rmay635703 wrote on 2024-09-17, 16:48:

As a demerit to old stuff is that many old movies are very long and boring due to very different pacing and drawn out set pieces.

Old movies focusing on visual storytelling, taking their time aren't necessarily boring.
Modern movies audiovisually overload the watcher while saying nothing aren't necessarily exciting.

A lot of modern movies are just CGI noise. Sometimes I barely remember what happened 3 scenes ago.
Older movies tend to stay with me occupying my thoughts for days sometimes.

As for length, a lot of old movies just got around one and a half hours, and 2 hours used to be a considered a long movie.
For modern blockbusters the average is around 2 hours and they can easily go above 2 and a half.

RandomStranger wrote on 2024-09-17, 17:09:

rmay635703 wrote on 2024-09-17, 16:48:

As a demerit to old stuff is that many old movies are very long and boring due to very different pacing and drawn out set pieces.

Old movies focusing on visual storytelling, taking their time aren't necessarily boring.
Modern movies audiovisually overload the watcher while saying nothing aren't necessarily exciting.

I kind of see both views, it's very movie specific. Some older movies have slower pacing and stilted dialog but some newer movies are the ones with drawn out set pieces - even if it's "action" it can just be a cgi fest that isnt engaging

i'm not against long movies, but in more recent years there seem to be many 2+hour movies that really didnt need to be - while in the past there seemed to be a keener desire to get to 90 minutes or so (maybe even related to cinema specifics, double bills and so forth back then)