Can you people stop pretending that really old movies are timeless?

>>83481284
I actually think The Wizard of Oz has held up very well.

>>83481284
Watched Strangers on a Train the other night and you are wrong.

how has rear window not aged well?

>>83481284
That is simply not true,good movie is a good movie.
I am sorry that Optimus Prime wasn't in Vertigo.

>>83481284
It Happened One Night is still top 10 romantic comedy's. You're wrong and should off yourself.

OP IS A FAG
go buy another ticket to WW you nard

>>83481665
All of the best romantic comedies were from the Golden Age

If it was made before 1965 it is automatically a good movie by virtue of being that old. Sorry OP, the rules are the rules.

>>83481550
yeah it really has. well paced, interesting story, good musicals, id watch it right now but its 3am

>>83481284
>The image and sound quality is atrocious
hahaha how can someone be so wrong

File: Vertigo140.jpg (44KB, 756x414px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 756x414px

>>83481284
>the acting is cringeworthy, mostly because it was a different style of acting
Name an example of this "cringeworthy" acting.
Jimmy Stewart's performance in Vertigo is 10/10.

>>83482071
Not OP, but Jimmy Stewart bothers me a bit, both in Vertigo and Liberty Valance. Those are the only ones I have seen with him.

>>83481284
'no'

>>83482199
Why? Is it the drawl? I've heard some people complain about him, but I don't get it. He was one of the best actors ever.

>>83481750
Comedies don't really apply here because it's the one genre that benefits itself from exaggerating emotions and goofy effects

>>83481284

Go watch "some like it hot" your tranny loving nigger.

>>83481696
Ironic you use a Seinfeld pic since this is an example of the Seinfeld effect :,)

>>83481819
>>83481550

Do you guys actually have any friends? Like is there anyone who is actually willing to watch the wizard of oz with you one day?

File: mr. smith.jpg (31KB, 220x339px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 220x339px

>>83482199
Watch Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and Rear Window.
And It's a Wonderful Life.

>>83482447
You dont watch WOO with friends. It's a girlfriend movie. Maybe if you watc DSOTM stoned its ok.

But no I'm single. Yes I've watched it with 2 girlfriends.

Not only are you subjectively wrong but your post is stupid too and doesn't makes sense. How can you put The Wizard of Oz and Hitchcocks Psycho together in the same category? Oz came out in 1939 and Psycho came out in the 1960. They're not even within a decade of each other... Psycho came out 21 years after The Wizard of Oz.

Would you categorize movies that came out in 1996 like Scream and Independence Day as being thematically and historically linked to movies that are coming out right now in 2017? To use a horror movie as an example, does Scream have anything to do with It Follows? And It Follows didn't even come out this year anyway but that's not the point. No of course you wouldn't, they come from completely different historical and cultural trends. Which should be obvious considering they're made 20 years apart...

It's like you didn't even watch the movies you listed in your post. Neither of those movies have "theater acting" in them because they were made literally several decades after using theater actors.... You're just pulling random quotes out of context to try and look smart but it actually just makes you look stupid and uneducated.

For all the memeing about it on /tv/, taking a college film course or two will actually teach you a tom about film and film history. There are good ones and bad ones like anything else, but in a good film class and you learn a lot (and subsequently will never risk sounding like doofus OP)

>>83481284
7/10 bait

>>83482523
It's okay with family too, but definitely not with male friends.

>>83481750
When Harry Met Sally, you dirty butthole.

>>83482594
yeah family too, saw it with my family once or twice. bit old for that now but would do if it was on tv and we were chatting.

>>83482560
>For all the memeing about it on /tv/, taking a college film course or two will actually teach you a tom about film and film history. There are good ones and bad ones like anything else, but in a good film class and you learn a lot (and subsequently will never risk sounding like doofus OP)

I was with you until this part. DO NOT WASTE MONEY ON FILM STUDY. Nor time. DON'T DO IT. You will never have any benefit from it. You can learn everything from the internet.

>>83482447
>movies have to be watched with someone else to be timeless

Retard alert.
Delete your thread faggot and kill yourself.

>>83482447
What does it matter if other people are willing to watch the film with you?
Tree of Life is a good modern popular film which has good visuals, sound editing and acting, but I doubt I would get my friends to watch it with me. What are you trying to say? Does that mean Undisputed 2 is a better film because all my friends are willing to watch it together? Why do you bother responding when your bait was that weak?
>>83482514
I have seen Rear window, but very long ago so I can't remember him there. I will, though, maybe I will change my mind, thanks.
>>83482354
I really can't get what it is, but the guy has a huge filmography, he can't have been only charm and no acting. I am not even denying his performance was good in Vertigo or In tMSWLV, I just couldn't enjoy it entirely.

>>83481284
Bad examples. But I agree there are some old films that feel very outdated.

Early Universal Monsters movies are like that. Dracula and The Mummy are really boring, but I enjoyed Frankenstein and Invisible Man.

Old silents can also be hard to sit through, especially if they are long (like Griffith's epics).

>all these people disagreeing with the OP

Fucking kek, go figure. The OP is completely correct, but of course the contrarian retards on this board will say otherwise. Pretty much anything made before the late 1960s or early 1970s is trash that should be disregarded.

