Why are all classics shit?

It was a different time

If everyone agrees something is good and you don't understand why, the problem is probably with you.

>>80914619
not enough explosions

>>80914685
Maybe people just feel like they have to say they like it to fit in? I tried watching kane but it is one of the few films i couldnt finish out of sheer boredom. Muh rosebud

File: 90893de8330b424ce7f5157183b467ba.jpg (32KB, 511x510px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 511x510px

i unironically think that casablanca is one of the best films i have ever seen

and erryone thinks i'm some sorta pretentious hipster because of it

They're not shit, but every time I watch a so-classic (pre-1960 movie with over 8 on imdb), I usually find it average and end up thinking "that's it? what the hell was so special about this?"

I seriously believe some people fake-rate classics 10/10 just because they feel like they have to.

>>80914770
>Maybe people just feel like they have to say they like it to fit in?
Nope. The-emperor-has-no-cloths situations are pretty rare irl. The problem is with you.

>>80914619
>Why are all classics shit?
I understand some films not being your cup of tea, you can't like everything, but ALL classics?

>>80914829
So even when this movie was new, everyone at the time was like, "wooow that movie was amazing i loved it"? And its not just some conformist thing to say you like it now because everyone else says its a classic?

>>80914799
Haven't aged much, it's still enjoyable today

>>80914799
It's one of the most surface level classics. i swear liking anything made before 1970 on this board gets you called pretentious by capeshit loving faggots and memers.

>>80914876
Did you not understand what I meant when I said this isn't a The-emperor-has-no-cloths situation?

The problem is that you don't have the patients to watch a slow movie and/or the qualities of Citizen Kane are lost on you.

>>80914822
This. I enjoy a lot of the older movies I watch but I don't understand all the high ratings and praise for them.

>>80914829
Not really. Had Kane not been renowned, I guarantee you that over 90% of its audience wouldn't give a shit about it.

>>80914619
because a classic is something you want to have seen, but not something you want to see

>>80914619
I agree, the films of the 40s/50s were just really bad overall. Hitchcock, Wilder etc. are massively overrated today.

>>80914983
Pretty ironic considering you used 'patients' instead of 'patience' my dear retard.

>>80915099
You're the retard here, retard

>>80915089

Hitchcock movies are the classics I like the best. Especially Rear Window, Rope and Dial M For Murder.

>>80914619
Because the people who declared them classics are shit

>>80915000
Just because it's on a list doesn't mean the audience is going to blindly agree with it.
I dislike 8 1/2 and The Apu Trilogy. I don't like every movie that gets called a classic.

Trying to come up with ways to avoid facing the facts is transparent and sad. Like you're not really trying to convince me that Citizen Kane is unwatchable, you're trying to convince yourself so that you can keep believing that you don't have a problem. You should accept that your mind has been ruined forever by your cellphone and video games and just leave it at that.

>>80915166
Yes I agree again, of all classics I can tolerate Hitchcock the most. But when film has gotten so much better, it's pretty embarrassing to rate them 10/10s

>>80914619
At their time they were the best there was (and had been).
Now they are something that is just old and kinda primitive.
That's progress for you.

>>80914685
>If everyone agrees something was good and you don't understand why, the problem is probably it hasn't aged well
Fixed that for you

>>80914619
If they're so shit why did you call them classics.

>>80914799
I watched it for the first time this year and I enjoyed it. The accent everyone uses from this era of movies really fucking gets to me though

in the case of Citizen Kane your view of it is distorted by history since then
when it came out it changed how people approached moviemaking and it is in part directly responsible for the way movies are made
i.e because it made movies different, you've seen it 92390409 times since then and it has lost its effect

>>80915399
>yeah shee I'm a detective shee

>>80914619
if you want a good one, I recommend 12 Angry Men. and The Wages of Fear (if you have a lot of patience)

>>80915488
Also the twist has been spoiled all the time on TV and movies.

>a film so boring the filmmaker had to include the sound of a screeching bird in post-production because he knew the audience would start falling asleep
>considered a masterpiece
Can't make that shit up

Casablanca is one of few "classics" I couldn't finish. Literally nothing happened and when they started throwing in some romance I couldn't care about, I turned it off.

File: snake smoking 2.png (236KB, 430x370px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 430x370px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeQOJZ-QzBk

I agree about 50% with "classics". There are movies from the 1920s to 1960s that are easily top 20 for me, and there are critically acclaimed ones that are painfully boring.

I especially can't stand Hitchcock. Too slow, too reliant on idiots to drive the plot. But every movie by Billy Wilder or Fred Zinneman that I've seen I've thoroughly enjoyed.

I honestly enjoyed stalker.

>>80915359
because that's what classics are

It is too painful to call them good or great movies, so instead you call them classics.

>>80915677
yeah same. but when I tried to watch it a second time, I almost fell asleep..

>>80915166
Yeah there's something about Hitchcock's 1950-1960 movies that's still really, great dialogues, nice tension, I really liked Rear Window. Vertigo was a miss for me tho. The "amnesia" plot might've been a new thing back then but these days it's been done hundreds of times.

