Why don't people watch films?

[Flopper]

I don't watch many new films because most of them seem to be rehashes of old tropes. I'd rather read about history or geology. I do like watching films that deal with/are set in a specific era and portray it well. I'm usually out wheelying/snowmobiling, if not posting on here listening to tunes.

Good for you. Watching movies is like watching a colorized version of life instead of living it. However for some of us, that's all there is.

Movies, plays, books are always rehashing old plots with different settings. For example, Star Trek was just a different version of the Wagon Train TV series. The Enterprise was the wagon train. Capt Kirk was the wagon master. The aliens were usually the Indians and outlaws. The crew of Enterprise were the settlers. The voyages of the Enterprise were wagon train trips to the west.
And stories of each series were morality tales were general good triumphs over evil.

There are only 7 basic plots as explained in this link.
The Seven Basic Plots - Wikipedia

 

[Flopper]

Some good movies on TCM tomorrow:
The Best Years of Our Lives and Pride of the Marines are probably the best, both WWII flicks. The Best Years of Our Lives is a 7 time academy award winner about life in America when the troops come home. Pride of the Marines is a biographical drama about war hero. Al Schmid.

Only Angles Have Wings is a good drama about a pilot flying the Andes in the 1930's with Cary Grant.

To Have and Have Not is the Bogie movie where he meets Bacall set during the war in Martinique. The novel's by Hemingway, script by William Faulker, and directed by Howard Hawks, so it's got to be the best movie Bogie did, but it's not. However it is still worth watching with Walter Brennan, Hogie Carmichael, and Baccal with her most famous line,
"You know you don't have to act with me, Steve. You don't have to say anything and you don't have to do anything. Not a thing. Oh, maybe just whistle. You know how to whistle, don't you, Steve? You just put your lips together and blow"

The Best Years of Our Lives.



Pride of the Marines



Only Angels Have Wings



To Have and Have Not

I’ve taped a few Maureen o’Hara Movies. Right now I’m watching sinbad the sailor. Also starring Anthony Quinn and Douglas Fairbanks jr. so far really boring. I wonder what people thought in 1947.

I couldn’t even tell you what’s happening.

Good old action adventure movies made in 40's are hard to find because they depended on the action, color photograph, and location for success, not acting or the script, nor the plot.

Most people today would not consider a sword fight in living color on a ship exciting without wide screen, Dolby sound, and the ship going over a waterfall and falling into a new dimension and the mouth of a sea monster the size of earth.

In the 40's that was not only impossible but audiences did not expect it. This was a time when people went to the circus to see a real live elephant or lion. People when to the airport to watch airplanes land and take off. And in many towns the most exciting thing to do on Saturday night was to go to the movie Sinbad the Sailor or the swim meet at the municipal pool or just stay home and listen to Amos and Andy and Laurence Welk.

During this period, there are plenty of good dramas, love stories, and comedies with good plots, clever scripts and fine acting which are forever entertaining to audience. I suggest you try some these or seek newer action adventure movies.

I know the difference between a good movie made in the 40' and a bad one. Sinbad sucked. I'm sure it's not one of the movies any of these actors are most proud of. LOL. It really really sucked.

What do you mean they didn't depend on the script? If you don't have special effects, the plot and script are all you have. This story went nowhere and was boring. The dialog seemed to be all over the place.

You are right that maybe they made the movie longer than it needed to be because people back then wanted a long movie experience. Sort of like Laurence Of Arabia only not nearly as good.

Of course I can seek newer action adventures but that's not what my goal is. I search for old gems. They exist. But not every classic is actually a classic on Turner Classic Movies.

What I meant was in the 1940’s most of the major action adventure spectaculars were popular because they offered first adventure, sword fights, gun fights, trains running off cliffs, airplanes crashing etc. Second, they were shot in color which was a huge draw since so many movies were in b&w. Lastly, they had recognized stars, not always the biggest in Hollywood but solid names guaranteed to draw and audience. They shot a lot of swashbucklers because ships and castles could be done very well on sound stages. Good scripts, stories, and good acting was not needed to make good money. Scripts were thrown together, actors and directors modified them the day of the shooting and since lines were easy as well as the acting, except for action scenes they were usually done in one take. The studios loved them because made money.

That's not to say that all action adventure movies of 40's were bad. Here are some good ones with good acting, scripts, and story lines.
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
Red River
The Sea Hawk
Sahara
The Thief of Bagdad

Although TCM owns the rights to a huge number of movies, there is still a lot that they never or seldom show. Here’s a link to a group of classic older movies that you can stream at no cost. Included is the “The Stranger” with Orson Welles. It’s a good suspenseful movie. "Meet John Doe is good". The Judy Garland 1954 version of "A Star is Born" is always a favorite but I think the 1937 version included in this section is a bit better, although not in color. They are not many action adventure movies in this group but they're some pretty good movies here.
30 Hollywood Classics Streaming for Free in the Public Domain

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Why don't people specifically watch more old films? I love them myself.

