Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before putting a film into a greatest/favourites list?

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before putting a film into a greatest/favourites list? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before put... - 22/8/2012 4:16:41 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54675
Joined: 1/10/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


quote:

ORIGINAL: st3veebee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


quote:

ORIGINAL: st3veebee

I was thinking about this topic after the Sight and Sound Poll myself. I think it boils down to that stupid word "classic" which goes hand in hand with age. Older films get forgiven for being slower paced, worse FX (obviously) and a different approach to acting simply because they go under the genre "classic".

I'm not sure how genre-defying, revolutionary and damn-near perfect films like Pan's Labyrinth aren't instantly on the best of lists.


That's actually a good point (well, half a good point, because I don't necessarily agree with all of it!)

A lot of older films are slower paced. And have a different style of acting. (Although you're suggesting they're weaker for it in both instances, which is unfair - it's just that they were different and from different eras where what was considered the peak of art was radically different to today). It's like trying to decide who was the best football team, the Manchester United of the 60s or the Manchester United of the 90s. Football was so different that it's an unfair comparison - can we say that Pele was the greatest player of all time if he'd struggle to get into the Wigan side because he couldn't cope with the strength and athleticism of the modern footballer? I think it's similar with film. Thus it does make these polls pretty impossible to take seriously.


That's a fair point, and it does look like I was giving out about older films but rather it was just a different time.


However...considering how much films have evolved, surely the modern films are...better? Great stories are always at the heart of a film , but everything else has pretty much evolved. If you showed a group of  people, who had never seen any film or televsion, 2 films: An older classic such as Vertigo/Kane/Tokyo Story and then showed them a modern classic such as There will be blood/Hugo/Pan's Labyrinth...which would have the greater impact on them?




Good argument! I think your comparisons are a little unfair though. Comparing Vertigo (for instance) to Pan's Labyrinth and asking "which has the most impact" to someone who has never seen film, well it would definitely be the latter because it would just make them go "woooooah" like the little green guys from Toy Story! But that's just because it has more bells and whistles, not because it's a better film. It would be like showing them a torch and a firework. The latter would definitely impress them more! What would have the greater impact if you showed them Kane or The Squid and the Whale, for instance? I think if you show comparable movies then they each hold up. There is greater sophistication in every element of film making now (both in front of and behind the camera, in screenwriting etc) but then again you can look back at something like Chinatown which still holds up in every respect. There Will Be Blood is actually an interesting one, because it's almost structured like a classic film. So I'd be interested to know what they thought if you compared TWBL with The African Queen, for instance.


I'm not sure some of those comments about older films are really valid though.

Slower-paced? Nothing should be forgiven for bad pacing. If an older film is 'slower-paced' and good then it's supposed to be 'slower-paced'. Just as not all modern films - far from it - are faster paced. Lots are also 'slower-paced' because it's entirely down to the type of film they are,

Some older films aren't slower paced - something like His Girl Friday could spank the arse of most modern films in terms of pacing. It is entirely down to context.

Acting? Kind of depends on the film. There is an old style of acting that looks kind of dumb to modern eyes, but bad acting is still bad acting old or new.

FX? Kind of gives the game away. Are we only talking about films with FX? Because we're probably talking about only a certain type of modern film - the non-slow, non-FX type. And I doubt many of them would get in 'best of' lists, old or new.

I also think you're making assumptions about what the people want from what is being watched. Emotive depth can impress across the ages. Steeveebee expects Pan's Labyrinth to be acknowledged as a classic now because it will endure - but what if people make the same argument he does in 20 years, that it's boring old hat? The point to argue, surely, is the quality and strength of the storytelling makes the film ageless - not 'new'.


