Movies ain't what it used to be?

[The Voltania]

They aren't.
Has anyone seen a single comedy that isn't just "lulsexjokelulsexjokelul we do funy lololololol."
Young Frankenstien was where the good stuff was.

Knight and Day was awesome.

As was Eclipse. *awaits the shitstorm*

[Sebally-Orwitskia]

*cough* The good ones are usually indies.

Besides, Take Slumdog Millionare, and Chocolate, and Windtalkers. Those were nice.

Ponyo was too.

[Jusela]

They aren't.
Has anyone seen a single comedy that isn't just "lulsexjokelulsexjokelul we do funy lololololol."
Young Frankenstien was where the good stuff was.

As was Eclipse. *awaits the shitstorm*

Vampires aren't supposed to shine...

[Veblenia]

They aren't.
Has anyone seen a single comedy that isn't just "lulsexjokelulsexjokelul we do funy lololololol."
Young Frankenstien was where the good stuff was.

Wes Anderson does good work, ie: The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou and The Darjeeling Limited.

In the Loop springs to mind, too.

[Katganistan]

It's the culture. A 3+ hour movie just doesn't work in this day and age, no profit for theaters who have to cut their showings by half.

Intermissions are long gone.

Sorry? The Lord of the Rings movies?

[The Black Forrest]

It's the culture. A 3+ hour movie just doesn't work in this day and age, no profit for theaters who have to cut their showings by half.

Intermissions are long gone.

Hmmy maybe....maybe not.

When a theater released the extended versions of Lord of the Rings, it was filled and they sat through all three films. Granted there were breaks but that was 10+ hours.

A compelling well thought out story will draw people in.

CGI and effects are often used to distract from a bad story.....

[Mostly armless]

It's the culture. A 3+ hour movie just doesn't work in this day and age, no profit for theaters who have to cut their showings by half.

Intermissions are long gone.

Sorry? The Lord of the Rings movies?

If I remember correctly, the Return Of The King: Extended Edition lasts for over 4 hours.

[Grave_n_idle]

Several weeks ago, i watched Lawrence of Arabia, a three and a half long hour movie about the exploits and adventures of the said person. The movie was really, i kid you not, stunning. It had an awesome plot, set in a time that no longer exists, and what's best is that there's no CGI. That's right. No fancy CGI. Yet the movie was so visually stunning sometimes, some scenes, combined with the excellent composed music just made me go like "awesome!".

But most importantly, the movie had somesort of meaning and symbolism, and most of all, it felt real, it wasn't all fancy plastic special effects like the movies we have nowadays, where the actors stand infront of a bluescreen, and the background gets added later.

Is it just me, or are most of the movies produced in recent times (10's, 00's), just CGI with lacking storylines?

You're just watching crappy new movies. There were crappy movies then, too. There are good movies now, too.

[HC Eredivisie]

And anyway, backgrounds were blue-screened into old movies, too.

Really? I didn't know they had CGI backgrounds back in the 80's...

Don't think they need CGI for that.

It's the culture. A 3+ hour movie just doesn't work in this day and age, no profit for theaters who have to cut their showings by half.

Intermissions are long gone.

Sorry? The Lord of the Rings movies?

Are we talking about breaks in the movie for 10 minutes or so or that you watch the movie in two parts on different days?
Because we here still have the ten minute breaks.

[The Corparation]

Most modern movies suck. However some of the recent movies are pretty good and have origanal stories. Like District 9.

Watch Plan Nine From Outer Space and see if you still agree with this argument

Thats way too funny to be considered the worst movie of all time. Try Manos the Hands of Fate.

Several weeks ago, i watched Lawrence of Arabia, a three and a half long hour movie about the exploits and adventures of the said person. The movie was really, i kid you not, stunning. It had an awesome plot, set in a time that no longer exists, and what's best is that there's no CGI. That's right. No fancy CGI. Yet the movie was so visually stunning sometimes, some scenes, combined with the excellent composed music just made me go like "awesome!".

But most importantly, the movie had somesort of meaning and symbolism, and most of all, it felt real, it wasn't all fancy plastic special effects like the movies we have nowadays, where the actors stand infront of a bluescreen, and the background gets added later.

Is it just me, or are most of the movies produced in recent times (10's, 00's), just CGI with lacking storylines?

