Films: Then vs Now

[Dream Team]

I hastily attempted to make this point in another thread, but did a very poor job of it and must apologize for that.

The point I was trying to make was: while B movies have always existed, up until quite recently there was no truly shitty movie that was both popular and/or a box office smash. Top Gun in 1986 might be the first, though someone can please correct me if I missed one earlier in the 80's. Thus my point about audiences once being able to discern quality vs crap. Yes, even teenagers. Think about it, drivel featuring Pauly Shore or Seth Rogen would never even have been green-lit back in the day, let alone become box-office successes. Nowadays, the aforementioned Rogen drivel plus Transformers movies, Star Wars prequels, Star Trek sequels regularly earn boatloads of cash. Compare that to a list of movies with the most tickets sold before 1980, it's a list of nothing but classics.

Some of this might be obvious or rehashed, but at one point if there wasn't a good story there, the movie wouldn't be made or A-list actors wouldn't sign on for it. This point is highlighted by the fact that almost any AFI list or other qualified source of the 100 Greatest Movies or whatever will have virtually nothing from after 1970 except The Godfather 1 & 2 and maybe Jaws. In the current Top-10 Favorite movies thread on this board, I was genuinely happy to see that a few posters realize they used to make movies before the year 2000.

So if someone wants to insist that their opinion that whatever Pauly Shore movie they like is just as good as Citizen Kane or Casablanca, that is a delusional state of mind and should be dismissed out of hand, not supported by an "all opinions are equally valid" argument. LIKING something is an opinion, QUALITY is a fact. If that weren't true, then one should be able to state that Barbra Streisand is a terrible singer or Neal Peart is a terrible drummer and not be laughed at in the face. Sorry, the argument just doesn't hold water. There is crap and there is quality, it's not opinion-based. People USED TO be able to recognize the difference.

Now I fully expect that almost no one will agree, and state that dogshit on a poster is as artistic as any Van Gogh masterpiece.  Well, carry on then.

[Destiny Of Chaos]

I like the Star Wars prequels more than Casablanca. Sure... one is revered as a classic, but the prequels entertain me more. 

[Adami]

Oh man, this is like giving crack to DTF. I will check back in an hour, and I expect this to be on the 2nd page with the same old arguments we've had 1000 times already but can't seem to stop having.

[BlackInk]

While I agree with the overall point, I think there's more to it than "crap vs quality". What people want these days is basically escapism and visual spectacles, which Hollywood are far better at producing now than back in the times you're talking about. In that sense, those movies aren't crap, they're just a different type of film. People these days just don't want Citizen Kane, what they want is Fast & Furious 23. That is pretty sad. But there's still great (in the sense we're talking about) movies being made, so I try to seek those out.

So I wouldn't say it's "Van Gough masterpiece" vs "dogshit on a poster", I'd say it's more like "Van Gough masterpiece" vs "mega roller coaster" (I even made it rhyme). Two different ways to give different types of people what they want.

[Adami]

Also, I might be wrong but wasn't Van Gough mostly considered meh until long after his death?

[kaos2900]

Fact- Quality does not equal fact. And I'm 100% sure I'm going to like Sausage Party more than Casblanca. I mean at least it's in color.

[Chino]

This debate is 100% subjective. Everyone's definition for "crap is different". I watch movies to be entertained. However they manage to do that is judged on a movie-by-movie basis. I stopped watching Top Gun as soon as Cruise introduced himself as "Maverick" at the bar.

If you want an amazing life altering story, read a book. If you want a visual spectacle that might have a good story tied to it, see a movie. People loved the original True Grit, and I found it unbearably boring. As far as movies go, not stories, I'd say Transformers was infinitely better (again, subjective). Movies don't need to be all spectacle though. Trading Places and the Nutty Professor are really stupid movies, but they're hysterical and great. Same goes for TommyBoy and Weekend at Bernies.

I love movies like Knocked Up, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Land of the Lost, Pineapple Express, Superbad, etc.. Superbad was comedic genius if you ask me.

