What movies have not aged well?

[chickenluver]

I don’t have a problem with it

just showing it how times have changed

Yea I agree even if the general sentiment of "don't fuck passed out girls" would still be something seen today, the manner in which is presented there was certainly of its time

 

[Losfer Words]

Dune

 

[Midnighter]

Dune

Lol it was never good

 

[Losfer Words]

Lol it was never good

...but it also didnt age well

 

[Midnighter]

...but it also didnt age well

 

[Buddy Revell]

Such a good movie.

Don't get me wrong i enjoy dry dramas, but you've got to give me a story. There has to be a point or the author, as it were, has to be saying something. This film felt like little more than an almost 2.5 hour pitty party. Life's difficult, i know, as many know all too well. What are you gonna do about it? That's the story i care about. I've no interest in watching people flounder.

 

[Midnighter]

Don't get me wrong i enjoy dry dramas, but you've got to give me a story. There has to be a point or the author, as it were, has to be saying something. This film felt like little more than an almost 2.5 hour pitty party. Life's difficult, i know, as many know all too well. What are you gonna do about it? That's the story i care about. I've no interest in watching people flounder.

It was a realistic display of a broken man.

I can see why someone wouldn't like it though, definitely not an American style movie.

 

[Oeshon]

*Stares Jurassic Parkly*

I think Jurassic Park's graphics MIRACULOUSLY hold up today. For the most part I agree though.

Jurassic Park was mostly animatronic, not cgi. Big difference

 

[TheOneAboveAll3]

You've got to be fucking joking. That movie still holds up today.

 

[Nimrod]

HEAT was shot anamorphic on 35mm with Panavision Primos which were the best lenses available in the 90's. They are Leica glass rehoused and remounted by Panavision.

Ironic then, that it actually looks EXACTLY like a bad TV program. How the hell does one even make 35mm with the best lenses available at the time look this bad?



Years later Michael Mann would become one of the first people to start shooting movies on digital cameras which is why his recent movies look the way they do. He prefers using rolling shutter which lets a little more light in but also increases motion blur - it's why movies like Public Enemies and Blackhat have that smeared digital look to them.

I think this whole thing about movies looking dated is massively subjective.
Anyways , some interesting points you have there.

 

[Nimrod]

Well I didn’t say all cgi, I think we can all agree there are some movies today with horrendously bad cgi and so yes I do think those older practical effects looked better than some of today’s bad cgi.

Can you not see the contradication in your statement?

 

[Loiosh]

You've got to be fucking joking. That movie still holds up today.

There are some who still love it, including me. The vast majority of people think it's cheesy as hell and definitely dated.

 

[Loiosh]

Such a good movie.

I don't know if you're kidding, but I love that movie.

People on Sherdog didn't seem to like it that much.

 

[Bubzeh]

Manchester by the Sea:

Ooh boy, this was a terrible movie. Watching a grown ass man mope around and feel sorry for himself for 2.5 hours while literally nothing happens. All the relevant information is revealed in flashbacks, which are interspersed around every 30 minutes via sequences of Casey Affleck dicking around Manchester-By-The-Sea in his overpriced workwear.

Its liker nobody told the director that the difference between a movie and a play is that when you make a movie something has to actually happen. Your character has to either grow and learn or go on a journey. This film did neither. It was just a pitty party showcase for Casey Affleck and Michelle Williams (85/15). Nothing happens… seriously.

A complete waste of time.

Disagree. Star Wars must be more your thing.

 

[therealdope]

You've got to be fucking joking. That movie still holds up today.

I agree. People complaining about Scarface (1983) obviously want that modern teen version re--make with Taylor Lautner, that has been kicking around Hollywood, to be made.

Scarface is an absolute classic. Pacino fucking nailed it. You know how good it was? Colombian drug criminals started using the term Ya-Yo for coke after seeing the movie.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

There's no 1:1 for film into digital in terms of resolution, especially since most scanners at 2K resolutions 10-15 years back can't compare to 2K scanners today, so resolution is just one piece of the puzzle. It's an analog to digital conversion, which will always be lossy. Upgrades in tech keep proving talking heads wrong about the scanning of certain formats. They used to say 16mm film wouldn't benefit from 4K scans but then they started scanning The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, The Evil Dead, old John Waters films, etc. in 4K and they looked much better than the old 2k and 1920x1080 scans. There's also the case of cinematographic techniques that can subtract or be used to better visual quality that can effect what info can be gleaned via scanning.

There are also all sorts of film formats from 8mm (usually home movies and student films that cannot afford 16mm) to Ultra Panavision (which benefited from essentially compressing an image 1.25x larger than 65mm film onto the film's negative), Imax (which is the largest film single negative used in commercial/non-experimental movies), and Cinerama (three 1.33:1 negatives shot side by side and projected as if it were one image), so the visual information to be gleaned from each differs. On top of that the quality of the film used varies a lot. They have film negative with much finer particles of silver and higher quality makeup than old acetate film (old nitrate film from the late 10's to 20's though can super lifelike due to the higher contrast, different properties of the nitrate and how they used silver in film at the time).

I'd say probably the biggest benefit with high resolution modern film scanning is that you can resolve the grain more accurately which makes for a more pleasant viewing experience that the blotchy look on DVD. I think its notable on a lot of UHD releases from 35mm that they've not used a load of digital noise reduction on it that gives a plastic look and removes detail as well.

I agree. People complaining about Scarface (1983) obviously want that modern teen version re--make with Taylor Lautner, that has been kicking around Hollywood, to be made.

Scarface is an absolute classic. Pacino fucking nailed it. You know how good it was? Colombian drug criminals started using the term Ya-Yo for coke after seeing the movie.

I think its more a case of accepting the film for what it is, its not trying to be The Godfather or Once Upon A Time In America but rather something pulpier

 

[Buddy Revell]

Disagree. Star Wars must be more your thing.

Lol, OK.

Marriage Story, for one, is a far superior film. Actually -- anything that has something to say is a superior film. Nice try though.

 

[Buddy Revell]

It was a realistic display of a broken man.

I can see why someone wouldn't like it though, definitely not an American style movie.

I've no interest in someone who's given up on themselves or is otherwise broken. Movies are about action. They're about people overcoming obstacles, or in rare instances, succumbing to them. Manchester by the Sea is nothing but an overlong pitty party.

 

[tobiaswins]

Can you not see the contradication in your statement?

Yeah I see that now, my bad that wasn’t my intention, I was just trying to say that the practical effects of the Thing although dated are still amazing.

 

[I Am Legion]

Polar Express is terrible looking.