I don't know many older people opinions about old vs modern movies but usually are a classic "the older the better".
But sometimes it might not be far from true if we compare how many quality movies (memorable) were released with usually low expectations while instead nowdays most movies are sold like "the new best movie forever" but often already seen ideas resulting in a product that might be forgotten soon. When instead there're many old movies from any period and countries that cinema fans would still remember as cinema art even when not originally intended to be epic movies.

Imho after the early 2000's the number of memorable movies decreased fast; when I see the modern trailers I don't even have the patience to read its story cause from the title, subtitles, the cast, the front image, I can already imagine the whole story and the amount of things I'd find ridicolous and even if I may be wrong statistically I often find I wasn't at least IMHO.
I think many times simple ideas were taken to make simple stories often with only a single simple possible message not leaving something as an open ending for example to share and discuss opinions instead often using too much CG that already was too much in the early 2000's. The lack of it in the previous times imho pushed to new ideas while using few CG or old special effects but as "something more" not as the most important factor.

Of course in the past there were many not great movies too but it wasn't rare that even low end cheap comic 80's movies (and even much cheaper TV series) might have had very good acting with well written comic lines that nowdays I don't find. How many real memorable modern movies will be remembered in their own sector? Sci-Fi for example some say to me Interstellar, when I went to the theater I was almost leaving the room in the first half hour. There were things and decisions that really I can't understand how possible.
Not that I don't like every modern movie of course, it's the amount of the memorable movies compared to the total number that imho changed a lot.

I can't even tell you what constitutes a "good" movie. Other then it leaves you with a warm and fuzzy feeling. I've had a fondness for the Philadelphia Story in years past. Haven't seen it in a long time (I have to wonder if I've ever taken it in it's entirety in 1 sitting, but I must have). Does that qualify as a good movie? I don't know, it's mostly silliness as I recall. But I found it enjoyable.

I am not beholden to all the greats of bygone years. I don't particularly care for John Wayne, but a few of his movies were.good. The Man Who Shot Libery Valence comes to mind as a score. I just liked it, it was enjoyable, had a good story. I don't particularly favor westerns, but some are quite good. Sometimes a movie is worth watching on account of gorgeous scenery. Me and dad shared that.opinion. And you had some good scenic shots in Terminator 2. Just thought that was worth mentioning.

Dad lived from 1924-2006. He favored any number of flicks, some I may not have understood, at least until I got older. There was, according to him, a sizeable grouping of movies in tne 30s that were disgusting though. The ones where Hollywood tried to sympathize with people experiencing tne depression years. After all watching a movie was to one degree or another about escapism. Who the hell wants to sit around and comiserate about how life is going.

I watched Terminator recently with my kids and it's still awesome - uncomplicated, action packed entertainment. Like DOOM. Then we watched T2, which used to blow my mind, and it has not aged well. Obnoxious characters, drama, and taking itself way too seriously. Like an FMV game.

I find 80's classics still very watchable for that reason - they're raw and had to be inventive with regards to special effects, etc. Once CGI hit it became the focus and that was fun at the time, but is generally pretty meh these days.

"Wild Boys of the Road" is a good Depression movie. It starts out as a 1930s "American Graffiti" but then the adults all lose their jobs and everything goes to hell.

badmojo wrote on 2022-04-05, 23:00:

I watched Terminator recently with my kids and it's still awesome - uncomplicated, action packed entertainment. Like DOOM. Then we watched T2, which used to blow my mind, and it has not aged well. Obnoxious characters, drama, and taking itself way too seriously. Like an FMV game.

During lockdown I binge-watched all of the Terminator movies in series, and was not impressed. The first movie is very strong but none of the others are comparable to it.

I liked what they tried to do with Terminator Salvation but it was poorly executed.

badmojo wrote on 2022-04-05, 23:00:

I watched Terminator recently with my kids and it's still awesome - uncomplicated, action packed entertainment. Like DOOM. Then we watched T2, which used to blow my mind, and it has not aged well. Obnoxious characters, drama, and taking itself way too seriously. Like an FMV game.

Yeah, I'm also in the camp of Terminator>Terminator 2 and also think T3 wasn't awful. T1 was a sci-fi survival horror with very thick atmosphere, T2 was a family movie.

