Overall, I think Cinema is better then it ever was. - Page 4

Yeah, I was being too absolute there. Sure there were indy people, just not anywhere near the degree of what there is now. Plus, I'm not sure I can put David O. Selznick in the type of indy I was meaning. After all, he produced what is still possibly the biggest and most expensive movie ever made, which makes him a lot more in the neighborhood of something like New Line, just using his own name. He was still a far cry from people like Jim Jarmusch or Atom Egoyan, which is more along the lines of what I meant.


Well, several are on mine, and nobody has better taste than I do. :p)

I really don't think it matters to how much money these films were pulling in. The guys running these studios no doubt were wanting to make money but at the same time they were making great films. These studios guys wanted to make the money as well as come up with the greatest film possible. I personally don't see this anymore when it comes to the major films being released by Hollywood. If they were really wanting to make a better film then they'd get better writers. They'd work on the script a little bit more.


People need to throw out their personal opinions when we have these threads because we all have our favorite films that aren't going to make it on the AFI list. Everyone here could call KANE the worst film ever made and say CATWOMAN was 100 times better but history isn't going to see it that way. People can say every movie made the past 30 years is better than the first thirty but history isn't going to see it like that. As much as I love PORKY'S, I doubt they'll be studying that film 50 years from now like they do with KANE. I personally thought the LOTR films were fan boy popcorn flicks but if they are still discussed 60 years from now like BIRTH OF A NATION, THE GENERAL and GONE WITH THE WIND, then my opinion really doesn't matter on them.


And how many people really want to see those new and fresh ideas from older films? If the masses wanted to the studios would just re-release KING KONG instead of remaking it. How many people here watch silents? And if they do, how many watch the lesser known titles?



Even with that in mind, CITY LIGHTS wasn't the first time Chaplin played the Tramp, THE BIRTH OF A NATION wasn't the first time Griffith took on the Civil War and ANGELS WITH DIRTY FACES certainly wasn't original in its story. DeMille remade THE SQUAW MAN three times from 1914 to 1931, remade his 10 C. and nearly every religious film has remade his KING OF KINGS.

Anyone with limited knowledge would know that there were a lot more remakes in the older days. You keep saying 1920's but there was 20 years of filmmaking before the 1920's yet I'd say most won't want to watch these.


Yep. All those 80's films from FRIDAY THE 13TH to RAMBO had never been tried before. Everything was "already made" years before the 1980's.


Joe, I understand you're trying to defend older films but how many movies have you see this year to make you go "wow"? SPIDER MAN 2, done before. TAKING LIVES, done before. EXORCIST, done before and even done 50 years before the original film. Have you seen any arthouse movies the past decade? How many of the better reviewed movies have you seen the past few years?

You are bashing today's films without seeing any of the one's people would call great or future classics. That would be like me saying 1939 sucked but saying so without seeing GONE WITH THE WIND, MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON or various others. If you say today's films suck then perhaps you need to pay closer attention to what you're watching. I'm sure everyone here would recommend some great films from today that you haven't seen. However, I'm sure most would also say stay away from the EXORCIST movie.

I agree with you 100%, which is why I can't understand how you go from conceding that the classics are more from the pre-80s (and even using AFI to demonstrate the point) and then chiding me for saying the same.


No, I wouldn't say that. Just because different filmmakers attempted the story of Christ, that's not the same as "remaking DeMille's KING OF KINGS".


While you're right about the history of those older films, you're the only one I've known who watches many films from the 1800s into 1910 or so. As for the "remakes" thing, no - I stand firm that to me it's pretty much out of control with remakes today, more than ever. Perhaps what's even more outrageous today is in the choices as to WHAT filmmakers are remaking. I have more than "limited knowledge", thank you - and I just don't see it as you do.


I'd include those, too. I said the "mid 80s" to try to bring it at LEAST a little more up to date. Okay, then figure from 1920 to 1979, if it works better for you.