You're just watching crappy new movies. There were crappy movies then, too. There are good movies now, too.

The crappy movies then are funny and entertaining too watch. The bad movies now are not.

[Boley]

Jusela,

I've had similar thoughts for a long time now, and i think if you looked into the history of the film industry it's fairly obvious why the enterprise is so commercialized and obsessed with the bottom line. Films are major corporate investments and if actions + cgi + brief nudity brings in tickets, that's what's going to be done.

This culture really likes violence in their films and cgi has an excellent why of complementing that. See, This Film is Not Yet Rated, an excellent documentary about this very issue.

[Farnhamia]

Jusela,

I've had similar thoughts for a long time now, and i think if you looked into the history of the film industry it's fairly obvious why the enterprise is so commercialized and obsessed with the bottom line. Films are major corporate investments and if actions + cgi + brief nudity brings in tickets, that's what's going to be done.

This culture really likes violence in their films and cgi has an excellent why of complementing that. See, This Film is Not Yet Rated, an excellent documentary about this very issue.

The film industry has always wanted to make money. The amounts nowadays are larger, but the obsession with the bottom line is nothing new.

[Missourian Rebels]

I'd have to agree with you. In old films the special effects are obvious compared to the ones now and that's what makes them seem so fake.

You can tell if an older film was made with spec. effects and that's what seems to add to the charm of it.

Personally, it doesn't really bother me if special effects are added later, it just bothers me when entire backgrounds are CGI et.

Yes, I find that annoying as well. Why can't they just film on location? Is it so hard?

It's expensive, you have to schlep everyone out to some God-forsaken place, house them, feed them, get power to the spot. It's a pain,

Yeah it is probably a pain to organise everything, but the end result would be better than having some CGI as background.

And anyway, backgrounds were blue-screened into old movies, too.

Really? I didn't know they had CGI backgrounds back in the 80's...

Star Wars, 70s, They HAD to use Blue-screens, but they did still use those Models instead of MORE Cgi, plus, star wars started a revolution in the FIlm Industry

[Lord Tothe]

1. how many movies are made each year?
2. how many movies from any given year are any good?
3. has this basic ratio really changed over time

After all, when Lawrence of Arabia was released, there were many other films in theaters. How many others from that year do we remember as masterpieces, and how many are generally forgotten?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962_in_film

OK, on reading that list I see quite a few recognizable films and a lot no one has ever heard of again. 1962 appears to have been a good year for movies, though.

[Penguton]

Heh, I'm a big fan of CGI. While I also like puppetry and other forms of classical movie making, CGI literally brings us to whole new worlds. Are the quality of movies down? Hell no. I'm not going to lie, a lot of movies made today aren't brilliant masterpieces, but they are usually fun to watch at least.

[SaintB]

To be honest, I think Lawrence of Arabia's lack of CGI was more down to the distinct lack of computers than a purposeful artistic choice of the director.

What would you computer-generate in Lawrence of Arabia? Make Peter O'Toole's eyes bluer?

That would make it Lawrence of Dune.

[SaintB]

I think you are wrong. Hollywood has always been filled with the next big special effects epic (hell the Great Train Robbery was a special effects epic). People only see the older movies that were good, and they see many more of today's movies. Its easy when you are only getting a small sample size (less than 1%!) of the older movies to compare them too to come to a false conclusion such as "Hollywood is getting worse". In terms of production value, writing, and acting most modern movies are actually better than most of their previous generation's counterparts. That's not saying the Lawrence of Arabia isn't one of the greatest pictures ever made but I guarantee that if they had CGI back in the day they would have used it and the results would be even more spectacular. CGI is just another tool in the box of the modern movie maker and while it usually just serves to cut costs and make movies more visually pleasing than ever before; there will always be crackpots making terrible movies but that's just like in any business.

[The Black Forrest]

I think you are wrong. Hollywood has always been filled with the next big special effects epic (hell the Great Train Robbery was a special effects epic). People only see the older movies that were good, and they see many more of today's movies. Its easy when you are only getting a small sample size (less than 1%!) of the older movies to compare them too to come to a false conclusion such as "Hollywood is getting worse". In terms of production value, writing, and acting most modern movies are actually better than most of their previous generation's counterparts. That's not saying the Lawrence of Arabia isn't one of the greatest pictures ever made but I guarantee that if they had CGI back in the day they would have used it and the results would be even more spectacular. CGI is just another tool in the box of the modern movie maker and while it usually just serves to cut costs and make movies more visually pleasing than ever before; there will always be crackpots making terrible movies but that's just like in any business.