I've decided to choose two, one a perhaps little known, but wonderful British murder/mystery film from 1952 "Mr. Denning Drives North". It's okay the link doesn't give any of plot away:

Mr. Denning Drives North - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's the full film, 1 hour 27 minutes:



Then as I love Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, as Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson. I think "Sherlock Holmes and The House of Fear" from 1945 is excellent and very atmospheric.

Here's the full film, 1 hour 9 minutes:



If you watch these films, hopefully you'll like them.

Another very good 1940s Film Noir that I recommend. "He Walked By Night" made in 1948 and starring Richard Basehart, Jack Webb, James Cardwell and Scott Brady.

Here is the full film in excellent picture quality, the duration of the film is 1 hour and 18 minutes:



He Walked by Night - Wikipedia

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Some good movies on TCM tomorrow:
The Best Years of Our Lives and Pride of the Marines are probably the best, both WWII flicks. The Best Years of Our Lives is a 7 time academy award winner about life in America when the troops come home. Pride of the Marines is a biographical drama about war hero. Al Schmid.

Only Angles Have Wings is a good drama about a pilot flying the Andes in the 1930's with Cary Grant.

To Have and Have Not is the Bogie movie where he meets Bacall set during the war in Martinique. The novel's by Hemingway, script by William Faulker, and directed by Howard Hawks, so it's got to be the best movie Bogie did, but it's not. However it is still worth watching with Walter Brennan, Hogie Carmichael, and Baccal with her most famous line,
"You know you don't have to act with me, Steve. You don't have to say anything and you don't have to do anything. Not a thing. Oh, maybe just whistle. You know how to whistle, don't you, Steve? You just put your lips together and blow"

The Best Years of Our Lives.



Pride of the Marines



Only Angels Have Wings



To Have and Have Not

I’ve taped a few Maureen o’Hara Movies. Right now I’m watching sinbad the sailor. Also starring Anthony Quinn and Douglas Fairbanks jr. so far really boring. I wonder what people thought in 1947.

I couldn’t even tell you what’s happening.

Good old action adventure movies made in 40's are hard to find because they depended on the action, color photograph, and location for success, not acting or the script, nor the plot.

Most people today would not consider a sword fight in living color on a ship exciting without wide screen, Dolby sound, and the ship going over a waterfall and falling into a new dimension and the mouth of a sea monster the size of earth.

In the 40's that was not only impossible but audiences did not expect it. This was a time when people went to the circus to see a real live elephant or lion. People when to the airport to watch airplanes land and take off. And in many towns the most exciting thing to do on Saturday night was to go to the movie Sinbad the Sailor or the swim meet at the municipal pool or just stay home and listen to Amos and Andy and Laurence Welk.

During this period, there are plenty of good dramas, love stories, and comedies with good plots, clever scripts and fine acting which are forever entertaining to audience. I suggest you try some these or seek newer action adventure movies.

I know the difference between a good movie made in the 40' and a bad one. Sinbad sucked. I'm sure it's not one of the movies any of these actors are most proud of. LOL. It really really sucked.

What do you mean they didn't depend on the script? If you don't have special effects, the plot and script are all you have. This story went nowhere and was boring. The dialog seemed to be all over the place.

You are right that maybe they made the movie longer than it needed to be because people back then wanted a long movie experience. Sort of like Laurence Of Arabia only not nearly as good.

Of course I can seek newer action adventures but that's not what my goal is. I search for old gems. They exist. But not every classic is actually a classic on Turner Classic Movies.

What I meant was in the 1940’s most of the major action adventure spectaculars were popular because they offered first adventure, sword fights, gun fights, trains running off cliffs, airplanes crashing etc. Second, they were shot in color which was a huge draw since so many movies were in b&w. Lastly, they had recognized stars, not always the biggest in Hollywood but solid names guaranteed to draw and audience. They shot a lot of swashbucklers because ships and castles could be done very well on sound stages. Good scripts, stories, and good acting was not needed to make good money. Scripts were thrown together, actors and directors modified them the day of the shooting and since lines were easy as well as the acting, except for action scenes they were usually done in one take. The studios loved them because made money.

That's not to say that all action adventure movies of 40's were bad. Here are some good ones with good acting, scripts, and story lines.
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
Red River
The Sea Hawk
Sahara
The Thief of Bagdad

Although TCM owns the rights to a huge number of movies, there is still a lot that they never or seldom show. Here’s a link to a group of classic older movies that you can stream at no cost. Included is the “The Stranger” with Orson Welles. It’s a good suspenseful movie. "Meet John Doe is good". The Judy Garland 1954 version of "A Star is Born" is always a favorite but I think the 1937 version included in this section is a bit better, although not in color. They are not many action adventure movies in this group but they're some pretty good movies here.
30 Hollywood Classics Streaming for Free in the Public Domain

I love "The Thief of Bagdad" the 1940 version and I have it on DVD (there was a silent version made in 1924 and starring Douglas Fairbanks) but if anyone who does not have it on DVD or has never seen it before and wants to watch it The Daily Motion has uploaded it, the film of course was shot in Technicolor and so as well as being a great film it also looks very beautiful.

