Whats the point watching old films?

All the 'technology' is only there to act as a window to the television series or movie that one chooses to watch - be it on DVD, Laserdisc, or, :eek:, vhs (yeah, ok, v2000 or betamax too :p)

I suggest those who only watch things that are shiny and new in order to show off their kit: buy a test disc and watch that all evening - it'll show your amp/speakers/display device to perfection.
 
New technology is a double edge sword. It spoils us and can prejudice people against older material.

I know people that have turned a film off because it was "black and white" or because "it was old and won't have any decent violence". It's very sad really.

I think you can be both a film buff/movie fan and an A/V enthuiast. It just requires a sense of perspective and compromise.

I enjoyed the vacuous spectacle of "Behind Enemy Lines" recently, and revelled in the clarity of the picture and the bowel shattering work out my sound system had.

But I also enjoyed the scratchy, black and white, mono charm of "Oh Mr. Porter"" and "Night Of The Demon", to name but two examples.

If you take a trip to the National Portrait gallery, you'll find some old paintings, that despite loving care, are tarnishing, fading and cracking with age. Yet, this does not diminish their beauty and power. Real art transcends the physical trappings of it's medium.

And on that pompous note, I shall disappear up my own arse.
 
I just find the title of this thread really offensive...isnt it just a stupid question. As stupid as saying what the point in watching new movies. Dont mean to offend anyone but I'm pretty damn passionate about films and find it offensive that someone would choose a sound format above content.
 
:eek: :mad: :( :rolleyes: :confused: ....Nuff Said!
 
I heard there's a new DTS range of the old silent films coming out, hiss like you've never heard levelled before - I can't wait.
Whether films are old or new is irrelevant to the extent that if they are done well, who cares. Films are like music in that they have a place outside of production time in itself but in time with mood.
 
>>buy i really do not see the point in buying pants films just because they show off your sound system<<

I recently bought & watched Manhunter.

This is a good example of a pants film that also doesn't show off your sound system, especially during the bits where you are asleep.

Has anyone watched any Laurel & Hardy (silent or otherwise) on a PJ? How does it come across? I'm considering a L & H purchase and am curious to know how the old B&W films fare on modern kit.
 
Because this was when films were films, not like todays rubbish, which are mostly all about the same thing, then you have the actors and actresses knocking out films every 6wks getting payed millions, money for old rope I say, three quarters of most films are special effects done by computer anyway, they also use the soundtracks to their advantage

Look at all the tension and thrills the older films had, this was generated between actors, actresses and the storyline, not a laytex dummy landing on earth and killing teenagers at a theme park.

I think todays films sell more because of the soundtrack and the computer generated special effects, not the actual guts of the film which is the story. How many times have you heard this reply, " You want to watch this movie it has a brilliant soundtrack".

Isn't it about time they went back to the old style of producing films, and give us some value for money.
 
Hi,

I have to agree with the majority on this - you should like a film for what it is, regardless of whether it looks perfect, or is in mono or DTS.

I really enjoyed "Nosferatu" from 1928 (I think), and an old 50's B-movie called "Fiend Without A Face". Both are out on DVD, but neither are ever going to sound or look exceptional.

Having said that, there are a few films you DO buy, because of what they look or sound like, rather than the quality of the film itself. ("Armageddon" might be one example.)

There is a definite point to old movies! Same as there is a definite point to old music. I would hazard a guess, and say that 90% of all modern pop and dance music, is actually a rehash of old stuff! As such, in my opinion, most of today's pop musicians and dance acts, are actually not real genuine musicians. Anyone could, in theory, take a classic song, add a techno drum beat to it, include a few "Ah ha's" and "Diggy, diggy, diggy's" to it and chuck it out to sell. However, it ain't music. It's just old stuff, with a minor twist. Example - "The Streets". Absolute drivel. A man talks about absolutely nothing, over an awful repeatitive piece of muzak! Dire! That's not music, in any sense of the word. Ditto with most Jean Claude Van Damme movies. It's not about the stories or the acting. It's purely about Van Damme's martial arts work.

