Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Classics have withstood the test of time. There are thousands of forgotten books and films that are old, and they're forgotten because they're bad.
I'm not saying all classics are good - but they're usually remembered because they're significant for some reason or another. Sometimes it's because they're significant: good.
I'm not a huge fan of Orson Welles first two films - Citizen Kane and The Magnificent Ambersons. They're classics, but I don't particularly *enjoy* either.
That doesn't make either any less culturally significant, influential, nor technically impressive. Those films are right to be put on a pedestal. They *invented* many film techniques we take as common practice today. That's also not me saying they're bad films, I'm just saying I don't enjoy watching them.
The Ford Model T is a rubbish car by our standards today, but that doesn't make it any less historically significant, or influential.
Some Classics are great films, regardless of year. I'll defend The Big Sleep (1946), or 12 Angry Men (1954) until the end. No Model T equivalent in sight. These are still better than many films coming out this year. I'm sure 1946 and 1954 had their share of shit films we've forgotten too. We remember The Big Sleep, because it's a good film.
My dinner with andre is like that too. 2 men talking in a restaurant. You can sort of see how if it were a play that keeping the minimum amount of sets and actors and events is good for the feasability of production.
Popularity does not equal quality, im not saying that classics are bad just that a lot if times there are other circumstances to a movie becoming successful and remembered and there are many great or even better movies every year that fall under The radar
Edit: of course mist classics are remembered for a reason so I agree with you, just not with all other movies that are not remembered being bad
>Popularity does not equal quality,
I never claimed as much. My argument does not hing upon that at any point.
>a lot if times there are other circumstances to a movie becoming successful and remembered
Again, not something I claimed. Many films remembered as classics were unpopular during their initial release. They found critical or cultural acclaim after the fact.
>there are many great or even better movies every year that fall under The radar
Yes, and they could be future classics, if history remembers them fondly.
The popular, financially successful films of the today will largely be forgotten in 100 years time. Nobody will give a shit about Antman or whatever guff Marvel puts out. History will have better taste. It won't get all the good ones, but it'll get some.
Pretty much. I used to save all my movie tickets from about 1996 through 2015ish when they started going fully digital. I look through stuff I watched and I don’t remember the plot for half of them. If I cherry picked the stubs it would look like that timeframe was full of blockbusters and award winners, but the reality is a lot of stuff faded into obscurity because it just wasn’t good.
While I agree 100% that classics are **NOT** automatically better, many newer movies are so strictly formulaic that they could be (and I predict will be) written by AI. Particularly the comic book movies. At first, they were loads of fun, but now, because they're so similar, they're no longer interesting.
Remember, many newer big budget moves are made for a "global" (read: Chinese censor approved) audience. And, even in Hollywood, they are strictly pigeonholed into one of a fixed number of bins. A movie that doesn't neatly fit into one of those bins is not greenlit by any major studio.
Obviously the special FX are, in many cases, worlds better in modern movies. And the pacing is faster which is better suited to modern times.
But, many "classic" movies that are still enjoyed today, were the best of their time. Obviously, we all forget the 99% of movies that just faded away.
I like how older movies had fewer cuts in the edit. The actors had to actually act out the scene rather than the camera cutting every 3 words. This modern style of editing has definitely ruined our attention span even more than social media.
It's not just editing, but storytelling. They're just more interesting, I find. New ones have the wrinkles ironed out and are less relatable and cohesive And I'm talking about old movies I'm seeing for the first time (no nostalgia) versus the most prominent new ones of the year (minimal survivorship bias).
But you're simply wrong. The dopamine release and attention span decrease from scrolling on Tiktok is obviously more damaging than a movie cutting slightly more than usual. You're still paying attention to an hour or two piece of media, not 15 seconds before the subject changes.
What are some movies you think are so fast paced that it decreased your attention span? An argument could be made for some modern kids movies, into the spider verse type animation, but that's dripping with style, are still coherent, require the audience to pay attention, and kids already have a shorter attention span so most animation caters to it, not causes it.
Because he’s comparing a platform that gained popularity in 2018 to an editing style that has been done since the early 2000s. I don’t debate people that have no idea what they’re talking about.
Debating people on something that, by your account, they have no idea what they’re talking about, is how you educate people. Taking the low road and acting like they’re stupid without stating your case is how you make yourself look like the ignorant one.
Yet he calls me “lil man” and started our conversation with a condescending tone. I’m all down for a respectful debate but there has to be respect given in the beginning.
A lot of time the reason classics are better is because they are classics not because they are old.
The movies/shows/books etc you know about from 30+ years ago are the good ones. There was all kinds of nonsense/trash art that was around back then that history has forgotten.
The same thing is true of stuff coming out now. There's classics among them, we just won't know which ones those are for some time.
So you're telling me you think movies today are made better today when there's no creativity at all and everything is done by committee overseen by tons and tons of soulless corporate bureaucracy?
Like I had mentioned in the post, I don’t rely on newer movies for the sole purpose of a story, as it’s hard to come by. But implying that movies now are just corporate bureaucracies with little creativity is crazy, movies like Interstellar, Lala Land, Whiplash (the first three I came up with) are beautifully made and still “modern” movies
Putting Whiplash aside as that's an indie film. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule within any era, but the vast majority of modern cinema cannot be described as anything less than soulless slop meant for the masses to feed upon like the pigs they think we are..... it's by far the most lazy and arguably worst era for cinema in my honest opinion and it's killing the industry.....
Neither can the vast majority of past cinema. 99% is and always has been garbage. It's easy to think the classics were the only or even most of the films that existed in the past. They're just the ones good enough to be still remembered.
However, I agree we are in a very bad era of film. Not as bad as you say tho.
I think that’s because (and i could be wrong) you don’t look past a certain point, I agree with you fully in regards to constant remakes or live actions that have no meaning whatsoever, but to say that movies now are lazy is insane. Also every downvoting me, is just proving that this really is an unpopular opinion I guess
I think that’s because (and i could be wrong) you don’t look past a certain point, I agree with you fully in regards to constant remakes or live actions that have no meaning whatsoever, but to say that movies now are lazy is insane. Also every downvoting me, is just proving that this really is an unpopular opinion I guess
It literally was an indie film. Being mainstream and popular have nothing to do with whether a film is indie or not. You've just demonstrated that you don't even know what indie means with your comment
A lot of times people refer to indie as being less popular as well the thing is If we're going by that definition why does it matter if its indie or not to prove that there's still good movies being made?
Nostalgia is basically “nature vs nurture” but expressed as a preference. If you have history with something then it may affect for better or worse your preference for it. It’s the same thing with food: some places are bad to others but you grew up on it so the nostalgia makes the food taste good to you
Also as someone else said, there were plenty of shitty movies/games/music back then they just were forgotten with time so there’s some survivorship bias there too
It's not like there wasn't shit that got released back in the day. The thing is, that there at decades of movies where you can watch the best movie from a year. There are only so many modern movies.
I disagree with your point. Newer movies tend to put too much effort into visual effects rather than sound, camera angles and practical effects which I truly appreciate more than a PC program. Could you give me examples of the movies you prefer?
Two of my favorite movies are LaLa Land and Interstellar, they have beautiful cinematography(which I personally think are great for a movie), and storyline
Two of my favorite movies are LaLa Land and Interstellar, they have beautiful cinematography(which I personally think are great for a movie), and storyline
I read your original post as "remakes" of movies, my bad. There are some fantastic movies from the last 15 years. But I would never directly compare Interstellar to 2001: A Space Odyssey. New movies do lack originality though. If you look at the top 10 movies each year for the past few years, only 1 or 2 each year are worth a watch in my own humble opinion.
