Are Old Movies Really Better

[GLASNOST]

Elvis did a good job in both of the westerns he did. Not so much the others. having 5 older sister I sat through all Elvis movies, beach movies and the Tammy movies. Some people judge movies if they are Academy Award level and some movies are made to just be Pop corn movies but they are still fun to watch. Clarence the Cross Eyed Lion and Goodbye Charley are two Ihad in mind

As long as you enjoyed them.

 

[citygator]

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.

100% disagree.

The issue you are seeing is that there is 100Xs the content now and only 5Xs as much amazing content. So we have better content now, more of it, but there is so much content that is mediocre distractions that you notice.

 

[BothWings]

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.

The best music today is like that too, IMO.

 

[Flopper]

The link requires me to join it like a club or something like that.

Unbelieveable! Such a good film! Even small lines are extraordinary like "How much watch?" "Such much!" Yeah, I've seen the film many times.

Hmmmmm. Isn't Hal B. Wallis the one who produced those cheap, meaningless films with Elvis Presley? I know Elivs didn't like them. He wanted to be a serious actor, not sing.

Hal Wallis is know for producing movies that make money. In addition to Casablanca and a number of Presley films, he produced:
Moby Dick
The Petrified Forest
The Adventures of Robin Hood
Dark Victory
Sargent York
The Maltese Falcon
They Died With Their Boots ON
Yankee Doodle Dandy
Love Letters
I Walk Alone
Sorry, Wrong Number
Rope of Sand
My Friend Irma
Jumping Jacks
The Stooge
Artist and Models
The Rainmaker
Becket
Sons of Katie Elder
Barefoot in the Park
True Grit
Anne of a Thousand Days.
Rooster Cogburn

Over his 50 year career producing over 70 movies he has had 19 academy awards nominations. However, what has made him famous within the industry is the popularity of his movies and their box offices.

 

[Flopper]

100% disagree.

The issue you are seeing is that there is 100Xs the content now and only 5Xs as much amazing content. So we have better content now, more of it, but there is so much content that is mediocre distractions that you notice.

Not sure I know what you mean by content. I judge moves based on the following factors:
Narrative- If it doesn't have a good story to tell, you have nothing.
Character development - depends on a script and the actors interpretation of the script in a way that makes the character believable and memorable.
Cinematography- good composition is rare in movies today. Great movies should have shots that are suitable for framing.
Sound, that is; music and background sounds sets the tone for each scene. If sound and cinematography don't support and enhance the scene, it becomes a distraction.
Lastly. the ability of the director to bring all these factors together to create a compelling story can make all difference in the world.

Good movies should touch the heart, stir the imagination, and leave the audience wanting for more. Such movies as The Dark Knight, No Country for Old Me, Mulholland Drive are good examples.

Today, it is not the number of good movies that's the problem. It is huge number of bad ones. Finding the jewels within the rubble just takes too long.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm going to throw something out here to my good friend Flopper

Is our love of old movies because of quality or nostalgia?

I am a big fan of the Universal Horror movies. At the time, they were considered "Shocking". Today, they are considered rather tame. Frankenstein and Dracula pale in comparison to Freddy and Jason when it comes to creating fear.

 

[GLASNOST]

Hal Wallis is know for producing movies that make money. In addition to Casablanca and a number of Presley films, he produced:
Moby Dick
The Petrified Forest
The Adventures of Robin Hood
Dark Victory
Sargent York
The Maltese Falcon
They Died With Their Boots ON
Yankee Doodle Dandy
Love Letters
I Walk Alone
Sorry, Wrong Number
Rope of Sand
My Friend Irma
Jumping Jacks
The Stooge
Artist and Models
The Rainmaker
Becket
Sons of Katie Elder
Barefoot in the Park
True Grit
Anne of a Thousand Days.
Rooster Cogburn

Over his 50 year career producing over 70 movies he has had 19 academy awards nominations. However, what has made him famous within the industry is the popularity of his movies and their box offices.