It depends , of course you had directors like Ingmar Bergman , Akira Kurosawa , Andrei Tarkovsky , Abel Gance and Fritz Lang but there was a lot of crap as well.

I remember watching an old movie on tv which just droned on and on in boring fashion.
It involved a guy who did radio jingles and became more famous as time went on , and later some kind of romantic arc, I eventually lost all interest and turned the tv off.
I can't even recall what the movie was called , it was that bland.

In my opinion if we go really back to very old times like I don't know 50's movies I understand there were many ones that nowdays aren't much memorable I suppose cause after a certain point there has been an increase of acting quality performances, directions, photography, music compositions until older movies couldn't compare. I'm not expert of that first half century cinema period anyway, I think later just like music there has been a gold period where new actors, new directors, new music writers, produced movies or music that still nowdays are considered unforgettable while I think a big portion of the modern ones will not be remembered imho in few years.
It might not be always a problem of the movie itself but the viewer might have been used to simpler stories, a sort of "fast food" way of eating I don't know and that might explain the modern success of new TV series that are much better than older series (I imagine higher costs) but the quality can change adding episode over episode changing variables and adding season over season and at the end a single episode doesn't seems to be much important anymore.

I'd find once there were movies that asked the viewer to think, not just to have an easy message while of course there were also in the past the same simplest stories too. Imho one point is the expectation; in the past I think some already knew the level of expectations some movie would have, lower or higher cause famous directors, actors but often those expectations were even surpassed. Nowdays what I feel (I may be wrong of course) is that the expectations are set at the top, just looking most trailers would feel like the movie experience will be unforgettable but once the movie is seen I often find the trailer created far too many expectations.

About the classic western movies I'm not a fan too but there were indeed the Leone western movies like 'The Good, the Bad and the Ugly' that still nowdays are considered cinema history on another level of direction, acting, editing, photography and of course music composition. About Terminator movies, of course the first one is a classic movie but I think the second fixed things that didn't make the first to work as it could even if different stories while maybe like it has been said, the second has taken itself probably too much seriously in many moments. But the real old special effects together with a few CG of course impressive for its time (but still not too much used) worked good. While as said imho stories were becoming too much simple in the 80's 90's but with at least good acting that often saved many of those classic movies.

AppleSauce wrote on 2022-04-06, 06:51:

I remember watching an old movie on tv which just droned on and on in boring fashion.

That may be the one problem that renders older movies utterly unwatchable to modern audiences: Pacing.

Does someone remember the all-but-endless downhill ski chases in several of the 70s Bond movies with Roger Moore?
Hell, what were these people thinking?

Or, something considered a real classic and a "thriller" in its day: "Three Days of the Condor" from 1975.
I enjoyed that one but some parts were tough.

It may be because we're all ruined by M-TV and Youtube clips, degenerated to the attention span of a crack-addled squirrel.

Maybe old movies just sucked in that way.
Maybe there is no good answer and all a matter of taste and style.
(And it's very well possible that there is such a thing as a too rapid pacing...)
(Fast paced and underrated, IMHO: Hanna, 2011.)

Or, maybe, there actually was a co-evolution of audience and filmmaking, developing skills and shortcuts to narrate much more in much shorter time.
Probably a good thing, or "Game of Thrones" would have needed 23 seasons?

I get in the mood for certain era's each had a certain thing going for them.
60's have class. the way people acted, the fashion, the cars, etc it all seemed to have a certain elegance about it.
70's is complete opposite, it was more raw, more dirty and grimy.
80's was the height of sex, violence, basically action movies with some of those low budget soo bad their good movies.
90's Beginning of the end, over the top nudity and violence are ending. CGI over physical special effects is becoming common. Not a bad thing as such as long as the balance was done right.
00's CGI is really heavily used now, and mostly dated poorly

And anything later I'm not really sure about as more and more time was spent on computers then TV, cinema, etc. although does seem as an outsider much like games, people aren't prepared to take risks anymore and rather do a sequel to a squeal or my personal hatred "a reimagining" aka recycle a storyline.

but anyway Personal 80's favourites not yet mentioned that come to mind straight away. Blues Brothers, borderline 80's movie released in 1980 or Total Recall which is 1990

chinny22 wrote on 2022-04-06, 10:45:

Blues Brothers, borderline 80's movie released in 1980

It seems, apart from a lot of sci-fi (Terminator, Star Wars, Blade Runner, Aliens, B2TF) and "historic" (Raiders, FMJ, Amadeus, Das Boot), inane teenage comedy and over the top action BS, there wasn't all that much typical made in the 80s that took place in the 80s?