 

[Pogo]

OK speaking of old movies, time to fess up. Over the Christmas holiday I managed to borrow a DVD of "Gone With the Wind", a film I had never seen in a world where everybody claimed to have seen it. 80 years after it was released I finally saw it.

What a profound waste of time. Three hours I'll never get back. All it told me was that Clark Gable sucked at acting. It reminded me why I don't watch films.

Next movie I saw that someone gave me, was equally bad, "Half Nelson". Could have been a developable basis. I listened to the directors' comments and got the definite impression they have no clue what they're doing, admitting they dropped references that nobody got, and made grand assumptions that the viewer would conclude without having to explain dangling plot ends. What a stinker. I must admit I was always unsure why who directed a film is always highlighted but this one made clear how it can ruin a good idea.

 

[froggy]

Why don't people specifically watch more old films? I love them myself.

I've decided to choose two, one a perhaps little known, but wonderful British murder/mystery film from 1952 "Mr. Denning Drives North". It's okay the link doesn't give any of plot away:

Mr. Denning Drives North - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's the full film, 1 hour 27 minutes:



Then as I love Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, as Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson. I think "Sherlock Holmes and The House of Fear" from 1945 is excellent and very atmospheric.

Here's the full film, 1 hour 9 minutes:



If you watch these films, hopefully you'll like them.

Another very good 1940s Film Noir that I recommend. "He Walked By Night" made in 1948 and starring Richard Basehart, Jack Webb, James Cardwell and Scott Brady.

Here is the full film in excellent picture quality, the duration of the film is 1 hour and 18 minutes:



He Walked by Night - Wikipedia

How about this one Lucy in disguise

 

[Picaro]

Re black and white films, some were in 'color', it's just that those were probably worn out and the b&w's are the only remaining relatively undamaged copies left. Many films were dyed, especially during the Silent era, but with the Depression and the loss of markets that was too expensive a process. As an example, early film stock couldn't photo graph clouds, so if those were needed in a scene, they had to be painted in by hand. This is why I find the 'anti-colorization' whiners so funny. And, re silents, the irony is the best copies that survive of of the worst movies, the good ones having been worn out by repeated running's. Buster Keaton kept copies of his in a safe, left there for decades before somebody decided to break it open, which is why we a good selection of his stuff around, while very little is left of Mack Sennett's or Harold Lloyd's shorts.

Many of the 'classics' were really accidental hits, due to the factory line methods used to make films during the studio era, some directors being better than others, and some that are well thought of today weren't big hits in their times. Bogart's earlier movies were all made at the cheesy cheap studios as B movies; he just took off with the public for some reason. I never cared for his movies personally, my favorite black old b&w films are My Darling Clementine, Grapes Of Wrath, both with Henry Fonda, coincidentally, the Thin Man series, The Third Man, and some of the old war movies and some of the other westerns.

Same with records; when one goes back and looks at the Billboard charts, you see very few of those 'great oldies' near the top; some years you have to get to Number 35 or below to find one you'll recognize. I have the Dupree's 50th Anniversary CD, autographed, and it is better by far than the original recordings, for example. And forget having ever heard of the better European artists here in the U.S.

 

[froggy]

Inside the Nuclear Bunker Where America Preserves Its Movie History

 

[sealybobo]

So glad to be back. I'm a changed man!

 

[Flopper]

OK speaking of old movies, time to fess up. Over the Christmas holiday I managed to borrow a DVD of "Gone With the Wind", a film I had never seen in a world where everybody claimed to have seen it. 80 years after it was released I finally saw it.

What a profound waste of time. Three hours I'll never get back. All it told me was that Clark Gable sucked at acting. It reminded me why I don't watch films.

Next movie I saw that someone gave me, was equally bad, "Half Nelson". Could have been a developable basis. I listened to the directors' comments and got the definite impression they have no clue what they're doing, admitting they dropped references that nobody got, and made grand assumptions that the viewer would conclude without having to explain dangling plot ends. What a stinker. I must admit I was always unsure why who directed a film is always highlighted but this one made clear how it can ruin a good idea.

I have a totally different take on "Gone With the Wind". To me it is one of greatest movies ever made. When watching older classic movies, you have to remember that they are made for a very different audience than movies made today. GWTW is 80 years old. The world was a very different place than it is today. The scenes of Atlanta burning, Rhett Butler telling Scarlett he didn't give a damn, the treatment of slavery, the theme music, and the first major motion picture in technicolor were amazing at the time. Today, Gone With the Wind is dated. A number of movies have been made with similar themes. The characters have been satirized on TV over and over, the horrific war scenes have little impact on audiences today, and the movie is far too long for today's audiences.