Exactly, all done before. And back in the pre-80s film days, even if ideas WERE previously tried, the movies were still better made, IMO. I haven't seen too many "WOW" pictures in decades, not just specifically in 2004 --though I did like THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST which "WOW'd" me a little - and which I notice you conveniently left out of your summary of films I'd seen this year. And no, it was not a remake of DeMille's silent THE KING OF KINGS.


I've only started keeping lists in the last 2 years, so that would be lost information now. But then we have to specifically define "art films" and yes - I'd say I saw some of those too. You asked if I've seen any of the "better reviewed films"? Sure. Some are: LOST IN TRANSLATION (way overrated), MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING (ditto), KILL BILL VOL. 2 (very good), SPIDER-MAN 2 (very good), THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST (excellent). So, I've seen "well reviewed" films. But I still am trying to catch up to the older movies that are "well regarded".


That's not true at all, and a silly generalization. You don't know all the new films I've seen in the past 15-20 years. You're throwing the word "bashing" around again, but this thread discusses whether or not today's cinema is better, generally speaking" than before. And my opinion, generally speaking, is that NO - it is not. That doesn't mean I do not enjoy, or do not even buy for my own library, any "new" movies. I do.


Not necessarily. Check out my ratings for the 5 films I saw of 2004, and you'll see my ratings are mostly quite good. If you want me to be more specific, I'll say that there are great films made from every decade, including today. But I prefer the older variety most of the time and think they were generally better then.

I don't know why you keep bringing up EXORCIST (THE BEGINNING, you mean). It's not a great film, and I never said it was. It just wasn't quite as bad as I was expecting, and it surprised me with some depth for the lead character. But you're right that most people would stay away from it - because they've already got their minds made up against it, due to Warner bumping Schraders's version (hey, look at me defending a 2004 film! ).

While we're on the subject, I like the film EXORCIST 3 very much, but you're the one who thinks it's better than the classic, THE EXORCIST! So what does any of this mean?

Well, this thread was interesting while it lasted.

I actually never said this until a couple of days ago. This could be used to examine WHY people remake films. The 1927 version in the "telling of Christ" is pretty solid so there would be no point in trying to retell the story since DeMille did a very good job however, some would say they should remake it in color and sound, which they did. Some would then argue that Gibson should tell his version since he could use the violence/gore that previous filmmakers couldn't.



Sad, isn't it? I might be the only one you know but I'm sure you know dozens who claim movies today "suck" yet refuse to go back and watch where all the original stuff is.



How so when there were more remakes in the 1930's than today? Not to mention the 10's and 20's. BEN HUR, 10 COMM., and KING OF KINGS were huge moneymakers and were praised films yet they were eventually remade and I'm sure they'll be remade again.



If we're really going to talk original films then perhaps we should say 1896-1920. Even in those 24 years films were full of remakes. I believe the 1920 version of DR. JEKYLL was the 8th or 9th version. How many have we had since then?



Fine selections but there are dozens of others from the past four years, which might raise your opinion of this era. From that list, you're correct that none of them are original. We've talked about this before but Tarantino has lifted everything in each of his films yet he's able to bring his own style, which makes them feel original when they are far from it. Crowds might fly towards KILL BILL but are they going to go back and watch THE PSYCHIC or THRILLER?



I prefer films from the 1930's but that doesn't mean every other decade is lacking something. Even if you prefer older films, that's not to say there aren't classics today. 1939 is known as the greatest year in cinema but if people watched EVERY film that was released that year then they'd realize that the year also gave off many bombs. The same as today.



:star so I wouldn't say I didn't like it, although I do find HAXAN a lot better. Of course, most aren't going to track that one down so perhaps they'll think THE EXORCIST a lot more groundbreaking than it actually was. Even here, THE EXORCIST wasn't anything new per say but the director was aloud to do things that previous filmmakers who dealt with the subject weren't.



Jump right in.

No thanks. This has become nothing but two people bickering at each other.