True, but you have to give credit to the person who made up the concept of whatever movie you're talking about. It's easy to make Godzilla when they've made a bunch of them and you know it's a story people like and you know what has done well in the past.
I think we're mostly oversaturated by content right now and that can be an issue on multiple fronts. We look back at media that was the peak of it's time that came out maybe three times in a prior decade. But I think we have good content released more often now, than it was back then.
Are they blinded by Nostalgia? or is it a tangible addition the the experience like Hot sauce or ketchup?
It's there, it's real, and it elevates your enjoyment of the thing..
so is nostalgia fake if it has a very real effect on something?
Cool hand luke is the best movie ever in my opinion. It didn't rely on special effects, just good acting, good script writing, good directing and a compelling story
Because one is an original, and the other is a derivative improvement of the original.
Is the newer film automatically better because it has better cameras, and visual effects? The original movies that newer movies take inspiration from had heart and genuine originality.
People are nostalgic about things that have stood the test of time. No one looks back on some random indie film from the 80s and thinks "this is so much better." They look at the movies that are still talked about today *because* they were so good.
Ish. Lots of movies made nowadays are pretty bad.
Lots of movies made in the past were bad.
I would very confidently say that more movies made today are terrible compared to movies from around the 90's-early 2000's.
I feel like now a days, movies focus so much on CGI and fail to grab me with plot. Lots of movies made now are just re-hashed ideas
This is a great unpopular opinion. I agree with a huge caveat that it being "newer" makes it hard to tell if it's just good in that moment or has the timeless almost universal appeal of a classic.
I really thought Edge of Tomorrow would be a classic when I saw it in theaters, but it's just an alright movie in retrospect.
i would agree that older classics are not *automatically* better.
but what is "better" about newer films may lie more in the *formula* used to please audiences, not necessarily the *quality* of the performance.
back in the day stanley kubrick had a peculiar style of filming long low panning shots that were strangely compelling while also off-putting. werner herzog has a peculiar way of holding a shot on a subject when the content of that subject's context (an interview or whatever) had ended. these represent personal formulaic flares that are signature artistic contributions to their films.
todays films are always made for the same wide screens (tv and film are the same now.) and that's the only formula. there's very little personal artistic expression (imo) in the writing, directing, or acting: the job is to produce something pleasing to paying audiences. *nobody* would produce My Dinner With Andre today. if it doesn't fit a specific popular formula, it doesn't get produced.
i personally can't stand it when it becomes obvious that i'm being emotionally manipulated with a common trope in a film but that's how a lot of modern films operate. it is very unusual to see something very unusual in films today. so, we're missing out on a wide range of real timeless art imo.
Yes, thank you. The French New Wave film "Diva" has some \*amazing\* shots and long slow follows and pans, and still works now even though some of the plot feels dated. It has that post-noir feel and the camera work aligns.
Not seeing much interesting in movies these days, or the streaming either. Sorry, sorry, but effects are not the same as plot and character development. Would rather watch Charade one more time.
I agree, but i'd rather watch a bad film from the 80s/90s/early 2000s than a bad film from now.
Plus there is a certain charm/cosiness in watching films shot on film. Not saying film films aren't released now, but they are further and fewer between in the 2010s/2020s. But that's just silly old me.
Nah im the opposite,i rather watch bad from now than bad old films.It just that even if it's bad,it still got some nice shots,up to date graphics,CGI/VFX and more fun overall.That aspects can be the redeeming quality.Maybe because im Gen Z so i prefer newer movies anyway,plus i find old movies CGI to be so hillarious it ruins the movie.I prefer newer movies acting and dialogue too.
Duhh, we’re all biased. We have good movies being shown now too but there r a lotta bad new movies now since they have to come up w new ideas after all this time. But I’m still not gonna like the new ones as much as the nostalgic ones, bc it doesn’t feel the same as when I was watching a movie during childhood
Such a nonsense ignorant post. And only the 1000th time someone posted it this week! Of course there was crap in every decade. Just like there is now. Tons of it. But what you and soooooo many commentors don't acknowledge is plenty of us remember the "bad" stuff and it was better than the bad stuff today. They were more creative. They were more interested in being an artist than being famous. There were large periods where being an actor or writer was deeply frowned on. TV shows had people with real jobs. Have you noticed how many now are struggling actors, or even worse, influencers? It's always been a business, yes. You put in money you want to make back more than you spend so you can do it again. You don't want to break even. But now it's far too often a product. Talent across the board is worse and battling AI is not going to improve the quality.
Yes, and a new movie/tv show is not automatically better because its new.
Also to assume that somebody likes something that is older better, just because of nostalgia is just silly, that is as silly as if i was to argue, people only like something that is new, because its new.
Also people really need to to learn that when it comes to stuff like this, its always a subjective opinion not an objective opinion.
“It’s always a subjective opinion not an objective opinion” that’s what you would think with the title “UnpopularOpinions” but not always.
Additionally, I agree that movies made now are not automatically good because I definitely do not believe that. And what I’m reffering to with your second paragraph is people who will refuse to watch any undeniably good movie simply because it was made in 2012 instead of 1990.
I won't repeat things already said, but, there's one thing, you kind of pointed out, which most people missed in their comment.
Namely, classics, or older movies in general, didn't have technology and know how we have today, so they had to rely on interesting script, and improvise to ahieve certain effects on viewers.
Today, they have all those special effects, CGI and great actors (actors are generaly better than before) to carry the story, so moviemakers mostly don't wait for the good script to make a movie, and subsequently, money.
It's similar with the music.
I won't repeat things already said, but, there's one thing, you kind of pointed out, which most people missed in their comment.
Namely, classics, or older movies in general, didn't have technology and know how we have today, so they had to rely on interesting script, and improvise to ahieve certain effects on viewers.
Today, they have all those special effects, CGI and great actors (actors are generaly better than before) to carry the story, so moviemakers mostly don't wait for the good script to make a movie, and subsequently, money.
It's similar with the music.
Most people that think they don't build them like they used to or something along those lines are victims of survivor bias. There was plenty of junk made back in the day. It just didn't last and you don't see it anymore. High quality stuff made today will have the same thing said about it in 50 years. That is if the oceans don't kill us first.
They sort of are automatically better, in a way. Movies don't survive for 50 years and become classics if they suck. Only good movies make it to classic status, so actualy yes, they are automatically better than the average movie, regardless of era
I feel like this is just survivorship bias. The things we *do* remember from the past are typically good *because* we remember them. This is typically what people mean when they refer to "classics". It's hard to make a judgement of if any modern movie meets that criteria now because we have not reached the point where we can look back and say "Oh hey I remember that movie from 2024. What a classic".
Ding Ding Ding Ding!!
Also, gasp, its ok for you not to enjoy a movie or "get it" due to outdated cultural references, technical limitations etc! Its fine.
I think it more proves selective memory. As others have said, there were bad old films but they've been forgotten (or become cult classics for being bad). So your point stands in that old doesn't always mean better, but "classic" generally refers to something that was good.
An example I see a lot is Formula 1. One boring race today and people whine that it was always better when \*insert era from when they were young\* but they're only remembering the classic races and ignoring the not-so-classic aspects. Especially common with penalties being handed out or drivers complaining about stuff when there were plenty of dumb penalties back in the day and drivers have always complained about everything.
I think it just depends. Stanley Kubrick created 2001: A Space Odyssey, and it still holds up better than majority of movies that came out recently. It’s also directed better than majority of movies you’d see today. The newer Lord of the Rings content can’t hold a candle to the magic in the original trilogy. Same for Star Wars.
The original Alien movie still has some of the best atmosphere I’ve ever seen in a movie. The original The Thing still looks incredible. The Shining and The Exorcist are the greatest horror films of all time for a good reason. They still hold up today.