I certainly do not agree that all of those films were "good". I despise hero-worshipping and overtly political boasting. I see several Joan Wayne films in your list and I cannot stand him. It seems to me that some of these films were encouraged by the government. But yes, some of these films were very good.

 

[citygator]

Today, it is not the number of good movies that's the problem. It is huge number of bad ones. Finding the jewels within the rubble just takes too long.

Pretty much what I said. There really are a lot of good movies, just so many movies out there. Most of you guys just watch at home anyway.

Just saw Naked Gun at theater. Not bad. Had some good gags.

Black Bag was good. Fantastic 4. Superman. Companion. 28 Years Later. Mission Impossible #1000, Thunderbolts, Friendship, Sinners. I liked Drop and Warfare although not everyone does.

 

[g5000]

Are Old Movies Really Better​

They must be, because Hollywood keeps remaking them.

And ******* them up.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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 suppose it depends on what one likes about movies. Personally, I like good story telling. I like moves that "show" instead of "tell".

So yes, I think old movies are better.

 

[Flopper]

I certainly do not agree that all of those films were "good". I despise hero-worshipping and overtly political boasting. I see several Joan Wayne films in your list and I cannot stand him. It seems to me that some of these films were encouraged by the government. But yes, some of these films were very good.

I said, he is know for producing films that make money, not necessary good films.

Film perception is shaped more by viewer expectations, background, and media influence than by the actual quality of the film. True quality stems from a coherent narrative, compelling performances, a well written script, and thoughtful cinematography and sound design. A person can acknowledge a movie’s excellence while still personally disliking it, for example Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? .

This movie is one of best movies of the 20th century but I just did not like it. For me the movie stirs memories I would rather forget.

The movie explores the dark side of marriage, illusions, and the brutal realities of life through the intense relationship of George (Richard Burton) and Martha (Elizabeth Taylor), a middle-aged couple, and their interactions with a younger couple, Nick and Honey. The script, the acting, and screen play are excellent but I just did didn't like it. Yet, I will praise the performance of Burton and Taylor and the fine script and story and certainly call it a good movie.

I wish more people would take this approach in reviewing movies. Tell us what you didn't like about a movie but don't call it a bad movie simple because you didn't like it.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

They must be, because Hollywood keeps remaking them.

And ******* them up.

I second this. I can understand wanting to salute the original production but depending on how different the new presentation can be, in my opinion, going to such extremes is like they are trying to point out what they think was wrong with the original production which to me, couldn't be anymore disrespectful towards those who made the first production as successful as it was.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. On the other hand, perhaps the new product can only make the original one even more successful. A remake most definitely brings the older project back to the front burner again.

 

[Flopper]

I second this. I can understand wanting to salute the original production but depending on how different the new presentation can be, in my opinion, going to such extremes is like they are trying to point out what they think was wrong with the original production which to me, couldn't be anymore disrespectful towards those who made the first production as successful as it was.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. On the other hand, perhaps the new product can only make the original one even more successful. A remake most definitely brings the older project back to the front burner again.

Pride and Prejudice has been made into a movie or tv series at least 4 times. The story and major scenes are almost exactly the same. Scripts are very similar. The Postman Aways Rings Twice has been adapted into film at least 4 times.

Perfetti Sconosciuti (also known as Perfect Strangers) film holds the record for the most remakes, with a total of 24

There are several reasons why remaking hit movies is popular with movie makers and it has nothing to do with making a better movie.

• Brand Recognition: Studios bet on familiar titles because they already have built-in audiences.
• Lower Risk, Higher Reward: A known story with past success is often seen as safer than launching something entirely new.
• Expanding to New Markets: Sometimes remakes tailor content to different languages or cultures.

 

[citygator]

Pride and Prejudice has been made into a movie or tv series at least 4 times. The story and major scenes are almost exactly the same. Scripts are very similar. The Postman Aways Rings Twice has been adapted into film at least 4 times.

Perfetti Sconosciuti (also known as Perfect Strangers) film holds the record for the most remakes, with a total of 24

There are several reasons why remaking hit movies is popular with movie makers and it has nothing to do with making a better movie.