 

[Pogo]

OK speaking of old movies, time to fess up. Over the Christmas holiday I managed to borrow a DVD of "Gone With the Wind", a film I had never seen in a world where everybody claimed to have seen it. 80 years after it was released I finally saw it.

What a profound waste of time. Three hours I'll never get back. All it told me was that Clark Gable sucked at acting. It reminded me why I don't watch films.

Next movie I saw that someone gave me, was equally bad, "Half Nelson". Could have been a developable basis. I listened to the directors' comments and got the definite impression they have no clue what they're doing, admitting they dropped references that nobody got, and made grand assumptions that the viewer would conclude without having to explain dangling plot ends. What a stinker. I must admit I was always unsure why who directed a film is always highlighted but this one made clear how it can ruin a good idea.

I have a totally different take on "Gone With the Wind". To me it is one of greatest movies ever made. When watching older classic movies, you have to remember that they are made for a very different audience than movies made today. GWTW is 80 years old. The world was a very different place than it is today. The scenes of Atlanta burning, Rhett Butler telling Scarlett he didn't give a damn, the treatment of slavery, the theme music, and the first major motion picture in technicolor were amazing at the time. Today, Gone With the Wind is dated. A number of movies have been made with similar themes. The characters have been satirized on TV over and over, the horrific war scenes have little impact on audiences today, and the movie is far too long for today's audiences.

Actually I wasn't paying attention to the technicalities, just the story itself. In strictly that context Rhett Butler's 'famous' line just fell flat compared to the anticipation derived from its legacy.

Frankly unless a film is intrinsically and heavily based on special effects e.g. Avatar, I pay no attention to them. I'm just interested in the story itself. Absent temporal limitations, stories are or should be timeless, and I found this one lacking.

 

[Flopper]

OK speaking of old movies, time to fess up. Over the Christmas holiday I managed to borrow a DVD of "Gone With the Wind", a film I had never seen in a world where everybody claimed to have seen it. 80 years after it was released I finally saw it.

What a profound waste of time. Three hours I'll never get back. All it told me was that Clark Gable sucked at acting. It reminded me why I don't watch films.

Next movie I saw that someone gave me, was equally bad, "Half Nelson". Could have been a developable basis. I listened to the directors' comments and got the definite impression they have no clue what they're doing, admitting they dropped references that nobody got, and made grand assumptions that the viewer would conclude without having to explain dangling plot ends. What a stinker. I must admit I was always unsure why who directed a film is always highlighted but this one made clear how it can ruin a good idea.

I have a totally different take on "Gone With the Wind". To me it is one of greatest movies ever made. When watching older classic movies, you have to remember that they are made for a very different audience than movies made today. GWTW is 80 years old. The world was a very different place than it is today. The scenes of Atlanta burning, Rhett Butler telling Scarlett he didn't give a damn, the treatment of slavery, the theme music, and the first major motion picture in technicolor were amazing at the time. Today, Gone With the Wind is dated. A number of movies have been made with similar themes. The characters have been satirized on TV over and over, the horrific war scenes have little impact on audiences today, and the movie is far too long for today's audiences.

Actually I wasn't paying attention to the technicalities, just the story itself. In strictly that context Rhett Butler's 'famous' line just fell flat compared to the anticipation derived from its legacy.

Frankly unless a film is intrinsically and heavily based on special effects e.g. Avatar, I pay no attention to them. I'm just interested in the story itself. Absent temporal limitations, stories are or should be timeless, and I found this one lacking.

While most people see the strongest scene of the movie as the last scene between Scarlett and Rhett, I believe the best scene of the movie is the one before the intermission where Scarlet shows her resolve to survive.



When you consider other top movies of 1939, "Ninotchka", "Goodbye Mr. Chips"," Dark Victory", and "Wizard of Oz", "Gone With the Wind" surpasses them all, cinematography, music, acting, script, etc.

 

[Pogo]

OK speaking of old movies, time to fess up. Over the Christmas holiday I managed to borrow a DVD of "Gone With the Wind", a film I had never seen in a world where everybody claimed to have seen it. 80 years after it was released I finally saw it.

What a profound waste of time. Three hours I'll never get back. All it told me was that Clark Gable sucked at acting. It reminded me why I don't watch films.

Next movie I saw that someone gave me, was equally bad, "Half Nelson". Could have been a developable basis. I listened to the directors' comments and got the definite impression they have no clue what they're doing, admitting they dropped references that nobody got, and made grand assumptions that the viewer would conclude without having to explain dangling plot ends. What a stinker. I must admit I was always unsure why who directed a film is always highlighted but this one made clear how it can ruin a good idea.

