Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/18/11 04:38 PM, Asperchu wrote: I DON'T WATCH OLD BLACK AND WHITE MOVIES BECAUSE THEY LOOK CHEESY AS FUCK.

I DON'T WATCH OLD BLACK AND WHITE MOVIES BECAUSE THEY LOOK CHEESY AS FUCK.

I feel the same way, I think more people care about Nostalgia than they do for actual what's in front of them, most of those movies are just as bad or similar as the ones we have today.

At 6/18/11 04:41 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: I'm didn't even say the last 20 years, I said in the 60's to 70's there were better movies, how you guys come up with those conclusions is beyond me.

Someone else said the last twenty, which is what I was referencing.

Your '60s/'70s interests (which I by and l share) - are you mostly interested in lower-tiered titles bordering on exploitation at times (the spaghetti westerns in the first example) or the studio titles? With the latter, and most people are talking about contemporary studio titles here, there's simply got to be an accounting for the shifts in the corporate hierarchies since the late '70s, when the studios started making big money after the '60s were a comparative disappointment. The studios are owned by conglomerates now. It's like, when someone says "MGM is going bust!", they're really only partly right. It's like saying "Heaven's Gate killed United Artists!". UA was owned by Transamerica, a TNC. They made enough to cover the holes made by Heaven's Gate in two days.

Without actually all that much cynicism implied, the system ensures that nothing's really on the line. Well, except the career of a filmmaker. But who cares about that???

The movies I really like are the realistic ones, even if they aren't necessarily sound or what not. Unless they made the movies exist in a parallel universe where emotions do not exist then fine those are the movies we have today and they do a damn fine job.

The reason for liking them is because for the curious person you're question is answered, what was Vietnam like? Watch the two movies I listed to get a better perspective, while they are good and at times less accurate, it's better than commando with Arnie. It gives you an in-depth look into something and provides you a chance of immersion, so that you get caught up in the film.

And I like movies where they shake things up a bit or offer some shock value, like when main characters die, a little more common now-a-days, but still always a shock compared to today where the main character can never die.

Plus when characters are fleshed out you have more of an attachment to them, rather than the brunette whose only characteristic is her tits (most modern action movies with "strong" female love-interests, Meagan Fox can't act). I would never watch a movie and expect to like it if the main character doesn't connect with me.

How can I, his horrible and painful moments don't make me care, because it's like watching a total stranger getting shot, its hard to watch, but not mentally distrubing because you're not they're to actually witness it, so with no real emotion on our part, its up to the character to display them, and if he can't do that, then the scene has no power or feel to it.

There a lot of good movies, you are just too stupid to find them.

Pic related

At 6/18/11 05:13 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: The reason for liking them is because for the curious person you're question is answered, what was Vietnam like? Watch the two movies I listed to get a better perspective, while they are good and at times less accurate, it's better than commando with Arnie.

Part of the problem with Apocalypse Now was that Coppola was personally invested in it. It's a fantastic film, but it was never going to be easy to make. Similarly to Martin Scorsese, he ended up working throughout the '80s just to pay for his projects of yesteryear. It's unbelievable he came through as well as he did. Not only did he throw millions of his own company's cash into an inherently tricky-to-shoot film, but he wasn't even satisfied with John Milius' scripted ending, and he still went in. I love the film, not actually my favourite of Coppola's, but whatever. However, I can understand that not many filmmakers could or would make similar risks to it. It all lends itself to its near-unique quality.

If you've not seen it, check out the great documentary Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse, widely acclaimed as one of theb est, if not the best "making of" film ever.

Granted, on a different level, politics (and culture) are important with Vietnam vs. Iraq for example. Some critics believe that the higher-ups have "learnt their lesson" since Vietnam with regards to presentation, which is an interesting idea to keep in mind.

What's interesting about The Deer Hunter, certainly not a bad film, is that it was savaged by some writers in the '70s for being too sensationalist. Make of that what you will.

90% of movies made now a days are made purely for profit. But I quite like it the way it is. Most films are awful, that's why it's all the more full-filling when an awesome one turns up.

At 6/18/11 01:12 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: It just starts to get annoying how the quality in movies today compare.

That's because you're not making a fair comparison. Do you seriously think that all, most, half, or even a quarter of the movies made in the '60s and '70s are as good as Apocalypse Now? There was plenty of utter shit back then, too (maybe not as much as there is today, but still), but those movies have rightly become lost to time.