>>80916244

I didn't care for Vertigo either. Lost interest completely after the twist.

>>80915682
Yeah calling them good or great would undervalue great visionaries like Jackson and Lucas...

I think I would take /lbg/'s arrogance over this thread's arrogance any day. At least they know their shit there.

>>80916409
Yeah, main /tv/ can have some bad discussion. I saw someone call the slapstick silent comedians "pretentious and hipster" yesterday as if half hour comedy films are pretentious because they're old.

File: Rashomon.1950.720p.BluRay.x264-x0r.mkv_snapshot_01.08.27_[2017.03.26_10.49.05].jpg (125KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1280x720px

>>80915751
Watched it once alone, once with my girlfriend, once high as fuck with some friends and once in the background while cooking. would watch it again

>>80914619
It will get rebooted someday

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIenIcLpRZQ

>>80914685
No the problem is that all the hype leads to unreasonable expectations. Imagination is almost always better than reality. It's best to experience a piece of media as fresh as possible, without any biases forced on you by other people.

File: 1477719382969.jpg (36KB, 357x368px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 357x368px

Sometimes the reason you don't find a classic entertaining is because it was so revolutionary for the time that it changed the genre/industry and now it seems because of everything that either copied it or built upon it.

Like Seinfeld or Hitchcock movies.

>>80915677

I would describe Stalker as the most boring movie ever that isn't really boring. It's so fucking dull, but fascinating at the same time.

>>80914619
Any black and white film gets 2 stars added to it for the hell of it

Pretentious numale fedoras say they're 'classic 10/10 m8' to look nuanced and smart. In reality they're just sheep.

Reminder that if Terminator 2 is on and so is Cotizen Kane everyone would rather watch Terminator 2.

>>80916409
Maybe you're the faggot. Maybe these movies are the mainstream popular movies of their day. Like when you see an anthology of classic 80's music, its always full of duran duran and spandau ballet and shit, which were the popular chart hits. But my classics from way back then were metallica and iron maiden etc, and i thought all the chart pop was shit.

>>80914619
Times have changed, people have evolved. The issues these films tackled have been solved or became boring and irrelevant. The tricks that made these movies original 50 years ago have been repeated a million times since and became banal.

>>80915089
>the films of the 40s/50s were just really bad overall
On the "I'm obviously a philistine" scale, this is about two rungs below "I like everything except country".

But this is a close runner-up:
>>80915266
>Now they are something that is just old and kinda primitive.
>That's progress for you.

or this

>when film has gotten so much better,

or this

> The accent everyone uses from this era of movies really fucking gets to me though

or this

>The Wages of Fear (if you have a lot of patience)

If you think that film requires patience (when it's one of the most suspenseful ever), don't bother with anything older than Fight Flub, or perhaps don't bother with film at all.

>Maybe people just feel like they have to say they like it to fit in? I tried watching kane but it is one of the few films i couldnt finish out of sheer boredom

It seems like you actually fit in (around here) by saying how much you think it sucks. You say it's one of the few films you couldn't finish out of boredom, but it's actually one of the few films you've seen that was released before star wars.

>>80915629
Yeah I literally watched Citizen Kane last night for the first time and was like "wtf is this jumpscare shit"

>>80916663
>The issues these films tackled have been solved or became boring and irrelevant.

Oh jesus christ. I'm done.

>>80915648
What are your favorites, Anon?

>>80916958
Of course it requires patience.. the first hour is a test of patience. That's all I was saying man

>>80916631
Yeah, that's almost certainly true.A friend of mine couldn't even conceive it when I was telling him Guns & Roses were exactly what he would hate today.
Why am I a faggot though? I enjoy good modern films as much as I enjoy good old films. Sometimes I get too impressed on some technical stuff in old movies, because they were new back then, but that doesn't change my opinion on them all that much.
I am not the one who is too afraid to watch a pre 60s film and enjoy it, because I may misjudge or over-appreciate it due to the chronological gap between now and then.
Midnight in Paris is honestly a fav of mine because it made me get this concept and kind of got me into film.

The classics aren't for everyone, you have to view them in and appreciate a completely different context than just watching a flick.

this thread is very painful

>>80917203
It depends entirely on the film. Some of them still hold up but some have aged.

>hays code
>literally every crime film/caper from 40s-60s ends the exact same way
>usually really annoying trumpet soundtrack

i dunno. some films (birth of a nation) are still good though.

File: sunrise.jpg (230KB, 1200x921px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1200x921px

They take effort and knowledge of the film to appreciate. Hence why so many people say 'i don't get why this is good'. Some films are canonical for different reasons also, not just being a 'good film'. Could be aesthetic reasons, historical value, they represent that period of time/film-making of that time in an exemplary way, the influence of them, the techniques they employ, the experimental aspect of a film ect

Watching a lot of them just to be entertained is missing the point (although this doesn't exclude them from being entertaining of course)

>>80914799
It's cuck kino

>>80917058
Pre-60s films I remember particularly liking:
The General
It Happened One Night
Double Indemnity
Sunset Boulevard
High Noon
Singin' in the Rain
12 Angry Men
The Bridge on the River Kwai
The Adventures of Robin Hood
Bambi
Sleeping Beauty
Rebel Without a Cause
On the Waterfront

>>80916558

That's a funny cunt, why is he so unpopular?

