Jump to content

How old does a film has to be in order to be labeled as OLD?


Jurassic Shark

How old does a film has to be in order to be labeled as OLD?  

21 members have voted

  1. 1. How old does a film has to be in order to be labeled as OLD?

    • When it's not screening in cinemas anymore
      0
    • 1/2 year
      0
    • 1 year
      0
    • 2 years
      0
    • 3 years
      0
    • 4 years
      0
    • 5 years
    • 10 years
    • 15 years
      0
    • 20 years
      0
    • 30 years
    • 40 years
    • 50 years
    • 60 years
    • 70 years
      0
    • 80 years
      0
    • 90 years
    • 100 years
    • Older than myself


Recommended Posts

I’d say 50 years because of the transition from Old Hollywood to New Hollywood to the Blockbuster era happened at that time.

 

Early blockbusters like Jaws may have been made a long time ago, but they still share a lot of the sensibilities of contemporary commercial movies (being their impetus), in terms of storytelling, camerawork, etcetra...

 

Not so with movies from the 60s or prior. Those feel very different (in a way that’s often refreshing when viewed today) across all the aspects of filmmaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Chewy said:

Can you add a '500 years' option?

 

For you, that would be the same as the "older than myself" option. :P

 

3 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I’d say 50 years because of the transition from Old Hollywood to New Hollywood to the Blockbuster era happened at that time.

 

Interesting view, but I'm not referring to just Hollywood films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, mega famous classics like TDK or Jurassic Park are no problem. The Sound Of Music gets played here once a year.

 

However, no TV channel here is going to program Scarecrow (1973), for instance. That would be suicide in TV ratings terms.

 

 MV5BYWI4YjlhYTEtMGNkZi00MjJmLWI3M2QtM2Ni

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just rewatching Die Hard 4.0 (or Live Free or Die Hard, which I think is a hilarious title) on TV a few days ago. I really liked that movie when I was 14, but now I can't help but think how "2000s" it feels. From the musics on soundtrack to the action scenes to the cinematography... I don't know, I just think that movie has a very 2000s feel.

 

I dunno, I guess (Hollywood) movies from each decade "taste" different from movies from other eras. Even movies from the beginning of this decade have a somehow different feel than the movies from today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Jaws theory ....

 

So The Godfather and Deliverance are old movies but The Spy Who Loved Me is new and can rock with the latest releases?

 

Only on JWFan!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s not like an on/off switch, but I would say The Godfather is actually a prime example of an older style of filmmaking in terms of structure and pace, whereas Jaws feels much more like a movie of our time in style, if not in quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

It’s not like an on/off switch, but I would say The Godfather is actually a prime example of an older style of filmmaking in terms of structure and pace, whereas Jaws feels much more like a movie of our time in style, if not in quality.

 

Actually, Jaws has a slow-paced build-up. It really takes its time and seems more interested in the characters (and their interaction) than in spectacle, action or monsters.  And I don't think its style or tone are very 'today', but very akin to the filmmaking of the first part of the '70s, when filmmakers didn't think in terms of formulas or reaching the broadest possible audience. I actually feel respected not being treated as a juvenile when I watch Jaws, something I can't say of the average 'modern' blockbuster. So, no, not a modern-feeling movie to me. If they did a Jaws remake today, you would definitely see a different kind of movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

Actually, Jaws has a slow-paced build-up. It really takes its time and seems more interested in the characters (and their interaction) than in spectacle, action or monsters.  And I don't think its style or tone are very 'today', but very akin to the filmmaking of the first part of the '70s, when filmmakers didn't think in terms of formulas or reaching the broadest possible audience. I actually feel respected not being treated as a juvenile when I watch Jaws, something I can't say of the average 'modern' blockbuster. So no, not a modern-feeling movie to me. If they did a Jaws remake today, you would definitely see a different kind of movie.

 

Arrival? Universal gave Spielberg about the same in today’s dollars that Paramount gave Villeneuve. Warner’s giving him more than that.

 

An independent company like A24 might theoretically make Jaws with that sensibility today but it’d have to be cheaper. Spielberg got $9 million in 1974, which is the number (not value) Ari Aster’s getting to make his genre movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like Alex has said: it's not how much money any studio gives you, it's what you do with it - the type of film you make, with it - that matters.

Alex is right (damn him!): JAWS is a different type of film, from a different era of filmmaking. It comes from a time when studios allowed people to take risks.

