The classics

Although I enjoy *some new movies that are coming out, there seems to be something quintessentially missing from many of them. The films rely on the 'effect' to sell the movie it is the special effects + the soundtrack carefully edited together in post production that are what are being sold as a rather sanitised manufactured package in alot of cases and some cases rely almost entirely on computer generated graphics. In the middle of this mix character development has disappeared, you don't get to empathise as much with your character on screen or get to know them, which I miss, and you can most graphically understand this by watching remakes and then understanding how movie making has changed.

The point of this thread is I have a love of old movies as well, in particular my favorite actor being Humphrey Bogart, so hopefully this could be a thread where the actors acted, (although I have seen some pretty awful old movies too) there was nary a CGI scene in sight, and the pacing of the movies was somewhat less psychotic.

Most of my favorite movies seem to fall within the 90s. Could have something to do with that's when I payed most attention to them, but I think there's something else at play. Just enough cinematography to prevent awkward suspensions of reality, but decent enough acting and story to sell the package to me. Obviously I'm specifically talking about films that aren't completely independent of special effects. The ones that are completely independent of it are either really good or pretty boring/shitty.

CGI has always been an integral part of Hollywood films. The 30's and 40's just provided us with artisans who were so adept at their crafts that their work is never noticed. Bogart, for one, was entirely grotesque to look at, but had such an unusual voice that effects were added to make him appear less hideous, and more human-like. Some of his films had to be shot in B&W just to reduce costs for all of the touch-ups that needed to be preformed.

I'll miss you in this thread then, truly I will.... Believe it or not there is actually a whole world of opinion outside of your own. I adore classic Sci-Fi just to see what was 'future tech' back then and find plot driven dramas which involve only a few actors like the original Failsafe or The Bedford Incident. There have been many remakes of movies that I have both read the original books and enjoyed the original movie for instance Flight of the Phoenix and the Andromeda Strain where the remakes are truly abyssmal.

So unlike you, this thread is for those who do enjoy those earlier movies.

Who the fuck you talking to Artie? Are you getting someone banned?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

CGI has always been an integral part of Hollywood films. The 30's and 40's just provided us with artisans who were so adept at their crafts that their work is never noticed. Bogart, for one, was entirely grotesque to look at, but had such an unusual voice that effects were added to make him appear less hideous, and more human-like. Some of his films had to be shot in B&W just to reduce costs for all of the touch-ups that needed to be preformed.

---

CGI refers to Computer Generated Images. In the good old bad old days they used matte paintings as backdrop scenes, before CGI became all the rage, this of course was a long time consuming process (much like CGI production has become today go figure).
As for Humpty Gokart he also drank like a fish, he was constantly pissed on very, very expensive whiskey, he actually said it improved his acting. :idunno:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Who the fuck you talking to Artie? Are you getting someone banned?

---

I was talking to you, mbm poasted in the meantime, but this was the start of a serious thread and once again you told us you don't like these kind of movies so I said I would miss you.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Artemis

I was talking to you, mbm poasted in the meantime, but this was the start of a serious thread and once again you told us you don't like these kind of movies so I said I would miss you.....

---

I don't like much of anything, but when has that ever shut me up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Artemis

I'll miss you in this thread then, truly I will.... Believe it or not there is actually a whole world of opinion outside of your own. I adore classic Sci-Fi just to see what was 'future tech' back then and find plot driven dramas which involve only a few actors like the original Failsafe or The Bedford Incident. There have been many remakes of movies that I have both read the original books and enjoyed the original movie for instance Flight of the Phoenix and the Andromeda Strain where the remakes are truly abyssmal.

So unlike you, this thread is for those who do enjoy those earlier movies.

---

I'll post something less serious tomorrow when I presumably have more time but I thought one of the remakes of The Last Man on Earth ( aka I Am Legend) was spot on wot with Mark Dacascos wielding nunchucks and all.
Btw that isn't just my opinion as I have a lot of statistical data to back it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Most of my favorite movies seem to fall within the 90s.