>>83482594
>It's okay with family too
No shit. It's a timeless film thats been loved for over 3/4ths of a century. As a baby anon I remember making fun of my mom for finding the which scary when she saw it as a kid.
How many films span generations with that kind of popularity and broad appeal? And technical, production and performance wise it still rises above the majority of movies made in the intervening 80 years.
Hating it is the ultimate sign of a shitposting contrarian.

>>83481664
>I am sorry that Optimus Prime wasn't in Vertigo.
Shit, me too.

>>83482777
>wasting trips on this kind of low effort shitposting
Is it summer already?

>>83482836
>hurr durr this just a shit post

Not a single argument huh? Sorry all those movies are complete dog shit by todays standards.

>watching a movie with other people?
Why would you do this?

>>83482777
Trips of truth

>>83482874
>today's standards

fucking lel little kiddy

>>83481284
>>>/v/

>>83482874
I know this is bait but....
>all those movies are complete dog shit by todays standards
care to elaborate on this you fucking pleb

>>83482874
> Sorry all those movies are complete dog shit by todays standards.
>BvS is KINO and Citizen Kane is sour milk lmao

neck yourself.

>>83482874
>Not a single argument huh?
You first, junior.

File: singin'intherain.jpg (2MB, 3000x2234px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2234px

>>83482874
Name a musical as good as Singin' in the Rain that came out in the last 30 years.

I'm torn because I really like "quality cinema" as pretentous as that sounds. I never watch capeshit and I think most action movies and comedies etc. that make big box office bux to be incredibly boring.

However anything made before the 1970s is just shit .

File: Only-Angels-Have-Wings.jpg (696KB, 730x1152px) Image search: [Google]

696KB, 730x1152px

>>83482996
> I really like "quality cinema" as pretentous as that sounds
>However anything made before the 1970s is just shit .
lmao, then you're missing on some great movies. How can you make a generalization that huge?

>>83483081
The art was still young. Movies of that era were still discovering what is possible to do with this new medium. The first novels weren't anything special either, or TV shows. At least that's the justification I give myself, truth is I just can't enjoy them. Rear window is one of the rare exceptions of an old movie I actually I enjoyed but even rear window is not THAT old.

>>83482523
>>83482594
>>83482704
>>83482767

The point wasn't that watching movies with others makes it better. It was that you guys are turbocontrarian autists so you're never going to admit the films are bad because you're afraid it will turn you into a "pleb", so just ask the majority of people for their opinion, who don't have such concerns, and they'll easily tell you the films are shit that aged badly.

>>83482926
That wasn't even me, but it's explained in the OP.

>>83482987
Musicals are shit lol there's a reason why they died.

>>83482560

The thing is: Theres been many changes in filmmaking between the 90s and the current year. Psycho and TWOOZ, despite being 20 years apart, still share a lot of similarities in film making, as well as technology

>>83483167
>comparing 50's cinema to ancient novels

>>83483250
>ancient
the whole concept of novels for entertainment didn't really exist before the late 1700s or early 1800s
before that everything written down was either religious or scientific, or both. stories as entertainment getting printed didn't really exist. but I guess you didn't know that because you only consume media with bright flashing colours that give fire your neurons you adhd fuck. sorry that was uncalled for.

>>83482987
Musicals are shit in general so...

>>83482908
>>83482926
>>83482951
>>83482953
How the fuck is this hard to understand? The acting is worse. The effects are worse. The visuals in general is worse. The sound design is worse. Yet somehow these films are still supposed to be better?

>>83483388
>gamer logic

You're just incapable of understanding art.

>>83481803
Fuck off with that shit. If it was true, shows like MST3k never would have been made.

>>83483235
>just ask the majority of people for their opinion
hahahahahahahaha the majority of people have terrible taste

>>83481284
Strangers on a Train and Psycho have aged perfectly, you fucking pleb. Kill yourself.

>>83483235
No one considers Hitchcock an obscure or artsy filmmaker or something, it would hurt no one's "patrician" status to say he doesn't like him. But the guy made straight up good films, in terms of acting, visuals and sound.

Wizard of Oz is great. Hitchcock is the most overrated director of all time and every one of his works that I've seen was slow and boring.

>>83481592
It was shit to begin with. It proceeds at a snail's pace with everything happening in the most straightforward way. I spent the whole movie waiting for the twist that never came (a reasonable expectation having seen the superior Vertigo first).

>>83481665
>>83481750
Truth.

>>83482616
Only funny scene is the fake orgasm.

>>83482772
>Old silents can also be hard to sit through
Comedies being the exception. Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton movies are still great.

>>83483497
>But the guy made straight up good films, in terms of acting
I hate to be the pleb to say this but acting in that era's movies felt like I was in a theatre watching a play.
Nothing wrong with that, I actually go to the theatre as well (and I'm not talking about a movie theatre) but it's a totally different thing from modern movies.

ITT: a pleb who doesn't know shit about cinema tries to convince everyone his shit taste is perfectly fine.