_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 31
RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before put... - 22/8/2012 4:23:35 PM   
st3veebee


Posts: 2353
Joined: 3/9/2006
From: 9303 Lyon Drive
quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

Good argument! I think your comparisons are a little unfair though. Comparing Vertigo (for instance) to Pan's Labyrinth and asking "which has the most impact" to someone who has never seen film, well it would definitely be the latter because it would just make them go "woooooah" like the little green guys from Toy Story! But that's just because it has more bells and whistles, not because it's a better film. It would be like showing them a torch and a firework. The latter would definitely impress them more! What would have the greater impact if you showed them Kane or The Squid and the Whale, for instance? I think if you show comparable movies then they each hold up. There is greater sophistication in every element of film making now (both in front of and behind the camera, in screenwriting etc) but then again you can look back at something like Chinatown which still holds up in every respect. There Will Be Blood is actually an interesting one, because it's almost structured like a classic film. So I'd be interested to know what they thought if you compared TWBL with The African Queen, for instance.


Yeah, not the best comparisons I guess! A point I should bring up is that I struggled to think of modern classic to compare there. THis could be because there are no real stand outs of recent times, or because film quality is so high these days that picking one star out of a galaxy is a tall order.

Do classic of the older era just stand out far more because of radical revolutions within the industry or was there just a lot more crap around then?

_____________________________

Latest Films:

Two days in New York: 4/5

Prometheus: 3.5/5

Abe Lincoln: VH 3/5

Twin Peaks: FWWM 3.5/5

(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 32
RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before put... - 22/8/2012 4:30:19 PM   
Prophet_of_Doom

 

Posts: 756
Joined: 15/2/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


quote:

ORIGINAL: st3veebee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


quote:

ORIGINAL: st3veebee

I was thinking about this topic after the Sight and Sound Poll myself. I think it boils down to that stupid word "classic" which goes hand in hand with age. Older films get forgiven for being slower paced, worse FX (obviously) and a different approach to acting simply because they go under the genre "classic".

I'm not sure how genre-defying, revolutionary and damn-near perfect films like Pan's Labyrinth aren't instantly on the best of lists.


That's actually a good point (well, half a good point, because I don't necessarily agree with all of it!)

A lot of older films are slower paced. And have a different style of acting. (Although you're suggesting they're weaker for it in both instances, which is unfair - it's just that they were different and from different eras where what was considered the peak of art was radically different to today). It's like trying to decide who was the best football team, the Manchester United of the 60s or the Manchester United of the 90s. Football was so different that it's an unfair comparison - can we say that Pele was the greatest player of all time if he'd struggle to get into the Wigan side because he couldn't cope with the strength and athleticism of the modern footballer? I think it's similar with film. Thus it does make these polls pretty impossible to take seriously.


That's a fair point, and it does look like I was giving out about older films but rather it was just a different time.


However...considering how much films have evolved, surely the modern films are...better? Great stories are always at the heart of a film , but everything else has pretty much evolved. If you showed a group of  people, who had never seen any film or televsion, 2 films: An older classic such as Vertigo/Kane/Tokyo Story and then showed them a modern classic such as There will be blood/Hugo/Pan's Labyrinth...which would have the greater impact on them?




Good argument! I think your comparisons are a little unfair though. Comparing Vertigo (for instance) to Pan's Labyrinth and asking "which has the most impact" to someone who has never seen film, well it would definitely be the latter because it would just make them go "woooooah" like the little green guys from Toy Story! But that's just because it has more bells and whistles, not because it's a better film. It would be like showing them a torch and a firework. The latter would definitely impress them more! What would have the greater impact if you showed them Kane or The Squid and the Whale, for instance? I think if you show comparable movies then they each hold up. There is greater sophistication in every element of film making now (both in front of and behind the camera, in screenwriting etc) but then again you can look back at something like Chinatown which still holds up in every respect. There Will Be Blood is actually an interesting one, because it's almost structured like a classic film. So I'd be interested to know what they thought if you compared TWBL with The African Queen, for instance.


I'm not sure some of those comments about older films are really valid though.

Slower-paced? Nothing should be forgiven for bad pacing. If an older film is 'slower-paced' and good then it's supposed to be 'slower-paced'. Just as not all modern films - far from it - are faster paced. Lots are also 'slower-paced' because it's entirely down to the type of film they are,

Some older films aren't slower paced - something like His Girl Friday could spank the arse of most modern films in terms of pacing. It is entirely down to context.