---

We already get that you're a mouth breathing heathen,you don't have to continue to ram the idea down our throats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Artemis

CGI refers to Computer Generated Images. In the good old bad old days they used matte paintings as backdrop scenes, before CGI became all the rage, this of course was a long time consuming process (much like CGI production has become today go figure).

---

Attachment 112289

I know it was teaching my granny to suck eggs, but talk about a segue? Where do you get Humphrey Bogart was an ugly troll from modern special effects? So I took the opportunity to be a condescending prat in my own inimitable style. I sometimes enjoy stating the obvious when people go haring off the reservation for simply that reason, you made it sound from your post that Hollywood had always used CGI.... a bit of an O RLY moment for me, hence ze painful explanation, but I also threw in an interesting analogy.
It used to take months to do the matte paintings for movie backdrops, now it takes years to do those same backdrops with computers in some cases.....better backdrops admittedly but still......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Artemis

I know it was teaching my granny to suck eggs, but talk about a segue? Where do you get Humphrey Bogart was an ugly troll from modern special effects? So I took the opportunity to be a condescending prat in my own inimitable style. I sometimes enjoy stating the obvious when people go haring off the reservation for simply that reason, you made it sound from your post that Hollywood had always used CGI.... a bit of an O RLY moment for me, hence ze painful explanation, but I also threw in an interesting analogy.
It used to take months to do the matte paintings for movie backdrops, now it takes years to do those same backdrops with computers in some cases.....better backdrops admittedly but still......

---

I was just winding you up a bit and decided to go after HB since you mentioned him specifically. The comment about him being transformed by technology comes from the many modern techniques used to transform stars beyond reality. There was grounding in my post, I just decided to take it over-the-top so you wouldn't mistake me for being serious.

I don't actually have anything valuable to add to the thread, so I'll take a seat, and see if anyone else has anything interesting to say... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

I was just winding you up a bit and decided to go after HB since you mentioned him specifically. The comment about him being transformed by technology comes from the many modern techniques used to transform stars beyond reality. There was grounding in my post, I just decided to take it over-the-top so you wouldn't mistake me for being serious.

I don't actually have anything valuable to add to the thread, so I'll take a seat, and see if anyone else has anything interesting to say... :)

---

Attachment 112336

Perhaps the biggest difference between the films of Bogart's era and modern movies is that the average age of cinema customers has dropped dramatically (middle-aged and older adults rarely go any more) and so film makers are now targeting a much younger audience -- an energetic crowd with much too short an attention span for traditional story-telling, who need a constant dose of flash and bang to keep from getting bored, and to walk away feeling like they got their money's-worth in these days of sky-high ticket prices.

The proliferation of television might be the biggest single reason for the shift, although the breakup of the "studio system" and end of the Hayes Code in the late 1960s - coincidentally the same time as the "youth movement" arose - seemed to mark a sort of dividing-line between 'classic' and 'modern' film making.

As for myself, I usually prefer watching movies that don't make me too dizzy. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

you don't have to continue to ram the idea down our throats.

---

You didn't mind what I was doing with my idea last night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

you don't have to continue to ram the idea down our throats.

---

You didn't mind what I was doing with my idea last night.

---

If that was a punch I believe the term would be telegraphed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zot

Perhaps the biggest difference between the films of Bogart's era and modern movies is that the average age of cinema customers has dropped dramatically (middle-aged and older adults rarely go any more) and so film makers are now targeting a much younger audience -- an energetic crowd with much too short an attention span for traditional story-telling, who need a constant dose of flash and bang to keep from getting bored, and to walk away feeling like they got their money's-worth in these days of sky-high ticket prices.

The proliferation of television might be the biggest single reason for the shift, although the breakup of the "studio system" and end of the Hayes Code in the late 1960s - coincidentally the same time as the "youth movement" arose - seemed to mark a sort of dividing-line between 'classic' and 'modern' film making.