I am not so sure CGI would have made LoA more spectacular. They didn't have it so they had to get creative to give the feel they were looking for. It would have been a different film.

Nowadays, many are lazy and use the CGI to hide bad stories. Story line is what makes the movie. CGI is the frosting on the story.

Show the viewers and explosion and you will have them on the edge of their seats for a few seconds. Tell them there will be an explosion and you can have them on the edge of their seats for several minutes.

I think it was Hitchcock who said something along those lines......

[Rolamec]

*Sigh*

Sadly I feel the same as you. Movies just weren't what they use to be. Neither are TV shows. Most seems to be based off past movies or ideas, nothing original even exists any longer. But I think this 'trend' has been starting since the late 80s, early 90s.

[Wamitoria]

*Sigh*

Sadly I feel the same as you. Movies just weren't what they use to be. Neither are TV shows. Most seems to be based off past movies or ideas, nothing original even exists any longer. But I think this 'trend' has been starting since the late 80s, early 90s.

^This

[Conserative Morality]

Yeah, those damn kids are messing with our movies, there ain't nothing good on anymore! Why, back in my day, we watched Quo Vadis, and did our best to pretend like we enjoyed it!

[SaintB]

I think you are wrong. Hollywood has always been filled with the next big special effects epic (hell the Great Train Robbery was a special effects epic). People only see the older movies that were good, and they see many more of today's movies. Its easy when you are only getting a small sample size (less than 1%!) of the older movies to compare them too to come to a false conclusion such as "Hollywood is getting worse". In terms of production value, writing, and acting most modern movies are actually better than most of their previous generation's counterparts. That's not saying the Lawrence of Arabia isn't one of the greatest pictures ever made but I guarantee that if they had CGI back in the day they would have used it and the results would be even more spectacular. CGI is just another tool in the box of the modern movie maker and while it usually just serves to cut costs and make movies more visually pleasing than ever before; there will always be crackpots making terrible movies but that's just like in any business.

I am not so sure CGI would have made LoA more spectacular. They didn't have it so they had to get creative to give the feel they were looking for. It would have been a different film.

Nowadays, many are lazy and use the CGI to hide bad stories. Story line is what makes the movie. CGI is the frosting on the story.

Show the viewers and explosion and you will have them on the edge of their seats for a few seconds. Tell them there will be an explosion and you can have them on the edge of their seats for several minutes.

I think it was Hitchcock who said something along those lines......

They could have used CGI to make the sunsets more beautiful, or to make the endless tracts of desert stretch even further, they could have used CGI to add steam to a camel's breathe as they set off in the early morning caravan's. Little touches like that that add a little bit more realism to the film can change the experience. Yes they could have used CGI in Lawrence of Arabia if it existed then and it would still be a spectacular movie.

[Cannot think of a name]

They aren't.
Has anyone seen a single comedy that isn't just "lulsexjokelulsexjokelul we do funy lololololol."
Young Frankenstien was where the good stuff was.

And, as it turned out, littered with sex jokes...

I think you are wrong. Hollywood has always been filled with the next big special effects epic (hell the Great Train Robbery was a special effects epic). People only see the older movies that were good, and they see many more of today's movies. Its easy when you are only getting a small sample size (less than 1%!) of the older movies to compare them too to come to a false conclusion such as "Hollywood is getting worse". In terms of production value, writing, and acting most modern movies are actually better than most of their previous generation's counterparts. That's not saying the Lawrence of Arabia isn't one of the greatest pictures ever made but I guarantee that if they had CGI back in the day they would have used it and the results would be even more spectacular. CGI is just another tool in the box of the modern movie maker and while it usually just serves to cut costs and make movies more visually pleasing than ever before; there will always be crackpots making terrible movies but that's just like in any business.

I am not so sure CGI would have made LoA more spectacular. They didn't have it so they had to get creative to give the feel they were looking for. It would have been a different film.

Nowadays, many are lazy and use the CGI to hide bad stories. Story line is what makes the movie. CGI is the frosting on the story.

