are we seriously just writing off pre 1960s/1970s cinema now? 

I'm writing off pre-80s too. 

Do You Actually Want To Watch It?

I've seen enough to say, no. Sure Metropolis may have inspired Dark City, but damned if I got any enjoyment out of watching Metropolis. Film pre-1970 is more or less a dead language for me. It's cheesy. It's silly. It's overacted to the extreme. Anyway sorry, but yes I am writing off pre-late 60s movies, unless they're Hitchcock.

I personally, and intensely, hate Charlie Chaplin.

All of that said that one movie which was a movie about making a silent film with a vampire in it, pretending not to be one, was good. 

but Metropolis absolutely trounces Dark City IMHO.

And hating Charlie Chaplin...I've only seen Modern Times myself but that was excellent. 

I'm not a specialist on old movies, but most of Kurosawa's and Ozu's stuff shits all over most of what is produced nowadays.

Fringe was pretty bad, dunno why I watched so much of it, the only worthwhile character was the old dude (whe he was being funny), the story was a complete mess. 

some science fiction takes scientific precepts and explores what a world would be like based on x real physical/scientific principle

some science fiction focuses on the world and not the explanation, and suspends disbelief with strong characterization and storytelling

then there's shit like fringe which sounds like a guy who heard some science words on TV trying to use them to impress people, but even people who don't recognize exactly what he's saying can still tell he's a self-serious idiot

I didn't watch all 70 hours - after the episode where they used "soul magnets" to attract leonard nimoy's ghost to haunt anna torv, demonstrated via anna torv doing a bad leonard nimoy impression for four weeks because nimoy had retired from acting, then "went into" her subconscious to ask him to leave or something? and everything in her mind was somehow a really poorly-done richard linklater style CG animated world. yeah after that I realized I just couldn't take any more. 

lmao - do you realise that's as dumb as those people who say "all games more than 10 years old are crap because omg the graphics suck how can u play with those sucky graphics". 

 

 

I'm still extremely salty about how House has been completely shat on by the showrunning committee in its final few years. 

House had nowhere to go with its formula. They needed the appearance of change to keep the running drama running but couldn't actually change anything because if House ever made any improvement he wouldn't be House any more and the show wouldn't have a reason any longer. then again, a lot of shows have that problem (see: jumping the shark). 

Yeah, I watched all of House last year and I agree. They ran out of material in the last few seasons but kept going anyway. They should have pulled the plug.

That show tho ... when it was ON it was excellent. 

I find many movies pre 1970 to be very slow and dull. Most of the old classics, while they're okay, are quite boring to sit through. even Nosferatu I didn't enjoy, it felt like a cheesy film student project. It was difficult to get to the end, much like many of the "classics".

Some of this older stuff is only popular because wannabe film critics think they'll look lame if they admit something made post 1990, that isn't indie/arthouse/foreign is good. In reality people have a short attention spam now, so the movies from 50 years ago just can't hold ones attention. I barely watch movies anymore myself, other shit to do. 

if you dont like them that's fine but saying it;s because people are pretentiously making them out to be better than they are is stupid. 

hehe sorry nitin I know you do like older films, it's not going to be what I said for everyone, some people will legitimately prefer old films to modern, such as yourself who goes for a good script, but I do think for many especially those that frequent imdb forums, it's nothing but class and not wanting to look like lame by admitting the last nolan film was, in fact, far more interesting and watchable than casablanca and city lights. 

One movie that very watchable that is older is 12 Angry Men (1957) - YouTube. 

not offended or anything, I just find the stance bewildering, in the same way I find the people you talk about bewildering (ie only old movies good, new movies not).

I mean I'm never going to think Interstellar is better than Casablanca, because frankly it's not, but that's not really a good comparison anyway.

Plus there is nothing wrong in liking both movies. I saw Interstellar twice in IMAX, which in Australia is three times the price of a normal ticket, and did not think twice about it because I thought it was worth it. Similarly, I have bought (and watched) Casablanca on blu ray (and dvd) multiple times.

Anyway long winded way of saying of what Kinn put best in gaming terms . 

Do want to see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkZYbOH0ujw 

Some of this older stuff is only popular because wannabe film critics think they'll look lame if they admit something made post 1990, that isn't indie/arthouse/foreign is good.

yeah, that's certainly one possibility, that the entire world of film criticism is wrong and you're the only one who can tell

or 

Hehe yes Lun, exactly, I'm the only one that sees it :P

Haven't even seen Interstellar yet either, I'm in no hurry. In fact the only movie I've actually sat and watched in probably months is El Topo, which kind of goes against what I'm saying haha. There is good older stuff, I love everything Leone and Kubrick.

But Nolan is one of those directors where if you follow, you can fall into the noob fanboy trap.

Who's going to be taken more seriously - the 25 year old that says Prometheus is the greatest film of all time or the one going on about Bergman, Tarkovsky, Kurosawa. Even though probably 90% of the population probably couldn't sit through Andrei Rublev or Dreams. I couldn't sit through Dreams myself. 

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.