View Full Version : Its a trend....
SKOOFx
10-11-2005, 11:13 AM
TO BASH MOVIES.
Everyone claims that the movies back in the day were "better" and "more creative"
and yes, hollywood blows for the birth of this whole recent remake craze. BUT BESIDES THAT..
THE TRUTH IS....THE MOVIES BACK THEN WERE JUST AS BAD.
Difference is, the internet didnt exist, so people didnt get to jump on the "lets bash every lil detail of a movie, until we cant enjoy it anymore...just so we can look like we know what we are saying"bandwagon(when in reality, no credit is given to the fact that ITS NOT EASY TO MAKE A MOVIE and even a shitty "jack frost" movie..still was super hard to make.
Everyone is a critic. and im sure if some of the movies that came out 20 years ago, came out today....eveyrone would bash them to the ground..BUTT because they are "classics" ..they are FANTASTIC!.
Im a fan of 80s horror. Cheesy..gory...sexist..horror..bad effects...bad acting ..etc
but the truth must be told..
the internet has turned everyone into nitpicking critics......people need to just kick back and enjoy the movie...disregard plotholes..disregard edits..and JUST ENJOY
cause 98% of us cant do better...so who are we to judge?
I hope this bashing trend ends soon...so cinema can just be what it is.
Hollywood has always been about money....its always been about putting out trash to make an extra dime..
Its not a new concept.
whats new is everyone thinking they know everything.
If they original TCM came out today..people would have bashed it just as much as the 2003 version...
u get what im saying?
You cant win...everyone's a critic.
Its a pitty....its hurts the art world.
People who arent musicians bash singers and bands...
people who arent directors bash directors...
art has become a " who can show they know more " sport.
People will find anything to critisize these days. But to be honest, i think we should give credit even to the shit directors..and shit movies(music etc)...because its still an attempt at art. No director or writer says "i want to make shit" They all are really trying to make their mark with a "classic". Even jokes like "troll 2".( It might have been a failed attempt..but an attempt either way).
So id rather commend the attempt and enjoy it for what it was..as apose to just bash away for the hell of it...
art in the 21st century is definitly changing...still cant tell if its for better..or worse
and this makes skoof sad.
sorry felt like ranting.
This thread sucks....back in my day threads were much better.
zwoti
10-11-2005, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by newb
This thread sucks....back in my day threads were much better.
yeah but they took so long to embroider
novakru
10-11-2005, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by newb
This thread sucks....back in my day threads were much better.
Why does it have to be BACK IN THE DAY?
Get your ass moving and make some now.
I for one would enjoy it immensely,you are very entertaining.
Despare
10-11-2005, 01:59 PM
It's kind of like bad news, we hear more because the coverage is so much better than before. We have access to so many movies so affordably now that we see more bad ones and hear more people bitching about what they think are bad ones.
SKOOFx
10-12-2005, 06:21 AM
haha 1 out of 4 responses actually stuck to the topic..
i commend u desp.
as for you newb....grrrrr stop being a wise asss. this could be a good lil debate.
And no the thread doesnt suck...YOUUUUU SUCKKK. I bet u didnt even read it.
lol
MOO HA HA
DISCLAIMER: NEWB DOES NOT SUCK.
noctuary
10-12-2005, 06:37 AM
I agree with you, SKOOFx. I try to give every movie a fair shake, and not prejudge, but sometimes it's hard to do so. See my comments on the rumored AvP2 for proof. As for the topic on hand, it's true that there was just as much crap back then, but it's different these days. The difference being that in the old days, the crap was pumped out by people like Ed Wood and Bert I. Gordon, and they actually believed in what they did, as delusional as that may seem. Today, "filmmakers" like Bruckheimer and Bay churn out awful garbage with the support of the studios. They are under no illusions that what they do is art, they just want to make a quick buck off the mindlessness of the herd. It's much easier to mock soulless stupidity, like Armageddon, for instance, than it is something like Plan 9.
novakru
10-12-2005, 06:51 AM
I ask people directly,what do you like?
Then I put a couple of their suggestions on Netflix and decide for myself.
I have been pleasantly surprised by a few movies I never even considered.
PR3SSUR3
10-12-2005, 07:34 AM
The internet is a breeding ground for nerds, geeks and misfits who use it to propagate their anxious opinions and try to shout louder than the last message poster who might disgree.
All from the safety of their own homes, and free from the audible or physical backlash they would likely encounter should they speak up like this in direct social situations.
