional or naive.

Look at how these "GOAT" lists change over time. There are links to more lists at the very bottom as well as throughout the article. If 2001: A Space Odyssey were made in 1940, do you really think it'd be as good?

teeter, what do you remember about the beginning of Citizen Kane?

water and a building. The rest didn't really sink in. Maybe if it had I could have watched the entire thing. I'm not saying I won't try to watch it again in the future. I realize that maybe I just wasn't in the mood to watch it that evening.

I think it's a proper analogy, actually. Films started out as theatrical acts transferred to the screen. Even your reasoning has holes in it. What you are saying is modern day plays are better than English Renaissance plays simply because productions are now more elaborate and advanced.

The whole remake bit is utterly irrelevant.

But it wasn't made in 1940. Metropolis on the other hand was made in 1927, and is still one of the greatest scifi films of all time, despite the outdated visuals. With this logic, you're likely to say that Avatar is a better scifi movie than Metropolis simply because the visuals are more technologically advanced.

It's really not that good, man. It's more of a stretch than apples to oranges. The mediums are similar, but too different from one another to make that an apt comparison - at least for this argument. Recordings of theatrical productions are NOT where cinema began. It's been there, but it certainly didn't start there. I suggest reading into the history of the form a little bit more. The first movies were only a few minutes long and they were not recordings of plays...

What you are doing is putting words in my mouth. What I am saying is that the improved technology grants filmmakers greater opportunity to be expressive. The potential to make a "great" film is higher than ever because the limitations that once hindered classic filmmakers no longer exist and, if they do, they do so in a lesser capacity.

No, it isn't. It illustrates a fundamental difference between the presentation of each medium. A film is made once and shown as it was (with exceptions for special editions and whatnot) again and again. Plays are re-produced from the ground up each time a production gets in motion. The only true constant is the script. A play that uses a bunch of fly-by-wire effects and fog machines can potentially deliver a better visual realization of these sequences as wire technologies and fog machines improve and/or permit greater flexibility and customization in their usage.

I refer you back to the example of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Now, do you think it would have been just as good and had the same exact legacy it has today if it were made 28 years earlier? 38? I want you to answer the question, not dodge it by sputtering something beside the point. Is it too difficult to answer?

And please, stop putting words in my mouth. I never said Avatar is better than Metropolis and that is a really irresponsible inference. You're grasping for straws here. I've explicitly stated that older films were disadvantaged, not disqualified, by inferior technologies.

I don't think some of you are willing to acknowledge that film is as much a visual and audible medium as it is a storytelling platform.

I agree, I also have difficulty liking old movies, for example, the oldest movie in my top 10 is from 1949. That is a whole half a century before cinema was born!

Movies made in recent times appeal to modern audiences while very old movies appeal to audiences of the time they were made. So, everything else being equal, old movies tend to please less modern audiences than new movies.

It is said that great movies are those that have universal appeal and are timeless and hence able to appeal to people both from the time they were made and people today. Citizen Kane, for instance, is a much more timeless creation than Mission Impossible 2, which feels more dated than Citizen Kane, from a modern (2013) perspective.

Agree on this part. Specially in terms of color: films are visual media and color is important in the visual arts, so color films tend to be artistically superior than black and white films, everything else being equal.

Today's technology gives filmmakers greater artistic freedom (such as the opportunity to make films with colors instead of being restricted to black and white).

The quality of sound also improved, which means that modern film scores tend to sound better as well.

So, everything else being equal, a modern film is better than a film made 30-40 years ago.

However, one problem with contemporary Hollywood films is that they are too commercial today and hence tend to appeal to the lowest common denominator while recycling tropes from other movies (such as The Avengers). Movies in the 1950's and 1960's were more creative and studios at the time were less afraid to break new ground (today no studio would dare to give a 100 million dollars for a completely original film like 2001: A Space Odyssey).

Indeed.

I agree, 2001 is the definition of a classic hollywood movie.

While I have The Shawshank Redemption in my top 100 favorites, I agree the others are overrated, specially Warrior, American History X and The Dark Knight rises, which are quite mediocre movies. All these films lack a certain "magical" feeling produced by great art.

I again agree to disagree with this hornswoggle.

How is it a stretch when films are derived from theater? How is what you're saying different from comparing something like Spider-man On Broadway to an English Renaissance era Macbeth? I know Shakespeare's Spider-man On Broadway had outdated costumes and stage effects, but c'mon.

So according to you, improved technology = greater artist expression? I don't follow. You need to watch more movies, clearly. Tarkovsky, Bergman, Antonioni, Fellini, Buñuel. Just because they lacked for technology doesn't mean they lacked for expression. Is Michael Bay expressing himself better than Tarkovsky because he can blow **** up?

Who can say though? It's a facile question. Who knows how Kubrick would have made 2001 had he made it in 1940. It is not a difficult question to answer, it's an impossible question to answer.

I disagree. Critics generally have more refined tastes than directors, who tend to work making movies instead of actually watching them. The average director watched a fraction of the films a film critic has watched, in fact, many members of this forum who are not film critics may have watched more films than most directors.

Film critics are professional film buffs and hence are the persons which have watched the greatest number of films and thus have the broadest knowledge of films and thus are best qualified to have an opinion on the quality of a film.

However, I agree that film critics are biased (as everyone else is!) since they usually tend to judge films by how well they conform to the standards they learned at film school. In other words, film critics tend to be conservative and they always feel the need to conform to the general critical opinion: in any review of Fanny and Alexander and Seven Samurai that is written decades after these films were made will praise the film and give perfect or near perfect scores. While I love those two films, the fact is that since art is subjective, is perfectly possible for a film critic to hate those films.

What do they call this sort of debate technique? Where you never directly address specific statements made by your opponent and you just dance around them with rhetorical questions and sarcasm?

Welcome to MoFo, and welcome to my ignore list. You're our first guest.

I lost IQ points just reading this...

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/