As for myself, I usually prefer watching movies that don't make me too dizzy. ;)

---

I feel like my attention span and patience have get worse as a I age. I don't know if that's normal, but if it is, maybe it's our generation's offset. I enjoy content that engages me, keeps me analyzing rather than waiting. There have been movies that I enjoyed specifically because it took me 3-4 hours to watch with all the pausing and conversation in between. Maybe I'm thinking about documentaries, I don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

You didn't mind what I was doing with my idea last night.

---

If that was a punch I believe the term would be telegraphed.

---

So you're saying you 'let' me punch you? Why don't you ever makes those comments when I'm ramming my cock down your throat? Are you trying to simulate my rape fantasies you considerate lover?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjmacky

You didn't mind what I was doing with my idea last night.

---

If that was a punch I believe the term would be telegraphed.

---

Macky is known internationally as Western Union.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zot

Perhaps the biggest difference between the films of Bogart's era and modern movies is that the average age of cinema customers has dropped dramatically (middle-aged and older adults rarely go any more) and so film makers are now targeting a much younger audience -- an energetic crowd with much too short an attention span for traditional story-telling, who need a constant dose of flash and bang to keep from getting bored, and to walk away feeling like they got their money's-worth in these days of sky-high ticket prices.

The proliferation of television might be the biggest single reason for the shift, although the breakup of the "studio system" and end of the Hayes Code in the late 1960s - coincidentally the same time as the "youth movement" arose - seemed to mark a sort of dividing-line between 'classic' and 'modern' film making.

As for myself, I usually prefer watching movies that don't make me too dizzy. ;)

---

I sort of agree with all of this except it's so much the "film makers" as the advertisers that decide what gets produced.I know that they constantly do studies to breakdown the audience demographics and I'm not the first to wonder if it's more a case of the adults being purposely driven away.
Younger people are turning from TV in ever increasing numbers and studies have shown that advertising before /during movies is the best way to reach this highly coveted consumer group.

http://www.natoonline.org/Cinema Advertising Study.pdf

Also believe me I like Bogart as much as the next guy but I would classify his appeal (Like John Wayne's) more a function of "star power" than acting ability.
Anyway to quote Norma Desmond ," I am big. It's the pictures that got small".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

Also believe me I like Bogart as much as the next guy but I would classify his appeal (Like John Wayne's) more a function of "star power" than acting ability.
Anyway to quote Norma Desmond ," I am big. It's the pictures that got small".

---

The acting style of these times to us now seems very stylised, but you have to remember that this was just the beginning of the 'talking' picture at a time when a smoking look was still supposed to convey a great deal more than it does today, the mores were different, the language was different, so much so that alot of it doesn't translate well and the people seem stiff and wooden, but then people were far more reserved. Bogart I believe was able to put a great deal of emotion into his performances, he was one of the first 'underdog' heroes. He was also able to play disreputable characters for the time and still make them noble like his prison escapee in Passage to Marseilles, his is still the quintessential Philip Marlowe character from The Big Sleep although many others have played the part and you apparently are hanging out in Rick Blaine's cafe still after all these years yourself Idol to name another quintessential Bogart character.

For me though Charlie Allnut, the grubby dishevelled riverboat pilot, rough and ready, covered in grease, with no social graces yet a quick wit and charm is the greatest Bogart character, the one that really shines through, and considering the bulk of the film is two people bobbing along, there has to be more than just star power going on to keep you watching.

(for those confused, the last references were to Casablanca 1942 with Bogart as Rick Blaine owner of Rick's Cafe Americain, and African Queen 1951 with Bogart as Charlie Allnut)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Artemis

For me though Charlie Allnut, the grubby dishevelled riverboat pilot, rough and ready, covered in grease, with no social graces yet a quick wit and charm is the greatest Bogart character, the one that really shines through, and considering the bulk of the film is two people bobbing along, there has to be more than just star power going on to keep you watching.

---

You me and a bunch of old women are the only people who like Bogart the best in that one.