I have a totally different take on "Gone With the Wind". To me it is one of greatest movies ever made. When watching older classic movies, you have to remember that they are made for a very different audience than movies made today. GWTW is 80 years old. The world was a very different place than it is today. The scenes of Atlanta burning, Rhett Butler telling Scarlett he didn't give a damn, the treatment of slavery, the theme music, and the first major motion picture in technicolor were amazing at the time. Today, Gone With the Wind is dated. A number of movies have been made with similar themes. The characters have been satirized on TV over and over, the horrific war scenes have little impact on audiences today, and the movie is far too long for today's audiences.

Actually I wasn't paying attention to the technicalities, just the story itself. In strictly that context Rhett Butler's 'famous' line just fell flat compared to the anticipation derived from its legacy.

Frankly unless a film is intrinsically and heavily based on special effects e.g. Avatar, I pay no attention to them. I'm just interested in the story itself. Absent temporal limitations, stories are or should be timeless, and I found this one lacking.

While most people see the strongest scene of the movie as the last scene between Scarlett and Rhett, I believe the best scene of the movie is the one before the intermission where Scarlet shows her resolve to survive.



When you consider other top movies of 1939, "Ninotchka", "Goodbye Mr. Chips"," Dark Victory", and "Wizard of Oz", "Gone With the Wind" surpasses them all, cinematography, music, acting, and script.

I agree that that "resolve" scene in GWTW is much more meaningful. And it invites a historical reflection on how things were, and that's good.

I don't know most of those films of 1939, but Oz is far more interesting, for its symbolism.

 

[Flopper]

OK speaking of old movies, time to fess up. Over the Christmas holiday I managed to borrow a DVD of "Gone With the Wind", a film I had never seen in a world where everybody claimed to have seen it. 80 years after it was released I finally saw it.

What a profound waste of time. Three hours I'll never get back. All it told me was that Clark Gable sucked at acting. It reminded me why I don't watch films.

Next movie I saw that someone gave me, was equally bad, "Half Nelson". Could have been a developable basis. I listened to the directors' comments and got the definite impression they have no clue what they're doing, admitting they dropped references that nobody got, and made grand assumptions that the viewer would conclude without having to explain dangling plot ends. What a stinker. I must admit I was always unsure why who directed a film is always highlighted but this one made clear how it can ruin a good idea.

I have a totally different take on "Gone With the Wind". To me it is one of greatest movies ever made. When watching older classic movies, you have to remember that they are made for a very different audience than movies made today. GWTW is 80 years old. The world was a very different place than it is today. The scenes of Atlanta burning, Rhett Butler telling Scarlett he didn't give a damn, the treatment of slavery, the theme music, and the first major motion picture in technicolor were amazing at the time. Today, Gone With the Wind is dated. A number of movies have been made with similar themes. The characters have been satirized on TV over and over, the horrific war scenes have little impact on audiences today, and the movie is far too long for today's audiences.

Actually I wasn't paying attention to the technicalities, just the story itself. In strictly that context Rhett Butler's 'famous' line just fell flat compared to the anticipation derived from its legacy.

Frankly unless a film is intrinsically and heavily based on special effects e.g. Avatar, I pay no attention to them. I'm just interested in the story itself. Absent temporal limitations, stories are or should be timeless, and I found this one lacking.

While most people see the strongest scene of the movie as the last scene between Scarlett and Rhett, I believe the best scene of the movie is the one before the intermission where Scarlet shows her resolve to survive.



When you consider other top movies of 1939, "Ninotchka", "Goodbye Mr. Chips"," Dark Victory", and "Wizard of Oz", "Gone With the Wind" surpasses them all, cinematography, music, acting, and script.

I agree that that "resolve" scene in GWTW is much more meaningful. And it invites a historical reflection on how things were, and that's good.

I don't know most of those films of 1939, but Oz is far more interesting, for its symbolism.

Oz is the classic that will out last "Gone With the Wind" because it is a timeless story for all ages.

GWTW was written by Margaret Mitchell in the 1930's. The Civil War at that time was not just another war buried in the pages of history books like the revolutionary war. It was very real to people who had parents and grandparents who died at Gettysburg, were imprisoned at Andersonville, and lived in slavery. GWTW was the first major motion picture to tell the story of the Civil War through the eyes of White Southerns who suffers from the war.

1939 was great year for classic movies, not just Oz and GWTW. Every time I see the the classic, "Goodbye Mr Chips" with Robert Donat and Greer Garson, it brings a tear to my eye. And how could anyone not be moved by James Stewart, the idealistic freshman member of congress in "Mr Smith goes to Washington", laboring into the 24th hour of a one-man filibuster, distraught, but vowing to continue his fight against an entrenched political establishment, as he collapses before congress in exhaustion.

 

[Muhammed]

Why don't people specifically watch more old films? I love them myself.

I've decided to choose two, one a perhaps little known, but wonderful British murder/mystery film from 1952 "Mr. Denning Drives North". It's okay the link doesn't give any of plot away:

Mr. Denning Drives North - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's the full film, 1 hour 27 minutes:



Then as I love Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, as Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson. I think "Sherlock Holmes and The House of Fear" from 1945 is excellent and very atmospheric.

