It would be in mono, though, and I wouldn’t get to utilize my surround sound.
I think that squirrels are evil!!!!! Yes, that is what I think!!!!! MWAHHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!
@Sekzee, cinematography. I know some pre 1965 films have good cinematography, but I don’t think it is as consistent. There’s too many boring and generic angles in older films, which is one of the biggest problems I have with them. There are occasionally great shots, but there are just SOOO many bad shots in my opinion. Also, I think the general quality of actors and actresses has gradually increased over the years, people will probably disagree with that but I don’t care, I believe that acting has gotten better as time has gone by.
The thing is your whole thread is senseless; what do you want to hear? Angered responses about what a fool you are or admiration by fellow “non-conformists” or attention in general?
You don’t like films made before the sixties. Good for you. So fucking what? Watch whatever you like.
Squirrels born after 2003 are evil.
If you’d back up your claims…
Never mind. I’m done.
Squirrels that run in front of my car are evil.
Max—how can you say that?? What about the evil squirrels of the eighties? How ignorant are you? Just because there’s more evil squirrels now, doesn’t mean that there wasn’t just as much evil back then! More doesn’t equal eviller!!!
Crobley93, what do you say to people when they tell you that some contemporary movie has it’s “roots” on a vintage (pre 60’s) film?
**It happens most of the time
@Fandorin, I guess it was kind of the angered responses and I had a slight hope for someone that agreed, but I didn’t expect it by any means. I was/am also open to a good explanation.
I do watch whatever I like…
Really, you are such a pissed off little man. You’re so angry over nothing, it’s ridiculous. Just go away.
All I know is there’s one squirrel living in my backyard that was born in 2004 and he’s evil.
I know they do. That’s part of why I think modern films are better, there is more influence. Others before them have done new things, and given new directors new ideas and new techniques. That is why I think films just keep getting better.
LOL@Max
Crobley, your on the right track reguarding acting. Modern actors, Daniel Day and Sean Penn, pride themselves in being realistic and emotionally compelling, pulling you into their character. But as far as iconic characters, go no further than Marlon Brando in On The Waterfront, or Orson Wells in Citizen Kane.
You really need to stop comparing great modern films to generic older films. Citizen Kane and Rashamon contain some of the most incredible cinematography I have seen.
He does have a point there. Just because something influenced something else doesn’t mean it’s automatically better.
Is It there some comtemporary remake from pre 60’s that you defend?
I’m not angry at all, I’m making a point. You’re the one calling people who critisize you ‘faggots’… :)
Fandor—did he really do that? LOL
@Max, I mean like….if you take one great director, and you put him in 1940 and he watched every movie ever made before 1940, then had him make a movie, compared to if you put the same guy in 2009 and had him watch every movie made before 2009, the later movie would probably be better because he would have many more ideas and techniques, completely disregarding technology.
I quote :) :
“1. Wow Shotzi. My opening sentence was that I’ve come to the conclusion I don’t like them. Part of what I was saying is that I am not going to try and conform to film geeks
2. How did I pretend that I was knowleadgeable about them…I’ve seen a decent amount of them, nowhere near all of them, and I said I don’t like any of them. Where did I pretend. You’re a faggot."
This is Crobley93:
Because both of you came at me like I had murdered your family.
Crobley, before you argue the absolute superiority of contemporary cinema, have you even explored great contemporary cinema like Hou Hsiao Hsien, Weerasethakul, Hong Sang-soo etc? Not that I proclaim to be an authorithy on these, but to make such generalisations, you have to have an extensive wealth of knowledge to back you up.
What Javier?
“@Max, I mean like….if you take one great director, and you put him in 1940 and he watched every movie ever made before 1940, then had him make a movie, compared to if you put the same guy in 2009 and had him watch every movie made before 2009, the later movie would probably be better because he would have many more ideas and techniques, completely disregarding technology.”
No way. Techniques are mostly useless. Expressionistic camerawork is good but as Kiarostami puts it, you should not be basing your film off techniques. And really, most of the new ideas cinema has accepted comes from pre-1965 and the 1960s. In this decade, there has not really been a Freud or a Marx or a Foucault.
Yes, that’s definitely me, considering all I said was “You’re a faggot”, and I wasn’t even the one who started it.
Sorry about my english.. here’s better
Is It there some comtemporary remake that you like now from a pre 60’s movie?
I’ve had enough. see you. good luck, Law.
Drew Gregory
URGH! Don’t bring Kubrick into this.
I really wish Kubrick was appreciated by more people who appreciate great films. His name gets such a bad rap.