What makes a film dated?

[L0ngsh0t]

I hold my threads a bit higher than most of the threads on the hype because it's the promotion of ideas and discussion. If you're not willing to defend your stance than I'd rather you not share your opinion. I come to these boards for a greater sense of understanding and you get that by the sharing and discussion of ideas. If you're not willing to face the fact you could be wrong than I'd rather not want to deal with you. I have admitted fault on these boards from time to time and I'll change my opinion if someone makes a good argument and there's also been plenty of times where I've defended my opinion. However to simply shut yourself off, completely defeats the purpose of a message board in the first place other than to find others who agree with you.

No dude, I'll get into it if you want to get into, however my argument against Godfather stems not from (necessarily) the script/acting/directing more so with the fact I think the movie as a whole is about as underwhelming as it gets for me. Like I went into the movie with all these expectation set by the standards most people generally hold to it, and I was like...wow I'm not impressed, I think the movie is just flat out boring, its been awhile since I've seen it, like well over a year, and probably won't watch it again, or at least until I have absolutely nothing better to do with my time. So with that being said it's tough for me to sight literal points in the movie, I just don't think the story is all that interesting, I have never really thought the characters where anything special, and the movie as a whole just doesn't do a whole lot for me. So I guess the reason I don't like getting into it, is cause it's a stance I can defend, however the reason I don't like it can be merely summed up as "I think it is boring" literally to say the least, and like that is an opinion that no amount of people saying "the script is brilliant" or "the acting is incredible" etc. would persuade me to think the other way, you know? Cause its not like I am going to instantly say the movie is entertaining cause you say that the story or directing is brilliant. So that is why I don't like to really argue about it, but whatever, also if you get the wrong person arguing against you like a Cinemamann it literally turns into me liking awesome action movies and that is all sort of view point to, which is incredibly incorrect, and couldn't be more wrong I actually think action movies are the lamest genre of film however the best of those movie do tend to be some of my favorites (which most of the time that isn't even true), they also tend to be few and far between too.

Sloppy? Is the wrong word, in my opinion, what is more accurate is poor direction. By the way I'm judging the Director's Cut not the theatrical cut. I'm actually quite fond of the movie to be honest, it has a lot of heart, and presents an interesting story. However, the director has quite a bit of talent yet he fails to mesh them together quite well. The constant reliance on "songs of the day" instead a strong score also further accentuate this point. Which is another facet of this discourse, which is to what effect does music play in this?

See I think the MSJ in all honesty (and this is opinion only) might literally be the least talented director in all of big budget film. It pains me to say this cause he seems to be a true believer, and he is a Minnesota boy, but I got to. My big reasoning for this, is look at DD for a second, it is such a carbon copy of Frank Miller's Man without Fear it's not even funny, so that shows that he clearly know what the right DD story is, and he still made a terrible movie. One of my biggest gripes with superhero movies is they always want to just re-do everything about the superhero's, and this time he really didn't change a thing, but kind of gutted the movie of a soul at that. There wasn't really much of connection with any situations going on in this movie for me, and it just kind of viscerally passed by my eyes instead of going into my heart and brain (that sounds a lot lamer than what I mean). I don't even think its Ben Affleck's fault, I love the fleck I think he got a bad rap during the mid 2000's but at the same time made some terrible movies, I think he is a good actor trapped in bad actor movies, but the man loves DD I think he knows what would have made a good Matt Murdock. I think under a different direction (like his own even) would have been a lot better.

and haha also with MSJ Ghost Rider might be my least favorite movie of all time to, I just thought it was a flat dreadful movie, at least I think it was the worst movie of this year (although I know who killed me, and hitman give it a run for its money).

I have not seen either of these two movies in a long enough time to feel comfortable enough even trying to compare editing styles. However, it seems a bit out of place and asasnine to take two movies from two completely different genres and time periods and compare them for the sole purpose of saying one is better than the other. When what you're most likely citing is something as simple as ASL(Average Shot Length), as a culture with the advent of computers and video games, as well as our inability to take responsibility and to almost breed ADD and ADHD, our collective attention spans have dwindled to almost nothing so most films need to constantly bombard the viewer with spectacle or soundeffects or it'll be seen as boring. So is that the Godfather's fault or your own? Think carefully before you answer.