My picks for the quintessential, (not necessarily good, but) typical "contemporary story" movies of a decade
1970s: Uh... Jaws? Clockwork Orange? Taxi driver? Must have been a noisy time.
1980s: Blues Brothers, but with 70s cop cars. Die Hard. Top Gun? Scarface, definitely Scarface.
1990: I'd love to write "Trainspotting" but the story is actually very much 80s. Fight Club, obviously. Good Will Hunting. True Lies 😜

I wonder what will be seen as the defining contemporary Stories of 2010s' cinema - too early to tell. Are there any? 2019's "Parasite"? Poor us...

Cuttoon wrote on 2022-04-06, 10:41:

That may be the one problem that renders older movies utterly unwatchable to modern audiences: Pacing. […]
Show full quote

AppleSauce wrote on 2022-04-06, 06:51:

I remember watching an old movie on tv which just droned on and on in boring fashion.

That may be the one problem that renders older movies utterly unwatchable to modern audiences: Pacing.

Does someone remember the all-but-endless downhill ski chases in several of the 70s Bond movies with Roger Moore?
Hell, what were these people thinking?

Or, something considered a real classic and a "thriller" in its day: "Three Days of the Condor" from 1975.
I enjoyed that one but some parts were tough.

It may be because we're all ruined by M-TV and Youtube clips, degenerated to the attention span of a crack-addled squirrel.

Maybe old movies just sucked in that way.
Maybe there is no good answer and all a matter of taste and style.
(And it's very well possible that there is such a thing as a too rapid pacing...)
(Fast paced and underrated, IMHO: Hanna, 2011.)

Or, maybe, there actually was a co-evolution of audience and filmmaking, developing skills and shortcuts to narrate much more in much shorter time.
Probably a good thing, or "Game of Thrones" would have needed 23 seasons?

It wasn't so much pacing , I tend to like old movies where they keep the camera on a scene for a bit , honestly more modern films with adhd jump cuts annoy me more.

The problem moreso was that the movie was very campy and didn't take any real risks, my memory is a bit foggy but there were a bunch of montages of the guy doing a cheesy radio bit and people being delighted , he was talking to people to boost his career and sorta went back and forth between that then later talked to some dame he was into and they did the hollywood romantic exchange.
It felt very mgm , very safe. Overall I just remember it not being a very engaging film.

About Total Recall 1990 and similar 80's and 90's movies I wonder anyway if without actors like Arnold the movie could have been the same (I think not). I think many of those good actors saved many of those less good stories but still counting on good special effects, good written lines, good directors, while maybe the movie weren't that memorable without those personalities. Maybe many of those movies were written around that specific actor I suppose.
It has been remembered Scarface 1983 or Jaws 1975 for example, could have been the same without the main actor/s performances and directors choices (and music compositions too)? They were indeed strong succesful movies but quite simple stories too. Imho once the CG became too much the whole point of good acting and good stories became less and less important and even good acting couldn't do much. Let's look at the fate of the Matrix serie from the first to the two sequels (I didn't see the last modern one) with the first that is a memorable sci-fi futuristic movie where everything worked more than I imagine even expected while the sequels cannot even be compared and too bad they did them so close to each movie and clearly the amount of CG increased drastically and not even good (like the second movie and the multiple Smith fight scene that was bad even when I saw that in the theater the first time and not needed).
Then I can see that even the first Matrix 1999 without CG could have not been the same I know, but just like the second Terminator the amount of CG was always much balanced while 2/3 of the movie could have been done with real building and enviroments because what make the difference is how the story worked well and how convincing the acting was.

Maybe some movies were written for a specific actor or actress, but in general I'd expect it's more common that the actors could make the role their own. For example Sir Sean Connery almost lost the role of James Bond because Fleming didn't think a bodybuilder who was also fairly new to the silver screen could convincingly play his spy. And yet most people agree he became the best Bond.