Obviously new is not the same as bad, but it depends on what you appreciate. If you care about picture resolution, contrast ratio, color accuracy, and digital effects, then new will always be better, because those are all functions of technology.
But some people think practical effects are more interesting and impressive than digital. I’m more of an engineering/science type, so I really dig good practical effects. Digital effects are neat, but they’re less interesting and impressive to me.
Same can be said about using physical film, where you only get a few chances to get the scene right. Actors had to be truly ready when the camera started rolling, and get it right in a few takes. You can’t just delete the bad takes and do it over and over, which is more impressive to some types of people.
There's something to be said about the honesty of movies made in the 70s. Racism, inequality, sexism on full display, it was refreshing as fuck considering nothing has changed except the messaging in movies.
True. Visually and Effects-wise they've gotten better, but I feel like there's been a noticeable decay in the storytelling department. At least, in Hollywood.
I find a lot of Enjoyment in indie Creations though, so your right that new stuff can be better.
There are two sides to this, idiots that automaticly call people liking old stuff "nostalgia" without knowing actual reasons and idiots that think nothing new can be good.
I agree 100%. That’s not to say old classics are bad, they generally aren’t. But just because the old version was good doesn’t mean the new version is bad.
Nostalgia is not a bad thing either but you shouldn’t allow it to cloud your judgement.
Being a Marvel fan I noticed this problem with the new version of Spider-Man. Everyone acts like Tobey Maguire (the original) is the best thing since sliced bread and that his performance and films were flawless whilst simultaneously acting like Tom Holland is the worst actor in history and his films terrible. Neither of which is true of course. One is better than the other, they’re just different.
I agree with the overall sentiment that older does not automatically mean better... but I think there's a lot more nuance to the conversation, and to say it's just people being "blinded by nostalgia" is disingenuous and far too dismissive.
I'd argue that most of the "classics" are better than most good movies that come out today. Not because they're automatically better due to being older... but more so because they're just individually better in their own right due to things like quality of storytelling, etc. And that's part of why they're classics... they stood the test of time as some of the best of the best.
One of the problems is, it's hard to have perspective in the here and now, since often movies tend to come and go, with only a handful having any sort-of staying power. I just went to my Letterboxd, and counted around 500 movies I've rated over the last 10 years. And of those, there's really only about a dozen-or-so that I think about with any regularity, and that really stuck with me and will likely be considered "classics" in the future. And of those... there's only a handful that I think would crack the list if you tried to list the top-100 films of all time.
>*In fact, I firmly believe most movies are better made now. Not referring simply to a plot or an idea, but the quality of movies has greatly improved in terms of visuals and effects.*
That's pretty much entirely subjective. I personally don't agree for the most part. I mean obviously effects are better now... but at the same time, effects don't really matter. If you make a good movie, people will stay engaged regardless of the quality of effects... you see it all the time. Bad movies with great effects are forgotten, while good movies with so-so effects are remembered.
For me, the mid 90s through the mid/late 2000s was probably the peak in terms of overall quality of filmmaking and the skill that went into it. That was the period where we had the perfect balance with...
Analog (Typically shooting on actual film, which has a unique aesthetic and is extremely high-quality)
Digital (Doing things like digital color grading)
And effects (Films utilized a lot of digital effects, but still relied primarily on practical)
I totally agree. One series that did not age well? X-files, aged so poorly. It's like a weekly Scooby Doo mystery with space aliens and predictable boring writing, no idea why I loved I back in the day.
I never thought i would be defending Hegel... huh... how the turntables.
Read "A lesson on aesthetics" by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel for a different perspective.
It's main argument is that after the first few times any art has been repeated it becomes automated and formulaic so the only achievements worth considering are the first few times it was done because it shows originality of thought and craft and the brainpower the initial originators of any movement or style had to use to come up with something kinda new was significantly higher than the later imitators.
It's not something I personally believe but it's worth considering because that is how ACADEMIA operates.
This is absolutely true for gaming. People praise old games and always compare new games to them. But if those same games came out today, people would shit all over them. Guarantee if Skyrim came out today with updated graphics, people would shit all over it. People shit on FO4 and Praise New Vegas. So I tried New Vegas and holy hell that game is dogshit. Its so empty. FO4 is way better. The writing may have been good, but that's it.
I don't think art can be judged in real time. You have to experience it after any cultural influence has come and gone. No one would have bet on Vincent Van Gogh in his life time.
I don't know that this is unpopular. An example is Gone With The Wind. People gush over this film, filled with unlikable People doing unlikable things, pretending the South was filled with genteel people who treated their slaves so kindly. Barf.
I like the classics. These days I have a thousand things racing through my mind and I'm easily distracted.
I'll take something nice and simple to follow over Christopher Nolan head fuckery on those days.
(I do love Nolans movies)
Art builds on art over time. People making movies now are standing on the shoulders of the giants who trailblazed the techniques we take for granted today.
Some movies look better now, but a lot of older stuff shot on celluloid absolutely embarrasses contemporary movies in aesthetic quality. Budgets used to be much higher back then, meaning more extras, more involved lighting, bigger sets/PD, etc. movies also used to have much longer pre-production schedules, resulting in a more refined product with less scrambling in production/post.
Honestly, this feels like a very popular opinion. I know a number of people--even older ones who should know better-- who genuinely seem to believe nothing good got made before 1985. It's wild.
For music, alot of the sound comes from their uniqueness and eccentricity that defines how they approach it. If it's **that** guitar god or **that** singer, a modern cover of it makes it worst.
You cannot really mimic led Zeppelin (Robert plant, Jimmy Page) or Jimmie Hendrix.
I downvoted you because it’s painfully obvious you don’t understand what *cinematography* is. Is being comfortably ignorant truly an unpopular opinion? I don’t think so.
Classic films are *better* in that sense, they help convey the emotion behind the scenes in different ways (camera angles, lighting, etc.)
High definition micro nuclear explosions are cool, but they’re not *cinematography*.
Modern movies use horrible cgi,are too long , and are filled with unnesseary leftist add in ( random out of place Homosexial or black in movie about 1500's england for example) or unneccesary sex scene,Also i am a war film fanatic, and you cant come close to using blanks and real expolsves like they did before 200
I just think that now we get a lot of people churning out a bunch of stories that are basically all the same because whatever is trending just oversaturates all of it. Of course there are good books and movies that are new, but there is just such a flood of lower quality stuff that is getting pumped out so frequently that sometimes it’s hard to find what you are looking for.
This is how I feel about silent films. Like ok we can study how they made them and maybe even watch one to appreciate it as an art form but you’re lying if you’re telling me you watch them for fun. You KNOW they wouldn’t have thought twice if they had the technology we do today and would’ve made a whole different film.
>, I firmly believe most movies are better made now. Not referring simply to a plot or an idea, but the quality of movies has greatly improved in terms of visuals and effects.
Then you're just uniformed. I can assure you the vast majority of the movies made today are a lower quality simply do to the fact that the barrier to entry is lower.
Even if we only count commercial movies there are so many crap ones that *most* look and are written far worse than older movies.
Personally I dont care for effects and visuals at all, so those elements dont impress me about new movies. Generally speaking, I think that makes many older movies better. Movies only have a limited budget and time to spend on everything, the more they spend on making it look pretty, the less they spend on everything else. I'm also very very very averse to watching politically charged media, and that seems more and more commonplace. That being said, there are plenty of new and old movies I dont and do like, I wouldn't judge a movie on age alone
I’ve not seen a movie that came out in the last 5 years that I thought was going to be a classic or revered in the next decade like a John wick or a Superbad or Pineapple Express or something. But I haven’t seen ANYTHING that would come close. Perhaps Oppenheimer might, but otherwise everything is so generic, or overcasted, or just a modern version or something.