Acting? Kind of depends on the film. There is an old style of acting that looks kind of dumb to modern eyes, but bad acting is still bad acting old or new.

FX? Kind of gives the game away. Are we only talking about films with FX? Because we're probably talking about only a certain type of modern film - the non-slow, non-FX type. And I doubt many of them would get in 'best of' lists, old or new.

I also think you're making assumptions about what the people want from what is being watched. Emotive depth can impress across the ages. Steeveebee expects Pan's Labyrinth to be acknowledged as a classic now because it will endure - but what if people make the same argument he does in 20 years, that it's boring old hat? The point to argue, surely, is the quality and strength of the storytelling makes the film ageless - not 'new'.



I suppose the best example I can think of recently in terms of what I mean is that I sat to watch The Third Man with my wife recently (actually, I just remember we watched Planet of the Apes ... the original ... too and she had exactly the same complaints about that ...) and she stopped watching after about 20 minutes. Because it was too slow. And my wife is quite open in terms of most films (although we almost got a divorce on the basis of me forcing her to watch the extended Apocalypse Now). Modern films just tend to be much faster, much snappier, in terms of editing. That's not because they're better. It's what we're now used to. Audiences used to be accustomed to shots that went on an age. So it's not a case of 'bad pacing'. It's just how films were made then. In the same way that I watch Sunset Boulevard and think it's one of the greatest films ever, but the acting is about as naturalistic as Simon Callow on acid.

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 33
RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before put... - 22/8/2012 4:39:53 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54675
Joined: 1/10/2005
Swanson's isn't naturalistic because the character isn't meant to be? I don't think it's really fair to use a film where the characters are very showbizzy as an example - they're always a bit odd!

And, again - not all films today are flashy sub-music video flashy cuts. There's thousands of films outside genre and action films that are considered dramas and have stories of depth that are based as they need to be. Take something like Winter's Bone (random, I know!) - no quick flashy edits there. It's just the type of film it was.

I'm a bit baffled at that view of Third Man though. The slower parts of the film - which can sometimes be as frenetic as anything you'll see today - do tend to be the parts examining the depth of Valli's grief. Slower seems appropriate?

< Message edited by elab49 -- 22/8/2012 4:41:31 PM >


_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 34
RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before put... - 22/8/2012 4:46:15 PM   
st3veebee


Posts: 2353
Joined: 3/9/2006
From: 9303 Lyon Drive
quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


quote:

ORIGINAL: st3veebee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


quote:

ORIGINAL: st3veebee

I was thinking about this topic after the Sight and Sound Poll myself. I think it boils down to that stupid word "classic" which goes hand in hand with age. Older films get forgiven for being slower paced, worse FX (obviously) and a different approach to acting simply because they go under the genre "classic".

I'm not sure how genre-defying, revolutionary and damn-near perfect films like Pan's Labyrinth aren't instantly on the best of lists.


That's actually a good point (well, half a good point, because I don't necessarily agree with all of it!)

A lot of older films are slower paced. And have a different style of acting. (Although you're suggesting they're weaker for it in both instances, which is unfair - it's just that they were different and from different eras where what was considered the peak of art was radically different to today). It's like trying to decide who was the best football team, the Manchester United of the 60s or the Manchester United of the 90s. Football was so different that it's an unfair comparison - can we say that Pele was the greatest player of all time if he'd struggle to get into the Wigan side because he couldn't cope with the strength and athleticism of the modern footballer? I think it's similar with film. Thus it does make these polls pretty impossible to take seriously.


That's a fair point, and it does look like I was giving out about older films but rather it was just a different time.


However...considering how much films have evolved, surely the modern films are...better? Great stories are always at the heart of a film , but everything else has pretty much evolved. If you showed a group of  people, who had never seen any film or televsion, 2 films: An older classic such as Vertigo/Kane/Tokyo Story and then showed them a modern classic such as There will be blood/Hugo/Pan's Labyrinth...which would have the greater impact on them?