I will admit this, in retrospect a little callow of me now that I look at my post I literally did just say that for the sake of saying one is better than another. But on the same hand, there are no explosions in ABM, there is no hand to hand combat, aliens, monsters, seiral killers in it, and I think the movie is more entertaining than all but one of the Star Wars movies, and all of the Matrix movies. There should be something said for that when I can't stand watching a GF, but I like ABM more than all of the special effect brigade movies outside of like Batman Begins, Empire, and the first Pirates, and maybe Raiders of the Lost Ark, ya know?

Let us clarify that sentence(though there are probably more gramatical attrocities found in my above sentences):

All movies that have not been made in the last ten years can considered to be dated.
---

I firmly disagree with this statement and personally find it quite saddening that you can not find the pleasures in older films as many of us as we've grown up have come to love and cherish.

Come on man you're better than that, at least to me it looks like you completely took what I wrote and re arraigned the words, adding different words just so it would come out to "I don't like old movies." No I love old movies, what I don't think though is that cause a movie is old it is better than a newer movie that is great just cause it is older (which not saying you do it, but a lot of people do). On the same hand I don't think just because a movie is newer means its better ether, or "sexier" or what have you. I tend to think I just take movies for what they are and if I think a movie is better, than I think a movie is better.

But what I meant by my statement is this like what makes 50's horror movies dated? Like the movies of the 70's and early 80's that did the same stuff but better, like for instance the Thing, and invasion of the body snatchers kind of make the 50's horror movies dated cause they take that style make it stand out, and make an excellent movie out of it, so all 50's horror movies are kind of the same. Or like with Halloween-Scream those kind of bookends in between the ridiculous slasher genre from like 80-95 those movies kind of are all the same to dated as 80's slashers cause they are all kind of are the same. Haha I don't know why I went with two horror examples I guess they where what was on the top of my head at the time.

[/quote]

 

[Mr. Socko]

The shoddy visual effects and stoned gremlin puppet Yoda, together, have completely outdated The Phantom Menace.

 

[L0ngsh0t]

The shoddy visual effects and stoned gremlin puppet Yoda, together, have completely outdated The Phantom Menace.

I think in all honesty that movie is dated more than ether of the three originals cause of the visual effects in it, if they would have waited 5 years we may not have even been able to tell

 

[shapeshifter]

a persons perceptions

 

[Damiean Dark]

some films are timeless i know its not a movie but watching The Phil Silvers show/sgt Bilko today still made me bust a gut it never gets old.

 

[Warhammer]

Any film will be dated unless it says what year it takes place.

If I make a movie right now, and don't set it in a year, hoping it will be timeless. Then the hair styles, the clothing styles, the way people talk, all of that will end up being dated in 20 years.

But if I make a movie now, and set it in 2007, then in 20 years it won't be dated, it will be a snapshot of '07.

Obviously it isn't a full proof theory. And there are plenty of exceptions. But if I watch a movie like Superman (I don't remember if it said the year in the movie, I'll assume it didn't) I look at it and go, this is a movie that was made in 1978. The effects, the hair, the acting all of it feels like it was done in 1978.

But, if Superman did say the year is 1978 in the movie, then it causes this break in the mindset as to why the movie is the way it is. I then realize that it's not supposed to be timeless, it's supposed to be 1978, and therefor it can't be dated in a bad way. It's dated in a period way.

It also obviously doesn't have to say the exact date. Like '25th Hour' will never be dated because it blatantly takes place soon after 9/11

When I saw this thread, I was thinking about this same thing. You took the words right out of my mouth. However, this is only apart of the reasons that I think dates a film. It's not the only reasons. It also depends on the plot and the director's style.

 

[Asr]

Social/political climates have influenced films for decades. Examples like The Day The Earth Stood Stil/War of the Worlds (50s), the post-Vietnam movies of the 70s, etc. That will always date them.

Also depiction of computer technology can severely date films. Alien, for example, still holds up fantastically well, but would hold up even better if the computer technology had looked a little more advanced than the DOS-era interface stuff.

A lot of the 80s movies have way too much 80s feel to them (hairstyle, clothes, etc) so they haven't aged well. Well it's cool for the nostalgia for those of us who grew up in the 80s (like me) but movies like Ferris Bueller's Day Off for example just don't transcend time.