>>80915054
pretty much this. not all classic are shit

but citizen kane is

File: 4364970dcb69b861b41fc1633c764889.jpg (13KB, 236x204px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 236x204px

>>80916244
Go watch the Philadelphia Story

>>80917540
The remake "High Society" is good as well.

>>80914876
Do you even understand why it gets the praise it gets?

>>80917397
YouTube hates him.

>>80914619
because everybody copy the shit out of them. So by the time you finally got yourself to watch them you basically have seen everything what was so ground breaking about them in lesser quality movies.

>>80917805
>lesser quality movies
Newer movies often fix problems with the groundbreaking originals. Any random James Bond movie is going to have better pacing and more spectacular set pieces than North by Northwest. Why should I care which of them invented the cliches?

>>80917805
That's exactly what I think, at least by the time cinema reached ~1970s new concepts and technology came about and the relevance is much greater than the pre-war cinema.

>>80917862
Because those reinventions wouldn't exist because of the classic films cliché. Classic films then are also breaking clichés to bring reinvention.

>>80918197
Subjectivity at it's finest. The idea should be: what if those said Bond movies all came out in the same year as North By Northwest?

File: plebs.jpg (25KB, 400x462px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 400x462px

>these are the people who you share a board with

>>80917862
>often fix problems with the groundbreaking originals
No they don't. They take what's already there and most of the times they are bland. Films that were groundbreaking have other elements that make them objectively good and that's because there was some actual effort and creativity during the film making process.

File: absolutely.jpg (41KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 480x360px

>>80915647
>mfw he misses completely the point of the film

>>80918671
It's funny how he takes away strange things from films. He said he liked the Godfather and Casino because it showed how to properly run a mafia business and do deals.

>>80914799
anon, this could be the beginning of a wonderful friendship

File: ambien hustle.jpg (218KB, 636x941px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 636x941px

>>80914685
yea, no

>>80914822
because movies back then were more about plot and characters? take high noon, for example. it's just a small scene but for a moment the sheriff is close to crying, something hardly seen for a tough top movie star. this says a lot about the character and the moment, it gets to the viewer. (i could also talk about the masterful directing, just consider that final minute and the empty chair.)

or take The Searchers, which inspired Spielberg and Lucas. ethan hawke is kinda a complex, non-cookie-cutter character and the movie is kinda non-formulaic. the movie is an odyssey.

or watch rashomon and its highlighting of people's twisted perception of a single event.

take arsenic & old lace and its supreme, distinguished comedy gold.

>>80915089
conversely, I think classic hollywood movies are way better than modern day cinema. modern day tv shows are generally fine but modern day cinema is crap and has been since the end of the 80s. american cinema took a first quality hit mid 60s and the final blow end 80s.

it just doesnt produce stars like it used to anymore. george clooney is no cary grant, by any measure.

>>80918919

Loved High Noon. Didn't really care for The Searchers.

>>80919003
Agreed. The Searchers is much too slow and boring.

>>80918389
this. a 1000 times this.

i swear these plebs can only pick up interest in a movie when some "ass-kicking" and spouting "cool lines" and posing-off is involved. because that's what ultimately they think life is all about.

just fucking shallow pricks who go around calling anyone who is more than just an ounce of water deep pretentious - just to establish their own idiocy as "normal".

fucking cancer, i hope they die in a fire.

>>80919080
Many of the people here came from Reddit and Twitter so it was really fucked from the beginning.

>>80917378
There are some great films on that list.

>>80917597
I think I preferred High Society, but then I'm no fan of Hepburn.

Twelve Angry Men is legit one of the best films ever made, faggot.

>>80920145

>the spic who dindu nuffin
>the peace and love liberal, aided by the wise mr. shekelberg, is the hero because he set free a murderer
>everyone against is ebul raycist

>>80920145

This statement is true.

>>80919003
Do not forsake me oh my darling on this our weddin' daaaaaaay.

>>80914619
Maybe it's due to the fact that you are led to believe that it will be the greatest movie ever due to high expectations, and it only turns out to be just okay, and just okay makes it seem like shit compared to your expectations

>>80920145

lol

even when you guys talk about "classics" you have shit taste

12 Angry Men is pretty solid but it's shown to basically every high school student in North America at some point.

It's the most accessible, safe "classic" I can think of.

That doesn't mean it's not one of the best movies of that time.

>>80916563
You honestly just sound insecure my man

>>80914685
It's almost like this board is filled with retarded contrarians that dislike things solely because they're popular

1920/30s movies aged better than 40s/50s movies.

I can easily watch Birth of Nation, Broken Blossoms and Intolerance, but for the life of me I can't stand to watch Psycho, Rear Window, Citizen Kane and all the """"classics"""".