Good argument! I think your comparisons are a little unfair though. Comparing Vertigo (for instance) to Pan's Labyrinth and asking "which has the most impact" to someone who has never seen film, well it would definitely be the latter because it would just make them go "woooooah" like the little green guys from Toy Story! But that's just because it has more bells and whistles, not because it's a better film. It would be like showing them a torch and a firework. The latter would definitely impress them more! What would have the greater impact if you showed them Kane or The Squid and the Whale, for instance? I think if you show comparable movies then they each hold up. There is greater sophistication in every element of film making now (both in front of and behind the camera, in screenwriting etc) but then again you can look back at something like Chinatown which still holds up in every respect. There Will Be Blood is actually an interesting one, because it's almost structured like a classic film. So I'd be interested to know what they thought if you compared TWBL with The African Queen, for instance.


I'm not sure some of those comments about older films are really valid though.

Slower-paced? Nothing should be forgiven for bad pacing. If an older film is 'slower-paced' and good then it's supposed to be 'slower-paced'. Just as not all modern films - far from it - are faster paced. Lots are also 'slower-paced' because it's entirely down to the type of film they are,

Some older films aren't slower paced - something like His Girl Friday could spank the arse of most modern films in terms of pacing. It is entirely down to context.

Acting? Kind of depends on the film. There is an old style of acting that looks kind of dumb to modern eyes, but bad acting is still bad acting old or new.

FX? Kind of gives the game away. Are we only talking about films with FX? Because we're probably talking about only a certain type of modern film - the non-slow, non-FX type. And I doubt many of them would get in 'best of' lists, old or new.

I also think you're making assumptions about what the people want from what is being watched. Emotive depth can impress across the ages. Steeveebee expects Pan's Labyrinth to be acknowledged as a classic now because it will endure - but what if people make the same argument he does in 20 years, that it's boring old hat? The point to argue, surely, is the quality and strength of the storytelling makes the film ageless - not 'new'.



Fair point about looking back on PL 20 years from now, at least people will consider it a (old hat) classic then!

I should also point out that, even though it clearly looks like I dislike films before 1990, I really don't. Of course some of my all time favourites come from each era but if you just stand back and look at filmsthen and now: we are able to do so much more at the minute, from a directors point of view.

Do we honestly think that films we adore from the last year or two are suddenly going to become obsolete in future years?

_____________________________

Latest Films:

Two days in New York: 4/5

Prometheus: 3.5/5

Abe Lincoln: VH 3/5

Twin Peaks: FWWM 3.5/5

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 35
RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before put... - 22/8/2012 4:49:17 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54675
Joined: 1/10/2005
I hope (and think) you're right about Pan's Labyrinth because I do think the quality of the film, the depth of the story it tells will stay the same to future audiences.

But yes - I do think tastes change and films you love in the cinema this year that you think are the best ever will, for the most part, slip down your best of lists over the years - one or two probably won't, of course. But I think you can already see it with TDK. It's not that people don't like it - it's just that they've maybe seen a lot more films they love now and it's harder to fit in. So things start to slip?


_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to st3veebee)
Post #: 36
RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before put... - 22/8/2012 4:50:48 PM   
Prophet_of_Doom

 

Posts: 756
Joined: 15/2/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: st3veebee

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


quote:

ORIGINAL: st3veebee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


quote:

ORIGINAL: st3veebee

I was thinking about this topic after the Sight and Sound Poll myself. I think it boils down to that stupid word "classic" which goes hand in hand with age. Older films get forgiven for being slower paced, worse FX (obviously) and a different approach to acting simply because they go under the genre "classic".

I'm not sure how genre-defying, revolutionary and damn-near perfect films like Pan's Labyrinth aren't instantly on the best of lists.


That's actually a good point (well, half a good point, because I don't necessarily agree with all of it!)

