Are Old Movies Really Better

[Flopper]

In my opinion, the answer is yes. As someone who has seen the film industry evolve over the decades, I find that movies made in the last 25 years are generally not worth watching, and those from the last 50 years are filled with more noise than substance. The best older films are not only more entertaining, they’re more meaningful. Here’s why:

Classic films, especially those from Hollywood’s golden era (roughly 1920–1960), with a particular peak in the 1930s and '40s, placed a strong emphasis on storytelling. Many were adapted from great novels, which gave them a rich narrative foundation. Just consider The Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, The Grapes of Wrath, Rebecca, The Maltese Falcon, Wuthering Heights, and Jane Eyre, all drawn from literary classics.

Beyond source material, the screenwriters of the time were often literary giants themselves. Authors like Aldous Huxley, William Faulkner, Raymond Chandler, F. Scott Fitzgerald, John Steinbeck, and Graham Greene contributed to scripts. In those days, films were about telling stories. Today, films are more often about delivering an experience.

Older movies also relied on practical effects and inventive cinematography, rather than overwhelming the viewer with CGI. Cinematographers worked closely with directors to craft shots that were visually striking and emotionally resonant images you could frame. You can see this artistry in Orson Welles’s The Magnificent Ambersons and Carol Reed’s The Third Man.

Modern films tend to cater to shorter attention spans, with faster plots and constant action. While impressive visual effects and fast-paced storytelling can be entertaining, they often come at the expense of character development and fine acting, qualities that once defined great cinema and are now far too rare.

 

[Woodznutz]

This from a recent tv movie (can't remember the name).

Person 1. "Do you ever watch movies?'
Person 2. "No. I can't understand a word they're saying."

Not only that but you can't even read the subtitles. They are washed out by the picture, and they go by so fast you can't read them anyway. You're left to guess what the damn movie is all about.

 

[MarathonMike]

In my opinion, the answer is yes. As someone who has seen the film industry evolve over the decades, I find that movies made in the last 25 years are generally not worth watching, and those from the last 50 years are filled with more noise than substance. The best older films are not only more entertaining, they’re more meaningful. Here’s why:

Classic films, especially those from Hollywood’s golden era (roughly 1920–1960), with a particular peak in the 1930s and '40s, placed a strong emphasis on storytelling. Many were adapted from great novels, which gave them a rich narrative foundation. Just consider The Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, The Grapes of Wrath, Rebecca, The Maltese Falcon, Wuthering Heights, and Jane Eyre, all drawn from literary classics.

Beyond source material, the screenwriters of the time were often literary giants themselves. Authors like Aldous Huxley, William Faulkner, Raymond Chandler, F. Scott Fitzgerald, John Steinbeck, and Graham Greene contributed to scripts. In those days, films were about telling stories. Today, films are more often about delivering an experience.

Older movies also relied on practical effects and inventive cinematography, rather than overwhelming the viewer with CGI. Cinematographers worked closely with directors to craft shots that were visually striking and emotionally resonant images you could frame. You can see this artistry in Orson Welles’s The Magnificent Ambersons and Carol Reed’s The Third Man.

Modern films tend to cater to shorter attention spans, with faster plots and constant action. While impressive visual effects and fast-paced storytelling can be entertaining, they often come at the expense of character development and fine acting, qualities that once defined great cinema and are now far too rare.

There were a lot of good movies produced in the 90s. But since the 2000s it seems not so much.

 

[Leo123]

Older movies tend to have more dialogue too.

 

[Woodznutz]

Older movies tend to have more dialogue too.

That's why they were called "screenplays". They were plays made into movies.

 

[Dekster]

In my opinion, the answer is yes. As someone who has seen the film industry evolve over the decades, I find that movies made in the last 25 years are generally not worth watching, and those from the last 50 years are filled with more noise than substance. The best older films are not only more entertaining, they’re more meaningful. Here’s why:

Classic films, especially those from Hollywood’s golden era (roughly 1920–1960), with a particular peak in the 1930s and '40s, placed a strong emphasis on storytelling. Many were adapted from great novels, which gave them a rich narrative foundation. Just consider The Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, The Grapes of Wrath, Rebecca, The Maltese Falcon, Wuthering Heights, and Jane Eyre, all drawn from literary classics.

Beyond source material, the screenwriters of the time were often literary giants themselves. Authors like Aldous Huxley, William Faulkner, Raymond Chandler, F. Scott Fitzgerald, John Steinbeck, and Graham Greene contributed to scripts. In those days, films were about telling stories. Today, films are more often about delivering an experience.

Older movies also relied on practical effects and inventive cinematography, rather than overwhelming the viewer with CGI. Cinematographers worked closely with directors to craft shots that were visually striking and emotionally resonant images you could frame. You can see this artistry in Orson Welles’s The Magnificent Ambersons and Carol Reed’s The Third Man.

Modern films tend to cater to shorter attention spans, with faster plots and constant action. While impressive visual effects and fast-paced storytelling can be entertaining, they often come at the expense of character development and fine acting, qualities that once defined great cinema and are now far too rare.