Much can be said of modern movies. Occasionally, you will get a really good new movie come out, that isn't a remake or a rehash of someone else's work. But that is very rare, although it is getting more frequent. (Recent examples of great modern cinema could include "Run, Lola, Run", The Insider", "American Beauty", the 1988 edition of "The Vanishing", The Usual Suspects", and/or "Four Weddings And A Funeral".) All of these titles did something different, and on a relatively small budget. Yet they still pulled in millions of people off of the street, and back into cinemas! Why? Simply because they were intelligent, well-written and superbly acted movies, that made you think!

Occasionally, you will get a good film that manages to utilise superb stories, great acting and jaw-dropping effects, e.g. "Gladiator". However, it's pretty rare. Normally, one has to sacrifice to the other. That is, you either have great affects, but a lousy film. Or you get a great film, but really lousy effects.

So much stuff in recent times is all to do with the CGI effects, not the acting or the plot or the direction. As such, there is MORE THAN ENOUGH reasons to watch old movies!

Pooch
 
Originally posted by Mike Swannick
i really do not see the point in buying pants films just because they show off your sound system.

Quite, but whilst most on this forum would pay lip service to that, you only have to look at their top ten films to see that what they actually buy are full of aliens, helicopters, car chases and general gun fire.

A couple of months ago this forum was full of talk about Pearl Harbor with everyone saying that it was rubbish but that they only bought it for the sound.
 
Originally posted by Sir Geoffrey On 17/08/02
..............
As for Bob the Builder's crude suggestion, I would point out that Mary and I have only known each other for a couple of months and it is far too early to even think about that sort of thing.

And Posted on the 18/08/02.....

I have a rash
I have been seeing my new girlfriend Mary for two months and we have been very happy.
Last night after consuming nearly a full bottle of wine between us we were intimate for the first time. I am not particularly well practised at this sort of activity so it was a little uncomfortable.
Mary was very understanding but after she left this morning I found I had a rash in my personal area.
I am devastated and I dont know what to do. I am too embarrassed to see the doctor and I cannot bring myself to talk to Mary about it.
Please can anyone offer me advice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:D
 
Also in answer to the question....dare I say it.....the point in watching old films is that they're better and dont rely on special effects to impress.
 
If I want to watch an old film on my system, I leave the 5.1 sound system turned off & watch the film with just the tv sound! After all, the film directors in the years before surround sound & computerised special effects never had the facilities or the money film directors have today, yet they still made good entertaining films. So I watch the old film as the director intended showing the film, even to the point of adjusting the screen size on my widescreen TV, (sad isn't it!). If the film has a mono soundtrack what is the point of having your 5.1 sound system turned on? admittedly I do own several DVD's with remastered 5.1 soundtracks, but I don't let that spoil the enjoyment of the film.
DVD is all about better picture as well as better sound if the transfer is done properly!
 
Originally posted by Mike Swannick
>>buy i really do not see the point in buying pants films just because they show off your sound system<<

I recently bought & watched Manhunter.

This is a good example of a pants film

I have manhunter R1 L.E. and although it's a lot older than silence of the lambs and hannibal with mucch less special effects and a lot less publicity imo it's a superior film.
 
You know, it used to bother me when I met people who wouln't rent a movie because it wasn't in the New Release section of the local Blockbuster. (B&W and foreign films were out of the question) I tried to explain to them that there were great old movies out there, with no current hollywood stars, and no 100 Million dollar budgets, but they wouldn't hear it.

But now, I realize if someone is so close-mindedly to automatically dismiss any film that's in B&W, or silent, or foreign, or more than 5 years old, then they don't deserve to see these great films. It's as easy as that. I don't waste my breath on them anymore.
 
Originally posted by Azrikam
But now, I realize if someone is so close-mindedly to automatically dismiss any film that's in B&W, or silent, or foreign, or more than 5 years old, then they don't deserve to see these great films. It's as easy as that. I don't waste my breath on them anymore.
The only films that I automatically dismiss are silent movies. I really can't stand them. They bore me rigid and, if the truth be told, give me the creeps half the time as well. And I say this in all seriousness, so I'm glad you're not going to breathe on me Azrikam ;)
 
Originally posted by Azrikam
dismiss any film that's in B&W, or silent, or foreign, or more than 5 years old,
I don't mind b/w or silent films but I draw the line at foreign films, mainly those with subtitles, I want the stars of the film tell me the story not read it myself, because while you are reading the subtitles, (that's if they aren't going to fast for you to read and you miss some dialogue) you are missing all the visual clues and action on screen, you may as well go out and buy a book.