And of course using any pop music of any kind in the soundtrack of a movie will date it instantly. Batman '89 would still hold up today without the Prince music for example.

And of course some effects work (CGI or not) will date movies too. Like Terminator 2, IMO the CGI of the T1000 still holds up very well. However, there are tons of scenes in that movie you know would just be overdone today, like more explosions, or more crashes, or slow-mo, etc. It holds up great IMO but it feels like a 90s movie due to the lack of overblown effects.

 

[Movies205]

No dude, I'll get into it if you want to get into, however my argument against Godfather stems not from (necessarily) the script/acting/directing more so with the fact I think the movie as a whole is about as underwhelming as it gets for me. Like I went into the movie with all these expectation set by the standards most people generally hold to it, and I was like...wow I'm not impressed, I think the movie is just flat out boring, its been awhile since I've seen it, like well over a year, and probably won't watch it again, or at least until I have absolutely nothing better to do with my time. So with that being said it's tough for me to sight literal points in the movie, I just don't think the story is all that interesting, I have never really thought the characters where anything special, and the movie as a whole just doesn't do a whole lot for me. So I guess the reason I don't like getting into it, is cause it's a stance I can defend, however the reason I don't like it can be merely summed up as "I think it is boring" literally to say the least, and like that is an opinion that no amount of people saying "the script is brilliant" or "the acting is incredible" etc. would persuade me to think the other way, you know? Cause its not like I am going to instantly say the movie is entertaining cause you say that the story or directing is brilliant. So that is why I don't like to really argue about it, but whatever, also if you get the wrong person arguing against you like a Cinemamann it literally turns into me liking awesome action movies and that is all sort of view point to, which is incredibly incorrect, and couldn't be more wrong I actually think action movies are the lamest genre of film however the best of those movie do tend to be some of my favorites (which most of the time that isn't even true), they also tend to be few and far between too.

So essentially it isn't your cup of tea? Which is perfectly fine and will save you a lot of grief in the future since Godfather has so many cinematic as well other film achievements under its belt hence why it's considered a classic. However if something not your cup of tea, it's not your cup of tea hence why I can understand why you'd think it's boring, however that's far different from saying it's terrible or better/worse than another movie.

See I think the MSJ in all honesty (and this is opinion only) might literally be the least talented director in all of big budget film. It pains me to say this cause he seems to be a true believer, and he is a Minnesota boy, but I got to. My big reasoning for this, is look at DD for a second, it is such a carbon copy of Frank Miller's Man without Fear it's not even funny, so that shows that he clearly know what the right DD story is, and he still made a terrible movie. One of my biggest gripes with superhero movies is they always want to just re-do everything about the superhero's, and this time he really didn't change a thing, but kind of gutted the movie of a soul at that. There wasn't really much of connection with any situations going on in this movie for me, and it just kind of viscerally passed by my eyes instead of going into my heart and brain (that sounds a lot lamer than what I mean). I don' t even think its Ben Affleck's fault, I love the fleck I think he got a bad rap during the mid 2000's but at the same time made some terrible movies, I think he is a good actor trapped in bad actor movies, but the man loves DD I think he knows what would have made a good Matt Murdock. I think under a different direction (like his own even) would have been a lot better.

Looking back I worded the sentence wrong, I meant MSJ had a lot of talent in the sense of, he had a lot of talent as in people at his disposal, not that he himself was talented, he's quite a mediocre director which is what I was alluding to. His inability to pull it all together is what really hurt the movie. I like the film, it was just too glossy, and MSJ didn't have the talent to really pull it together as I said.

and haha also with MSJ Ghost Rider might be my least favorite movie of all time to, I just thought it was a flat dreadful movie, at least I think it was the worst movie of this year (although I know who killed me, and hitman give it a run for its money).

Ghost Rider was crap, N'Uff Said.

I will admit this, in retrospect a little callow of me now that I look at my post I literally did just say that for the sake of saying one is better than another. But on the same hand, there are no explosions in ABM, there is no hand to hand combat, aliens, monsters, seiral killers in it, and I think the movie is more entertaining than all but one of the Star Wars movies, and all of the Matrix movies. There should be something said for that when I can't stand watching a GF, but I like ABM more than all of the special effect brigade movies outside of like Batman Begins, Empire, and the first Pirates, and maybe Raiders of the Lost Ark, ya know?