386SX wrote on 2022-04-06, 11:52:

Scarface [...] could have been the same without the main actor

Blasphemy!
While I get your point about it being a solid script and production, no one else gives pumped-up, grandiose, over the top hyper-machismo quite like Al Pacino 😉
(Not so sure about Roy Scheider and the bigger boat.)

I do love Ah-nuld in my own, ironic way.
The original Matrix had CGI, but also ground-breaking practical SFX and a lot of heart to go with.
The later ones were just wrong.

Bond, well, somehow James Bond managed to become the best Sir Sean Connery, agreed.

Cuttoon wrote on 2022-04-06, 10:41:

AppleSauce wrote on 2022-04-06, 06:51:

I remember watching an old movie on tv which just droned on and on in boring fashion.

That may be the one problem that renders older movies utterly unwatchable to modern audiences: Pacing.

That's a bigger problem today than it was then. Blade Runner 2047 was ruined by being too slow/long. I also stopped watching The Irishman half way though for the same reason ("where is this going? is something going to happen soon?" *click*)

There's no longer pressure to make quick-paced movies because most people are watching them at home, on optical media or streaming, and so can watch the movie in several sittings - you can't do that in a movie theater.

Errius wrote on 2022-04-06, 12:54:

Cuttoon wrote on 2022-04-06, 10:41:

AppleSauce wrote on 2022-04-06, 06:51:

I remember watching an old movie on tv which just droned on and on in boring fashion.

That may be the one problem that renders older movies utterly unwatchable to modern audiences: Pacing.

That's a bigger problem today than it was then. Blade Runner 2047 was ruined by being too slow/long. I also stopped watching The Irishman half way though for the same reason ("where is this going? is something going to happen soon?" *click*)

There's no longer pressure to make quick-paced movies because most people are watching them at home, on optical media or streaming, and so can watch the movie in several sittings - you can't do that in a movie theater.

I truly enjoyed BR2047 - worked for me.
But The Irishman keeps rotting away on my HDD for that very reason. It takes about 7 hours or so?

Most epic storytelling will be with "horizontal" series, these days.
It has been done in theaters, though. Many old movies had a short intermission around half or 2/3 of their runtime. Just a matter of choice and balls.
"Lawrence of Arabia" was a bloody masterpiece and took just the three days it needed. Also, never mind the Bechdel test but Lawrence made do without a single female speaking role 😜

I think Lawrence would have preferred things that way, haha

I like what they did with the Watchmen movie: a 2 hour version for casual viewers, a 3 hour version for fans, and a 4 hour version (i.e. Irishman length) for fanatics

Cuttoon wrote on 2022-04-06, 11:39:

It seems, apart from a lot of sci-fi (Terminator, Star Wars, Blade Runner, Aliens, B2TF) and "historic" (Raiders, FMJ, Amadeus, […]
Show full quote

It seems, apart from a lot of sci-fi (Terminator, Star Wars, Blade Runner, Aliens, B2TF) and "historic" (Raiders, FMJ, Amadeus, Das Boot), inane teenage comedy and over the top action BS, there wasn't all that much typical made in the 80s that took place in the 80s?

My picks for the quintessential, (not necessarily good, but) typical "contemporary story" movies of a decade
1970s: Uh... Jaws? Clockwork Orange? Taxi driver? Must have been a noisy time.
1980s: Blues Brothers, but with 70s cop cars. Die Hard. Top Gun? Scarface, definitely Scarface.
1990: I'd love to write "Trainspotting" but the story is actually very much 80s. Fight Club, obviously. Good Will Hunting. True Lies 😜

I wonder what will be seen as the defining contemporary Stories of 2010s' cinema - too early to tell. Are there any? 2019's "Parasite"? Poor us...

Think it's more to do with what's going to make money more then what's going on in the world, at lest for the big budget movies.
60's loved their westerns, 80's action movies, 2000's Sci-Fi, last decade seems to be all about the marvel universe.
it's the 2nd tear movies that probably are more contemporary, the ones that rely heavily on an actor or director to draw in the audience in the first place. Fight Club is a good example, I had no intention of seeing this till highly recommended and thought yeh fine it's got Brad Pitt so can't be terrible and ended up been another movie on my top 10.