Of course, there are more casual users who don't take things so terribly seriously and probably prefer to mix with friends they regularly meet in the flesh - perhaps they see the inherent evolutionary dangers of mass overfamiliarised communication through computer screens, who knows?
Thank the Lord we're all switched on here at HDC!
:p
P.S. TCM 2003 rools, TCM 1974 sux
BudMan
10-12-2005, 07:58 AM
Originally posted by SKOOFx
haha 1 out of 4 responses actually stuck to the topic..
i commend u desp.
as for you newb....grrrrr stop being a wise asss. this could be a good lil debate.
And no the thread doesnt suck...YOUUUUU SUCKKK. I bet u didnt even read it.
lol
MOO HA HA
It looks like your thread is back on topic and I agree with you SKOOFx, this newb is a real prick and i for one would be the first to vote to ban his ass.He never stays on topic and ruins plenty of threads. It pisses me off almost as much as the eternal clash between mayonnaise and Miracle Whip.
Many people mistakenly believe they are the same thing. They are not. Bargain brands of either are also quite different than the original. The closest to homemade mayonnaise is Best Foods/Hellman's, and the next best is Kraft. Other brands differ widely in taste and texture. The cheaper you go, the farther you get from the taste of actual mayonnaise, which should be fluffy, eggy, and without noticeable vinegar. That's because you really do need to break some eggs to make real mayo, and the lesser varities tend to have less egg, and cheaper oils.
Miracle Whip is a unique product. It does seem to start out much like mayonnaise, but has additional sugar and vinegar, which defines it as a salad dressing. (mayo has no sugar, or a tiny amount) I've tried and failed to duplicate it my own kitchen.
PR3SSUR3
10-12-2005, 08:01 AM
Tut tut tut, BudBoy - at least newb writes his own scripts.
http://wolves.typepad.com/food_basics/2004/02/mayonnaisemirac.html
BudMan
10-12-2005, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
Tut tut tut, BudBoy - at least newb writes his own scripts.
http://wolves.typepad.com/food_basics/2004/02/mayonnaisemirac.html
does he?
Now look at what you've done...de-railed a thread.:cool:
PR3SSUR3
10-12-2005, 08:07 AM
Sure - happy searching!
:D
Originally posted by PR3SSUR3
Tut tut tut, BudBoy - at least newb writes his own scripts.
http://wolves.typepad.com/food_basics/2004/02/mayonnaisemirac.html
Thanks for getting my back PR3SSUR3, i don't know what this Bud boy's problem is....he's been dogging me for a while.
But to get back on topic......I prefer Miracle Whip myself....its smoother and lower in fat...which helps my girlish figure.
fannyface
10-12-2005, 10:16 AM
rubbish
filmmaker2
10-12-2005, 11:03 AM
Squeeeeeeak squeaaak, squeek squeek squeek squeek!!!
Originally posted by filmmaker2
Squeeeeeeak squeaaak, squeek squeek squeek squeek!!!
http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Reform/hunter.gif
filmmaker2
10-12-2005, 11:07 AM
Yipe!
filmmaker2
10-12-2005, 11:11 AM
The truth is that I think everything recent really sucks because I'm old and cantankerous and curmudgeonly. Give me a hairy old rubber monster any day, the way they used to make 'em. i think
Its funny - the whole debate about whether the horror films are better now or then seems off the point. What seems interesting to me is that some of these films - no matter how "good" or "crap" made an impression on the audience. Case in point - the first American horror film, Dracula (1931) is, for all effect and purposes, crap - stagy, bad sets, all the action takes place off screen, etc. BUT, people in 1931 were blown away by it. I think the big problem with the internet and most of the books out there about horror is they either celebrate everything or condemn everything without really trying to think about why some of these films become so humongously popular. I mean, why Michael? why did those of us growing up in the late 70s suddenly get totally blown away by Halloween? Why did it spawn like a billion imitators? So I agree with the main point of this post - picking holes in any film or period of film is easy - the more interesting question is to think about why? Either why the film matters to you - or - why it matters to the broader culture.
scouse mac
10-12-2005, 11:16 AM
So filmmaker2
You applying for the role in the new Godzilla movie? The one with a budget of $127 and a need to bring your own packed lunch.
filmmaker2
10-12-2005, 11:22 AM
No, but the squirrel in the picture wants the job. He figures, well, the smaller the suit, the less they'll have to spend on the suit.
Perhaps i shall make a go at a serious answer.
There were great movies "back in the day" and there were shitty ones.Same holds true today.The differance being there are tons more movies being shit out than ever before. As far as doing it for the money....well duh!....i go to work everyday,not because i like to....i do it for the money.A mans got to eat....and drink beer. So i guess my answer is...............what was the question again?
