bwind22 |
03-24-2005 06:41 AM |
Quote:
Originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
I'm not saying the films I mentioned (ecspecially Psycho) aren't classics I'm just saying that these days most people who watch it find it boring. I'm not trying to speak for the entire generation I'm sure there are people who would watch it and realize that it's a classic and a defining film. But your average movie-goer isn't going to want to see some of these films because they're old and some may find them boring for example if Psycho were a new film in color just being released this weekend with lets say Scream 4 or a new generic slasher do you honestly think it would make the same impact? of course not. The point being that a film doesn't have to stand the test of time it just has to be a great,defining film.
|
You are saying that Psycho has not stood the test of time and I believe that to be 100% false. It seems that you think the only reason it's considered calssic is because it was a defining movie in it's time. I'm saying that's not true. It's still a defining movie now.
I think we may have to agree to disagree here, but it shouldn't matter because we both end up at the same result. Psycho is a classic. We just have different ways of placing it there.
Just because our attention spans are shorter and we are much more used to blood, guts, and things blowing up, does not mean that movies that don't have those things are 'boring'. I don't think movies like Psycho or The Birds are boring at all. They are far more suspenseful than almost anything we see in theatres nowadays.
|