Read my post again, I cited ASL, average shot length, it has nothing to do with explosions. As films progress we have more visuals stream across us faster and faster to hold our attention, and Ron Howard is notorious for this, he's an amazingly visual film director which is why A Beautiful Mind won so many accolades since it blended his visuals with a really good story. It's why Davinci code falls flat, good visuals but crap story.

Come on man you're better than that, at least to me it looks like you completely took what I wrote and re arraigned the words, adding different words just so it would come out to "I don't like old movies." No I love old movies, what I don't think though is that cause a movie is old it is better than a newer movie that is great just cause it is older (which not saying you do it, but a lot of people do). On the same hand I don't think just because a movie is newer means its better ether, or "sexier" or what have you. I tend to think I just take movies for what they are and if I think a movie is better, than I think a movie is better.

I apologize if my point came off as malicious and degrading but it was to make a point. Your saying that a movie is dated the minute a new standard has been made, does that make all movies made before the sixties in academy ratio (full screen) are dated and obsolete? Are all black and white films dated? Are all movies without sound dated? You get my drift, I'm here trying to cultivate discussion, so while your statement has some worthy points if you extend it out, it just wasn't there in your original post. As for older movies being better, Hollywood produces 500+ movies a year, feature lenght movies have been around since 1915, do the math, there are thousands upon thousands of movies out there. Old movies constitute(if you count just talkies) 70 years of cinema vs. the last 10 years, that's 70 years to choose the cream of the crop, of course it's going to be better than 80-90% of the films put out by Hollywood each weekend, it has to do with the fact that we're not including the thousands of crappy films forgotten about.

But what I meant by my statement is this like what makes 50's horror movies dated? Like the movies of the 70's and early 80's that did the same stuff but better, like for instance the Thing, and invasion of the body snatchers kind of make the 50's horror movies dated cause they take that style make it stand out, and make an excellent movie out of it, so all 50's horror movies are kind of the same. Or like with Halloween-Scream those kind of bookends in between the ridiculous slasher genre from like 80-95 those movies kind of are all the same to dated as 80's slashers cause they are all kind of are the same. Haha I don't know why I went with two horror examples I guess they where what was on the top of my head at the time.

I disagree with this statement. Invasion of the Body Snatachers the original is a classic outside of two or three points in the film(the pods at point), it still incredibly gripping and poignant. This idea of doing better is irrelevent because good remakes are ones that do something different, not better. This is why Burton's Willy Wonka will be forgotten within 10 years while Gene Wilder's will forever be a classic since Burton's remake is the same thing with updated visuals. Also this all 50s horror films are the same is a ridiculous genralization. Having done some studying on the horror genre, what you quickly realize is how each era is uniquely different and also the next phase builds off the last, however it's not different simply differents. While Exorcist touched on social issues of the 60s relating to Science vs. Religion, Invasion was a subtext for communist invasion. If I see callous and rude, I'm just trying to point out how superficial your argument is based on a limited number of films.

 

[L0ngsh0t]

Read my post again, I cited ASL, average shot length, it has nothing to do with explosions. As films progress we have more visuals stream across us faster and faster to hold our attention, and Ron Howard is notorious for this, he's an amazingly visual film director which is why A Beautiful Mind won so many accolades since it blended his visuals with a really good story. It's why Davinci code falls flat, good visuals but crap story.

DaVinci code was brutal haha

I think though if I where to pick one general thing about the Godfather is there isn't much of a visual flair to it, if its a good story I think I would rather just read a book cause there isn't a whole lot to keep my attention. Which I guess is my point like (if I where to get into GF overrated, or ABM better etc arguments) ABM imo has a great story that translates brillaintly to film, where (I would argue) GF doesn't really.

I apologize if my point came off as malicious and degrading but it was to make a point. Your saying that a movie is dated the minute a new standard has been made, does that make all movies made before the sixties in academy ratio (full screen) are dated and obsolete? Are all black and white films dated? Are all movies without sound dated? You get my drift, I'm here trying to cultivate discussion, so while your statement has some worthy points if you extend it out, it just wasn't there in your original post. As for older movies being better, Hollywood produces 500+ movies a year, feature lenght movies have been around since 1915, do the math, there are thousands upon thousands of movies out there. Old movies constitute(if you count just talkies) 70 years of cinema vs. the last 10 years, that's 70 years to choose the cream of the crop, of course it's going to be better than 80-90% of the films put out by Hollywood each weekend, it has to do with the fact that we're not including the thousands of crappy films forgotten about.