Show the viewers and explosion and you will have them on the edge of their seats for a few seconds. Tell them there will be an explosion and you can have them on the edge of their seats for several minutes.

I think it was Hitchcock who said something along those lines......

They could have used CGI to make the sunsets more beautiful, or to make the endless tracts of desert stretch even further, they could have used CGI to add steam to a camel's breathe as they set off in the early morning caravan's. Little touches like that that add a little bit more realism to the film can change the experience. Yes they could have used CGI in Lawrence of Arabia if it existed then and it would still be a spectacular movie.

Likely to make scenes like blowing up the train more dynamic.

*Sigh*

Sadly I feel the same as you. Movies just weren't what they use to be. Neither are TV shows. Most seems to be based off past movies or ideas, nothing original even exists any longer. But I think this 'trend' has been starting since the late 80s, early 90s.

^This

Seriously, I've been watching a lot of the shows I thought where 'good' in the 80s, total fucking garbage. Even the three camera sitcom looks completely dated now. Shows that would have been perfectly in place in the 80s/90s, like Human Target or Drive look absolutely ridiculous now. Now we have shows like Breaking Bad or the far too short lived Arrested Development. In comparison, Simon and Simon looks ridiculous. Sure, I hate Two and Half Men...a lot...but I don't hold that at solely responsible for all of the televised content available.

I think you are wrong. Hollywood has always been filled with the next big special effects epic (hell the Great Train Robbery was a special effects epic). People only see the older movies that were good, and they see many more of today's movies. Its easy when you are only getting a small sample size (less than 1%!) of the older movies to compare them too to come to a false conclusion such as "Hollywood is getting worse". In terms of production value, writing, and acting most modern movies are actually better than most of their previous generation's counterparts. That's not saying the Lawrence of Arabia isn't one of the greatest pictures ever made but I guarantee that if they had CGI back in the day they would have used it and the results would be even more spectacular. CGI is just another tool in the box of the modern movie maker and while it usually just serves to cut costs and make movies more visually pleasing than ever before; there will always be crackpots making terrible movies but that's just like in any business.

Preach on

I'd have to agree with you. In old films the special effects are obvious compared to the ones now and that's what makes them seem so fake.

You can tell if an older film was made with spec. effects and that's what seems to add to the charm of it.

Personally, it doesn't really bother me if special effects are added later, it just bothers me when entire backgrounds are CGI et.

Yes, I find that annoying as well. Why can't they just film on location? Is it so hard?

It's expensive, you have to schlep everyone out to some God-forsaken place, house them, feed them, get power to the spot. It's a pain,

Yeah it is probably a pain to organise everything, but the end result would be better than having some CGI as background.

And anyway, backgrounds were blue-screened into old movies, too.

Really? I didn't know they had CGI backgrounds back in the 80's...

Star Wars, 70s, They HAD to use Blue-screens, but they did still use those Models instead of MORE Cgi, plus, star wars started a revolution in the FIlm Industry

Blue/green screen is not a CGI thing, it's been around for years. You know when you watch an old movie where a guy is sawing away at his steering wheel and the background doesn't seem to have anything to do with the driving? Blue/green screen. When Cary Grant dives from biplane in North by Northwest and it looks really weird? Blue screen.

Several weeks ago, i watched Lawrence of Arabia, a three and a half long hour movie about the exploits and adventures of the said person. The movie was really, i kid you not, stunning. It had an awesome plot, set in a time that no longer exists, and what's best is that there's no CGI. That's right. No fancy CGI. Yet the movie was so visually stunning sometimes, some scenes, combined with the excellent composed music just made me go like "awesome!".

But most importantly, the movie had somesort of meaning and symbolism, and most of all, it felt real, it wasn't all fancy plastic special effects like the movies we have nowadays, where the actors stand infront of a bluescreen, and the background gets added later.

Is it just me, or are most of the movies produced in recent times (10's, 00's), just CGI with lacking storylines?

You're just watching crappy new movies. There were crappy movies then, too. There are good movies now, too.

Succinct.

[New Wallonochia]

Nothing is "what it used to be" nor was it ever. Nostalgia is a funny thing.

[Lord Tothe]

Nothing is "what it used to be" nor was it ever. Nostalgia is a funny thing.

Nostalgia ain't what is used to be.