JoeThePop
Brussels Sprout King
Saw Lawrence of Arabia at the Fox Theatre also. Probably the same time frame. No clue about the projection or sound system at th Fox but maybe I’ll look it up.
Academy Awards 2024
- Thread starter Richard Austen
- Start date
We streamed the first one at home. Had been a while since we got out of the house and gone to a movie and wanted to see the IMAX version. Will probably enjoy it even more at home over a couple nights on the OLED.
Yeah, with my TV, a Sony A95L OLED, I get a better picture than at the show, where I'm watching a projector TV anyway. I get better sound too, though 2 channel. But I'm no fan of bombastic surround sound anyway
Richard Austen
Junior Member
I like the movie theatre at Resorts World in Manila - each theatre has restrooms outside and they play the film soundtrack. So if you have to go - you can at least listen to what the characters are saying so you don't miss too much.
I couldn't get into Dune part 1 - I found it was all effects and generally dull without any interesting characters. I kept thinking who cares? By the end I was rooting for the giant worm to eat everyone.
Richard Austen
Junior Member
It's not easy to compare things from different generations because it often comes down to what you see FIRST that holds a certain resonance with viewers - this applies to music and movies - the Beatles - 15-year-olds back then loved it - the parents thought it was absolute shyte. Young people today are not at all interested in them. They are today regarded as an old Boy band - indeed, in music shops that still sell hard copy albums they are placed in the pop music section, not the rock music section because rock got harder and "I Want to Hold Your Hand" sounds like pop. Sure if you grew up with the Beatles you may rail against this notion but it is how it is - the kids are not interested in it. They have their own music for whatever generation they grew up with - maybe Queen or Michael Jackson or today Tayler Swift
This is the same for movies. Good luck getting most young people today to watch any movie in black and white - no matter how good old fogies may think it is. Moreover, the language has shifted as well as acting styles where 1940s and 1950s performances seem very VERY stilted compared to modern acting styles. Women placing a hand on their head and swooning is just so comically silly - even the idea of a "fainting couch" is absurd. If you grew up with it - it is totally fine because you were used to those kinds of performances but in modern times they are laughably bad.
Horror movies are a prime example - Halloween terrified audiences back in the day - often compared alongside Psycho - it was the first "slasher" film of note (even though there is virtually no blood in the entire movie). There is a scene that runs for several minutes following Laurie to the house where the killer, Michael Myers, resides. Back in 1978 the audience was screaming at the screen yelling "Don't go into the house" Today it's a snooze. Even John Carpenter admitted that today that 4-5 minute scene would need to be edited to 20 seconds because audiences have seen it all before. So while Halloween scared people in 1978 - it's tough to claim that it is scary in 2024. And while I will rant that the Dawn of the Dead 78 is much better than the remake - because the original had social commentary and better characters - fat chance most young people who are used to The Walking Dead won't scoff at the outdated effects (which were considered revolutionary in 78 and the most gory film made at that time - now viewed as looking "silly").
Even films that revolutionized camera work from the first half of the 1950s often get extra credit for being "first" at something rather than being best at something - similar to music where the original artist is revered more than the cover artist even when the cover artist is better.
I looked up a listing of the top 1950s movies and saw that the original Godzilla (1954) made the list but they write "Godzilla technically isn't the most fun Godzilla movie, and is ultimately a downer, but it holds tremendous historical value for starting such a great film series, and also holds up as a unique (and emotionally devastating) anti-war movie."
And this is probably true but again it's prey to its time and relevance to the people of the 1950s and less so today - modern eyes will view it as laughably bad.
And a quick note on run time - many critics feel that Seven Samurai (1954) was the greatest film of the 1950s and it is 3:27 minutes. 1 minute longer than Killers of the Flower Moon. I think one factor to consider today is that attention spans are far shorter. People need to pay attention to both the movie and their smartphone at the same time. If they put Seven Samurai or Citizen Kane in a movie theatre today it would be bounced within a week. Not enough people have the patience for them. Is that a modern audience problem or a modern audience can get the point quickly where they don't need 20 minutes to get a 2-minute point?
This is the same for movies. Good luck getting most young people today to watch any movie in black and white - no matter how good old fogies may think it is. Moreover, the language has shifted as well as acting styles where 1940s and 1950s performances seem very VERY stilted compared to modern acting styles. Women placing a hand on their head and swooning is just so comically silly - even the idea of a "fainting couch" is absurd. If you grew up with it - it is totally fine because you were used to those kinds of performances but in modern times they are laughably bad.
Horror movies are a prime example - Halloween terrified audiences back in the day - often compared alongside Psycho - it was the first "slasher" film of note (even though there is virtually no blood in the entire movie). There is a scene that runs for several minutes following Laurie to the house where the killer, Michael Myers, resides. Back in 1978 the audience was screaming at the screen yelling "Don't go into the house" Today it's a snooze. Even John Carpenter admitted that today that 4-5 minute scene would need to be edited to 20 seconds because audiences have seen it all before. So while Halloween scared people in 1978 - it's tough to claim that it is scary in 2024. And while I will rant that the Dawn of the Dead 78 is much better than the remake - because the original had social commentary and better characters - fat chance most young people who are used to The Walking Dead won't scoff at the outdated effects (which were considered revolutionary in 78 and the most gory film made at that time - now viewed as looking "silly").