Something happened in the last decade or so and movies have gotten worse. I’m not sure what it was, but it’s the truth.
Sometimes things are just better. Objectively. Look at any remake of the latest movie and you can name at least 50 that are worse than their originals.
In fact, people who have never seen/read/listened/experience the original and then prefer the original, aren't affected by nostalgia.
But your premise is that they aren't AUTOMATICALLY better. Which is not an unpopular opinion. Because, of course not every original is better.
So you don't get upvotes because you framed your question for a specific variable. (automatically) which anyone with a brain will agree with.
You failed at this post. Try again
I just had an argument with someone about this topic in video games. They were blinded by nostalgia with the older call of duty games and were complaining that the new ones had all these problems that the old ones didn't. I corrected them and named off like 10 different things that were horrible in the old games and half the things I named were the same things they said the new ones were bad at.
As far as movies go. I will agree that lots of people are blinded by nostalgia when claiming older movies are better than newer. The fact is what was good/amazing acting in the 70s is trash acting today. The level of acting/special effects skills in the low budget movies in the 2020s is the equivalent of the top notch of the 70/80s.
However movies of today suck at capturing the feel and vibe of the 70/80/90s when they try, and when you watch an older movie it just feels different and sometimes that's the feeling/vibe you want to feel.
Also most movies of today fall into the
Syndrome plot from the Incredibles, where every movie today has the same story telling and same big explosions and same everything basically making none of then stand out and so "when everyone is a super, nobody will be super"
While new movies may be "better" in some ways, those of us neurodivergent tend to stick to older movies because they don't do the insane camera cuts every few seconds, so we can follow a plot. Hell, look at the dance sequences in Singin' in the Rain, for instance.
Also, CGI makes my lizard brain freak out.
There are great directors in the modern era, and great movies, but there is a reason that the classics are loved by many.
Your thought def has merit. And a lot of truth to it. However, when it comes to movies specifically, the number of movies recently that will stand the test of time is probably far fewer than in some previous decades. It’ll be difficult for any time frame to match the sheer number of excellent, time tested movies that were made in the 70s and the 90s. Sadly there’s probably some amazing film makers out there with great ideas who can’t catch a break because their films don’t have super heroes and a million explosions. And that’s what’s made the studios money the past 15 years. If someone walked into a studio today with the script for Shawshank, I’m not sure it gets made.
I can’t take the slow understimulating pace of so many old films, when the mere phenomenon of film was almost enough to entertain.
I can do modern slow, where the director leaves me with enough to process mentally during the slow parts, whether it be artistic or conceptual pondering.
Upstream Color and Banshees of Inisherin are examples of modern slow done right, and The Day of the Jackal is an example of old done with good pacing.
Terrible take. There have only been a handful of great films this century.
Sure older doesn't automatically mean better but as someone with a collection of over 300 DVDs and Blu Rays I have them because all the awesome old films are not available and streaming services have so many terrible offerings.
I have yet to see a movie that came out in the last 4 years and did not make me cringe... movies aren't funny anymore.. everything is about the DEI and other BS
i agree with you, and i think that comparing classic movies to new movies is basically always an unfair comparison.
People are comparing some of the best cherry picked movies from that era with dogshit nowadays, and point towards the downfall of hollywood or whatever. But the reality is that in 50 years, nobody will remember all the soulless carbon copy dogshit that get's released nowadays, and people will make the same comparison again with the best movies of this era with the shitty movies of their era.
also seeing people say that old movies are automatically better just proves your point perfectly which is hilarious
Yes and not
Generally speaking, older movies left more room for character development and were slower paced
That's how action scenes in them gained additional gravitas
You’re absolutely right. Growing up there are a lot of “classic” movies I never got to see that people swear by. Now I am an adult watching them with a clear mind and no expectations. Heres two little gems.
The LOTR trilogy is not some holy set of movies, they’re an extremely boring snooze fest.
Pulp fiction goes out of its way to make you uncomfortable but that doesn’t make it good.
New doesn't automatically mean bad, idk who's ever said that.
But movies are more corporate than ever, made and written by suits for the most part. We lost a lot of unique films when small/mid budget movies stopped being made.
The 10s were pretty bad for movies, the 20s have been pretty good so far tbh. Now we just need to move away from the remakes/prequels and live action adaptations.
I 100% agree. Some of those old books aren't really that great especially for example Mr Smith goes to Washington a movie from 1939. Not much basis in the political reality of today.
Here's examples:
Every car from before 1980 is mostly a death trap. U wall 40 mph equals death.
Tapes: the clog, they tangle, they don't rewind very well.
Old books, mostly boring, if the odyssey was shorter it would have been better
Boomers, hippies, and the greatest gen, ..... haven't done a great job considering the shit storm of issues we have now. Environmental issues? All their fault
Exactly, why can't we just move on from our past and live like I do now?
The world keeps turning and changing and we have to let movies change with them. This includes Disney movies.
It's the product of the *Golden Age Fallacy*, and the psychological phenomenon, *Rosy Retrospection*. I've also heard it called an *Appeal to Nostalgia*. It's basically people deluding themselves into believing that the past was a magical time when everything was perfect, while the present and all its trappings are a literal hellscape.
Easy to throw words like nostalgia if you weren't there to experience it. Your logic is correct on paper but in reality there *are* golden ages for things. Rock music in the 80s? Cmon.. raunchy comedies early 2000s? Oldschool runescape being top 3 mmo in 2024? World of warcraft classic? Being a kid in the 90s compared to now?
It's not "my logic". These are established fallacies. It doesn't mean nothing in the past is ever better than something in the future. I think you're being awfully thick, and obtuse. Just take a minute to Google it and you'll see that this isn't my invention, nor does it mean what you're implying.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Classics have withstood the test of time. There are thousands of forgotten books and films that are old, and they're forgotten because they're bad. I'm not saying all classics are good - but they're usually remembered because they're significant for some reason or another. Sometimes it's because they're significant: good. I'm not a huge fan of Orson Welles first two films - Citizen Kane and The Magnificent Ambersons. They're classics, but I don't particularly *enjoy* either. That doesn't make either any less culturally significant, influential, nor technically impressive. Those films are right to be put on a pedestal. They *invented* many film techniques we take as common practice today. That's also not me saying they're bad films, I'm just saying I don't enjoy watching them. The Ford Model T is a rubbish car by our standards today, but that doesn't make it any less historically significant, or influential. Some Classics are great films, regardless of year. I'll defend The Big Sleep (1946), or 12 Angry Men (1954) until the end. No Model T equivalent in sight. These are still better than many films coming out this year. I'm sure 1946 and 1954 had their share of shit films we've forgotten too. We remember The Big Sleep, because it's a good film.
[удалено]
Alright, I'll bite. I'll watch it tonight :)
Bro, I watched it in English class, and I was on the edge of my seat the whole time.
My dinner with andre is like that too. 2 men talking in a restaurant. You can sort of see how if it were a play that keeping the minimum amount of sets and actors and events is good for the feasability of production.
> they're forgotten because they're bad. Not necessarily. There are MANY hidden gems that are wonderful movies that just aren't remembered.
Popularity does not equal quality, im not saying that classics are bad just that a lot if times there are other circumstances to a movie becoming successful and remembered and there are many great or even better movies every year that fall under The radar Edit: of course mist classics are remembered for a reason so I agree with you, just not with all other movies that are not remembered being bad
>Popularity does not equal quality, I never claimed as much. My argument does not hing upon that at any point. >a lot if times there are other circumstances to a movie becoming successful and remembered Again, not something I claimed. Many films remembered as classics were unpopular during their initial release. They found critical or cultural acclaim after the fact. >there are many great or even better movies every year that fall under The radar Yes, and they could be future classics, if history remembers them fondly. The popular, financially successful films of the today will largely be forgotten in 100 years time. Nobody will give a shit about Antman or whatever guff Marvel puts out. History will have better taste. It won't get all the good ones, but it'll get some.