[Adami]

This debate is 100% subjective. Everyone's definition for "crap is different". I watch movies to be entertained. However they manage to do that is judged on a movie-by-movie basis. I stopped watching Top Gun as soon as Cruise introduced himself as "Maverick" at the bar.

If you want an amazing life altering story, read a book. If you want a visual spectacle that might have a good story tied to it, see a movie. People loved the original True Grit, and I found it unbearably boring. As far as movies go, not stories, I'd say Transformers was infinitely better (again, subjective). Movies don't need to be all spectacle though. Trading Places and the Nutty Professor are really stupid movies, but they're hysterical and great. Same goes for TommyBoy and Weekend at Bernies.

I love movies like Knocked Up, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Land of the Lost, Pineapple Express, Superbad, etc.. Superbad was comedic genius if you ask me.

Woah woah woah there...........woah.

Do NOT compare Trading Places and The Nutty Professor. Good god man.

[Prog Snob]

I like the Star Wars prequels more than Casablanca. Sure... one is revered as a classic, but the prequels entertain me more.

And I'm the opposite. I couldn't care less about Star Wars and would rather watch Casablanca instead. However, I won't deny that Star Wars should be on every all-time movie list.

[Chino]

I hastily attempted to make this point in another thread, but did a very poor job of it and must apologize for that.

The point I was trying to make was: while B movies have always existed, up until quite recently there was no truly shitty movie that was both popular and/or a box office smash. Top Gun in 1986 might be the first, though someone can please correct me if I missed one earlier in the 80's. Thus my point about audiences once being able to discern quality vs crap. Yes, even teenagers. Think about it, drivel featuring Pauly Shore or Seth Rogen would never even have been green-lit back in the day, let alone become box-office successes. Nowadays, the aforementioned Rogen drivel plus Transformers movies, Star Wars prequels, Star Trek sequels regularly earn boatloads of cash. Compare that to a list of movies with the most tickets sold before 1980, it's a list of nothing but classics.

If you showed Transformers to anyone pre 1980s, they'd have shit their pants in awe and it would have been the most talked about piece of entertainment ever.

[King Postwhore]

The Transformers cartoon movie from the 80's is better than the modern day ones.



Also, my shit is better than your shit.

[Prog Snob]

The Transformers cartoon movie from the 80's is better than the modern day ones.



Also, my shit is better than your shit.

And my diarrhea is waterier than your diarrhea.

[Adami]

The Transformers cartoon movie from the 80's is better than the modern day ones.

The one objectively true statement in this thread.

[King Postwhore]

The Transformers cartoon movie from the 80's is better than the modern day ones.



Also, my shit is better than your shit.

And my diarrhea is waterier than your diarrhea.

Challenge Excepted!

The Transformers cartoon movie from the 80's is better than the modern day ones.

The one objectively true statement in this thread.

Hold that, you haven't heard all my movies I like.

[Prog Snob]

The Transformers cartoon movie from the 80's is better than the modern day ones.



Also, my shit is better than your shit.

And my diarrhea is waterier than your diarrhea.

Challenge Excepted!

*accepted 

[King Postwhore]

You know I did that to mess with you.  I know your OCD.



Besides, diarrhea is not excepted accept in toilet seats.

[Prog Snob]

You know I did that to mess with you.  I know your OCD.



Besides, diarrhea is not excepted accept in toilet seats.

Stop FUCKKKKKKKKKKKKING with me.   

[King Postwhore]

Man I'm loooooovvvvvinnnnggggg this!

[Prog Snob]

[ariich]

The OP makes no sense whatsoever, and doesn't even compare like with like.

Firstly, none of the movies you list are "truly shitty" compared with genuinely terrible films. And if we're talking genuinely terrible films, then they've always existed and never done well.