Even films that revolutionized camera work from the first half of the 1950s often get extra credit for being "first" at something rather than being best at something - similar to music where the original artist is revered more than the cover artist even when the cover artist is better.
I looked up a listing of the top 1950s movies and saw that the original Godzilla (1954) made the list but they write "Godzilla technically isn't the most fun Godzilla movie, and is ultimately a downer, but it holds tremendous historical value for starting such a great film series, and also holds up as a unique (and emotionally devastating) anti-war movie."
And this is probably true but again it's prey to its time and relevance to the people of the 1950s and less so today - modern eyes will view it as laughably bad.
And a quick note on run time - many critics feel that Seven Samurai (1954) was the greatest film of the 1950s and it is 3:27 minutes. 1 minute longer than Killers of the Flower Moon. I think one factor to consider today is that attention spans are far shorter. People need to pay attention to both the movie and their smartphone at the same time. If they put Seven Samurai or Citizen Kane in a movie theatre today it would be bounced within a week. Not enough people have the patience for them. Is that a modern audience problem or a modern audience can get the point quickly where they don't need 20 minutes to get a 2-minute point?
Last edited:
I think Seven Samurai is simply much better than Killers of the Flower Moon. I watch Seven Samurai once every couple of years but didn't finish Killers of the Flower Moon and doubt I'll go back to it.
I will say that I never watched a lot of 1940s or 50s films up until recent years. I was raised on '80s cinema, though I have a certain love for a type of film post Pulp Fiction in '94 that started to play with storytelling and genres in a different way, out of order, etc ("Post Modernism" I suppose). My favorite film is Jeunet's A Very Long Engagement ( Un long dimanche de fiançailles) from 2004.
My love of 40s of 50s cinema, or at least the pick of its better films, comes directly out of what I don't like about many current films. I just don't think the writing is as good. The characters aren't as interesting. There's no....class?... to them? Not ALL of them but in general. I haven't seen a current film, in years, that really stuck with me. That doesn't mean I didn't enjoy some of them (I did enjoy Everything, Everywhere, all at Once but mainly because it was just different from what's going on. Same with Godzilla Minus One...and that was mostly because they managed to tell a moving story, bigger in meaning than what was on screan, in a genre that's not usually filled with any depth...plus I enjoyed that a low budget film put Hollywood's sad current state of SFX to shame).
Snade
Site Supporter
Long run times have always been an issue for audience acceptance and commercial success for movies. BUT, really good movies overcome that today and 50 years ago. Oppenheimer is three hours long and it's made almost a billion $. The Lord of the Rings movies made a ton of money.
We are talking about good movies of the past and today. I do agree the pacing (slow by standards today) of many good, old movies would be a problem with a modern and younger audience. And black and white is an issue. But if we are talking about the general public - movies that you loved like Past Lives - the general public today does not watch slow movies like that where the action is subtle glances by the main characters. They want action. Past Lives (a good movie) has made only 11 million.
So we're not talking about good movies in terms of the general public's opinion. We are giving our own opinion, and I fall in the camp that there are many good movies today, but older movies indeed had great script writing and very talented directors and cinematographers, and provided us some terrific movies that hold up well against movies today.
Cheers,
Snade
Given the general lack of popularity of movie-going today, I don't know that the assumptions Hollywood is making about the public's taste have any merit. They certainly aren't going out of their way to see CGI-fests anymore. And despite Hollywood doing endless test-screenings and focus-groups, they certainly don't result in movies people are paying money to see.
Having sat through my fair-share of 'objective' focus groups I can tell you...they're 100% pure-grade BS that exist solely to alleviate middle-management from having any decision-making traced back to their gut.
Having sat through my fair-share of 'objective' focus groups I can tell you...they're 100% pure-grade BS that exist solely to alleviate middle-management from having any decision-making traced back to their gut.
JoeThePop
Brussels Sprout King
Why are focus groups BS? Is it the makeup of the groups? The questions asked? Or maybe when asked for opinions in that sort of context, people may lie about their preferences in an effort to play at being more sophisticated? All of the above?
JoeThePop
Brussels Sprout King
And maybe as the younger generations age, their tastes will expand and change, much like my own has. Ask 20-year-old Joe to watch a black and white movie and he would have scoffed.
Richard Austen
Junior Member
Thanks for some great replies.
I would tend to agree that a good movie people like at 3 hours a modern audience will watch over 90 minutes of slop.
It would be interesting to see the demographic of movie theatre attendees.
I will say that there are current movies that are written well (granted usually adaptations from award-winning novels so the writing has largely already been done) Of course some novels get adapted better than others but I think these are different than say the MCU.