Here's the full film, 1 hour 9 minutes:



If you watch these films, hopefully you'll like them.

I just watched The Snake Pit (1948) on the MGM channel last night.

Sometimes I really like watching those old films.

 

[Pogo]

OK speaking of old movies, time to fess up. Over the Christmas holiday I managed to borrow a DVD of "Gone With the Wind", a film I had never seen in a world where everybody claimed to have seen it. 80 years after it was released I finally saw it.

What a profound waste of time. Three hours I'll never get back. All it told me was that Clark Gable sucked at acting. It reminded me why I don't watch films.

Next movie I saw that someone gave me, was equally bad, "Half Nelson". Could have been a developable basis. I listened to the directors' comments and got the definite impression they have no clue what they're doing, admitting they dropped references that nobody got, and made grand assumptions that the viewer would conclude without having to explain dangling plot ends. What a stinker. I must admit I was always unsure why who directed a film is always highlighted but this one made clear how it can ruin a good idea.

I have a totally different take on "Gone With the Wind". To me it is one of greatest movies ever made. When watching older classic movies, you have to remember that they are made for a very different audience than movies made today. GWTW is 80 years old. The world was a very different place than it is today. The scenes of Atlanta burning, Rhett Butler telling Scarlett he didn't give a damn, the treatment of slavery, the theme music, and the first major motion picture in technicolor were amazing at the time. Today, Gone With the Wind is dated. A number of movies have been made with similar themes. The characters have been satirized on TV over and over, the horrific war scenes have little impact on audiences today, and the movie is far too long for today's audiences.

Actually I wasn't paying attention to the technicalities, just the story itself. In strictly that context Rhett Butler's 'famous' line just fell flat compared to the anticipation derived from its legacy.

Frankly unless a film is intrinsically and heavily based on special effects e.g. Avatar, I pay no attention to them. I'm just interested in the story itself. Absent temporal limitations, stories are or should be timeless, and I found this one lacking.

While most people see the strongest scene of the movie as the last scene between Scarlett and Rhett, I believe the best scene of the movie is the one before the intermission where Scarlet shows her resolve to survive.



When you consider other top movies of 1939, "Ninotchka", "Goodbye Mr. Chips"," Dark Victory", and "Wizard of Oz", "Gone With the Wind" surpasses them all, cinematography, music, acting, and script.

I agree that that "resolve" scene in GWTW is much more meaningful. And it invites a historical reflection on how things were, and that's good.

I don't know most of those films of 1939, but Oz is far more interesting, for its symbolism.

Oz is the classic that will out last "Gone With the Wind" because it is a timeless story for all ages.

GWTW was written by Margaret Mitchell in the 1930's. The Civil War at that time was not just another war buried in the pages of history books like the revolutionary war. It was very real to people who had parents and grandparents who died at Gettysburg, were imprisoned at Andersonville, and lived in slavery. GWTW was the first major motion picture to tell the story of the Civil War through the eyes of White Southerns who suffers from the war.

1939 was great year for classic movies, not just Oz and GWTW. Every time I see the the classic, "Goodbye Mr Chips" with Robert Donat and Greer Garson, it brings a tear to my eye. And how could anyone not be moved by James Stewart, the idealistic freshman member of congress in "Mr Smith goes to Washington", laboring into the 24th hour of a one-man filibuster, distraught, but vowing to continue his fight against an entrenched political establishment, as he collapses before congress in exhaustion.

The Civil War itself was very real, the fiction of Mitchell and in the bigger picture the Lost Cause Cult, was not. Nor did GWTW take on the War directly, i.e.while it was a film certainly about the South and its social circles, it wasn't really about the War. Oz on the other hand was a very real allegory of another important societal shift of the turn of the century, the Progressive Era and the Gold/Silver philosophical schism.

It could be said that both invite the viewer to further study their respective historical backgrounds but Oz much more so. GWTW is more a personal story. Personal stories have their place, but as such I found it wanting.

 

[22lcidw]

I have a totally different take on "Gone With the Wind". To me it is one of greatest movies ever made. When watching older classic movies, you have to remember that they are made for a very different audience than movies made today. GWTW is 80 years old. The world was a very different place than it is today. The scenes of Atlanta burning, Rhett Butler telling Scarlett he didn't give a damn, the treatment of slavery, the theme music, and the first major motion picture in technicolor were amazing at the time. Today, Gone With the Wind is dated. A number of movies have been made with similar themes. The characters have been satirized on TV over and over, the horrific war scenes have little impact on audiences today, and the movie is far too long for today's audiences.

Actually I wasn't paying attention to the technicalities, just the story itself. In strictly that context Rhett Butler's 'famous' line just fell flat compared to the anticipation derived from its legacy.