386SX wrote on 2022-04-06, 11:52:

About Total Recall 1990 and similar 80's and 90's movies I wonder anyway if without actors like Arnold the movie could have been the same (I think not). I think many of those good actors saved many of those less good stories but still counting on good special effects, good written lines, good directors, while maybe the movie weren't that memorable without those personalities. Maybe many of those movies were written around that specific actor I suppose.
It has been remembered Scarface 1983 or Jaws 1975 for example, could have been the same without the main actor/s performances and directors choices (and music compositions too)? They were indeed strong succesful movies but quite simple stories too. Imho once the CG became too much the whole point of good acting and good stories became less and less important and even good acting couldn't do much. Let's look at the fate of the Matrix serie from the first to the two sequels (I didn't see the last modern one) with the first that is a memorable sci-fi futuristic movie where everything worked more than I imagine even expected while the sequels cannot even be compared and too bad they did them so close to each movie and clearly the amount of CG increased drastically and not even good (like the second movie and the multiple Smith fight scene that was bad even when I saw that in the theater the first time and not needed).
Then I can see that even the first Matrix 1999 without CG could have not been the same I know, but just like the second Terminator the amount of CG was always much balanced while 2/3 of the movie could have been done with real building and enviroments because what make the difference is how the story worked well and how convincing the acting was.

I'd say any any Jean Claude Van Damme movie is a B grade Arnold movie as a kind of example I think they are some what interchangeable and I do like some of Van Damme's movies but he just lacks the same personality as Arnold.
Matrix I think was trying to stretch a stand alone movie into a trilogy for more money. First one was really cleaver, as technically we could actually be living in the matrix while watching it. The next 2 movies were just pure entertainment and cheapened the story IMHO, and thats ignoring the fact the movies weren't as interesting either.

Cuttoon wrote on 2022-04-06, 12:46:

Blasphemy! While I get your point about it being a solid script and production, no one else gives pumped-up, grandiose, over the […]
Show full quote

386SX wrote on 2022-04-06, 11:52:

Scarface [...] could have been the same without the main actor

Blasphemy!
While I get your point about it being a solid script and production, no one else gives pumped-up, grandiose, over the top hyper-machismo quite like Al Pacino 😉
(Not so sure about Roy Scheider and the bigger boat.)

I do love Ah-nuld in my own, ironic way.
The original Matrix had CGI, but also ground-breaking practical SFX and a lot of heart to go with.
The later ones were just wrong.

Bond, well, somehow James Bond managed to become the best Sir Sean Connery, agreed.

I think it wasn't clear there was a question mark at the end... 😁. And the answer I agree was of course it could not; Al Pacino (together with also the other good actors) did the whole movie and a deeper extreme performance seems difficult to imagine. Sorry for my bad english often I might not explain with the right words the opinion.
I agree with both the Jaws and Matrix opinion, maybe in the Jaws 1975 the character of the captain of the boat was more convincing but what really worked was the shark wasn't seen until the end with that powerful and still impressive scene with that scary feeling that didn't need anything but waiting the end that might be a bit "obvious" but things really became somehow realistic and convincing (maybe less convincing the last few main actor lines).
Matrix sequels are really a pain to even compare to the first movie. I'd have understood if they did them much much later but not so close and it's a thing that happens too many time, Blade Runner included but at least much later. Blade Runner which I usually consider the Director's Cut not the original not the Final Cut.

chinny22 wrote on 2022-04-06, 13:48:

I'd say any any Jean Claude Van Damme movie is a B grade Arnold movie as a kind of example I think they are some what interchangeable and I do like some of Van Damme's movies but he just lacks the same personality as Arnold.
Matrix I think was trying to stretch a stand alone movie into a trilogy for more money. First one was really cleaver, as technically we could actually be living in the matrix while watching it. The next 2 movies were just pure entertainment and cheapened the story IMHO, and thats ignoring the fact the movies weren't as interesting either.

I think V. Damme has been in those times a great actor but like others I imagine might have hoped to do the Arnold cinema career but like I suppose it happen it is not only about how good might have been but also other factors probably also to be lucky to be in the right movie at the right time. But I think he had a long good career anyway much better than others and one of its early most known fight movie is still considered one of the greatest 80's fight action movie. But imho Arnold had that convincing personality and the 80's were probably the right period for that.