The movie Poor Things is on the end of the spectrum that is better suited to people who have English Lit degrees and are well versed in Philosophy. That movie was my choice for best film of 2023 and it gets highly mixed reviews - I suspect it goes over the head of most people - that is no insult to anyone - it's just more entertaining for people geared to this sort of sense of humour and artistic aesthetic and who have taken university courses in Literature and/or Philosophy - The Academy is filled with English/Liberal Arts/Philosophy majoprs after all so these people along with visual arts majors will get more out of it then John Q Public who are used to watching their weekly CSI.
Thus, Poor Things appeals to my artistic right brain and English Lit side of me while Oppenhemer is more the current day cerebral "procedural" biopic linear storytelling. More appealing to left-brain logical types.
If you have seen Poor Things check out this analysis - if you have no plans to ever see it - this is still worth watching because it illustrates a multi-faceted approach to making the movie that IMO goes above and beyond most films of any era. That still doesn't mean one will "like it" but perhaps respect it and the creators for not just putting any ole slop on the screen to make a buck. The analysis is surprisingly well covered and explained to the layman or those who haven't brushed up on the romantic and enlightenment era - I have to laugh that the most enlightened male character in the movie is called Max Candles.
If you did see Poor Things and liked it - then this may make you like it a whole lot more.
The weakness in the video is they did not credit the author of the novel Alasdair Gray - who is kind of important.
I would tend to agree that a good movie people like at 3 hours a modern audience will watch over 90 minutes of slop.
It would be interesting to see the demographic of movie theatre attendees.
I will say that there are current movies that are written well (granted usually adaptations from award-winning novels so the writing has largely already been done) Of course some novels get adapted better than others but I think these are different than say the MCU.
The movie Poor Things is on the end of the spectrum that is better suited to people who have English Lit degrees and are well versed in Philosophy. That movie was my choice for best film of 2023 and it gets highly mixed reviews - I suspect it goes over the head of most people - that is no insult to anyone - it's just more entertaining for people geared to this sort of sense of humour and artistic aesthetic and who have taken university courses in Literature and/or Philosophy - The Academy is filled with English/Liberal Arts/Philosophy majoprs after all so these people along with visual arts majors will get more out of it then John Q Public who are used to watching their weekly CSI.
Thus, Poor Things appeals to my artistic right brain and English Lit side of me while Oppenhemer is more the current day cerebral "procedural" biopic linear storytelling. More appealing to left-brain logical types.
If you have seen Poor Things check out this analysis - if you have no plans to ever see it - this is still worth watching because it illustrates a multi-faceted approach to making the movie that IMO goes above and beyond most films of any era. That still doesn't mean one will "like it" but perhaps respect it and the creators for not just putting any ole slop on the screen to make a buck. The analysis is surprisingly well covered and explained to the layman or those who haven't brushed up on the romantic and enlightenment era - I have to laugh that the most enlightened male character in the movie is called Max Candles.
If you did see Poor Things and liked it - then this may make you like it a whole lot more.
The weakness in the video is they did not credit the author of the novel Alasdair Gray - who is kind of important.
Last edited:
That's an interesting counter to an interaction I had with a director. I worked with Sam Raimi on a commercial and over dinner somebody asked him who he'd least like to work with again, and he kind of corrected them by saying he'd work with anybody again, didn't want to be mean (he's a very nice guy), but the most difficult actor he worked with was Gene Hackman, as you couldn't direct him...he just did what he wanted to do, and it was not a fun way to work as a director. And he disagreed with what Hackman wanted a lot, so it got to be this constant thing of how to try to get him to do what he thought was right. So yeah, Hackman had passion!
Snade
Site Supporter
That's interesting.
One example of the power of Hackman as an actor was his role in Unforgiven with Clint Eastwood and Morgan Freeman with Clint directing. That was a great movie, IMO, and Hackman stole every scene he was in - creating one of the most believable bad guys in the history of westerns.
Maybe Clint knew how to let him do his thing, but Sam did not.
Just found a pic of where I used to go to when I was younger. I saw Star Wars and Blazing Saddles there,
Someone rescue that marquee please. Oh what a place, do you know the build date? Looks 1930's peak Art Deco.
Streamed Dune 1 too, few theaters open around us when released. Saw Dune 2 in theater, worth it. Our attendance dropped way off. So much garbage and largely forgotten before we got back to the car. Plus we were definitely stuck in the franchise habit. Nail in that coffin was one of those. Literally said to my wife "What the hell did we just see?". We were probably hitting 2-3 movies a month. For every Birdman there were a half dozen crapfests. Worse though, it took a long time to realize how bad the state of film was. Now, 1-2 a year, maybe. For what it costs the transaction needs to be balanced. We've definitely skipped entire years too.
Spinner45
Site Supporter
Really?
Pics taken of him within the last year, including doing yard work and driving a pickup truck through the drive up window at a Wendy's, are all in Santa Fe NM, where he's lived for many years.
Of course a lot can change very quickly at that age.
