OLD MOVIES v NEW MOVIES

Oh fuck off.

i voted NEW MOVIES

i think we all know what alfred voted

damn this is hard

eh, mostly old i think.

movies currently being shot as i type this

can i vote avatar

best movie ever def

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PJF46u8tho

no seriously let's settle this

did u vote for charlie chaplin or robert denerio

should be old movies vs. new movies vs. avatar imo

max this is a serious poll shape up

u think i would joke about AVATAR

i dunno ill have THINK ABT THAT

new > old, this is why sequels are always better

im sure we can all at the v least agree that the bourne films are the best ever

2nd only to avatar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXF2nH4Z9sc

can someone explain to me do they turn a person in to one of these bluemans

why are new movies represented by some almost 20 year old bullshit by an old man who peaked almost 20 years before that

obv should be a picture of shia labeouf

dude meat the fockers was only like 3 years ago

jesus everybody in that movie is over 60, EMBRACE THE NEW

wasnt there a baby in that movie

new standard, movie is not "new" unless everybody in it is 10 or younger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HkHukKzb_A

the best has definitely yet to come.

whooo that is super weird

Old movies, dipshit. Especially given "old movies" means anything older than 10 years old.

i voted old. but, wait, how old? what's the cut-off date?

1921.

poll choices should have been 1890-1921, 1921-1929, avatar

man that shia lebeouf is cool dude but the movie g.i.joe kinda sucked def soured me on new movies ive been thinking sum about like really old classic movies u no like from the 80s.. a lot of those seen today are really good die hard, the one with a chick in it

zzzz.

wake up grampa its time for ur pills

new movies is gonna win everyone always goes straight for the new releases

old movies

New movies, if the 1970s count.

i dont want to tell anyone how to run their lifes but yeah i was considering the demarcation to be sometime in the 60s when movies got good

james bond

icey and his false binaries.

so what ur saying is, old movies?

oldgarch

oldgarchy

all my binaries are exquisitely true fwiw

mumblecore cured my cancer

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2128/1535376771_c2fdb233ec.jpg?v=0
Kino raus!

great artists ive heard denigrated w/the comparison - tolstoy, antonioni, springsteen

― ice cr?m

: D

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

Oh fuck off.

Remember, there are people who think stuff that came out in the 1980's is old.

back to the Quentin Apatow Batcave, icey

icey u gamed this yrself--60s included in new movies? yah right dude.

oh I missed that. $5.

haaha morbz awesome

Poll worth it for the results.

Why I am a lousy judge of movies made before I was born

vs

I prefer movies made before I was born

PLUS Jim Emerson

It's shocking the amount of people you meet who will flat-out refuse to watch B&W films.

Those are both intriguing blog entries, partic the comments in the Siren's. I'd say while I'm generally aware of 'oldmovieness' in films from the past, it all but evaporates if they're good enough.

In contemporary commercial films, I'm mostly aware of how they're trying to doll up things I've seen a hundred times before. (See how I said "doll up" like Ned Sparks or Dan Duryea?)

I think context can be a big barrier (this goes for foreign films as well). Sometimes it's difficult to determine what kind of behaviour is out of the ordinary or significant to the plot as opposed to what was the norm culturally or due to production code. This is generally less of a problem the more films you watch, but at the beginning it can feel like you're forgiving a lot of elements because "that's just how things were" and "they couldn't do anything better".

I also had a brief back and forth online with a friend of a friend who was arguing that the new Halloween is superior to the old one, partly because technology has moved forward and the original just looks old now. I think the original is pretty stunning to watch, but I'm beginning to wonder if digital processing and endless color correction has created a new standard baseline from which people view films. Mid-90s stock already looks outdated.

I have seen more current Hollywood garbage (to write about) in the last 3 years than I had in the previous decade, so I find myself "forgiving a lot of elements" so I don't walk out.

I understand moods that might dissuade one from an art film, or from particular conventions in older movies. I also identify with certain Gen X/Y modes of consumption and discussion of movies. But at the same time, these are moods and modes - not permanent, not absolute, not universal. They're embodied in me, and have resulted from a lifetime of behaviors, as they are with everyone else. But isn't this a huge part of why culture is interesting? The argument isn't that everyone needs to copy my taste profile of nobrow eclecticism. The point is that all of us, if we're curious and honest people, forge more complex mental landscapes of something like "cinema" than any one picture of cinema can account for. Our criticism should try to respect that fact, and attend to it, and push us still out of all manners of complacency.

http://elusivelucidity.blogspot.de/2013/03/film-history-bro-2-historicize-harder.html

Thanking you.