I think both made some pretty good points. Just adding to a thread saying someone is bickering really isn't doing much when you could add your own comments reguarding the points.

Scott decided to be quite decisive in the so-called Director's Cut by inserting a unicorn scene. The unicorn scene is not ambiguous. The unicorn scene spells it out!
Scott always wanted Deckard to be a replicant.

If he always wanted it, why was the unicorn footage used in the director's cut actually footage from 1986's Legend, a movie released 4 years after Blade Runner? We start dancing into the George Lucas realm of "I always intended to do x and y" with examples like this. I chalk it up to revisionism, and maintain there is zero evidence that Deckard is a synthetic in the original cut, while the director's cut invented the inference 10 years after the fact.

From BRmovie:

Unicorn, the A controversial issue among fans. When the Director's Cut was released, a sequence with Deckard dreaming about a unicorn was re-inserted. It is actually original film from 1982 which was cut out, as the producers did not appreciate it. The scene in the end of the movie where Deckard finds the origami unicorn may suddenly have a whole new meaning. One possibility suggested by fans and supported by the director Ridley Scott, is that the origami unicorn indicates that Gaff knows about Deckard's unicorn dream, i.e. that it is a brain implant and Deckard is a replicant. Note: This possibility first occured when The Director's Cut was released. Many fans, perhaps as many as 50 %, reject the whole concept. Blade Runner fans will probably always debate the question: "Is Deckard a replicant or not?"

"is actually original film from 1982 which was cut out, as the producers did not appreciate it."

That footage was lifted from the 1986 Ridley Scott fantasy film Legend. There is no debate here. "BRmovie" is completely wrong on this point.

Future Noir, The Making Of Blade Runner, page 366:

Then fate stepped in, in the form of good fortune: a positive piece of footage of Scott's original unicorn shoot was discovered in London's Rank film vault.
"This wasn't the same unicorn footage I'd originally cut into Blade Runner," notes Terry Rawlings, "but an outtake Ridley had discarded back in 1982. But it was the only unicorn shot they could find, positive or negative...etc, etc.

-Future Noir


But whether the footage is from Legend or not is not really the issue. If indeed they used Legend footage then it was only because the ORIGINAL unicorn footage was lost or destroyed!!! What's important is that every reference book/work speaks of the removal of the unicorn scene in the 1982 cut. That proofs that your theory (that the unicorn is invented in 1992) is faulty.

------------
Alex Cremers

Well said. I much prefer discussion when it's actually ... well, ... discussing the points back and forth, and anyone's welcome to either join in, scroll past, change a subject, or just stay out of the thread all together.

OK, the Blade Runner thing should be put to rest now. That is another thread. Let's get back the topic of the thread.

The biggest problem in answering this type of question is time. If you are comparing movies of the last 30 years to pre-1975 movies, of course the earlier period will have more great movies. That period simply has more movies in it.

If you are comparing 1975-2005 with any random 30-year period in cinema history preceding it, the earlier movies still have an advantage because people know what the classics are for those years, and they tend to forget the bad movies as much as possible.

It is definitely easier to trust recommendations for older movies because they have the force of time behind them. If people have been saying something is great for 50 years, it's probably worth a look. If a critic likes a movie in its first weekend, it's a little more uncertain if that judgment is correct.

I don't see a real need for artificial competition between different movie time periods. If I can find a great movie experience, that is what matters. It doesn't matter if it was made in 1920, 1939, 1977, or 2004; what does matter is finding delight in the art.

"This wasn't the same unicorn footage I'd originally cut into Blade Runner," notes Terry Rawlings, "but an outtake Ridley had discarded back in 1982. But it was the only unicorn shot they could find, positive or negative...etc, etc." --Future Noir

The footage is from Legend.

I would, however, like to see the Blade Runner attempts at unicorns (if they were indeed actually filmed). Would be interesting to say the least

OK, if you don't believe the reference books, then where is the source that backs up your theory, Ernest? I'm open for this but I need a little more than you just saying it is.