If we're talking films that arguably just aren't really very good (like many of those you mention), then again they've always existed too. It's possible that more money is being pumped into those sorts of films than ever before, but 1. that's to do with the producers, not audiences, 2. cinema is a completely different industry than it was 50 years ago, 3. the industry has a shitload more money going through it than ever. The two situations simply aren't comparable.

And then to really make no sense at all, you compare Pauly Shore movies with classics such as Casablanca. That doesn't even make sense. If you're going to make comparisons to old classics, then it should be modern classics in that comparison.

[Chino]

The OP makes no sense whatsoever, and doesn't even compare like with like.

Firstly, none of the movies you list are "truly shitty" compared with genuinely terrible films. And if we're talking genuinely terrible films, then they've always existed and never done well.

Can we all agree that Weekend at Bernie's 2 is the bar for what makes a movie absolute shit?

[Prog Snob]

The OP makes no sense whatsoever, and doesn't even compare like with like.

Firstly, none of the movies you list are "truly shitty" compared with genuinely terrible films. And if we're talking genuinely terrible films, then they've always existed and never done well.

Can we all agree that Weekend at Bernie's 2 is the bar for what makes a movie absolute shit?

I can think of so many other movies more deserving, like Tremors 3, 4, 5 and whatever else they're up to.

[The Trooper]

The Transformers cartoon movie from the 80's is better than the modern day ones.



Also, my shit is better than your shit.

And my diarrhea is waterier than your diarrhea.

That may be the greatest back to back posts ever here.

[Prog Snob]

[The Trooper]

You are on fire today.  My next box of depends is on u. wait that sounded wierd

[Prog Snob]

You are on fire today.  My next box of depends is on u. wait that sounded wierd

[The Trooper]

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmkay

[The Trooper]

All you motherfuckers are gonna pay! You are the ones who are the ball-lickers! We're gonna fuck your mothers while you watch and cry like little, whiny bitches. Once we get to Hollywood and find those Miramax fucks who is making the movie, we're gonna make them eat our shit, then shit out our shit, and then eat their shit that's made up of our shit that we made them eat. Then all you motherfucks are next. Love, Jay and Silent Bob

Movie making at its best

[Prog Snob]

 

Heading home. I'll check in shortly.

[antigoon]

Pauly Shore?

[ZirconBlue]

This point is highlighted by the fact that almost any AFI list or other qualified source of the 100 Greatest Movies or whatever will have virtually nothing from after 1970 except The Godfather 1 & 2 and maybe Jaws.

39 of the 100 were from after 1970 (40 if you include 1970). 

And, IIRC, movies that were too new were excluded from consideration, although I don't know what the cutoff date was.

[ZirconBlue]

Also, during the Golden Age of Hollywood:

One of the techniques used to support the studio system was block booking, a system of selling multiple films to a theater as a unit. Such a unit—five films was the standard practice for most of the 1940s—typically included only one particularly attractive film, the rest a mix of A-budget pictures of lesser quality and B movies.^[4] As Life magazine wrote in 1957 in a retrospective on the studio system, "It wasn't good entertainment and it wasn't art, and most of the movies produced had a uniform mediocrity, but they were also uniformly profitable ... The million-dollar mediocrity was the very backbone of Hollywood."^[5]

A filmmaker stated in 1957 that "[t]he one absolute disaster today is to make a million-dollar mediocrity. One of those you can lose not only your total investment but your total shirt." By that year Hollywood was only making about 300 feature films a year, compared to about 700 during the 1920s.

[King Postwhore]

Pauly Shore?

You son of a bitch!  Where have you been?!

[Kotowboy]

There have always been shit films.

[Accelerando]

I'm trying to understand the OP. Like many here, I'm in agreement that there has always been films that people found really bad. In fact, the studio systems back in the 1940's and '50s purposely made films of a lesser quality just to honor the agreements of their contract players like James Cagney and Humphrey Bogart. Those guys made greats like The Public Enemy and Casablanca, BUT they also made Terrible Joe Moran and The Wagons Roll At Night.

Maybe I'm missing the point?