I think where you are still like missing my point (I am readily willing to come off my point too, I'll get to it next, I just want to make one more clarification) is that I think you think that I think (lol) that a new standard is set all the time? no? Like Batman is now dated Batman 89 cause of Prince and cause Batman Begins did it better (total imo but I stand by that with a vengeance) Batman will always be the early 90's Batman movie. Does that work any better for you?

I disagree with this statement. Invasion of the Body Snatachers the original is a classic outside of two or three points in the film(the pods at point), it still incredibly gripping and poignant. This idea of doing better is irrelevent because good remakes are ones that do something different, not better. This is why Burton's Willy Wonka will be forgotten within 10 years while Gene Wilder's will forever be a classic since Burton's remake is the same thing with updated visuals. Also this all 50s horror films are the same is a ridiculous genralization. Having done some studying on the horror genre, what you quickly realize is how each era is uniquely different and also the next phase builds off the last, however it's not different simply differents. While Exorcist touched on social issues of the 60s relating to Science vs. Religion, Invasion was a subtext for communist invasion. If I see callous and rude, I'm just trying to point out how superficial your argument is based on a limited number of films.

I'm also not saying this is my complete perspective on movies ether, I know there is a difference between 10,000 fathoms, and forbidden planet, however I do it and I know a lot of people do it where we just categorize them as "those 50's horror movie" would that be not dating a movie?

But also fair points I'm fairly prepared to come off my stance soon

 

[SoulManX]

This is a great thread

 

[Movies205]

This is a great thread

Go join my other thread

 

[Steve Rogers]

I'm not disagreeing with your points, I agree with them however there are some sticky points of contention such as:

What about movies such as Easy Rider or Rebel Without a Cause which were consider classics because they were directly about the culture in which they were released.

Or what about now the many films which are praised for being great such as Crash, Jarhead, or V for Vendetta due to the fact they are so blatantly about the times we live in, does that lessen their power? Should these movies be made considering by your definition they could be dated within a few years?

No, because those movies are not a product of their times. The stories are timeless. Easy Rider is about rebelling youth and a new culture--not about hippies in the 60's. Rebel Without a Cause is about teen agnst--not about drag racing in the 50's. Crash deals with racism on a grand scheme and, sad is it may be, racism is something that never goes out of style. Again, what makes all of these films unique is their theme and characters--both of which are timeless. None of these characters are a product of their time, their characterization is able to trascend time. They are archtypes. (might have spelled that wrong) At least, that's the way I see it.

 

[L0ngsh0t]

I personally do no connect with Easy Rider or Rebel Without a Cause and find them to be dated which is why I ask the question. As historical pieces they work but as movies, I don't find them all together that enjoyable. However I know plenty of people that do who are my age which is what makes the question quite sticky. Since I love Citizen Kane and there's plenty of people who don't.

As for Superman, it's the same argument that I made for Brazil so it's one of perspective and taste. I love Superman 1 and Superman 2(The Donner Cut) because they absolutely relish in Silver Age Superman, it's so refreshing to watch something so stylized and even though it's hokey and cheesy, it's not cringeworthy and is quite entertaining, the reason for this is that it sets the tone right from the get go and everything is in sync. However a movie like REbel Without a Cause is purporting to be a serious movie yet is tottally out of touch with reality(at least in my mind) as such it comes off cheesy and hokey in a bad way. It is also why Superman Returns to me was such a failure, it could not decide what it wanted to be. Many aspects of the film were quite dark and serious while over-all it was quite campy and over the top, without any actual action to make it entertaining as such it became a boring/ridiculous spectacle.

I don't know if I have ever heard anyone sum up Superman Returns in that short of a span better than you sir, bravo bravo, completely agreed.