:D
 
I thought the whole point of home cinema is to enjoy the film whether it be b/w with mono sound etc.
I have a number of older films with mono sound and I have no regrets. I bought them because they're excellent films and I want to have a copy that won't wear out.

I will not buy a film to show off my system if the film is crap!!!

You cannot seriously say that you're a film fan and neglect to buy films that are older than 10 years or only have b/w and mono sound!!!

You're seriously missing out on some of the finest examples of film making ever and subjecting yourself to the post-modern Scream generation of film making.

Can't anyone come up with an original idea in Hollywood anymore???
 
Originally posted by jmcr100
Can't anyone come up with an original idea in Hollywood anymore???

It seems not. Jerry Bruckheimer rules.
 
The question is not about whether or not film fans in general like old films as the regulars on this forum are not representative of the film loving public.

Strip out all of the threads about Star Wars, LOTR, any Bruckheimer film and what are you left with. Precious little.

I watched Majestic last week. It is an excellent Jim Carrey film recently released on DVD.

It has no violence or aliens and a search on the forum will bring up absolutely nothing.

As someone mentioned earlier there is a big difference between a film fan and an AV fan and I think that most of the regulars here are the latter.

There are some notable exceptions and I know who they are so the real film fans don't have to flame me.

PS whilst typing this someone else posted the following in a different thread.

Matrix scene where they enter the building at the end. Boy do I want this in DTS badly

I rest my case
 
uhuh Gimli son of Gloin.

great quote.

can you believe that damn Bruckheimer box set?
an ex car theif has to steal x amount of cars to save his brother
the only man to escape from alcatraz has to break back in
bla bla bla
 
Originally posted by bob007
I don't mind b/w or silent films but I draw the line at foreign films, mainly those with subtitles, I want the stars of the film tell me the story not read it myself, because while you are reading the subtitles, (that's if they aren't going to fast for you to read and you miss some dialogue) you are missing all the visual clues and action on screen, you may as well go out and buy a book.
:D

Philistine!!! :D

Do yourself a favor and pick up a mess of Kurasawa flicks. If you can keep up with the words, you just might enjoy yourself.

As for silent films being creepy, that just makes ones like Nosferatu that much better.
 
It occurs to me that having a good home cinema system should allow you to appreciate blockbuster action films more, as you are seeing them how they were intended to be seen.

But what is really important is the film. I got into home cinema through my love of films, not my love of technology. If anyone doubts this, they should check out the idiotic questions I am always asking on this forum, on technical matters:confused:

The film comes first for me, although from time to time I buy a Pearl Harbor for the spectacle. I own every film that I want and is available, so every so often I try a turkey, gobble gobble;)
 
Biggest buzz I got out of watching my system recently was seeing Seven Samuria 8feet across in my front room on my projector.

Also I must leap to the defence of a much maligned industry: ie CGI , Visual Effects et al you name it.

We do not sit there twiddling our thumbs waiting for an opportunity to screw up someones movie. More often than not we are sweating away trying to make something half way respectable out of some two-bit director's badly concieved , incompetently shot rubbish that would have been 10 times easier and 10 times better if they'd had an arrogance bypass and asked our advice on it in the first place. They've normally given us half the time we need to do it and are paying us slightly less than the guy who had to be near a phone in case one of the electricians gets ill from all the sitting around and bacon butty eating they do.

Amongst other things we also fix things that went wrong through no-one's fault on films that do not involve , aliens , helicopters or things exploding. Whereas before we were around the director might have had to use an alternative take they weren't happy with or cut the entire scene.

We are also not responsible for the 100million plus budgets ( normally it works out at about 10% of the budget for an aspect of the movie that is a main contributor for peoples rationale for going to see it and we are talking the big blockbusters here).

If the rest of the industry handled itself as professionally as the VFX people (because strangely enough the computers don't do all the work) the cinema going public would get a new Citizen Kane every 6 months and there would be a freaking Nobel prize for cinema.
 
I wonder too how much the $20M pay packets the likes of Carrey, Schwarzenegger et al receive, acts to the detriment of many a modern 'blockbuster'. How much does their ego 'get in the way' if they're earning 20+ times that which a writer/screenplay adapter etc does......
 
If you are a director you can get paid just for reading scripts.
100K for 2 hours work anyone?
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom