3 ms·
I disagree, slightly. Cinema during WW2 and the 15 years that followed was almost all cookie-cutter nonsense. For the handful of classics that we can tick off
by SavantIdiot 5y ago
I disagree, slightly.
Cinema during WW2 and the 15 years that followed was almost all cookie-cutter nonsense. For the handful of classics that we can tick off on our fingers today, there were dozens of stinkers.
Instead of computerized algorithms, they had fat walrus-like algorithms wearing well-tailored suits, big waistlines and stubby cigars trying to make the same picture over and over again (Grace Kelly, Liz Taylor, Lauren Bacall, Rita Hayworth, Bridgette Bardot, Veronica Saint, Jane Mansfield vs Marilyn Monroe, Cary Grant vs Rock Hudson, etc.).
There is always money in capturing trends, and there will always be independent cinema. Lynch, Jones, Almodovar, Coppola (both), and new emerging stars will always find benefactors to make outstanding films for every 12 Marvel/DC stinkers modern hollywood craps out.
- seanicus 5y agoYup, the classics always get more attention in retrospect because they're the ones that survive. If all the superhero stuff is depressing remember that from the invention of cinema until New Hollywood in the 70's every third piece of entertainment (if not more) was a western/cowboy movie/show.