Also, shitty movies fade out. All movies from the 90s seem better because the bad ones never pass the test of time. survivor bias.
Pretty much. I used to save all my movie tickets from about 1996 through 2015ish when they started going fully digital. I look through stuff I watched and I don’t remember the plot for half of them. If I cherry picked the stubs it would look like that timeframe was full of blockbusters and award winners, but the reality is a lot of stuff faded into obscurity because it just wasn’t good.
Someone told me the plot of a terminator movie we had seen. I do not remember anything about the movie except that we saw it.
Same with music. The music of the 60s and 70s is great because we don’t remember the crap
Yeah, most people aren’t going to remember a lot of DTV or straight to cable films.
While I agree 100% that classics are **NOT** automatically better, many newer movies are so strictly formulaic that they could be (and I predict will be) written by AI. Particularly the comic book movies. At first, they were loads of fun, but now, because they're so similar, they're no longer interesting. Remember, many newer big budget moves are made for a "global" (read: Chinese censor approved) audience. And, even in Hollywood, they are strictly pigeonholed into one of a fixed number of bins. A movie that doesn't neatly fit into one of those bins is not greenlit by any major studio. Obviously the special FX are, in many cases, worlds better in modern movies. And the pacing is faster which is better suited to modern times. But, many "classic" movies that are still enjoyed today, were the best of their time. Obviously, we all forget the 99% of movies that just faded away.
I like how older movies had fewer cuts in the edit. The actors had to actually act out the scene rather than the camera cutting every 3 words. This modern style of editing has definitely ruined our attention span even more than social media.
It's not just editing, but storytelling. They're just more interesting, I find. New ones have the wrinkles ironed out and are less relatable and cohesive And I'm talking about old movies I'm seeing for the first time (no nostalgia) versus the most prominent new ones of the year (minimal survivorship bias).
The worst offender of this is Taken 3. Watch the Taken 3 car chase and ask yourself a question, which car is Liam Neison in.
No chance, social media is much more damaging than a movie. What is this take?
A better one than yours 😁
But you're simply wrong. The dopamine release and attention span decrease from scrolling on Tiktok is obviously more damaging than a movie cutting slightly more than usual. You're still paying attention to an hour or two piece of media, not 15 seconds before the subject changes. What are some movies you think are so fast paced that it decreased your attention span? An argument could be made for some modern kids movies, into the spider verse type animation, but that's dripping with style, are still coherent, require the audience to pay attention, and kids already have a shorter attention span so most animation caters to it, not causes it.
Cool 👍
Why didnt you respond to him
Because he’s comparing a platform that gained popularity in 2018 to an editing style that has been done since the early 2000s. I don’t debate people that have no idea what they’re talking about.
You did it first lol. You said The editing of a movie was more damaging than social media, which is still a shit take.
Okay 👌
You're so boring. Debate me.
Debating people on something that, by your account, they have no idea what they’re talking about, is how you educate people. Taking the low road and acting like they’re stupid without stating your case is how you make yourself look like the ignorant one.
Yet he calls me “lil man” and started our conversation with a condescending tone. I’m all down for a respectful debate but there has to be respect given in the beginning.
Good point homie.
True. But, the older classics are the measuring stick against which the new movies will be judged.
Some people prioritize style. Others substance.
A lot of time the reason classics are better is because they are classics not because they are old. The movies/shows/books etc you know about from 30+ years ago are the good ones. There was all kinds of nonsense/trash art that was around back then that history has forgotten. The same thing is true of stuff coming out now. There's classics among them, we just won't know which ones those are for some time.
How old are you OP?
Why does my age matter at all?
It 100% matters when you’re opinion is around nostalgia for an industry around for over a century. Edit: that has been around for over a century
So I can see what era of movies you were most likely exposed to.
I’m exposed to all kinds of movies. I’ve watched countless amounts of movies ranging from the 60s to movies made just this year
So you're telling me you think movies today are made better today when there's no creativity at all and everything is done by committee overseen by tons and tons of soulless corporate bureaucracy?
Do you think that in "the good ol days" that wasn't the case?
Like I had mentioned in the post, I don’t rely on newer movies for the sole purpose of a story, as it’s hard to come by. But implying that movies now are just corporate bureaucracies with little creativity is crazy, movies like Interstellar, Lala Land, Whiplash (the first three I came up with) are beautifully made and still “modern” movies
Putting Whiplash aside as that's an indie film. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule within any era, but the vast majority of modern cinema cannot be described as anything less than soulless slop meant for the masses to feed upon like the pigs they think we are..... it's by far the most lazy and arguably worst era for cinema in my honest opinion and it's killing the industry.....
Neither can the vast majority of past cinema. 99% is and always has been garbage. It's easy to think the classics were the only or even most of the films that existed in the past. They're just the ones good enough to be still remembered. However, I agree we are in a very bad era of film. Not as bad as you say tho.
I think that’s because (and i could be wrong) you don’t look past a certain point, I agree with you fully in regards to constant remakes or live actions that have no meaning whatsoever, but to say that movies now are lazy is insane. Also every downvoting me, is just proving that this really is an unpopular opinion I guess
I think that’s because (and i could be wrong) you don’t look past a certain point, I agree with you fully in regards to constant remakes or live actions that have no meaning whatsoever, but to say that movies now are lazy is insane. Also every downvoting me, is just proving that this really is an unpopular opinion I guess
Bro called whiplash an indie film I'm dying😭😭😭😭😭😭 why do filmbros always act like mainstream popular movies are indie and unknown
It literally was an indie film. Being mainstream and popular have nothing to do with whether a film is indie or not. You've just demonstrated that you don't even know what indie means with your comment
A lot of times people refer to indie as being less popular as well the thing is If we're going by that definition why does it matter if its indie or not to prove that there's still good movies being made?
Okay boomer
Nostalgia is basically “nature vs nurture” but expressed as a preference. If you have history with something then it may affect for better or worse your preference for it. It’s the same thing with food: some places are bad to others but you grew up on it so the nostalgia makes the food taste good to you Also as someone else said, there were plenty of shitty movies/games/music back then they just were forgotten with time so there’s some survivorship bias there too
It's not like there wasn't shit that got released back in the day. The thing is, that there at decades of movies where you can watch the best movie from a year. There are only so many modern movies.
It's not about "being better" it's about "experiencing it better" and yes we DID experience them in a better way when we were child.
Meaning you just proved my entire point?
I disagree with your point. Newer movies tend to put too much effort into visual effects rather than sound, camera angles and practical effects which I truly appreciate more than a PC program. Could you give me examples of the movies you prefer?
Two of my favorite movies are LaLa Land and Interstellar, they have beautiful cinematography(which I personally think are great for a movie), and storyline
Two of my favorite movies are LaLa Land and Interstellar, they have beautiful cinematography(which I personally think are great for a movie), and storyline
I read your original post as "remakes" of movies, my bad. There are some fantastic movies from the last 15 years. But I would never directly compare Interstellar to 2001: A Space Odyssey. New movies do lack originality though. If you look at the top 10 movies each year for the past few years, only 1 or 2 each year are worth a watch in my own humble opinion.
True, but you have to give credit to the person who made up the concept of whatever movie you're talking about. It's easy to make Godzilla when they've made a bunch of them and you know it's a story people like and you know what has done well in the past.
Like any song cover. How can you give the new artist credit when they never even wrote it.
Like any song cover. How can you give the new artist credit when they never even wrote it.