>>83482987
I was almost going to say the The Blues Brothers before I realized it was nearly 37 years old. But that's more a musical/action movie hybrid. Singin' in the Rain is still the best pure musical.

Every film ages, every film is a product of its time. I'm sick and tired of this "it's old so it's bad!" bullshit. 30 years from now dumb kids will say "I don't get how people can watch films from the 2000s. They've aged so badly!" and all of you "pre-1970 films are boring" faggots will feel like idiots.

>>83481284
I'm not really into old movies, but I think like two hitchcock films still hold up

>>83483654
I don't know how movies will evolve in the next 30 years but it's possible they're right.

Even if something was entertaining when it comes out it shouldn't be judged based on "well considering the year..." if it's the year 2017 and we're objectively talking about movies. Yeah it's a product of its time but that shouldn't be used as an excuse.

>>83483710
>I don't know how movies will evolve in the next 30 years but it's possible they're right.
24fps is painful to watch once you've seen 120fps.

>>83483409
>everything that makes up a film is worse, therefore it is not as good
>y..you just don't understand

Thats what I thought..

>>83483849
I personally can't play video games under 60fps, preferably 100+ but in movies I prefer the movie feel and it has nothing to do with "being used to something". I look at a computer screen more than I look at a TV, the low fps just achieves a more story-like feel. Movies aren't supposed to be a documentary. Capturing what is happening in front of the camera as accurately as possible isn't the goal. A nature documentary in 60fps is great but not a character focused story I'm supposed to project my own imagination into.

>>83483388
>The acting is worse
Theatrical style is a deliberate choice, not worse. It's used all the time in anime and people don't complain about it there. And there are plenty of old films with naturalistic acting.

>The effects are worse
Good practical effects are timeless. The General (1926) features a real train crash. It looks better than most modern CG.

>The visuals in general is worse
Old film: shit-tier 24fps
New film: shit-tier 24fps

>The sound design is worse
Sound design isn't the problem, sound recording technology is the problem. Bad sound quality is the biggest failing of old movies.

>>83484122
>It's used all the time in anime and people don't complain about it there
are you implying every /tv/ poster and movie critic enjoys anime? because anime is shit.
>Good practical effects are timeless. The General (1926) features a real train crash. It looks better than most modern CG.
good practical effects are timeless. but their time of glory was the 80s and 90s, not 20s.

>>83484283
20s had some good effects, plus they were more likely to have massive sets built that still look good today. They were more limited in what they could do but the better movies from that era still have pretty good effects.

>>83484368
sure they werent CGI shit but the money 90s movies could throw into the project was on a whole other level. even if you think the skill of the people making the effects was equal (it wasn't) the 80s and 90s movies had a huge number of cameras capturing different angles in far superior quality. yeah they did a lot of stuff to make practical shots for old movies but capturing a train crash in the 90s technology looked cooler than in 20s technology

>>83484575
>huge number of cameras capturing different angles in far superior quality.
Excessive coverage makes actors lazy. You can't fix a bad performance in editing.

>>83484651
you can't compare actors performing to a visual stunt like a train crash

>>83484122
Animeis shit. And overacting (theatrical style) is shit. And tons of movies back then had the theatrical style because most actors were theatre actors.

You are correct about practical effects. The thing is, those improved with time as well

The fps arent all there are to visuals.... and dont even pretend that cameras are the same now as then...

File: _12AngryMen_orig.jpg (31KB, 448x252px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 448x252px

>>83481284
You're funny OP

I honestly can't believe these people are so contrarian they can't even admit that theatrical acting does not translate well to film acting.

File: 1343417057036.png (35KB, 600x275px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x275px

>>83481284
Ridiculous statement. What is aging well in arts anyway? Can you only define it OP?

Should we make special editions like George Lucas, for wizard of Oz or Psycho and therefore completely ignore the craft of it's time and delete the history of the evolution of the technics involved? How can you study and appreciate any art form if you can't see past it's historical context and inherent limitations? How can you learn anything about History if you are unable to adopt a sensitive & emphatic approach?
Would you mock Renaissance painters because you have a camera on your phone that captures "realism" better than a brush? Would you mock Homer because he didn't wrote Ulysses in modern english on a laptop?

You are a pathetic edgelord like we see everyday on /tv/. You think you're something very special while in truth you are no better than the Byzantine iconoclasts of the dark ages, intellectually unable to study and ponder art, offended by the way the artist present his creations to you and your low intellect.

You can't see past your limited narrow view, you can't appreciate and wonder in context what it took to create OZ or Psycho.
Your examples are actually quite hilarious too. I mean objectively 2 of the most important movies in Cinema history, studied at one point or another by all academics in the field across the globe.

Psycho's script in particular has been studied in every screenwriting class worth it's salt since it's release and rightfully so. I mean here is a script that does everything it shouldn't when it comes to distribution of information. And yet Hitchcock makes it work. It's an astounding screenplay to dissect, it was and still is an achievement in scriptwriting.

I could tell you about the many technical achievements of Oz and the how it pushed the technology back then but what is the fucking point? What matters for you is aging well, not being educated. I bet you're American. Enjoy your botox and kinocapeshit you fucking pleb.