Of course the gap in quality between then and now is going to seem huge when you compare the best of then with the worst of now. If you looked at the big picture, though, well, I agree that you'd still see an overall drop in quality, especially among commercial films, but it'd be nowhere near as bad as you're claiming.

So who do they think they're fooling, we all know its for the money, but can you at least make them better, to get more money.

The problem is that the suits in charge are incredibly short-sighted. They chase the short-term dollars by copying whatever the most recent successful formula is and ignore the long-term potential of actually making good movies. The worst part of it, though, is that they then have the fucking audacity (or stupidity) to pretend not to know (or to actually not know) why ticket sales have been precipitously falling for years, and then they introduce stupid bullshit like 3-D to try to fix a problem that could be easily solved by simply making better movies.

Its shit like this that makes me proud to have a torrent as a "FUCK YOU" to these corporations

You're just contributing to the problem, then. When you pay for a ticket, you're essentially voting that you'd like to see more movies like the one you just paid for. If you pirate a good, unique, creative movie instead of paying for it, you're tacitly telling the studios not to take those kinds of risks anymore.

If you're just selectively pirating the shitty corporate garbage, though, then I guess I'd just have to ask why you're bothering to watch those movies in the first place.

Spielberg is one of the only decent directors who don't put out piles of shit to watch.

Clearly you haven't seen Indy 4. All kidding aside, though, Super 8 is a fantastic film and everything that good summer entertainment should be and sadly isn't anymore.

At 6/18/11 01:13 PM, Manly-Chicken wrote: EVERYTHING made in the last 20 years suck.

An overwhelming majority of the best TV shows and video games have been made in the last 20 years. There's been lots of great movies and music, too. Don't be a cynical douche.

At 6/18/11 05:36 PM, Scarab wrote: However, I can understand that not many filmmakers could or would make similar risks to it.

Yeah, but that's what separates the true masters from everyone else, right? Hell, some of the stories about Werner Herzog and Klaus Kinski make the filming of Apocalypse Now look like a pleasant vacation.

Some critics believe that the higher-ups have "learnt their lesson" since Vietnam with regards to presentation, which is an interesting idea to keep in mind.

This is scarily true, and it's part of why dissent against the Iraq war never got to the political and cultural level that dissent against Vietnam did. The media of the '00s never showed us what was really happening in Iraq the way journalists did in Vietnam.

At 6/18/11 01:13 PM, Manly-Chicken wrote: EVERYTHING made in the last 20 years suck.

With few exceptions.

fuck you

At 6/18/11 01:13 PM, Manly-Chicken wrote: EVERYTHING made in the last 20 years suck.

With few exceptions.

What an absolutely ridiculously clueless statement to make.

I thought Limitless was alright.

There's a huge and uncountable number of films from Hollywood and beyond released over the decades. If you say that today's movies suck compared to the 1960s and before, then you should have watched most of them. I'm not kidding. Films that are widely considered bad or mediocre from then are probably forgotten about, mostly. However, films like Plan 9 from Outer Space have some kind of popularity. (To me, that film is so-bad-it's-good.) I think there are plenty of enjoyable recent films. My favourites over the last few years are 127 Hours, Persepolis, The Dark Knight, and The White Ribbon.

At 6/18/11 07:36 PM, LocoJoe wrote: I thought Limitless was alright.

I seriously just got back from the dollar movie theater, and this is what I watched.

It is more than just alright. It's a great movie, but still nowhere near "impressive".

At 6/18/11 01:12 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: So thoughts, Am I just rambling, have movies lost their touch?

Neither.
You just have an opinion.

At 6/18/11 07:14 PM, Dr-Worm wrote: Yeah, but that's what separates the true masters from everyone else, right? Hell, some of the stories about Werner Herzog and Klaus Kinski make the filming of Apocalypse Now look like a pleasant vacation.

On some level, yes. On another level, we always have to keep in mind that if there had to be just one mind behind Gone With The Wind, it would be David O. Selznick's.

Fitzcarraldo in particular is a fantastic film on its production level alone, but the one tone that needs to be picked out of Herzog's Kinski collaborations in particular on the worst level is that they were comparatively cheap. I mean, Herzog himself was taken back by how cheap Aguirre ended up being, and that's a phenomenal film, perhaps my favourite of his. Herzog's fiction blends another strength of his, documentary, into his shooting style. So weirdly, it makes the difference, and his films have had that different feel as a result. It works with him... and Kinski. It's arguably for one minor example that "the Kinski turn" (the technique where Kinski seems to emerge from a side of the frame) wouldn't work in a stable camera mode typical of a film with more bucks behind it.