Originally posted by Zero
Its funny - the whole debate about whether the horror films are better now or then seems off the point. What seems interesting to me is that some of these films - no matter how "good" or "crap" made an impression on the audience. Case in point - the first American horror film, Dracula (1931) is, for all effect and purposes, crap - stagy, bad sets, all the action takes place off screen, etc. BUT, people in 1931 were blown away by it. I think the big problem with the internet and most of the books out there about horror is they either celebrate everything or condemn everything without really trying to think about why some of these films become so humongously popular. I mean, why Michael? why did those of us growing up in the late 70s suddenly get totally blown away by Halloween? Why did it spawn like a billion imitators? So I agree with the main point of this post - picking holes in any film or period of film is easy - the more interesting question is to think about why? Either why the film matters to you - or - why it matters to the broader culture.
I agree with this.....as far as the "broader culture"...you can keep that shit...any culture that makes stars out of the likes of Paris Hilton or embraces "reality TV" can kiss my ass.
novakru
10-12-2005, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by newb
Perhaps i shall make a go at a serious answer.
There were great movies "back in the day" and there were shitty ones.Same holds true today.The differance being there are tons more movies being shit out than ever before. As far as doing it for the money....well duh!....i go to work everyday,not because i like to....i do it for the money.A mans got to eat....and drink beer. So i guess my answer is...............what was the question again?
Reread this entire thread and you will understand why I am having trouble following all this.
Your comment-'what was the question again' is exactly where I'm at right now.:D
Originally posted by newb
I agree with this.....as far as the "broader culture"...you can keep that shit...any culture that makes stars out of the likes of Paris Hilton or embraces "reality TV" can kiss my ass.
I'd rather kiss Paris Hilton's ass - even if I had to do it on reality TV.
filmmaker2
10-12-2005, 03:45 PM
I stand by my answer that I believe everything new is bad because I am older and grumpier than the rest of y'all. In other words, I know I am full of it, and I know why, but I don't care, and I will dig in my heels to protect my ignorance.
ItsAlive75
10-12-2005, 04:40 PM
I think everything that's new sucks because I want to be trendy and I love going with the crowd. Even if I haven't seen the movie I'll say the original is better, and that its a tragedy that someone even THOUGHT about redoing it. Then when people agree, I'll feel like I've accomplished something.
The STE
10-12-2005, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by SKOOFx
cause 98% of us cant do better...so who are we to judge?
We're the audience. If ANYONE should judge, it's us.
Though I do agree with your main point about how trendy it is to bash modern movies.
The_Return
10-12-2005, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by Zero
the first American horror film, Dracula (1931) is, for all effect and purposes, crap - stagy, bad sets, all the action takes place off screen, etc.
Ok man, that's my cue.
Dracula, 1931 version, is an anazing film. Lets start with these "bad sets", shall we? From the opening shot of the Transylvanian mountains, to the final shot, John and Mina walking up the stairs of Carfax Abbey, they sets are beautiful. Dracula's castle was filled to the turrets with atmosphere, the cobwebs were a great touch. The shots of London, or anywhere for that matter, in the fog are breathtaking. Carfax Abbey's beautiful staircase, and it's sprawling subteranean lair is equally so. Sure, the interiors of the houses might be a tad boring....but aren't most houses?
All the action takes place off screen. All that much better as far as Im concerned. My major beef with most modern day horror movies is they have to show us everything; typical filmmgoers are too dumb to imagine anything for themselves. Not saying that I dont enjoy a nice shot a violence and gore, but Id much rather have something happen offscreen where my imagination can reun wild. Personally, I think this is why audiences were more easily scared back in the day of Universal classics. Movies hadnt dumbed down the population yet, most people still read, still stimulated their minds. Imagination still thrived!
Back to Dracula. The scene in the parlour between Von Helsing and the Count. Without question the pinnacle in the career of two very talented actors, one of which had a long and ilustrious careerin the horror industry. The performances from all were great, but Lugosi's Dracula will forever be the greatest interpretation of the role. There will never be a better Renfield either, Frye as his greatest lunatic. Van Sloan gave an incredible performance as Von Helsing, that should without question be known as one of the best of all time.
Basically, your decision of using Dracula as an example exposes many of the flaws of the modern day horror "fan". The Need to be shown everything, the utter lack of imagination. And, in my own personal opinion, lack of taste [Ok, maybe thats a bit too far;)]
Ok, Im tired...long enough rant for now. Dracula's defender must rest.
