Jump to content
Jurassic Shark

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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!

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

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?

A truly mature work of art would never be completely defeatist. That's my take on it. Pessimism is for angsty teenagers.

Share this post


Link to post
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."

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

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' endeavour is beneficial for drama; and drama is defined by its ending.

I took a look at my top 50, and divided by how grim the films are:

Rather bitter:

Se7enPrisonersThe Dark Knight, The Shawshank Redemption, 2001: A Space Odyssey

Bittersweet:

The Empire Strikes Back, The Two Towers, The Return of the KingLife is Beautiful, Silence of the Lambs, 12 Angry Men, Starship Troopers, Inglorious Basterds, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, The Edge, The Seven Samurai, Breakfast at Tiffany's, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, Citizen Kane, The Thin Man, The Maltese Falcon, The Lion King, Day of a Wacko, Amadeus, All About Eve, Being John Malkovich, Avengers: Infinity War, Dragonslayer, The Nice Guys, King Kong (1933), The Incredibles, Predator, Stalag 17, It's a Wonderful Life, October

Rather sweet:

It Happened One Night, Star Wars, The Fellowship of the Ring, Dinosaur, Die Hard, The Swan, The Philadelphia Story, Jurassic Park, Back To The Future, Kindergarten Cop, The Last Crusade, Hugo, Kind Hearts And Coronets, Goldfinger

 

Shades of bittersweet seem to fare the best, with outliers being a bit in favour of sweet over bitter. Based on my experiences, I would not say that films need to be downright grim to have the best drama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...