Do you think new movies suck nowadays?

[🔥MasterLord🔥]

And do you prefer the old movies back in the day, than the ones released in this current time?

[Miles]

It goes both ways. But when solely talking about modern movies, I think it's mixed. There's definitely a ton of "mass produced" movies that just aren't good. I feel like it's more profitable to spew out tons of okay movies than it is to invest massively in one good movie, but occasionally you do get the insanely good film come out.

That being said, I feel modern TV has definitely gotten better while modern movies (On average) have gotten worse.

[LHGreen]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Your_White_Knight:

Opprinnelig skrevet av LHGreen:

Avatar, Moonlight, Get Out, No Country For Old Men, Mad Max Fury Road, Wolf of Wall Street, Whiplash, The Martian, Spotlight, Room, Theory of Everything, La La Land (unfortunately), Shape of Water, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri, Green Book (also unfortunately), Roma, A Star Is Born, Black Panther... and that's just some of the Best Picture nominees. Not to say some of them don't suck, but this is in response to that specific question, rather than the thread's topic. Anyway, it may not be all of them, it may not even be half of them, but some of the movies there will be considered classics one day, in some way or another, and that's far from a complete list.

Remind me again in 10 years.... btw... Mad Max Fury Road, Avatar, The Martian, Spotlight, Room, Theory of Everything, Black Panther???? La La Land... ect, ect... really?... really?? No sorry...

Best Picture nominees don't make a movie that stands the test of time.... all the award shows are just Hollywood patting itself on the back... most are complete garbage but they have to award something to themselves.

Again... post your list in 10 years.... we'll see.

Sure, if I bother coming back in 10 years specifically to do that.

Opprinnelig skrevet av Bang-Maid!:

Opprinnelig skrevet av LHGreen:

Avatar, Moonlight, Get Out, No Country For Old Men, Mad Max Fury Road, Wolf of Wall Street, Whiplash, The Martian, Spotlight, Room, Theory of Everything, La La Land (unfortunately), Shape of Water, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri, Green Book (also unfortunately), Roma, A Star Is Born, Black Panther... and that's just some of the Best Picture nominees. Not to say some of them don't suck, but this is in response to that specific question, rather than the thread's topic. Anyway, it may not be all of them, it may not even be half of them, but some of the movies there will be considered classics one day, in some way or another, and that's far from a complete list.

If even a single one of the titles on that list of hot garbage is ever considered a classic, it will only mean that the movie Idiocracy correctly predicted the future.

You never actually saw any of those, did you.

[Your_White_Knight]

Opprinnelig skrevet av LHGreen:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Your_White_Knight:

Remind me again in 10 years.... btw... Mad Max Fury Road, Avatar, The Martian, Spotlight, Room, Theory of Everything, Black Panther???? La La Land... ect, ect... really?... really?? No sorry...

Best Picture nominees don't make a movie that stands the test of time.... all the award shows are just Hollywood patting itself on the back... most are complete garbage but they have to award something to themselves.

Again... post your list in 10 years.... we'll see.

Sure, if I bother coming back in 10 years specifically to do that.

I'll be here.... as long as Steam is, lol.

Opprinnelig skrevet av LHGreen:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Bang-Maid!:

If even a single one of the titles on that list of hot garbage is ever considered a classic, it will only mean that the movie Idiocracy correctly predicted the future.

You never actually saw any of those, did you.

I did... again, personal opinions don't really mean a thing... only time will tell if they are remembered or not.

[LHGreen]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Your_White_Knight:

I did... again, personal opinions don't really mean a thing... only time will tell if they are remembered or not.

Sorry, that one wasn't a response to your post.

[Majestic Turkey]

Opprinnelig skrevet av pasa:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Majestic Turkey:

It depends, if you watched it in the SD days it was disappointing, but at 1080p full restored or even 4k you can see the incredible detail of their vision of the future, the IBM thinkpad tablet was dead on.

Resolution has little to do with it. The point is that with proper environment you are *inside*, like you are there in open space, in the cabin, with the team in the jungle, etc. If instead you see your room and some picture in a frame, it remains just that, a picture. You can still enjoy is, but it is very far from the immersed experience.

Thing is that has become much easier to achieve now, size is relative to viewing distance. Large computer monitors are pretty affordable now.

Its about how much of your field of view is taken up by the screen.

A 65" at 8 feet is equivalent to a 24" at 3 feet.

and the 65" should be viewed at 7.3 feet to fit the thx standard, very few setups hit this mark.


https://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html

Use the calculator and see, most gamer setups are actually quite optimal for watching films.

A 32" gaming monitor at 3 feet is equivalent to an 85" tv at 8 feet.

[Jinn-Gon Qui]

I think to each their own. Some are good, some are bad.

[Sir Dookface McFerretballs]

YUP.

