I feel like movies haven't changed much at all since around mid 90s. Like as long as current day fashion doesn't appear in the movie, then i don't see how a person would even be able to tell if a movie came out today vs. twenty years ago.
People Twitter
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
Easy: the effects got worse /hj
Effects have gotten better, but they've made everything else worse. Costume? Add it in post. Proper lighting? Add it in post. The entire set? Add it in post.
Add second screen syndrome and every new movie and TV show is perfect to have on in the background while you scroll through Facebook
The pacing got much faster over time. Comparing LotR with a new MCU film, you clearly notice the shift. (Admittedly, LotR was a little slower than the average movie at the time)
That's not a valid comparison, lotr was waaaay slower and longer than movies of its time. If you want to compare against a modern mcu movie then you have to compare to a similar type of movie, like for example even years before lotr look at men in black from 1997
I feel like if you're comparing it to modern movies, the MCU isn't really fare. Compare it to Dune maybe. I'd guess the new Dune is still paced faster with more action, but I'm not really sure. They're probably not that dissimilar. Probably the biggest difference is Dune (part 2 in particular) has a constant building of tension, with no release until the end. LotR builds and releases tension in cycles.
Arguably Dune should be even slower than LotR, as almost all the action in the Dune books is at best mentioned, but it isn't focused on. Meanwhile the new Dune movies, especially the second, added a ton of fighting that wasn't in the books and doesn't really fit the story of the books. The LotR books are slow, but it does give quite a bit of detail on fights and battles.
There's actually quite a lot that's changed in cinema since then. Since digital cameras and effects are incredibly common these days, we light everything very flatly so that it's easier to change in post without reshoots. It makes lighting abysmally bad. (See wicked where the actress in vibrant green makeup looks a little grey the entire movie).
Pacing is also much faster, there's more emphasis on not confusing audiences rather than letting things have mystery. Dialogue is more quippy rather than grounded.
Oh! And since there's no more mid-budget movies, there's a whole lot less comedies running around. Everything is either high budget, wall-to-wall action or grounded indie films with very little in-between.
Give us back mid-budget original films or Patrick H Willems will start kidnapping Hollywood execs one by one!
Cellphones changed shape.
90s movies did not have 'MillenialSpeak' / 'Marvel-isms'. They had cheesy one-liners. Which were better.
Club scenes are no longer filled with Goths, they're filled with Jocks and Popular Girls.
Scores are generally much less unique and interesting these days.
More frantic pacing, contemplation is not allowed, outside of arthouse films.
I REALLY hate the new fight montages where they jumpcut every punch like in Matrix 4. They never let it settle enough for you to get your berings, feels like it's just a rabid weasel with a gopro starapped to it.
i recently rewatched the first jurassic park and wow is it so incredibly different from new movies. i don't dislike it though.
Like the other comment says, the CGI doesn't hold up that well. Luckily, the LotR trilogy doesn't rely on it that much. I still hope they have the original unedited footage stored somewhere and we get a new version with modern CGI capabilities. That'd be amazing to see. It holds up mostly fine though, so it isn't a huge issue.
I know a highschooler that won't watch anything from before 2000, won't watch lotr for other reasons like broken attention span.
A marathon of the extended editions is exactly what they need. Phone locked away during viewing.
Did this with my 16yo a couple months back. She was sick last week and marathoned them again on her own.
I was so proud
You should be!
It's honestly one of my favourite marathons to do on a cold winter weekend, excited for my annual viewing :)
Yeah, back in uni I used to do one with my friends at least once a year. We'd get about 10 people crammed into a room with a monitor, bring an unhealthy amount of snacks, plan to start at 9am, have tech issues till 11 or 12, and then watch until midnight or 1am with a break for pizza in the evening. It was great.
That does sound great, may be time for a sleepover viewing with the friends methinks, with some pipe weed
That's like saying "I refuse to drink wines older than 2000." Just because it's old doesn't mean it's good. But, some of the old ones are very, very good.
I watched Altered States for the first time a few years ago and that one got me more than most modern sci fi. It's a masterpiece imo.
I find myself dreading watching anything made after 2010.
I'm not saying everything is bad, or that everything that was earlier was good. But dang...it seems like a good 90% chance the modern movie or TV show is just a bunch of flashy and disruptive CG, incredibly fast editing to try to compete with cell phones for attention, tons of with clips and one-liners. Everything is poorly lit, the dialogue is inaudible, and all the other sound is way too loud.
And I don't think it's just "things were better back when I was a teenager" bias. I can still find older movies with those some annoying traits earlier, 2010 is just the arbitrary cutoff I'm using here. And I can look back at movies from before I was born, like Hitchcock movies, and see how much better they are at handling a lot of those things.
