the 25 year old that says Prometheus is the greatest film of all time

We're talking about a person that exists in real life? 

on that logic, again applying the kinn equivalent to gaming, only the popular AAA titles, like anything CoD, is a good game because most people dont play older games or have not heard of them.

It's a silly argument, at the very least because it conflates popularity with quality. 

I genuinely think Nolan is one of the most exciting current directors around. But he's not the only director that has ever made a good movie. 

I wouldn't make the analogy to games at all, I'd make the analogy to literature. Older literature is very different from modern literature, but in many ways it is or at least can be, superior. Literature does not rely on technology (yes yes book history, manuscripts, hair side flesh side, invention of the printing press, debates over font design, yes...) but what I mean is that its EFFECTS are not intermediated with technology in the same way. You just need to be able to read. You can read translations of works into modern English, if you don't know the original language or even if you find medieval english inconvenient; you're going to be missing out (especially if it's Shakespeare), but the equivalent of that in film would be watching a remake, and that's a terrible analogy because remakes are horrible.

Films depend on technology way more than literature does, and therefore old films are going to age in a way that old literature will not. I completely disagree with an analogy to gaming especially since new/popular games don't really interest me, and this isn't even primarily about technology. I mentioned how old films tend to be overacted, but that's just one example. We might not be living in the golden age of film which seems to have been the 1970s, but anyone taking me to be arguing that most pre-late 60s films suck because "the graphics are bad" (lol) while AVATAR (which I've never even seen and don't plan to) is the best thing ever, is misunderstanding or misconstruing the point. 

You can compare 60s film to 2010's film, because the main difference is improvements in visual quality. The gaming industry you can't really compare so easily because it's so fast moving. The graphics are so different it's like comparing apples to oranges.

I suppose there is some of what I talk about going on, because look at the internet reputation COD has. You're a lame 16 year old fanboy if you admit COD is a good game, whereas, if you say Super Metroid and Zelda are the best games of all time, you're suddenly a "real" gamer. But in reality the COD games aren't that bad. I've not played the last few but every one of them up until 2012 has been good.

But overall gaming doesn't have the same level of prestige as "cinema". Gamers are still stereotyped as young people that haven't grown up and got a career/family yet. 

no offence but you havent actually made a point yet. You have made a couple of generalisations so far (eg overacting).

Anyway I'm not sure it really matters because it doesnt look like anyone actually wants to have a genuine discussion beyond their personal tastes. 

I just wanted to deny that I am looking at films from a "graphics" point of view with the analogy to video games. Maybe some people are, but I'm not.

The literature analogy, from my perspective, is much more appropriate. Then when we compare, say, Shakespeare to Cormac McCarthy (as an example of a really good modern writer), you can say we'll they're both great. But Charlie Chaplin's "Modern Times" is simply not the equivalent of Shakespeare; or at least I deny the sophistication and meaning of it. I thought "Old films age in a way that old literature does not" was a point. 

fair enough, that last bit is a point to an extent but you dont say why except that you dont like Modern Times (or for that matter why you like both Shakespeare and Cormac McCarthy).

That's why I think we are going around in circles, we basically just keep restating personal preferences without saying why they are. 

With storytelling I'm looking for depth, meaning, beauty, etc; Modern Times just seemed like shallow slapstick stuff. I could see a much stronger case being made for Metropolis, in terms of those things, plus innovation in visual style and set design. 

and meaning and depth with Modern Times, especially beauty. You can obviously disagree with that but I think calling it shallow slapstick is a bit unfair.

In contrast, I would personally not say the same about say The General, Buster Keaton's landmark film. I find that generally well choreographed slapstick but nothing more than that. 

Birdman is worth watching. 

Anyone watched Snowpiercer (2013)?

It was a high budget movie with Chris Evans.

The South Korean director rejected a mandate to make edits from the American distributor and the distributor retaliated so the movie was not well publicized.

It is a "End of The World" movie set on a train.

The world has frozen over because to combat climate change, a cooling agent was released into the atmosphere that resulted in runaway temperature drop. 

liked it but didnt love it. Best scene was the education train. 

Snowpiercer wasn't bad, I had trouble getting behind the story though. Some cool stuff though :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X05TDsoSg2Y
(spoils entire film)

Just watched Kaguya Hime, that was as incredible as I had expected. 

I liked the scenes, the concepts and the premise. It introduced a number of unique ideas and was visually appealing.

An uncommon movie where the first half and the second half are entirely different movies.

The whole was a bit less than the sum of its parts. The end raises some questions, but I probably shouldn't explain. 

I had trouble getting behind the story though They had to fit a square peg in a round hole, but what movie doesn't. At the end of the movie, I'm not sure how the "good guy" isn't worse than the "bad guy" ... his motivations are irrelevant and whether the "bad guy" is a 'bad guy' but someone that has to make the tough decisions and mentally compartmentalize.

Just watched Kaguya Hime, that was as incredible as I had expected.

Could you be a bit more specific, Google is showing several possibly relevant variations from various years. 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2576852/?ref_=fn_al_tt_9 

Snowpiercer was cool in parts but it raises a lot of questions that kind of spoil the premise but ... it's fun to watch and visually I thought it was cool. 

Snowpiercer worked best IMHO when it stuck to black comedy. It did not have anything beyond superficial depth to sustain any dramatic tension for the serious bits.

I agree that it had some nice ideas but they were all wafer thin in their implementation.

Overall I found it decent but considering who made it, I was also a little disappointed. 

Definitely his weakest effort so far, Memories of Murder and Mother were much better, and even The Host worked better as a weird genre-mixing affair. 

Snowpiercer was also riddled with logistical issues of just living on the train. So to get from A to B, basically, the entire train needs to pass through the classroom cars ... all the time. You really had to turn off your brain for some parts of it. 

Star Trek Continues

Episode #3 - The imitation of Spock is not too bad. And the imitation of William Shatner/Kirk isn't too bad either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJf2ovQtI6w 

Film was a solid 8/10 for me right up until it took a complete nosedive in the third act with that plot-twist, which would have been hokey in an episode of the Twilight Zone, let alone a supposedly "hard" sci-fi film.

Kinda like how Sunshine jumped the shark at the end, but worse.

Oh dear. 

Neither thrilling nor entertaining. Yawn from start to end. 

I don't see why it's praised so highly.

I thought the hotel setup was pretty fun, but apart from that, dull.