5 ms·
You (and many in this thread) are comparing the best movies of a period to the average movies of today. In reality there's as good or better movies now and a t
by Tenoke 4y ago
You (and many in this thread) are comparing the best movies of a period to the average movies of today.
In reality there's as good or better movies now and a ton of crap from back then, too.
- NhanH 4y agoWhat are the blockbusters of equivalent quality nowadays? I have to specify blockbuster because otherwise it doesn’t make much sense to compare Terminator to a small indie movie
- burkaman 4y agoMad Max: Fury Road
- weregiraffe 4y agoThis.
- jonhohle 4y agoWhich is also an excellent counter-example to almost every other action movie which all rely on almost completely CG everything. No that MM:FR didn’t have its share of CG, but the practical effects create an authentic anxiety to much of the action. Also: Top Gun: Maverick
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jamesgeck0 4y agoThe Mission Impossible films have maintained high quality despite an absurd number of sequels. I’d also compare _Everything Everywhere All at Once_ favorably against a lot of old blockbusters. Modern technology aside, Top Gun: Maverick feels like it could have come out thirty years ago.
- pjc50 4y agoEEAO is very unusual; it's an "indie" "arthouse" film that's stuffed full of references to other bits of non-Western cinema, as well as having lots of SFX action sequences. It had a budget of under $15m (per wikipedia), which is much less than the $170m of Top Gun: Maverick. I'm very glad that somehow it got made, but there's a real drive to not make any middle-budget movies like that any more. > Top Gun: Maverick feels like it could have come out thirty years ago. I've not seen it, but to what extent is that because it's a remake of a film that came out 30 years ago?
- jonhohle 4y agoI never liked Top Gun, but when others spoke fondly about it, a Maverick-like movie was what I always wanted. Reasonable character arc, lots of practical effects, good story. It is a script that would have worked in the 80s and fits in that style of concise, well paced action movie, but it’s far superior to the original, imho.
- CuriouslyC 4y agoIt would have been concise if they hadn't wasted 30 minutes of screen time trying to milk top gun nostalgia.
- fragmede 4y agoGiven advances in technology, I'm not so sure it has to be a blockbuster for there to be a comparison. Especially given how formulaic blockbusters can be. (Eg there are 6 Transformers movies, with 2 more in development.) Drive (2011) is an indie movie, costing an estimated $20 million (inflation adjusted) compared to almost $220 for Terminator 2. Everything Everywhere All At Once cost $25 million to make, just over the threshold of "indie". Comparing computing power is a bit handwavey, but former Pixar employee Chris Good estimated that the SPARCstation 20 render farm cluster that rendered Toy Story had only half the power of the 2014 Apple iPhone 6. https://www.quora.com/How-much-faster-would-it-be-to-render-Toy-Story-in-2011-compared-to-how-long-it-took-in-1995 https://www.quora.com/How-much-faster-would-it-be-to-render-...
- phkahler 4y ago>> I have to specify blockbuster because otherwise it doesn’t make much sense to compare Terminator to a small indie movie I thought Terminator was a relatively low budget movie. Not an indie though.
- palebluedot 4y agoBladerunner 2049
- darkerside 4y agoHow about Blade Runner 2049?
- tartuffe78 4y agoThe new Top Gun movie?
- CuriouslyC 4y agoAKA Navy Star Wars + hardcore nostalgia play (so many shot-for-shots with the original)?
- TeMPOraL 4y agoWhat's wrong with nostalgia, though? People like to criticize back-references as a cheap way to entertain the audience knowing the referenced works, but I think it's a legitimate feature. A movie or a show doesn't exist in a vacuum; watching a sequel or a work in the same universe, I expect to see both subtle and direct call-backs.
- CuriouslyC 4y agoI liked the nostalgic aesthetic and references of stranger things, it never felt gratuitous. Top gun had a lot of shot for shot callbacks and filler scenes/shots that could have been edited down/out to make for a tighter movie. It's like they couldn't decide if they wanted it to be a sequel or a remake, so they said "why not both?"
- blackhaz 4y agoGuardians of the Galaxy (the first one), Thor 3, Boyhood. There are blockbusters of our days that are going to be eternal classics, like the Terminator.
- bronson 4y agoTerminator was made for $6.4 mil, like $18 million now. Not a blockbuster.
- gsich 4y agoDune, Avatar 2 probably.
- cal85 4y agoNo, we are comparing the best action movies of then with the best action movies of now.