------------
Alex Cremers

"It was the dream scene, a sequence where Deckard visualises the image of a unicorn, (incidently a shot taken from the movie Legend) that Scott had meant to represent part of a replicant's implanted memories. When included in his later 'Director's Cut' this scene finally helped settle the furious 'was he/wasn't he' debate for some. Only when interviewed years later for the Channel Four Documentary 'On The Edge Of Blade Runner' did Scott confirm with a wry smile what he'd felt about Deckard all along 'He's a replicant'."
-- Empire Magazine

I take Ridley Scott at his word that a dream sequence with a unicorn was planned or maybe even shot -- but the footage in the Director's Cut? That footage is from Legend.

The top producers were film visionaries, and in this case we are talking about Zanuck, but he still had to answer to the Warner brothers and those guys were money only. Their solutions to problems were to either throw money at things or to cut costs in a strictly business approach.

This was universally true at all studios, and guys like Zanuck were always butting heads with these money oriented bosses.

Let's not also forget that the idea of prestige pictures was also a money-making angle, it was a way of giving your product line a stamp of authority and quality so that you could draw more audiences. So these guys would hire people to make a prestige pix with no idea how this would work if they had to figure it out.

It's not quite the same as a dream to make good pictures even if it means losing money. More like a dream to make money even if it means making good pictures.

None, because those films are all destroyed anyway.

But the general idea is definitely a big part of all this I think. No one today sees 200 films from any given year for pre-1940, 50, 1960 or later even. The classics have already been filtered out over time, the bad films have been discarded (along with probably many good films destroyed), and like reflecting on an old relationship all we remember are the good times.

Remember the 80's with all those good films? Yeah, I was sitting in the theater for Knight Riders too.

This fits with the "it hasn't gotten worse or better" viewpoint I think.

True but I think the die-hard film buffs will check out more than just the "classics". As you said later, if you did see 200 films from 1939 and 200 from 2004, it would probably even out in the end. If both years had 10 four star films then that's fine for 1939. For 2004, I think we should wait until 2019 at least, to see how many are really classics and how many were just cool for their day. As you noted, there were many popular films in the 1930's that are forgotten today and many films that were forgotten then are praised highly today.

This is an interesting thread to read. I'm a big fan of films from the last 5 years or so...I'm only 22 so I'm still discovering a lot of things I've missed out on pre-movie junkie. It's very difficult for me to watch films pre-1985ish for some reason. I try. I usually end up getting bored and glancing at the clock every few minutes.

For example, I have no idea if this is by any means a classic, but I watched the original "Flight of the Phoenix" the other night after hearing about the remake coming out...There were parts I enjoyed, but overall I would rather watch what most people consider crap, like "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" or "Chasing Liberty" hahah

I'm taking a couple film studies class this spring, one focusing on the 1940's. Hopefully through this I will understand more and appreciate older films. I hate watching classics just for the sake of watching classics though. I don't want it to be a chore. Any suggestions??

Also, after reading threads of this nature, I feel like something's wrong with me for liking what film buff's would consider absolute garbage. For example, I like "Joe Somebody" and I also enjoy some Hilary Duff movies. Flame me if you will, but I watch what entertains me. On the other hand, I really really liked "Garden State" and even "21 Grams." So, regardless of my affinity to "stinkers" I still enjoy the films that are actually very well done.

Feel free to flame me now.

Ernest, although widely spread, these are old rumors. A few words from an article in a film fanzine carries less weight than the statements of people who were involved with the making of Blade Runner. Some of these rumors even falsely quote from Future Noir. But like I said, Legend footage or not, the unicorn was already planned for the 1982 release, but was left out of the picture because the producers hated the idea. In an interview with Scott made in 1982 (!) (Starburst, November '82, "The Blade Cuts") Ridley Scott confirms that the unicorn scene has indeed been shot for the movie.

Now, let's move on. We're polluting this thread.