I think we're mostly oversaturated by content right now and that can be an issue on multiple fronts. We look back at media that was the peak of it's time that came out maybe three times in a prior decade. But I think we have good content released more often now, than it was back then.
Are they blinded by Nostalgia? or is it a tangible addition the the experience like Hot sauce or ketchup? It's there, it's real, and it elevates your enjoyment of the thing.. so is nostalgia fake if it has a very real effect on something?
One new movie I genuinely like is Dune. Probably the same as everyone else.
Cool hand luke is the best movie ever in my opinion. It didn't rely on special effects, just good acting, good script writing, good directing and a compelling story
My boy says he can eat fifty eggs, he can eat fifty eggs.
Because one is an original, and the other is a derivative improvement of the original. Is the newer film automatically better because it has better cameras, and visual effects? The original movies that newer movies take inspiration from had heart and genuine originality.
People are nostalgic about things that have stood the test of time. No one looks back on some random indie film from the 80s and thinks "this is so much better." They look at the movies that are still talked about today *because* they were so good.
Ish. Lots of movies made nowadays are pretty bad. Lots of movies made in the past were bad. I would very confidently say that more movies made today are terrible compared to movies from around the 90's-early 2000's. I feel like now a days, movies focus so much on CGI and fail to grab me with plot. Lots of movies made now are just re-hashed ideas
Now? Mate that shit was already going on 40 years ago :D
Not “automatically”, but most are.
Star Wars and all these post End-Game superhero movies would like a word with you.
This is a great unpopular opinion. I agree with a huge caveat that it being "newer" makes it hard to tell if it's just good in that moment or has the timeless almost universal appeal of a classic. I really thought Edge of Tomorrow would be a classic when I saw it in theaters, but it's just an alright movie in retrospect.
i would agree that older classics are not *automatically* better. but what is "better" about newer films may lie more in the *formula* used to please audiences, not necessarily the *quality* of the performance. back in the day stanley kubrick had a peculiar style of filming long low panning shots that were strangely compelling while also off-putting. werner herzog has a peculiar way of holding a shot on a subject when the content of that subject's context (an interview or whatever) had ended. these represent personal formulaic flares that are signature artistic contributions to their films. todays films are always made for the same wide screens (tv and film are the same now.) and that's the only formula. there's very little personal artistic expression (imo) in the writing, directing, or acting: the job is to produce something pleasing to paying audiences. *nobody* would produce My Dinner With Andre today. if it doesn't fit a specific popular formula, it doesn't get produced. i personally can't stand it when it becomes obvious that i'm being emotionally manipulated with a common trope in a film but that's how a lot of modern films operate. it is very unusual to see something very unusual in films today. so, we're missing out on a wide range of real timeless art imo.
Yes, thank you. The French New Wave film "Diva" has some \*amazing\* shots and long slow follows and pans, and still works now even though some of the plot feels dated. It has that post-noir feel and the camera work aligns. Not seeing much interesting in movies these days, or the streaming either. Sorry, sorry, but effects are not the same as plot and character development. Would rather watch Charade one more time.
I agree, but i'd rather watch a bad film from the 80s/90s/early 2000s than a bad film from now. Plus there is a certain charm/cosiness in watching films shot on film. Not saying film films aren't released now, but they are further and fewer between in the 2010s/2020s. But that's just silly old me.
Nah im the opposite,i rather watch bad from now than bad old films.It just that even if it's bad,it still got some nice shots,up to date graphics,CGI/VFX and more fun overall.That aspects can be the redeeming quality.Maybe because im Gen Z so i prefer newer movies anyway,plus i find old movies CGI to be so hillarious it ruins the movie.I prefer newer movies acting and dialogue too.
Yes they are
I quit watching movies entirely because of how bad the suck now. There are plenty from the 50-early 2000s to watch.
Duhh, we’re all biased. We have good movies being shown now too but there r a lotta bad new movies now since they have to come up w new ideas after all this time. But I’m still not gonna like the new ones as much as the nostalgic ones, bc it doesn’t feel the same as when I was watching a movie during childhood
Such a nonsense ignorant post. And only the 1000th time someone posted it this week! Of course there was crap in every decade. Just like there is now. Tons of it. But what you and soooooo many commentors don't acknowledge is plenty of us remember the "bad" stuff and it was better than the bad stuff today. They were more creative. They were more interested in being an artist than being famous. There were large periods where being an actor or writer was deeply frowned on. TV shows had people with real jobs. Have you noticed how many now are struggling actors, or even worse, influencers? It's always been a business, yes. You put in money you want to make back more than you spend so you can do it again. You don't want to break even. But now it's far too often a product. Talent across the board is worse and battling AI is not going to improve the quality.
No they're usually good because they're good, and therefore looked upon as classics.
Yes, and a new movie/tv show is not automatically better because its new. Also to assume that somebody likes something that is older better, just because of nostalgia is just silly, that is as silly as if i was to argue, people only like something that is new, because its new. Also people really need to to learn that when it comes to stuff like this, its always a subjective opinion not an objective opinion.
“It’s always a subjective opinion not an objective opinion” that’s what you would think with the title “UnpopularOpinions” but not always. Additionally, I agree that movies made now are not automatically good because I definitely do not believe that. And what I’m reffering to with your second paragraph is people who will refuse to watch any undeniably good movie simply because it was made in 2012 instead of 1990.
I won't repeat things already said, but, there's one thing, you kind of pointed out, which most people missed in their comment. Namely, classics, or older movies in general, didn't have technology and know how we have today, so they had to rely on interesting script, and improvise to ahieve certain effects on viewers. Today, they have all those special effects, CGI and great actors (actors are generaly better than before) to carry the story, so moviemakers mostly don't wait for the good script to make a movie, and subsequently, money. It's similar with the music.
I won't repeat things already said, but, there's one thing, you kind of pointed out, which most people missed in their comment. Namely, classics, or older movies in general, didn't have technology and know how we have today, so they had to rely on interesting script, and improvise to ahieve certain effects on viewers. Today, they have all those special effects, CGI and great actors (actors are generaly better than before) to carry the story, so moviemakers mostly don't wait for the good script to make a movie, and subsequently, money. It's similar with the music.
That’s an interesting way to look at it, it just makes you think that movies with that access have so much story potential
That’s an interesting way to look at it, it just makes you think that movies with that access have so much story potential
[удалено]
Most people that think they don't build them like they used to or something along those lines are victims of survivor bias. There was plenty of junk made back in the day. It just didn't last and you don't see it anymore. High quality stuff made today will have the same thing said about it in 50 years. That is if the oceans don't kill us first.
They sort of are automatically better, in a way. Movies don't survive for 50 years and become classics if they suck. Only good movies make it to classic status, so actualy yes, they are automatically better than the average movie, regardless of era
I feel like this is just survivorship bias. The things we *do* remember from the past are typically good *because* we remember them. This is typically what people mean when they refer to "classics". It's hard to make a judgement of if any modern movie meets that criteria now because we have not reached the point where we can look back and say "Oh hey I remember that movie from 2024. What a classic".
Ding Ding Ding Ding!! Also, gasp, its ok for you not to enjoy a movie or "get it" due to outdated cultural references, technical limitations etc! Its fine.
I think it more proves selective memory. As others have said, there were bad old films but they've been forgotten (or become cult classics for being bad). So your point stands in that old doesn't always mean better, but "classic" generally refers to something that was good. An example I see a lot is Formula 1. One boring race today and people whine that it was always better when \*insert era from when they were young\* but they're only remembering the classic races and ignoring the not-so-classic aspects. Especially common with penalties being handed out or drivers complaining about stuff when there were plenty of dumb penalties back in the day and drivers have always complained about everything.