Movies cater to a young audience. In some ways they always have in my lifetime. I personally think television, streaming in particular, has done an exceptional job in supplanting movies by delivering high quality content.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

At the beginning of the 1930s the movies were not very good.
The acting and directing and production was poor quality.
But by the end of the 1930s the movie production and quality was magnificent.
Some of the greatest movies were made in the late 30s.
Each of the decades had their own style.
I do searches for movies by the year or by the decade.

 

[Flopper]

This from a recent tv movie (can't remember the name).

Person 1. "Do you ever watch movies?'
Person 2. "No. I can't understand a word they're saying."

Not only that but you can't even read the subtitles. They are washed out by the picture, and they go by so fast you can't read them anyway. You're left to guess what the damn movie is all about.

The chances are what is being said is immaterial. As a sexy Hollywood starlet in a B movie said, "I gotta say something." The director replied, "You're doing what you are being paid to do."

 

[candycorn]

In my opinion, the answer is yes. As someone who has seen the film industry evolve over the decades, I find that movies made in the last 25 years are generally not worth watching, and those from the last 50 years are filled with more noise than substance. The best older films are not only more entertaining, they’re more meaningful. Here’s why:

Classic films, especially those from Hollywood’s golden era (roughly 1920–1960), with a particular peak in the 1930s and '40s, placed a strong emphasis on storytelling. Many were adapted from great novels, which gave them a rich narrative foundation. Just consider The Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, The Grapes of Wrath, Rebecca, The Maltese Falcon, Wuthering Heights, and Jane Eyre, all drawn from literary classics.

Beyond source material, the screenwriters of the time were often literary giants themselves. Authors like Aldous Huxley, William Faulkner, Raymond Chandler, F. Scott Fitzgerald, John Steinbeck, and Graham Greene contributed to scripts. In those days, films were about telling stories. Today, films are more often about delivering an experience.

Older movies also relied on practical effects and inventive cinematography, rather than overwhelming the viewer with CGI. Cinematographers worked closely with directors to craft shots that were visually striking and emotionally resonant images you could frame. You can see this artistry in Orson Welles’s The Magnificent Ambersons and Carol Reed’s The Third Man.

Modern films tend to cater to shorter attention spans, with faster plots and constant action. While impressive visual effects and fast-paced storytelling can be entertaining, they often come at the expense of character development and fine acting, qualities that once defined great cinema and are now far too rare.

I don't disagree but I truly don't know.

The content of older films is (or can be) unique from the perspective of subject matter that was not widely--if ever--explored. There was also a lot of "ooh and ahh" in the public that only film could provide. Sunset Blvd for example. Today...if you want to see what the famous haunts on the famous street are, you log onto the 'net and take a look. Back then, sometimes the only time middle America was exposed to Sunset Blvd (or the Fountainbleau, or Mr. Rushmore--pulling from North by Northwest--a personal favorite of mine) was in film. So the older films have that going for them.

I think the "prestige pictures" from back then were probably better crafted films and stories than the so-called "prestige pictures" from today. But if you're comparing the run-of-the-mill movies...I'm not so sure they are all better. There are a lot more niche films now and I love them. Yellow Rose was a movie I sort of got invited to by mistake. It features some of the bigger names in musical theater so I gave it a try. Thoroughly enjoyed how delicate it was. Queen and Slim--another great small movie. I doubt either of those films are known by most on this board.

One thing I wish Hollywood would stop doing is coming up with the "to be continued" crapolla and make a movie that is the whole story. If I don't think I'm getting the whole story...I tend to just disengage. I don't want to see the first of a franchise.

 

[BothWings]

Modern movies are fast-food slop, loaded with pink slime and additives galore. Pure and simple. Younger generations will cling to it because they feel that it's "theirs". Even I as a mid-level gen-x'er fully admit that some of the best stuff was a little before my time. I shrugged off Star Wars long ago.

 

[Flopper]

At the beginning of the 1930s the movies were not very good.
The acting and directing and production was poor quality.
But by the end of the 1930s the movie production and quality was magnificent.
Some of the greatest movies were made in the late 30s.
Each of the decades had their own style.
I do searches for movies by the year or by the decade.

In the 30's directors were in control of the making of the movies. In the 40's, control past to the studios. Most directors were contracted to a studio and were asigned pictures just like the actors. By the 50's most of the really great movies were being made by small independent studios. The big studios rented them equipment, stages and cast members and handled distribution.

 

[GLASNOST]

Are Old Movies Really Better​

Maybe, but probably not. Of all the films made in the past ..... say ..... 20 years what percent of them are "good"? Not much, huh. But do the same during the 1950s. Not much, huh. You (we) remember the good films but can't even name 80% of the films made under any given period. There are many reasons why the majority of modern films are rubbish but there are a lot of reasons why the majority old films were too.

 

[1srelluc]

This from a recent tv movie (can't remember the name).

Person 1. "Do you ever watch movies?'
Person 2. "No. I can't understand a word they're saying."

Not only that but you can't even read the subtitles. They are washed out by the picture, and they go by so fast you can't read them anyway. You're left to guess what the damn movie is all about.