A lot of older films are slower paced. And have a different style of acting. (Although you're suggesting they're weaker for it in both instances, which is unfair - it's just that they were different and from different eras where what was considered the peak of art was radically different to today). It's like trying to decide who was the best football team, the Manchester United of the 60s or the Manchester United of the 90s. Football was so different that it's an unfair comparison - can we say that Pele was the greatest player of all time if he'd struggle to get into the Wigan side because he couldn't cope with the strength and athleticism of the modern footballer? I think it's similar with film. Thus it does make these polls pretty impossible to take seriously.


That's a fair point, and it does look like I was giving out about older films but rather it was just a different time.


However...considering how much films have evolved, surely the modern films are...better? Great stories are always at the heart of a film , but everything else has pretty much evolved. If you showed a group of  people, who had never seen any film or televsion, 2 films: An older classic such as Vertigo/Kane/Tokyo Story and then showed them a modern classic such as There will be blood/Hugo/Pan's Labyrinth...which would have the greater impact on them?




Good argument! I think your comparisons are a little unfair though. Comparing Vertigo (for instance) to Pan's Labyrinth and asking "which has the most impact" to someone who has never seen film, well it would definitely be the latter because it would just make them go "woooooah" like the little green guys from Toy Story! But that's just because it has more bells and whistles, not because it's a better film. It would be like showing them a torch and a firework. The latter would definitely impress them more! What would have the greater impact if you showed them Kane or The Squid and the Whale, for instance? I think if you show comparable movies then they each hold up. There is greater sophistication in every element of film making now (both in front of and behind the camera, in screenwriting etc) but then again you can look back at something like Chinatown which still holds up in every respect. There Will Be Blood is actually an interesting one, because it's almost structured like a classic film. So I'd be interested to know what they thought if you compared TWBL with The African Queen, for instance.


I'm not sure some of those comments about older films are really valid though.

Slower-paced? Nothing should be forgiven for bad pacing. If an older film is 'slower-paced' and good then it's supposed to be 'slower-paced'. Just as not all modern films - far from it - are faster paced. Lots are also 'slower-paced' because it's entirely down to the type of film they are,

Some older films aren't slower paced - something like His Girl Friday could spank the arse of most modern films in terms of pacing. It is entirely down to context.

Acting? Kind of depends on the film. There is an old style of acting that looks kind of dumb to modern eyes, but bad acting is still bad acting old or new.

FX? Kind of gives the game away. Are we only talking about films with FX? Because we're probably talking about only a certain type of modern film - the non-slow, non-FX type. And I doubt many of them would get in 'best of' lists, old or new.

I also think you're making assumptions about what the people want from what is being watched. Emotive depth can impress across the ages. Steeveebee expects Pan's Labyrinth to be acknowledged as a classic now because it will endure - but what if people make the same argument he does in 20 years, that it's boring old hat? The point to argue, surely, is the quality and strength of the storytelling makes the film ageless - not 'new'.



Fair point about looking back on PL 20 years from now, at least people will consider it a (old hat) classic then!

I should also point out that, even though it clearly looks like I dislike films before 1990, I really don't. Of course some of my all time favourites come from each era but if you just stand back and look at filmsthen and now: we are able to do so much more at the minute, from a directors point of view.

Do we honestly think that films we adore from the last year or two are suddenly going to become obsolete in future years?


If you mean in terms of their place in 'best of' lists, I think it possibly depends on whether or not they're typical of the genre. I remember when Silence of the Lambs won its Oscars, there was talk of it being a classic (and the fact that it had taken a pretty typical genre to a more sophisticated level ...) But now, it wouldn't make many lists. Because, in truth, it's nothing exceptional.

I think Drive is probably the most recent film I can think of that may remain high on lists in years to come because it isn't typical of the genre and is something very much 'new'.

(in reply to st3veebee)
Post #: 37
RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before put... - 22/8/2012 4:57:48 PM   
elab49


Posts: 54675
Joined: 1/10/2005
I think Drive is more very much old - it reminds me a lot of 70s filmmaking, even with the One From Your Heart music and colours.