Frankly unless a film is intrinsically and heavily based on special effects e.g. Avatar, I pay no attention to them. I'm just interested in the story itself. Absent temporal limitations, stories are or should be timeless, and I found this one lacking.

While most people see the strongest scene of the movie as the last scene between Scarlett and Rhett, I believe the best scene of the movie is the one before the intermission where Scarlet shows her resolve to survive.



When you consider other top movies of 1939, "Ninotchka", "Goodbye Mr. Chips"," Dark Victory", and "Wizard of Oz", "Gone With the Wind" surpasses them all, cinematography, music, acting, and script.

I agree that that "resolve" scene in GWTW is much more meaningful. And it invites a historical reflection on how things were, and that's good.

I don't know most of those films of 1939, but Oz is far more interesting, for its symbolism.

Oz is the classic that will out last "Gone With the Wind" because it is a timeless story for all ages.

GWTW was written by Margaret Mitchell in the 1930's. The Civil War at that time was not just another war buried in the pages of history books like the revolutionary war. It was very real to people who had parents and grandparents who died at Gettysburg, were imprisoned at Andersonville, and lived in slavery. GWTW was the first major motion picture to tell the story of the Civil War through the eyes of White Southerns who suffers from the war.

1939 was great year for classic movies, not just Oz and GWTW. Every time I see the the classic, "Goodbye Mr Chips" with Robert Donat and Greer Garson, it brings a tear to my eye. And how could anyone not be moved by James Stewart, the idealistic freshman member of congress in "Mr Smith goes to Washington", laboring into the 24th hour of a one-man filibuster, distraught, but vowing to continue his fight against an entrenched political establishment, as he collapses before congress in exhaustion.

The Civil War itself was very real, the fiction of Mitchell and in the bigger picture the Lost Cause Cult, was not. Nor did GWTW take on the War directly, i.e.while it was a film certainly about the South and its social circles, it wasn't really about the War. Oz on the other hand was a very real allegory of another important societal shift of the turn of the century, the Progressive Era and the Gold/Silver philosophical schism.

It could be said that both invite the viewer to further study their respective historical backgrounds but Oz much more so. GWTW is more a personal story. Personal stories have their place, but as such I found it wanting.

Movies that are part musicals in that era was not complicated. The Depression was not fun for people. On the eve of a World War Oz was one of the fitting end musicals for that time. Other musicals were made of course. During the War and until Kennedy there were many of them but at reducing numbers. From then on they have been produced in small amounts up till now.

 

[Flopper]

Why don't people specifically watch more old films? I love them myself.

I've decided to choose two, one a perhaps little known, but wonderful British murder/mystery film from 1952 "Mr. Denning Drives North". It's okay the link doesn't give any of plot away:

Mr. Denning Drives North - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's the full film, 1 hour 27 minutes:



Then as I love Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, as Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson. I think "Sherlock Holmes and The House of Fear" from 1945 is excellent and very atmospheric.

Here's the full film, 1 hour 9 minutes:



If you watch these films, hopefully you'll like them.

I just watched The Snake Pit (1948) on the MGM channel last night.

Sometimes I really like watching those old films.

In it's day, that was a pretty terrifying movie.

 

[Flopper]

Actually I wasn't paying attention to the technicalities, just the story itself. In strictly that context Rhett Butler's 'famous' line just fell flat compared to the anticipation derived from its legacy.

Frankly unless a film is intrinsically and heavily based on special effects e.g. Avatar, I pay no attention to them. I'm just interested in the story itself. Absent temporal limitations, stories are or should be timeless, and I found this one lacking.

While most people see the strongest scene of the movie as the last scene between Scarlett and Rhett, I believe the best scene of the movie is the one before the intermission where Scarlet shows her resolve to survive.



When you consider other top movies of 1939, "Ninotchka", "Goodbye Mr. Chips"," Dark Victory", and "Wizard of Oz", "Gone With the Wind" surpasses them all, cinematography, music, acting, and script.

I agree that that "resolve" scene in GWTW is much more meaningful. And it invites a historical reflection on how things were, and that's good.

I don't know most of those films of 1939, but Oz is far more interesting, for its symbolism.

Oz is the classic that will out last "Gone With the Wind" because it is a timeless story for all ages.

GWTW was written by Margaret Mitchell in the 1930's. The Civil War at that time was not just another war buried in the pages of history books like the revolutionary war. It was very real to people who had parents and grandparents who died at Gettysburg, were imprisoned at Andersonville, and lived in slavery. GWTW was the first major motion picture to tell the story of the Civil War through the eyes of White Southerns who suffers from the war.

1939 was great year for classic movies, not just Oz and GWTW. Every time I see the the classic, "Goodbye Mr Chips" with Robert Donat and Greer Garson, it brings a tear to my eye. And how could anyone not be moved by James Stewart, the idealistic freshman member of congress in "Mr Smith goes to Washington", laboring into the 24th hour of a one-man filibuster, distraught, but vowing to continue his fight against an entrenched political establishment, as he collapses before congress in exhaustion.