Yep, proper diction was a thing back in the day.

I can watch a old movie on TCM and not have a bit of trouble understanding what they say.

Anything past the mid-60s and it's turn on the subtitles time.

 

[JoeB131]

In my opinion, the answer is yes. As someone who has seen the film industry evolve over the decades, I find that movies made in the last 25 years are generally not worth watching, and those from the last 50 years are filled with more noise than substance. The best older films are not only more entertaining, they’re more meaningful. Here’s why:

Classic films, especially those from Hollywood’s golden era (roughly 1920–1960), with a particular peak in the 1930s and '40s, placed a strong emphasis on storytelling. Many were adapted from great novels, which gave them a rich narrative foundation. Just consider The Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, The Grapes of Wrath, Rebecca, The Maltese Falcon, Wuthering Heights, and Jane Eyre, all drawn from literary classics.

Beyond source material, the screenwriters of the time were often literary giants themselves. Authors like Aldous Huxley, William Faulkner, Raymond Chandler, F. Scott Fitzgerald, John Steinbeck, and Graham Greene contributed to scripts. In those days, films were about telling stories. Today, films are more often about delivering an experience.

Older movies also relied on practical effects and inventive cinematography, rather than overwhelming the viewer with CGI. Cinematographers worked closely with directors to craft shots that were visually striking and emotionally resonant images you could frame. You can see this artistry in Orson Welles’s The Magnificent Ambersons and Carol Reed’s The Third Man.

Modern films tend to cater to shorter attention spans, with faster plots and constant action. While impressive visual effects and fast-paced storytelling can be entertaining, they often come at the expense of character development and fine acting, qualities that once defined great cinema and are now far too rare.

I think certain films are classics because they've stood the test of time.

But for every Maltese Falcon, there are ten forgettable movies that no one remembers.

I recall a while back when someone decided to do a shot-for-shot remake of Psycho.

It's a terrible movie not for any of the reasons you stated, but because it just didn't fit in the modern world.


I would also argue that the "Delivering an experience" became a goal in movies well before the modern age. When Television came out, movies had to be spectacular to compete.

So you had Cinemascope and VistaVision and a dozen other gimmicks to make the big screen more exciting than the small one.

Hollywood was still producing great movies well into the 1970's and 1980's.

I think where it all fell of was in the 1990's, when they figured CGI could make up for plot and character and practical effects.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Some are.

The Dead Man with Johnny Depp

To kill a mockingbird with Gregory Peck

Charade with Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn

Many of the silent movies, particularly with Louise Brooks, Buster Keaton, Fatty Arbuckle, Charlie Chaplin

 

[1srelluc]

That's why they were called "screenplays". They were plays made into movies.

That and the actors of the era often had a lot of stage time where they had to have good diction.

 

[Woodznutz]

I own only three movies (DVDs) that I love.

Bridge on the River Kwai.
Out of Africa
Polar Express

You (anyone)?

 

[Moonglow]

I have been a student of film since I was a kid, and went to college for it. Movies started changing in the 1960s to a different format, as the big film companies were going bankrupt and the audience's taste had shifted, with nudity also becoming allowed. Today's movies are still like the old films but more advanced on the technical side, the acting side still does what they have always done, use lousy actors that are attractive...Beauty will get you farther than acting skills.

 

[Moonglow]

I own only three movies (DVDs) that I love.

Bridge on the River Kwai.
Out of Africa
Polar Express

You (anyone)?

Mine all died in the fire along with my library of five hundred books.

 

[Flopper]

I think certain films are classics because they've stood the test of time.

But for every Maltese Falcon, there are ten forgettable movies that no one remembers.

I recall a while back when someone decided to do a shot-for-shot remake of Psycho.

It's a terrible movie not for any of the reasons you stated, but because it just didn't fit in the modern world.


I would also argue that the "Delivering an experience" became a goal in movies well before the modern age. When Television came out, movies had to be spectacular to compete.

So you had Cinemascope and VistaVision and a dozen other gimmicks to make the big screen more exciting than the small one.

Hollywood was still producing great movies well into the 1970's and 1980's.

I think where it all fell of was in the 1990's, when they figured CGI could make up for plot and character and practical effects.

Prior to 1940, Wall Street and big business showed little interest in the movie industry. It was considered a risky investment, and the unfavorable risk-reward ratio deterred most investors. However, in the late 1930s, several key developments caught Wall Street’s attention. The release of the first full-length color feature film, followed by the massive success of The Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind, convinced investors that there was serious money to be made in Hollywood.

This shift in perception brought about major changes in the film industry. Decision-making power moved from Hollywood to New York, where financiers began to dictate which films were produced. Technological advancements soon followed: faster and higher quality color film, widescreen formats, stereo sound, 3D, improved special effects, and dozens of other innovations were introduced to attract audiences to the theaters.

By the 1990s, character development and narrative had often taken a back seat to the technological spectacle of modern moviemaking. So yes, I agree, the pursuit of delivering an immersive experience began long ago, when big business discovered the movies.