I know a woman in her thirties with that same rule. She won't watch the first Matrix movie.
I finished rewatching all 6 movies yesterday and damn they are long. The last one is fuckin 4h long. But i still didnt have an attention span problem.
Must suck not allowing yourself to enjoy anything from the past, and only allowing yourself to watch the slop they make today. There's so many great old shows and movies to pick from.
All the movies are older than me :3
i thought they released new movies all the time
Me too, but apparently they stopped after 2003 :3
crazy
At least LOTR has not been rebooted every 5-10 years like some Marvel/DC movies.
Even if there's probably someone itching to make a gritty reboot of LOTR.
I mean, look at the source material. One's an epic saga the other's a monthly brochure at the magazine corner shop.
I guess, it fits.
LotR has been done a few times. The Peter Jackson one is just so good that no one wants to be compared to it though. I'd argue that even Peter Jackson's The Hobbit felt so bad because the LotR trilogy was so good. (It was also just bad, but the comparison made it feel even worse.)
It's still hilarious to me that CGI peaked with pirates of the Caribbean.
Where'd sound mixing peak?
Up until the release of the iPod. That was the start of the era where record producers would compete to see who could be the loudest song on your MP3 player. Pushing compression to the extreme, squashing all dynamics down to a giant wall of sound that smacks you so hard in the face you get a headache from listening too long. (Look up "Loudness War")
Things have improved since but it's still not the same as back in the day, when we had to keep tunes dynamic in order to prevent the needle from flying off the record!
I meant in film. Being able to hear what the fuck people are saying.
Definitely after THX was created and established standards for sound quality. Prior to that, most theaters had a single, tinny, mono speaker delivering all the audio. THX made multichannel audio + subwoofer the norm.
So sometime between then and the release of the DVD, which introduced multi-channel audio for the masses. Before then, most people had VHS players, which only supported up to 4 channel matrixed audio though a stereo RCA output. But stereo and surround on VHS was a later development, with early VHS tapes being stereo only. (There was also LaserDisc of course, which could support true 5.1 Dolby Digital audio, but as we all know it never caught on outside of the enthusiast and educational markets.)
That said, stereo on VHS was a later thing, so if we're going to pinpoint the peak of audio mixing, I'm going to say it was the late 90s, when movies were mixed for stereo on VHS. Of course I'm only talking about the quality of the mix, and not other aspects of sound quality, which VHS is obviously inferior to digital in that aspect. Unless we're talking about VHS Hi-Fi, which is a whole other debate I won't get into here for brevity's sake (cause this comment is already way too long as-is).
Regardless, you can still have a good movie-watching experience in the home, but you're going to have to invest some money, simply because movies are mixed for surround sound, and not the average stereo TV speakers. While I'd recommend a minimum 5.1.4 Dolby Atmos setup for the best possible mix, you can get away with as little as a 3.0 setup. You'll miss out on finer details in the mix, but the important part is having a dedicated center channel speaker so that you can independently adjust its volume and actually understand what people are saying.
Any decent home theater receiver or sound bar will also have a "dialog booster" adjustment, and/or an audio compression function to boost quiet scenes and make loud scenes quieter. It's usually called "night mode", "volume leveler", or something like that. (Sometimes there's multiple settings).
Edit: Spelling, punctuation; added bit about LaserDisc.
my lord that's depressing lol.
When people think something from 2014 is "old" i laugh in their face as I crank up my 1899 Edison victrola.
Even as a kid I never viewed something old unless it was 60+ years in the past.
Damn...
Part of what makes the internet wonderful is being able to access movies from all eras. Why limit yourself to only new stuff?
As an aside, the OG Little Shop of Horrors still holds up IMO.
That's such a stupid take. The 90s and early 2000s were literally the golden age of feature movies. IMDB has 58 movies rated 8.5 or higher, 24 of those were released in the 15 years between 1990 and 2004. That's about 41.4% and includes classics like Shawshank, Forrest Gump, Pulp Fiction and of course the LotR trilogy.
Well, we had the Prequel Trilogy so I guess Peter Jackson probably needs to do an entirely unneeded Fourth Age Trilogy or something?
Prequel even harder and pry the Silmarillion rights from the cold, dead bodies of the Tolkien Estate, then run it into the ground with new films, or worse, a TV show.
Better yet, don't pry the right, so you have to come up with entirely new stories and new characters outside of what you already own the rights to! It'll be great!
Yet another “look at me being all young and shit! Aren’t I cute?” meme. So much traction from these recently.
Everyone should watch the AFI 100.