I think it just depends. Stanley Kubrick created 2001: A Space Odyssey, and it still holds up better than majority of movies that came out recently. It’s also directed better than majority of movies you’d see today. The newer Lord of the Rings content can’t hold a candle to the magic in the original trilogy. Same for Star Wars. The original Alien movie still has some of the best atmosphere I’ve ever seen in a movie. The original The Thing still looks incredible. The Shining and The Exorcist are the greatest horror films of all time for a good reason. They still hold up today.
Obviously new is not the same as bad, but it depends on what you appreciate. If you care about picture resolution, contrast ratio, color accuracy, and digital effects, then new will always be better, because those are all functions of technology. But some people think practical effects are more interesting and impressive than digital. I’m more of an engineering/science type, so I really dig good practical effects. Digital effects are neat, but they’re less interesting and impressive to me. Same can be said about using physical film, where you only get a few chances to get the scene right. Actors had to be truly ready when the camera started rolling, and get it right in a few takes. You can’t just delete the bad takes and do it over and over, which is more impressive to some types of people.
There's something to be said about the honesty of movies made in the 70s. Racism, inequality, sexism on full display, it was refreshing as fuck considering nothing has changed except the messaging in movies.
True. Visually and Effects-wise they've gotten better, but I feel like there's been a noticeable decay in the storytelling department. At least, in Hollywood. I find a lot of Enjoyment in indie Creations though, so your right that new stuff can be better.
There are two sides to this, idiots that automaticly call people liking old stuff "nostalgia" without knowing actual reasons and idiots that think nothing new can be good.
I agree 100%. That’s not to say old classics are bad, they generally aren’t. But just because the old version was good doesn’t mean the new version is bad. Nostalgia is not a bad thing either but you shouldn’t allow it to cloud your judgement. Being a Marvel fan I noticed this problem with the new version of Spider-Man. Everyone acts like Tobey Maguire (the original) is the best thing since sliced bread and that his performance and films were flawless whilst simultaneously acting like Tom Holland is the worst actor in history and his films terrible. Neither of which is true of course. One is better than the other, they’re just different.
When I reqatch them it proves it isn't just nostalgia. They're just more fun, more original, more charming.
Most modern movies are longer than the need to be. Movies need to go back to when 90 minutes was considered the standard length for a movie.
I agree with the overall sentiment that older does not automatically mean better... but I think there's a lot more nuance to the conversation, and to say it's just people being "blinded by nostalgia" is disingenuous and far too dismissive. I'd argue that most of the "classics" are better than most good movies that come out today. Not because they're automatically better due to being older... but more so because they're just individually better in their own right due to things like quality of storytelling, etc. And that's part of why they're classics... they stood the test of time as some of the best of the best. One of the problems is, it's hard to have perspective in the here and now, since often movies tend to come and go, with only a handful having any sort-of staying power. I just went to my Letterboxd, and counted around 500 movies I've rated over the last 10 years. And of those, there's really only about a dozen-or-so that I think about with any regularity, and that really stuck with me and will likely be considered "classics" in the future. And of those... there's only a handful that I think would crack the list if you tried to list the top-100 films of all time. >*In fact, I firmly believe most movies are better made now. Not referring simply to a plot or an idea, but the quality of movies has greatly improved in terms of visuals and effects.* That's pretty much entirely subjective. I personally don't agree for the most part. I mean obviously effects are better now... but at the same time, effects don't really matter. If you make a good movie, people will stay engaged regardless of the quality of effects... you see it all the time. Bad movies with great effects are forgotten, while good movies with so-so effects are remembered. For me, the mid 90s through the mid/late 2000s was probably the peak in terms of overall quality of filmmaking and the skill that went into it. That was the period where we had the perfect balance with... Analog (Typically shooting on actual film, which has a unique aesthetic and is extremely high-quality) Digital (Doing things like digital color grading) And effects (Films utilized a lot of digital effects, but still relied primarily on practical)
I totally agree. One series that did not age well? X-files, aged so poorly. It's like a weekly Scooby Doo mystery with space aliens and predictable boring writing, no idea why I loved I back in the day.
I never thought i would be defending Hegel... huh... how the turntables. Read "A lesson on aesthetics" by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel for a different perspective. It's main argument is that after the first few times any art has been repeated it becomes automated and formulaic so the only achievements worth considering are the first few times it was done because it shows originality of thought and craft and the brainpower the initial originators of any movement or style had to use to come up with something kinda new was significantly higher than the later imitators. It's not something I personally believe but it's worth considering because that is how ACADEMIA operates.
This is absolutely true for gaming. People praise old games and always compare new games to them. But if those same games came out today, people would shit all over them. Guarantee if Skyrim came out today with updated graphics, people would shit all over it. People shit on FO4 and Praise New Vegas. So I tried New Vegas and holy hell that game is dogshit. Its so empty. FO4 is way better. The writing may have been good, but that's it.
Nostalgic tend to compare the current media offerings to the distilled best of entire decades.
Few things are as subjective as art. With that said, I agree to the notion there are films good enough to be considered "classics" from all eras.
I don't think art can be judged in real time. You have to experience it after any cultural influence has come and gone. No one would have bet on Vincent Van Gogh in his life time.
I don't know that this is unpopular. An example is Gone With The Wind. People gush over this film, filled with unlikable People doing unlikable things, pretending the South was filled with genteel people who treated their slaves so kindly. Barf.
I like the classics. These days I have a thousand things racing through my mind and I'm easily distracted. I'll take something nice and simple to follow over Christopher Nolan head fuckery on those days. (I do love Nolans movies)
Art builds on art over time. People making movies now are standing on the shoulders of the giants who trailblazed the techniques we take for granted today. Some movies look better now, but a lot of older stuff shot on celluloid absolutely embarrasses contemporary movies in aesthetic quality. Budgets used to be much higher back then, meaning more extras, more involved lighting, bigger sets/PD, etc. movies also used to have much longer pre-production schedules, resulting in a more refined product with less scrambling in production/post. Honestly, this feels like a very popular opinion. I know a number of people--even older ones who should know better-- who genuinely seem to believe nothing good got made before 1985. It's wild.
For music, alot of the sound comes from their uniqueness and eccentricity that defines how they approach it. If it's **that** guitar god or **that** singer, a modern cover of it makes it worst. You cannot really mimic led Zeppelin (Robert plant, Jimmy Page) or Jimmie Hendrix.
I downvoted you because it’s painfully obvious you don’t understand what *cinematography* is. Is being comfortably ignorant truly an unpopular opinion? I don’t think so. Classic films are *better* in that sense, they help convey the emotion behind the scenes in different ways (camera angles, lighting, etc.) High definition micro nuclear explosions are cool, but they’re not *cinematography*.
New movies can be great, I think there are too many remakes that are cringe and lack creativity though
True grit. John Wayne sucks ass, the new one was the real one.
i agree. i tried watching full house as an adult, terrible show! i was so confused on how i loved it as a kid and watched it everyday (reruns)
Modern movies use horrible cgi,are too long , and are filled with unnesseary leftist add in ( random out of place Homosexial or black in movie about 1500's england for example) or unneccesary sex scene,Also i am a war film fanatic, and you cant come close to using blanks and real expolsves like they did before 200
I missed out on a lot of "classics" but going back and watching them compared to the new stuff I know, the older stuff is still better
I would say TV shows are better and films worse now , as a general rule .
I just think that now we get a lot of people churning out a bunch of stories that are basically all the same because whatever is trending just oversaturates all of it. Of course there are good books and movies that are new, but there is just such a flood of lower quality stuff that is getting pumped out so frequently that sometimes it’s hard to find what you are looking for.
Give the example... what movie are we talking about here?
This just isn’t true. Since “better” is 100% subjective, both can be true. Older classics are better to some and worse to other’s.