But maybe that is a great example - things being new to different eyes and the impact it makes?


_____________________________

Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation] LIKE AMERICA'S SWEETHEARTS TOO. IT MADE ME LAUGH A LOT AND THOUGHT IT WAS WITTY. ALSO I FEEL SLOWLY DYING INSIDE. I KEEP AGREEING WITH ELAB.


Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 38
RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before put... - 22/8/2012 5:42:19 PM   
UTB


Posts: 9994
Joined: 30/9/2005
I need to watch Drive again. I liked it but I never thought I'd see it called a classic. Really?

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 39
RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before put... - 22/8/2012 6:01:40 PM   
matty_b


Posts: 14582
Joined: 19/10/2005
From: Outpost 31 calling McMurtle.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

If you mean in terms of their place in 'best of' lists, I think it possibly depends on whether or not they're typical of the genre. I remember when Silence of the Lambs won its Oscars, there was talk of it being a classic (and the fact that it had taken a pretty typical genre to a more sophisticated level ...) But now, it wouldn't make many lists. Because, in truth, it's nothing exceptional.

I think Drive is probably the most recent film I can think of that may remain high on lists in years to come because it isn't typical of the genre and is something very much 'new'.





_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze
Mattyb is a shining example of what the perfect Empire Forum member is.


(in reply to Prophet_of_Doom)
Post #: 40
RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before put... - 22/8/2012 6:39:50 PM   
Prophet_of_Doom

 

Posts: 756
Joined: 15/2/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: matty_b

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

If you mean in terms of their place in 'best of' lists, I think it possibly depends on whether or not they're typical of the genre. I remember when Silence of the Lambs won its Oscars, there was talk of it being a classic (and the fact that it had taken a pretty typical genre to a more sophisticated level ...) But now, it wouldn't make many lists. Because, in truth, it's nothing exceptional.

I think Drive is probably the most recent film I can think of that may remain high on lists in years to come because it isn't typical of the genre and is something very much 'new'.






I was going to edit and say "imo" but I've changed my mind. Definitely, in truth

(in reply to matty_b)
Post #: 41
RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before put... - 22/8/2012 10:17:42 PM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1379
Joined: 31/3/2010

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I hope (and think) you're right about Pan's Labyrinth because I do think the quality of the film, the depth of the story it tells will stay the same to future audiences.

But yes - I do think tastes change and films you love in the cinema this year that you think are the best ever will, for the most part, slip down your best of lists over the years - one or two probably won't, of course. But I think you can already see it with TDK. It's not that people don't like it - it's just that they've maybe seen a lot more films they love now and it's harder to fit in. So things start to slip?



I love that scene in Twelve Monkeys where Bruce Willis is watching Vertigo, recalls seeing it as a small child and remarks that it's a different film now. But not because the film has changed; because he has changed. Very true.

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 42
RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before put... - 24/8/2012 12:45:22 PM   
snaze1


Posts: 295
Joined: 2/3/2007
Yes, for one simple reason - How many people here still have the same favourite film from when they were 12???

(in reply to chris kilby)
Post #: 43
RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before put... - 24/8/2012 12:56:55 PM   
great_badir


Posts: 4662
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: A breaking rope bridge in the middle of the jungle
quote:

ORIGINAL: snaze1
Yes, for one simple reason - How many people here still have the same favourite film from when they were 12???


I do.

_____________________________

FAVE FILMS
BO BOMBS

(in reply to snaze1)
Post #: 44
RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before put... - 24/8/2012 1:15:43 PM   
snaze1


Posts: 295
Joined: 2/3/2007

quote:

ORIGINAL: great_badir

quote:

ORIGINAL: snaze1
Yes, for one simple reason - How many people here still have the same favourite film from when they were 12???


I do.