• Brand Recognition: Studios bet on familiar titles because they already have built-in audiences.
• Lower Risk, Higher Reward: A known story with past success is often seen as safer than launching something entirely new.
• Expanding to New Markets: Sometimes remakes tailor content to different languages or cultures.

I would also argue that some stories are just timeless, but the way the stories are presented itself is not timeless.

 

[Flopper]

I would also argue that some stories are just timeless, but the way the stories are presented itself is not timeless.

That usually happens with a remake of a classic and the director attempts to modernize the movie to make it in more interesting to a younger generation. More often than not this fails. He fails to please the younger generation and loses the large audience who loved the original.

 

[JoeB131]

ON the question of whether old movies are better, I think it really depends on the Genre.

In the Genres of Science Fiction and Horror, modern movies are indeed better. No one is scared by Frankenstein anymore, and your giant bug movie from the 1950s just looks silly today. Modern CGI spaceships certainly look better than models hanging on strings against a black background. Improvements in special effects and pacing have certainly made these genre movies better.

Modern Romance movies (not that I watch a lot of those) are certainly better in that they reflect modern sensibilities about gender relations. While I'm not a fan of gratuitous sex and nudity, the absurdity of married couples sleeping in separate beds to not offend the Hayes office is certainly not missed.

Westerns- Ah, the Western, a genre that has not aged well because it's become problematic. The classic Western (Parodied so effectively in Blazing Saddles) was surplanted by the gritty Spaghetti Westerns, and Hollywood soon followed. This might reflect a more nuanced view of our history, though.

 

[Flopper]

ON the question of whether old movies are better, I think it really depends on the Genre.

In the Genres of Science Fiction and Horror, modern movies are indeed better. No one is scared by Frankenstein anymore, and your giant bug movie from the 1950s just looks silly today. Modern CGI spaceships certainly look better than models hanging on strings against a black background. Improvements in special effects and pacing have certainly made these genre movies better.

Modern Romance movies (not that I watch a lot of those) are certainly better in that they reflect modern sensibilities about gender relations. While I'm not a fan of gratuitous sex and nudity, the absurdity of married couples sleeping in separate beds to not offend the Hayes office is certainly not missed.

Westerns- Ah, the Western, a genre that has not aged well because it's become problematic. The classic Western (Parodied so effectively in Blazing Saddles) was surplanted by the gritty Spaghetti Westerns, and Hollywood soon followed. This might reflect a more nuanced view of our history, though.

I agree , genre is important. Where cinematic technology is important, modern movies do better than old ones.

Science fiction movies have always been a genre that tends to focus on technology at the expense of the narrative, acting, and the script. In the 20th century there were literally hundreds of them, every insect was turned into a monster. Every conceivable alien invaded the earth. Would these movies be better today? Most likely yes because they depended heavily on special effects, and technology.

Modern Romanic movies which depend very heavily of narrative, script, and acting and less on cinematic technology fair poorly compared to older romance movies. In AFIs top 100 Romanic movies, the top 10 were all made between 1931 and 1973. Modern day comedies which depend little on technology have faired poorly compared to older comedies. In AFI 100 years of comedy 22 of the top 25 comedies were made between 2031 and 1980. There is also a similar pattern with historic dramas. So as one might expect modern movies that are very depended technology were more popular than their older counterparts. However, older movies that depended less on technology and more on the narrative, script, and acting were more popular than their modern counterparts.

 

[justoffal]

I don't know, I mean in the past 5 years - I would say hell yes. But hopefully it looks just maybe the insanity of Hollywood choosing messaging and woke as priority #1 - is finally ending.
So perhaps we can get back to making movies again.

The little hermaphrodite instead of the little mermaid?

 

[Zebra]

True. I cringe when I think of the Tarzan films with tigers and bears and alligators roaming around the jungles of Africa and the sound of kookaburras in the trees.

Tarzan even fought the Nazis

 

[GLASNOST]

Tarzan even fought the Nazis

Kamerun, Tanganyika, Süd-West Africa?