JAWS is so good, such an effective piece of filmmaking, that if you removed all footage of Bruce, you'd still have a fucking good movie.

Could you do that, with Thanos..?

Btw, the original budget for JAWS was $4 mil. Universal decided to "invest" a further $5 mil., or shut down production. A similar thing happened on STAR WARS. 

If one wants "character-driven" films, nowadays, it's best to look to the "indie" section, of cinema. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Old Hollywood (studio movies) period ended somewhere during the mid-sixties when The American New Wave/The New Hollywood (director movies) started to usher in. Apparently that glorious movement lasted until early '80s. Not sure how the period after The New Hollywood is called, but it seems like we're back to the old studio system, while independent studios (like A24) seem to support director movies reminiscent of The Hollywood Renaissance 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Like Alex has said: it's not how much money any studio gives you, it's what you do with it - the type of film you make, with it - that matters.

Alex is right (damn him!): JAWS is a different type of film, from a different era of filmmaking. It comes from a time when studios allowed people to take risks.

 

In general I'm often kinda frustrated that a lot of what I consider the best of today's genre cinema in particular is either solidly commercial work that's a little derivative with not a lot goin on upstairs, or aesthetically/conceptually original stuff that's a little up its own ass.

 

Mad Max: Fury Road was probably the most effective compromise this decade. In some fundamental ways it's a modern action movie and franchise sequel/reboot like any other, but completely went its own way with it while seeking to entertain most of all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Thor said:

The dry, but necessary response:

 

That would depend entirely on context, wouldn't it?

 

BOORING!

 

1 hour ago, Bespin said:

Easy, it must be near my age or more.

 

You could just have voted 100 years then. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I jokingly voted older than me but truth is I’m going on 30 and still automatically think of 80s and older as “old” and 90s on as “new”

 

I think the answer is probably a generation. Traditionally, that’s about 25 years which is a special anniversary. A kid watching a film made before their parents were born, that says a lot. I think that’s when something goes from “modern classic” to “classic” in pop culture terms. If a movie, a book, a business, a marriage can survive a quarter century, it’s a well-established institution. At that point it’s kind of a real tragedy if its legacy falls apart for any reason.

 

If this is about the older vs newer film threads, then I think “new” maxes out in less than a year lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

The Old Hollywood (studio movies) period ended somewhere during the mid-sixties when The American New Wave/The New Hollywood (director movies) started to usher in. Apparently that glorious movement lasted until early '80s. Not sure how the period after The New Hollywood is called, but it seems like we're back to the old studio system, while independent studios (like A24) seem to support director movies reminiscent of The Hollywood Renaissance 

We are back to the studio system, but without the posh, eloquent bakcbone that the Hayes Code provided. Worst of both worlds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That way madness lies

 

I don't think "dark and disturbing" is really as much of a trend as it used to be. Last few years I'm seeing more and more comments that there's too much humor in films that should take themselves seriously. Films like....Star Wars....people will complain about anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

That's because you're thinking about the Special Edition! ;)

 

I actually finally watched the Despecialized Editions yesterday. I don't think I'll be thinking much about the SEs ever again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

I actually finally watched the Despecialized Editions yesterday. I don't think I'll be thinking much about the SEs ever again.

With all due respect to Harmy, 4k77 is a whole other level of revelation!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Modest Expectations said:

In comparison to the "dark and disturbing" age of cinema?

 

Yes, because who wants one's cinema to actually look the bad aspects of human existence in the eye like a mature work of art should?

 

Surely, its better to have sanitized, cloying pieces of jouvenile escapism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say mature works of art are pessimistic. Rather, they are ones who present triumph over such tragedies, a rising over an ugly reality. The uglier the reality and the deeper the tragedy, the greater the triumph. If its all just light fluff to begin with, its just isn't as much of a victory.

 

Even those works that end in tragedy aren't meant to be purely pessimistic. Robert Bolt used to say that the point of tragedies is that "if nothing else, life is always worth living."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, even grim movies need lighter passages and small triumphs along the way, but I do think a grim atmosphere and general escalation to the detriment of the characters' endeavor are both beneficial for drama; and drama is defined by its ending.

 

If its all light fluff, that's just escapism and while it has its place, I for the most part expect people to be able to face reality for themselves. The point of escapism, for me, is as the occasional palette cleanser: not as a steady diet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.