Really?
My little pony the movie is your favourite???
In all seriosness though, the point im trying to make is what happens (As evidenced by an earlier post concerning Bros/best single of all time) is that you get loads of people vating for the latest hit/fad regardless of quality.
You end up with stuff like Transformers 2 or Twilight getting votes over classics

(in reply to great_badir)
Post #: 45
RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before put... - 24/8/2012 1:19:11 PM   
great_badir


Posts: 4662
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: A breaking rope bridge in the middle of the jungle
quote:

ORIGINAL: snaze1
Really?
My little pony the movie is your favourite???


Flip back to page 1 and you will see that the answers are yes and no, respectively.

(Although I did see the My LIttle Pony Movie at the cinema...)

_____________________________

FAVE FILMS
BO BOMBS

(in reply to snaze1)
Post #: 46
RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before put... - 24/8/2012 1:58:24 PM   
st3veebee


Posts: 2353
Joined: 3/9/2006
From: 9303 Lyon Drive
quote:

ORIGINAL: snaze1

Yes, for one simple reason - How many people here still have the same favourite film from when they were 12???



Interesting point but I think there is a big difference between favourite and greatest film ever.

My favourite films are Jaws, Jurassic Park and Back to the Future but I do not think they are the greatest films ever made (from a directorial/artistic point of view), just the ones I find most entertaining.


_____________________________

Latest Films:

Two days in New York: 4/5

Prometheus: 3.5/5

Abe Lincoln: VH 3/5

Twin Peaks: FWWM 3.5/5

(in reply to snaze1)
Post #: 47
RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before put... - 24/8/2012 2:06:47 PM   
Hood_Man


Posts: 12192
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: snaze1

Yes, for one simple reason - How many people here still have the same favourite film from when they were 12???


My two favourite films are Star Wars and Good Will Hunting, which I saw (and became my favourites) at 7 and 12 years old respectively

(in reply to snaze1)
Post #: 48
RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before put... - 24/8/2012 2:07:41 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5113
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North
quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

You're right about the 90s. I thought 1995 was a particularly classic year - Heat, Se7en, Nixon, Trainspotting, Twelve Monkeys, The Usual Suspects. Give them time though. It's always posterity which decides these things. The good stuff always endures in the long run. Look at Blade Runner...



Didn't they all come out in '96?

< Message edited by horribleives -- 24/8/2012 2:08:31 PM >


_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to chris kilby)
Post #: 49
RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before put... - 24/8/2012 2:18:40 PM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1379
Joined: 31/3/2010
quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I think Drive is more very much old - it reminds me a lot of 70s filmmaking, even with the One From Your Heart music and colours.



More like early 80s Michael Mann, I'd have thought. Specifically Thief. Right down to the day-glo, "handwritten" titles and Tangerine Dream-like score...

< Message edited by chris kilby -- 24/8/2012 2:19:09 PM >

(in reply to elab49)
Post #: 50
RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before put... - 24/8/2012 2:21:19 PM   
MB2


Posts: 325
Joined: 16/6/2009

quote:

ORIGINAL: snaze1


quote:

ORIGINAL: great_badir

quote:

ORIGINAL: snaze1
Yes, for one simple reason - How many people here still have the same favourite film from when they were 12???


I do.

Really?
My little pony the movie is your favourite???
In all seriosness though, the point im trying to make is what happens (As evidenced by an earlier post concerning Bros/best single of all time) is that you get loads of people vating for the latest hit/fad regardless of quality.
You end up with stuff like Transformers 2 or Twilight getting votes over classics


Depends on the 12 year old. I saw Shawshank for the first time when I was about that age, it remains one of my favourites.

I think polls in publications like Sight & Sound and Empire would lean towards a quality consensus as opposed to just popularity, but that viewpoint in itself is fairly snobbish.

_____________________________

Roxy: That's who we should kill next.
Frank: A fictitious character?
Roxy: No. Diablo Cody. Fuck her for writing that movie, she's the only stripper who suffers from too much self esteem.