The Civil War itself was very real, the fiction of Mitchell and in the bigger picture the Lost Cause Cult, was not. Nor did GWTW take on the War directly, i.e.while it was a film certainly about the South and its social circles, it wasn't really about the War. Oz on the other hand was a very real allegory of another important societal shift of the turn of the century, the Progressive Era and the Gold/Silver philosophical schism.

It could be said that both invite the viewer to further study their respective historical backgrounds but Oz much more so. GWTW is more a personal story. Personal stories have their place, but as such I found it wanting.

Movies that are part musicals in that era was not complicated. The Depression was not fun for people. On the eve of a World War Oz was one of the fitting end musicals for that time. Other musicals were made of course. During the War and until Kennedy there were many of them but at reducing numbers. From then on they have been produced in small amounts up till now.

Strange as it may seem, Americans love of musicals such as Oz, Oklahoma, Sound of Music, West Side Story, etc has not been shared by Hollywood. The reason being the cost of production and limited number of proven winners on Broadway. Because of the risks and costs of big musicals, investors want movies with smaller budgets which is why they want proof of success on stage. However, even great success on Broadway does not always guarantee success on the screen. CATs, which was a huge success and money maker on Broadway for 18 years, failed miserable at the Box Office. It took ten years for Oz to turn a profit. A Chorus Line, a great Broadway musical failed miserably at box office; $27M budget, $4.8M domestic gross.


What investors really love is a movie like "Paranormal Normal Activity" with a budget of $450,000 and box office of $89 million, over a 10,000% return on investment.

As the cost of making movie musicals rose rapidly in the 60's and with the encroachment of TV, MGM the king of the big musicals slipped away due to lack of investment.

 

[22lcidw]

While most people see the strongest scene of the movie as the last scene between Scarlett and Rhett, I believe the best scene of the movie is the one before the intermission where Scarlet shows her resolve to survive.



When you consider other top movies of 1939, "Ninotchka", "Goodbye Mr. Chips"," Dark Victory", and "Wizard of Oz", "Gone With the Wind" surpasses them all, cinematography, music, acting, and script.

I agree that that "resolve" scene in GWTW is much more meaningful. And it invites a historical reflection on how things were, and that's good.

I don't know most of those films of 1939, but Oz is far more interesting, for its symbolism.

Oz is the classic that will out last "Gone With the Wind" because it is a timeless story for all ages.

GWTW was written by Margaret Mitchell in the 1930's. The Civil War at that time was not just another war buried in the pages of history books like the revolutionary war. It was very real to people who had parents and grandparents who died at Gettysburg, were imprisoned at Andersonville, and lived in slavery. GWTW was the first major motion picture to tell the story of the Civil War through the eyes of White Southerns who suffers from the war.

1939 was great year for classic movies, not just Oz and GWTW. Every time I see the the classic, "Goodbye Mr Chips" with Robert Donat and Greer Garson, it brings a tear to my eye. And how could anyone not be moved by James Stewart, the idealistic freshman member of congress in "Mr Smith goes to Washington", laboring into the 24th hour of a one-man filibuster, distraught, but vowing to continue his fight against an entrenched political establishment, as he collapses before congress in exhaustion.

The Civil War itself was very real, the fiction of Mitchell and in the bigger picture the Lost Cause Cult, was not. Nor did GWTW take on the War directly, i.e.while it was a film certainly about the South and its social circles, it wasn't really about the War. Oz on the other hand was a very real allegory of another important societal shift of the turn of the century, the Progressive Era and the Gold/Silver philosophical schism.

It could be said that both invite the viewer to further study their respective historical backgrounds but Oz much more so. GWTW is more a personal story. Personal stories have their place, but as such I found it wanting.

Movies that are part musicals in that era was not complicated. The Depression was not fun for people. On the eve of a World War Oz was one of the fitting end musicals for that time. Other musicals were made of course. During the War and until Kennedy there were many of them but at reducing numbers. From then on they have been produced in small amounts up till now.

Strange as it may seem, Americans love of musicals such as Oz, Oklahoma, Sound of Music, West Side Story, etc has not been shared by Hollywood. The reason being the cost of production and limited number of proven winners on Broadway. Because of the risks and costs of big musicals, investors want movies with smaller budgets which is why they want proof of success on stage. However, even great success on Broadway does not always guarantee success on the screen. CATs, which was a huge success and money maker on Broadway for 18 years, failed miserable at the Box Office. It took ten years for Oz to turn a profit. A Chorus Line, a great Broadway musical failed miserably at box office; $27M budget, $4.8M domestic gross.


What investors really love is a movie like "Paranormal Normal Activity" with a budget of $450,000 and box office of $89 million, over a 10,000% return on investment.

As the cost of making movie musicals rose rapidly in the 60's and with the encroachment of TV, MGM the king of the big musicals slipped away due to lack of investment.

That is understandable.