4 ms·
"which they're not " Many of them are though. If you ever get a chance to study some 'old film's in Uni or whatever, it's pretty interesting. A lot oldies ca
by alexasmyths 9y ago
"which they're not "
Many of them are though.
If you ever get a chance to study some 'old film's in Uni or whatever, it's pretty interesting.
A lot oldies can seem a little bland to us, but they're like novels - they are much richer than we grasp at first glance.
Also there is context.
Best example would be Charlie Chaplin. I mean, it can seem ridiculous ... but really it's genius.
Pacing and language has changed so much especially - we have such short attention spans these days ...
- Aloha 9y agoAgain, its the same lens of time, there were 2-3 times as many forgettable dramas, romantic comedies, historical pictures, and lets not even start on westerns - they're not even part of our collective memories anymore. Consider that in 1939, there were something like two movies a week released - and 1939 was a banner year for quality too in all honesty - but still only 2-3 have survived in popular memory, and only 10% of the total production was considered notable. Chaplin was genius, so was Lloyd, so was Keton, they all produced moves of unbelievable quality, but how many of those three are known by people outside the film industry or film historians today?
- bostik 9y agoWe came up with a ballpark metric back in the University, since Hollywood has a pretty stable track record when it comes to quality films. On any given year, Hollywood studios manage to produce at most 2 good films. Total.
- cholantesh 9y agoThat's not a bad ratio. If you said Bollywood, it'd be much worse, and IMO, generous.