Despare
10-12-2005, 07:07 PM
I don't understand why people lack the inability to enjoy a good popcorn flick once in a while. Jerry B. doesn't churn out classics but he has some fun flicks and it seems like everybody needs every movie they watch to be an instant classic. I try to mix my movies up, watch something fun and stupid just for he hell of it. Some people are just too picky.
Originally posted by The_Return
Ok man, that's my cue.
Dracula, 1931 version, is an anazing film. Lets start with these "bad sets", shall we? From the opening shot of the Transylvanian mountains, to the final shot, John and Mina walking up the stairs of Carfax Abbey, they sets are beautiful. Dracula's castle was filled to the turrets with atmosphere, the cobwebs were a great touch. . . . question be known as one of the best of all time.
Basically, your decision of using Dracula as an example exposes many of the flaws of the modern day horror "fan". The Need to be shown everything, the utter lack of imagination. And, in my own personal opinion, lack of taste [Ok, maybe thats a bit too far;)]
Ok, Im tired...long enough rant for now. Dracula's defender must rest.
OK - sorry for previous - I had written a huge, long response to Return and then stupidly screwed up and deleted it just as I was posting. Out of exhaustion I'll just quickly summarize:
I totally respect your opinion about Dracula - and I would agree that it is the most important horror film in American history. . . but I can't agree that its a masterpiece as a film-in-itself.
The opening act of Dracula sets up with thunder and wonder but then really lets down in the second and third acts. The sets are wooden and the shots are remarkably static (compare to the spanish language version shot on the same sets and one can see how much more dynamic and innovative they were in terms of cinematography). The acting has its moments - Van Sloan is consistently good as is Chandler and Lugos is in his own world - but much of it is either hammy (here I'd put Frye ) or awkwardly wooden (the rest of the cast).
For me, the easy comparison is to Frankenstein, which is much more sophisticated in terms of the visual and the narrative. I don't think Dracula can even begin to compare -as a film- to Whale's Frankenstein. But, that makes Dracula all the more intriguing - why did this film, which even contemporary critics did not embrace and found too stagey and disappointing, become the fountainhead from which American horror sprang?
(p.s. = thanks for the most intelligent discussion I've seen since I've been here).
The_Return
10-13-2005, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by Zero
OK - sorry for previous - I had written a huge, long response to Return and then stupidly screwed up and deleted it just as I was posting. Out of exhaustion I'll just quickly summarize:
I totally respect your opinion about Dracula - and I would agree that it is the most important horror film in American history. . . but I can't agree that its a masterpiece as a film-in-itself.
The opening act of Dracula sets up with thunder and wonder but then really lets down in the second and third acts. The sets are wooden and the shots are remarkably static (compare to the spanish language version shot on the same sets and one can see how much more dynamic and innovative they were in terms of cinematography). The acting has its moments - Van Sloan is consistently good as is Chandler and Lugos is in his own world - but much of it is either hammy (here I'd put Frye ) or awkwardly wooden (the rest of the cast).
For me, the easy comparison is to Frankenstein, which is much more sophisticated in terms of the visual and the narrative. I don't think Dracula can even begin to compare -as a film- to Whale's Frankenstein. But, that makes Dracula all the more intriguing - why did this film, which even contemporary critics did not embrace and found too stagey and disappointing, become the fountainhead from which American horror sprang?
(p.s. = thanks for the most intelligent discussion I've seen since I've been here).
Surprisingly enough, I havnt seen Whale's Frankenstein, although I would very much like to. Been meaning to pick up the Legacy collection, but havnt got around to it yet....Anyway, back to Dracula :)
I do agree that the second act is rather slow in many parts, but the opening and climax more than make up for for it, in my opinion.
Yes, Frye is incredibly hammy...but is that not the point? The character is completly, utterly, irrevocably insane! None on this Earth will every be able to play a lunatic as well as Frye. In the opening moments, while Renfield is still realativly sane, we unfortunatly learn that he really isnt a very good actor when it comes to NOT being a lunatic.
I own the Spanish version, but havnt had a chance to check it out. I plan to in the near future, so Ill get back to you on that.
Cool - -
The spanish language version is pretty funny and awful in its own ways- the guy who plays dracula is ridiculous - seems to be playing for laughs. . . . BUT, the camera works is great. The story, as I understand it, is that the spanish crew got to watch the dailies from the Browining shoot and then would copy the cool shots and come up with more daring versions for others.
filmmaker2
10-13-2005, 03:44 PM
I liked the Spanish language version quite a little bit!