------------
Alex Cremers

The bigger budgets are obviously going to have a pretty big effect on the quality of cinema, and cinema may very well be at the height of it's history, but I still think it has a fairly long way to go. Don't get me wrong, I love a good movie just as much as the next person, but I think the writing and acting still can be improved a lot.

As for Hollywood, these are fairly bad times. Colossal amounts of money wasted on colossally boring flicks, and even the best of the best tend to be of the sort that are forgotten in a few years. The indie scene has largely deteriorated into Miramax-like "indie lite" or painfully banal "issues" films and coming-of-age tales that make the Project Greenlight stuff seem heady and artful. Of course, there are many wonderful exceptions, but compared to Hollywood's Golden Age, or the second Golden Age of the 1970s, or even the early indie movement of the 1990s, today's American cinema sucks the big one.

Fortunately all that crap now represents a much smaller percentage of films that we have access to. Truly, it's a fantastic time to be a movie-lover. We have access to a multitude of great films from the past and near-past, many of which have been given amazing restorations (if only digital in many cases). And we can watch them in the comfort of our homes, without feeling that we're sacrificing quality. Perhaps even more important, we have access to a great many more international films than ever before, and this is particularly fortunate as most of the really good stuff is coming from overseas, and particular Asia. Cinema is booming worldwide, though stagnating a bit stateside, so on-balance I think this is a great age for movies. And especially if you have a region-free DVD player.

I wholeheartedly concur with your post, both paragraphs.

------------
Alex Cremers

The best way to approach older films when you're not used to them is to first appreciate the fact that they were made at a very different time, with very different methods. Don't try to apply them to 2004, and also tell yourself that this is the time period in which the story (usually) is supposed to take place. It's no good watching a story that occurs in 1938 and then saying, "but it feels so dated". It's not supposed to take place in the 21st Century.

I'd also try to seek out the ones that typically get the best reviews. It's the best place to start and if you gain any appreciation for them, there are always more obscure things to try.

Thanks Joe...

I think a good place to start is with TCM's "Essential's" that are on every weekend(?). At least for now..

After my defending current cinematography, I'm realizing I was turning a blind eye to the bad stuff. I still maintain there is a great deal of very well done cinematography, but the garbage has been screaming out to me lately.

Damn it. You ruined my day. :p)

Alex - for one of my presents this year, I received a $50 Best Buy card.

You know what used it for?

Blade Runner: Director's Cut.

You made me realize how much I've missed it. The Director's cut was the very first film I saw after moving to Los Angeles in Summer 1992. It was playing in Westwood down near the UCLA campus. Had to buy a map to find the theater. Loved it.

Of course, I've had the Legend: Ultimate Edition for a while now.

Peace, and a happy new year to you.

p.s. -- Those unicorns are from Legend.

Ernest, what took you so long? BR was the first DVD I bought. Ah, if only everything went as planned, we would've had in our possession a Special Edition of Blade Runner with the possible inclusion of three different versions: Remastered, restored, re-everything-ed, including a new 'director's cut' from the original negative. At least, that's how Ridley saw it. Can you imaging BR with the same picture quality as that latest Alien DVD?



Can you see the same unicorn footage in both Legend and Blade Runner?


All the best for 2005.


P.S. "EMPIRE OF THE SUN: Steven Spielberg's Overlooked, Misunderstood Masterpiece" is one of the best threads I ever read. Thanks!


------------
Alex Cremers

"Ernest, what took you so long?"

I have it on other formats, and my best friend has it on DVD, so anytime I wanted to watch it, I could just borrow it from him. I decided I wanted to own it. DVD collection looked thin without it.

Blade Runner is one of those movies I like to re-discover every few years...I try to watch it every few years or so, and that way it stays fresh, as opposed to some movies I've watched compulsively in a short time frame, and then never touched again because I'd taken all I could from them.

Unlike some, though, I like both the director's cut and the theatrical cut. Besides, even in the Director's Cuts, I still "hear" the Ford narration.

Sushi. Cold Fish.