I still waver greatly though on Superman 1 being dated or not, I think Matt (was it matt?) kind of made a good argument though, like a lot of the interactions between to people (I hate just using the term dialog) is really out of touch, and same with that of the first two Batman movies too, but also Superman 1 walks a thin thin line of me not really getting what the big deal with it is, Superman 2 rules, but 1 I will admit I may just not be the most astute film watcher ever, but the fascination with a dude who saves cats from tree's borders on tedious from time to time. But with like the character interaction; since I wasn't around I don't know if they tried to make it a movie that represented, and echoed how people interacted in the 70's or what not, but there are movies from the 70's that the interaction between people still works today like a Halloween, or a Mean Streets (Even with Mean Streets being so NYC in the 70's feel, you could replace the time and date with anything and I think that movie would still work).

 

[Dr. Manhatten]

To me, it comes down to score, character interactions, and the editing that determine whether a movie is dated or not. A movie like The Godfather, despite being filmed in the 70's and portrays the 40's, I think is completely timeless. The score, character interactions, and the editing create a sense of timelessness. Citizen Kane is another example of being timeless IMO. The editing and how the movie was done feels very modern (as it did change how movies are made) and the story still stands true. But movies like Daredevil and To Live and Die in LA feel like products of their time and don't really hold up. I enjoyed TLADILA, but it's a movie made in the 80's pure and simple and someone watching 50 years from now would get that vibe

 

[L0ngsh0t]

To me, it comes down to score, character interactions, and the editing that determine whether a movie is dated or not. A movie like The Godfather, despite being filmed in the 70's and portrays the 40's, I think is completely timeless. The score, character interactions, and the editing create a sense of timelessness. Citizen Kane is another example of being timeless IMO. The editing and how the movie was done feels very modern (as it did change how movies are made) and the story still stands true. But movies like Daredevil and To Live and Die in LA feel like products of their time and don't really hold up. I enjoyed TLADILA, but it's a movie made in the 80's pure and simple and someone watching 50 years from now would get that vibe

Jeez I dunno, I know I stand in a minority, but I just completely feel if outlets like AFI ether didn't exist or said a different movie was the best movie ever, Citizen Kane would not be on anyones radar. I view it as kind of toolish to say said movie is timeless cause I think it is just crap, it is a great influence on literally every movie ever made, yes, but you know who influences the Beatles? Outside of Chuck Berry there really aren't specific artists or bands of note that the Beatles say influence them, just random motwon bands from the 50's. Influence is great and should be respected, but in my opinion I have a tough time handing a piece of art the label of best ever if it doesn't entertain me, which is a standard I don't think is too much to ask for from a movie considered the best ever.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

I agree, films set in a specific time period tend to survive a lot better than your average film made at whatever moment. For example, look at something as common as your average teen romantic comedy highschool bla bla bla movie. A movie like Footloose of the 80s or Can't Hardly Wait of the 90's look and feel terribly dated today. The American Pie films, specifically the sequels, though recent, already feel a little dated here and there(although I could see the first one remaining fairly unscathed). Most recently, I really find myself wondering how the film Superbad is going to hold up 5 or 10 years down the road.

But then look at these types of films that are set in a specific time, a specific place, from our past. Dazed & Confused. Porky's. Animal House. Timeless classics? I haven't seen Porky's or Animal House in years, but I know they get a good rep, and Dazed & Confused still holds up just as well as the day it came out nearly 15 years ago. I think this simple, common genre that can often be overlooked or lumped together as disposable highschool movies is a great example of how a great film can stand the test of time, and emerge as a classic.

I think this is a real good point, all teen movies set in modern times seem to feel dated just a couple years out because it uses the most modern pop culture images and songs of it's time. Dazed & Confused and Animal House succeed in not being quite as dated because of the characters, the characters are much more real, that they're setting melts away. Both movies are set in certain times, but don't use it for cheap laughs. I actually think a really dated movie is The Wedding Singer, it looks like an '80s movie, made in the '90s because it uses it's time period for cheap laughs, every character and setting feels just a sterotypical '80s cliche, rather than a real character.

 

[Liquid Snake]

I agree with amazingfantasy and I believe it lso has to do with people perception s. If a person saw The Shining in 1980 and than saw it again today I think he might feel it's dated, but I don't, since it doesnt really use the cutural or other period references of the time excessively in the movie.

And Godfather doesn't feel dated, its a period piece so that goes in it's advantage. And legion, your problem has more to do with the pace and content of the movie rather than it being dated or not. There wer fast paced movies in the 70s. The editing and pace is an artistic choice not someting that can make a movie dated.