Part of the issue with Coppola's funding of course is One from the Heart. But we don't discuss that. Ever.

This is scarily true, and it's part of why dissent against the Iraq war never got to the political and cultural level that dissent against Vietnam did. The media of the '00s never showed us what was really happening in Iraq the way journalists did in Vietnam.

Film-wise, the most effective Iraq film so far has been The Hurt Locker (not a big earner regardless), which reeks of constructed ambiguity. The scenes outside of the battlefield are still presented as casual, that we're observing just a normal man and that we should accept him and everyone, if we want, or not. It makes sense, considering how films like In the Valley of Elah fell flat on their faces (that film even ends with a disillusioned Tommy Lee Jones hanging the United States flag upside-down after learning of Iraq's "realities" - to some, it's like getting Mickey Mouse to take his pants off).

At 6/18/11 04:31 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: Guys Im 16, and although there are shitty movies out there, here are the few that I liked from the 2000's.

-Saving Pvt Ryan

Saving Private Ryan came out in 1999, but whatever.

Anyway, in response to the topic, there are good movies being made today OP. You're just generalizing. Have you even seen "The Hurt Locker"? Very good movie imo.

At 6/18/11 09:47 PM, zachdamacman wrote:

At 6/18/11 04:31 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: Guys Im 16, and although there are shitty movies out there, here are the few that I liked from the 2000's.

-Saving Pvt Ryan

Saving Private Ryan came out in 1999, but whatever.

Anyway, in response to the topic, there are good movies being made today OP. You're just generalizing. Have you even seen "The Hurt Locker"? Very good movie imo.

A very good film, although powerful and gives good insight to the current war it is not the best War on Terror Movie, but at the same time it technically is. For me the best is Restrepo, however given that it's a documentary we really can't say that it is a better movie, because it is the real deal.

But Hurt Locker is all fictional and everything on the film is fake, so in the end of the day it's a good portrayal of the War, you can't pretend real life. So If I was asked what's my favorite movie about the war on terror, I'd say Hurt Locker, but in reality its really Restrepo that is the more powerful of the two, because well its all real so its almost cheating.

Movies are "piss-fests" yes, but they aren't made to cater to the minds of people in JUST North America. They're made to maximize profits, and to do that, they have to be able to appeal to people worldwide. Do you really think African children relate to the same problems as an obese American child? Of course not. But, one thing the entire world can relate to is that explosions look cool, and that when a giant robot chases you, you run the fuck away. Point is, I may not agree with it, but there is a reason why they're making movies like this now.

Granted, it seems like the actors and plots don't seem very good in most movies. I'm pissed that they keep taking comic books and trying to make movies out of them. They can be a little more creative.

Honestly dude I'm not saying todays movies don't suck, but if you ever watch some of the stuff that came out of the 90s, it sucks more than every other decade combined.

New movie, The King's Speech was really good and had a wonderful story.

Old movie, Grand Hotel had many different characters with different stories who all intertwine throughout the movie. A bit dated, but its a 1932 movie.

Now I know that's a generalization, and a rather uneducated one at that. Although, I will say that certain movies in the 60's to the 80s had much more heart and soul, compared to today's movies which seems to be a mix of excellent to decent to crap, {as it usually is.} and might not be as well remembered as movies in the past.

Whether it's movie big shots only investing in short term ideas, or just the fact that the average price of tickets to the theater, {and all of the other stuff at the theater for that matter.} is damn expensive, which can drive out the average customer, the movie industry has a lot of problems beneath the surface, and the only reason why is because they're making billions off of these movies, and money does cover a lot of potential problems. It's really up to choice whether we want to watch the next Hollywood-made movie, or an independent film in a festival.

Every movie sucks according to the generations that sucked.

At 6/18/11 01:34 PM, Sevkat wrote: Everything became shitty when Kurt Cobain offed himself.

Word.

At 6/18/11 01:13 PM, Manly-Chicken wrote: EVERYTHING made in the last 20 years suck.

With few exceptions.

stupidest fucking statement of the year ladies and gentlemen

fact: 90s movies were fucking great

Fast 5ive was the last good movie I saw in theaters up to date. I hope Transformers 3 will be as good

If only more movies were like shawshank redemption, great plot, amazing actors and no bullshit fillers.

Honestly, few movies have reached close to that as far as qualities concerned in my opinion.

The latest Green Lantern was kind of shit.

Sure you can just 'enjoy the explosions' and enjoy what it has to offer but I hate how film makers spend millions on dollars and make heaps of money back just for making mediocre shit