New movies don't want to take risks any more, and companies don't want to let the writers and directors make the films they want to make.

Everything is based on "trending" and what "focus groups" say, and the big media companies just don't want to go outside of their comfort zones any more.

I cannot handle any more "Reboots" or "Prequels"... Just STOP! Please?!?!

[Exiled Alchemist]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Sir Dookface McFerretballs:

YUP.

New movies don't want to take risks any more, and companies don't want to let the writers and directors make the films they want to make.

Everything is based on "trending" and what "focus groups" say, and the big media companies just don't want to go outside of their comfort zones any more.

I cannot handle any more "Reboots" or "Prequels"... Just STOP! Please?!?!

I agree, it's not originality that is the problem with modern films. It's the lack of risk taking that mainstream studios refuse to take. The ones that still take the risks tend to be indie, and/or small foreign film studios.

[Fumo Bnnuy n Frends]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Γαῖα:

When star wars was first released while everyone enjoyed the fancy weapons, puppets and costumes, it was the story and the adventure it took a viewer on that grabbed the hearts and minds.
Sadly these days its all gone in reverse, all effect, zero substance.
We all live very uneventful normal lives so its important to have that engaging and immersive metaphorical campfire story to stoke undivided interest.
Todays climate however is mostly all to submit to trinkets and baubles to mask an otherwise regular tree.
I wouldnt say just the last decade is alone in this as it has for many a decade been pervading the big screen but for sure as advances in effects have been made, the worse the tale and adventure has got.

If your not striking a relative cord, not pressing upon hopes,dreams and aspirations your just going to only succeed in disengaging interest when a person,group or section of life strives to want more productive content to fill their otherwise sedentary existence.

i somewhat see the video games that could be better than movies and force them to change.

if people want visuals and a storyline then they'd probalby opt for a game with more replayability and watchability (Even if it is a single player linear storyline). It'll probably end up making movies focus on story line more now and flesh out effects, especially as technology advances.

Opprinnelig skrevet av Majestic Turkey:

Opprinnelig skrevet av (TF2SP) Cow Milk:

tbh though 2 and 3 were actually pretty good (if you mean prequels or original 4 5 and 6) either or they were somewhat well done.

new star wars sucks ass especially the last jedi was just a huge cluster ♥♥♥♥ of plot holes and agendas.

Look up the directors of the original trilogy, no one knows their names, kind of says it all about the big lie, the myth of lucas. It also explains why its been failure ever since.

i did and wow it makes more sense now

[HeartoftheTiger]

Depends. I mean, it depends on genres. If it’s sci-fi, then yes. I do miss the days of practical/optical effects. And there has been some good fx done in the 80’s that still hold up today, imo, compared to CG.

If it involves camera-work in action films, not a lot of long-takes, choreography; too many shaky-cam/jumpcuts and crap.

Drama, variable. Not a lot of movies that require you to sit down and *think* as the story progresses. Like classic noir. And if there is a something like a letter, they’d show it on the screen so the audience would read it. Now, it’d be narrated, which I think is kind lazy.

Back then, movies had a beginning-middle-end structure. They could be entirely stand-alone Now, for whatever reason, there are plot holes in the movie that has to be answered via tie-in comics/books/what-evers.

[Garou]

The ones that are preaching yet another social issue do suck indeed.

[Ron]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Owlknight:

They also play on our nostalgia and such, it's why books get made into movies, nowadays it wont sell a ticket unless it's based on a book or a true story/events. Your thoughts?

I'm glad you brought up books made to movies. I'm an avid reader and there have been many books made to movies that did the book justice.
Also many that have failed.

One book however that was almost completely different from the movie was "Forrest Gump."

This was one of the few times I read the book after I saw film (because I liked the film so much)

For people that never read the book (also excellent imo, just very different) I highly recommend it.

*SPOILER*

As an example, in the book, Forrest was physically much different than Tom Hanks. Other than that, Forrest had many different adventures
Including:

*He played in a hippie rock band
*He was a wrestler (the fake wrestling)
*He smoked weed
*He was involved with the space program and went into space with an ape and a very unique woman.
He (they) landed and lived on an island full of cannibals until they got rescued.
*As in the movie he went to Viet Nam

The book was excellent but I thought the movie, even though it was very different, was a great film.

Ps, the love story was very similar to the film

[Lightforce]

No, many good ones still around.

[Eat3n]

The vast majority is crap. And it's only going to get worse. A diversity hire ruined Star Wars. I read a couple weeks ago that Warner Brothers got their very own diversity hire who will probably ruin DC movies (further than then already have)

[Ron]

Opprinnelig skrevet av -EAT3N-:

The vast majority is crap. And it's only going to get worse. A diversity hire ruined Star Wars. I read a couple weeks ago that Warner Brothers got their very own diversity hire who will probably ruin DC movies (further than then already have)

It's all about money. It always was, it always will be