 

[Movies205]

Jeez I dunno, I know I stand in a minority, but I just completely feel if outlets like AFI ether didn't exist or said a different movie was the best movie ever, Citizen Kane would not be on anyones radar. I view it as kind of toolish to say said movie is timeless cause I think it is just crap, it is a great influence on literally every movie ever made, yes, but you know who influences the Beatles? Outside of Chuck Berry there really aren't specific artists or bands of note that the Beatles say influence them, just random motwon bands from the 50's. Influence is great and should be respected, but in my opinion I have a tough time handing a piece of art the label of best ever if it doesn't entertain me, which is a standard I don't think is too much to ask for from a movie considered the best ever.

The world doesn't revolve around you, the best films are considered the best due to their importance in cinema... Citizen Kane was on people's radars way before AFI made a list. It was nominated for 9 academy awards for god sakes, however it was relatively obscure til the late 50s when TV came out and they started showing it. All the film-makers of the last 20 years have been inspired by it and have borrowed from it, it introduce many of the techniques still use today, Deep-Focus and Coated Lenses for one thing, so again the AFI List does have substance to it.

 

[Liquid Snake]

So a piece of art that seizes to entertain you has no aesthetic value? Just because you had too much of an expectation from it might be it. The movie was for it's time an amazing film, and still holds up quite well. I don't know what you people expect from even the best of anything, if you look at the Mona Lisa or Starry Nights or any other piece it doesn't look that great; it's true you have to look at it in context.

 

[L0ngsh0t]

So a piece of art that seizes to entertain you has no aesthetic value? Just because you had too much of an expectation from it might be it. The movie was for it's time an amazing film, and still holds up quite well. I don't know what you people expect from even the best of anything, if you look at the Mona Lisa or Starry Nights or any other piece it doesn't look that great; it's true you have to look at it in context.

Look at it like this, have you ever read the Prince by Machiavelli? The book is boring as ****, one of the driest things I have ever had to read, however it is a excellently crafted book, and also it raises interesting social and political theories that so I am cool calling it an important book. I see both CF Kane and The Godfather as the same thing, especially Kane, Godfather is more or less boring as ****, and outside of the fact that everyone hails it as one of the best movies ever, I don't see it as all that important, but since everyone else does I'm cool with everyones opinion since I stand in the vast minority on it.

However with Kane I am cool with the tag of influential and classic, but never the less the movie is boring as ****, possibly only slightly more engaging than the full length LOTR trilogy (I'm talking like the 4 hour cuts). For a movie considered to be the best ever, is it so much to ask that it entertain me? That is all I am saying, art is great, but art for the sake of art especially in film seems a little void of point, there is a place and purpose for it, but it shouldn't be considered the best movie ever

 

[redhawk23]

came across this thread while searching for The Road thread.

This is a very interesting quesiton and something I've thought about before.

I think even classic films don't completely transcend time, you can tell when they are made. You just can. It doesn't make them any less great. There are simply trends of technique, or technique limited by technology. You can date a film by they way they are shot, by the way they are lit, how the actors act, the materials used to build the set, the special effects.

Themes in movies date them because they are often a product of their times, as someone else said, Rambo being released at another time would have been seen as laughable.

I think of the films of today and how we may think of them 20 years from now.

Though I tire of it showing up in every thread on the hype, take The Dark Knight. While it plays with classic characters and classic archetypes, there are many themes in it they may date the film.

What I got out of The Dark Knight was that it fairly subtly dealt with the ways our modern world deals with the challenges it faces, most notably terrorism.

It dealt with the priorities of a war on crime and terrorism, when faced with chance to to take down the entire crime organization, while shifting focus away from the mastermind or most potent on cop even comments, "One man or the entire mob"
Which Imo was commenting on the whoel bin Laden/Al Queda situation. While many are quick to point that we have never found bin Laden, work has been done to dismantle the organization as a whole.
Other things like "Burning the forest down" to find the one man, and the morality of spying on the whole population were interesting things put into question.

Now while I could ramble on about all that all day, the question is, would I or anyone else who agrees with my take on it ever come to that conclusion if not viewing the film through the prism of modern times?

30 years from now, if circumstances are wildly different, would someone watching TDK for the first time get any of that at all? Or would they have to put it in the context of the world of 2008?

If you must put a film into context such as that then the themes therefore date the movie