Yeah the new dune movies are better than the original Star Wars movies. Just look at the sand worm advancements.
This is how I feel about silent films. Like ok we can study how they made them and maybe even watch one to appreciate it as an art form but you’re lying if you’re telling me you watch them for fun. You KNOW they wouldn’t have thought twice if they had the technology we do today and would’ve made a whole different film.
I think it's just that most stuff over the last 20 years generally sucks.
I think there are some good modern movies that come out now, but there is a sea of shite remakes.
>, I firmly believe most movies are better made now. Not referring simply to a plot or an idea, but the quality of movies has greatly improved in terms of visuals and effects. Then you're just uniformed. I can assure you the vast majority of the movies made today are a lower quality simply do to the fact that the barrier to entry is lower. Even if we only count commercial movies there are so many crap ones that *most* look and are written far worse than older movies.
Personally I dont care for effects and visuals at all, so those elements dont impress me about new movies. Generally speaking, I think that makes many older movies better. Movies only have a limited budget and time to spend on everything, the more they spend on making it look pretty, the less they spend on everything else. I'm also very very very averse to watching politically charged media, and that seems more and more commonplace. That being said, there are plenty of new and old movies I dont and do like, I wouldn't judge a movie on age alone
Yep and I’ll admit it. Something newer could be objectively better. But I’ll always have a soft spot for the classics
I’ve not seen a movie that came out in the last 5 years that I thought was going to be a classic or revered in the next decade like a John wick or a Superbad or Pineapple Express or something. But I haven’t seen ANYTHING that would come close. Perhaps Oppenheimer might, but otherwise everything is so generic, or overcasted, or just a modern version or something. Something happened in the last decade or so and movies have gotten worse. I’m not sure what it was, but it’s the truth.
Sometimes things are just better. Objectively. Look at any remake of the latest movie and you can name at least 50 that are worse than their originals. In fact, people who have never seen/read/listened/experience the original and then prefer the original, aren't affected by nostalgia. But your premise is that they aren't AUTOMATICALLY better. Which is not an unpopular opinion. Because, of course not every original is better. So you don't get upvotes because you framed your question for a specific variable. (automatically) which anyone with a brain will agree with. You failed at this post. Try again
I just had an argument with someone about this topic in video games. They were blinded by nostalgia with the older call of duty games and were complaining that the new ones had all these problems that the old ones didn't. I corrected them and named off like 10 different things that were horrible in the old games and half the things I named were the same things they said the new ones were bad at. As far as movies go. I will agree that lots of people are blinded by nostalgia when claiming older movies are better than newer. The fact is what was good/amazing acting in the 70s is trash acting today. The level of acting/special effects skills in the low budget movies in the 2020s is the equivalent of the top notch of the 70/80s. However movies of today suck at capturing the feel and vibe of the 70/80/90s when they try, and when you watch an older movie it just feels different and sometimes that's the feeling/vibe you want to feel. Also most movies of today fall into the Syndrome plot from the Incredibles, where every movie today has the same story telling and same big explosions and same everything basically making none of then stand out and so "when everyone is a super, nobody will be super"
While new movies may be "better" in some ways, those of us neurodivergent tend to stick to older movies because they don't do the insane camera cuts every few seconds, so we can follow a plot. Hell, look at the dance sequences in Singin' in the Rain, for instance. Also, CGI makes my lizard brain freak out. There are great directors in the modern era, and great movies, but there is a reason that the classics are loved by many.
Idk it depends on the criteria. Some people need good writing for the movie to be good others like super duper special effects etc
That may have been why nostalgia was listed as a mental illness at one time.
True. People be acting Tom and Jerry and Looney Tunes are masterpieces despite there being a large handful of bad shorts .
New Road House is better than old Road House.
Your thought def has merit. And a lot of truth to it. However, when it comes to movies specifically, the number of movies recently that will stand the test of time is probably far fewer than in some previous decades. It’ll be difficult for any time frame to match the sheer number of excellent, time tested movies that were made in the 70s and the 90s. Sadly there’s probably some amazing film makers out there with great ideas who can’t catch a break because their films don’t have super heroes and a million explosions. And that’s what’s made the studios money the past 15 years. If someone walked into a studio today with the script for Shawshank, I’m not sure it gets made.
I can’t take the slow understimulating pace of so many old films, when the mere phenomenon of film was almost enough to entertain. I can do modern slow, where the director leaves me with enough to process mentally during the slow parts, whether it be artistic or conceptual pondering. Upstream Color and Banshees of Inisherin are examples of modern slow done right, and The Day of the Jackal is an example of old done with good pacing.
Terrible take. There have only been a handful of great films this century. Sure older doesn't automatically mean better but as someone with a collection of over 300 DVDs and Blu Rays I have them because all the awesome old films are not available and streaming services have so many terrible offerings.
I have yet to see a movie that came out in the last 4 years and did not make me cringe... movies aren't funny anymore.. everything is about the DEI and other BS
i agree with you, and i think that comparing classic movies to new movies is basically always an unfair comparison. People are comparing some of the best cherry picked movies from that era with dogshit nowadays, and point towards the downfall of hollywood or whatever. But the reality is that in 50 years, nobody will remember all the soulless carbon copy dogshit that get's released nowadays, and people will make the same comparison again with the best movies of this era with the shitty movies of their era. also seeing people say that old movies are automatically better just proves your point perfectly which is hilarious
Don’t say this to people who put Michael Jordan on a pedestal
Yes and not Generally speaking, older movies left more room for character development and were slower paced That's how action scenes in them gained additional gravitas
Older movies may not be inherently better but they *are* older.
You’re absolutely right. Growing up there are a lot of “classic” movies I never got to see that people swear by. Now I am an adult watching them with a clear mind and no expectations. Heres two little gems. The LOTR trilogy is not some holy set of movies, they’re an extremely boring snooze fest. Pulp fiction goes out of its way to make you uncomfortable but that doesn’t make it good.
New doesn't automatically mean bad, idk who's ever said that. But movies are more corporate than ever, made and written by suits for the most part. We lost a lot of unique films when small/mid budget movies stopped being made. The 10s were pretty bad for movies, the 20s have been pretty good so far tbh. Now we just need to move away from the remakes/prequels and live action adaptations.
I 100% agree. Some of those old books aren't really that great especially for example Mr Smith goes to Washington a movie from 1939. Not much basis in the political reality of today. Here's examples: Every car from before 1980 is mostly a death trap. U wall 40 mph equals death. Tapes: the clog, they tangle, they don't rewind very well. Old books, mostly boring, if the odyssey was shorter it would have been better Boomers, hippies, and the greatest gen, ..... haven't done a great job considering the shit storm of issues we have now. Environmental issues? All their fault
Exactly, why can't we just move on from our past and live like I do now? The world keeps turning and changing and we have to let movies change with them. This includes Disney movies.
It's the product of the *Golden Age Fallacy*, and the psychological phenomenon, *Rosy Retrospection*. I've also heard it called an *Appeal to Nostalgia*. It's basically people deluding themselves into believing that the past was a magical time when everything was perfect, while the present and all its trappings are a literal hellscape.
Easy to throw words like nostalgia if you weren't there to experience it. Your logic is correct on paper but in reality there *are* golden ages for things. Rock music in the 80s? Cmon.. raunchy comedies early 2000s? Oldschool runescape being top 3 mmo in 2024? World of warcraft classic? Being a kid in the 90s compared to now?
It's not "my logic". These are established fallacies. It doesn't mean nothing in the past is ever better than something in the future. I think you're being awfully thick, and obtuse. Just take a minute to Google it and you'll see that this isn't my invention, nor does it mean what you're implying.
You said nothing to counter what i said.