(in reply to snaze1)
Post #: 51
RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before put... - 24/8/2012 2:22:02 PM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1379
Joined: 31/3/2010

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

You're right about the 90s. I thought 1995 was a particularly classic year - Heat, Se7en, Nixon, Trainspotting, Twelve Monkeys, The Usual Suspects. Give them time though. It's always posterity which decides these things. The good stuff always endures in the long run. Look at Blade Runner...



Didn't they all come out in '96?


Nope. Although Heat and Se7en maybe weren't released in the UK 'til early '96...

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 52
RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before put... - 24/8/2012 2:29:07 PM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1379
Joined: 31/3/2010
quote:

ORIGINAL: MB2

I think polls in publications like Sight & Sound and Empire would lean towards a quality consensus as opposed to just popularity, but that viewpoint in itself is fairly snobbish.


I wouldn't necessarily just go by Sight & Sound's Top Ten. For what it's worth, you get things like Blade Runner and Pulp Fiction in the Top 100. Which is still something I suppose. And the individual Top Tens make fascinating reading. Kermode's includes Brazil and (quel surprise!) The Exorcist. Tarantino lists Jaws and The Bad News Bears (!) And, most jaw-dropping of all, Michael Mann champions Avatar of all things! (I happen to agree with him - not one of the Ten Best, but it's still good partly for the reasons he cites. He must be a "Cameron fanboy...")


< Message edited by chris kilby -- 24/8/2012 2:31:44 PM >

(in reply to MB2)
Post #: 53
RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before put... - 24/8/2012 2:30:35 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5113
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

You're right about the 90s. I thought 1995 was a particularly classic year - Heat, Se7en, Nixon, Trainspotting, Twelve Monkeys, The Usual Suspects. Give them time though. It's always posterity which decides these things. The good stuff always endures in the long run. Look at Blade Runner...



Didn't they all come out in '96?


Nope. Although Heat and Se7en maybe weren't released in the UK 'til early '96...



As were Twelve Monkeys and Trainspotting.

_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to chris kilby)
Post #: 54
RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before put... - 24/8/2012 2:32:19 PM   
Timbzy


Posts: 183
Joined: 30/6/2012
These lists are ever evolving with every film we see anyway, who cares if someone's list changes over time. It works the other way too. It can be a long time between seeing a film for the first time and the second time. Could be 20 years later you realise the second time watching that the film was trash.

Oh and Reservoir Dogs is better than Pulp Fiction.

(in reply to chris kilby)
Post #: 55
RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before put... - 24/8/2012 2:35:08 PM   
vad3r


Posts: 4403
Joined: 3/9/2010
From: Close to Mod HQ
I watched Drive and it immediately topped my favourite films list. What does this make me?

_____________________________

Single Virgin Mod Candidate 2013


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives
To paraphrase the great man himself:

Vad3r won't go anywhere near this.

(in reply to Timbzy)
Post #: 56
RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before put... - 24/8/2012 2:38:40 PM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1379
Joined: 31/3/2010

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

I watched Drive and it immediately topped my favourite films list. What does this make me?


A fan of wealth and taste.

(in reply to vad3r)
Post #: 57
RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before put... - 24/8/2012 2:39:02 PM   
Timbzy


Posts: 183
Joined: 30/6/2012
A cybernetic organism.

(in reply to vad3r)
Post #: 58
RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before put... - 24/8/2012 2:41:26 PM   
chris kilby

 

Posts: 1379
Joined: 31/3/2010
quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

You're right about the 90s. I thought 1995 was a particularly classic year - Heat, Se7en, Nixon, Trainspotting, Twelve Monkeys, The Usual Suspects. Give them time though. It's always posterity which decides these things. The good stuff always endures in the long run. Look at Blade Runner...



Didn't they all come out in '96?


Nope. Although Heat and Se7en maybe weren't released in the UK 'til early '96...



As were Twelve Monkeys and Trainspotting.


Depends when and where they were first shown, I suppose - film festivals and the like. The usual reference suspects list them all officially as 1995. Including EMPIRE...

EDIT: Except Trainspotting. Whoops.


< Message edited by chris kilby -- 24/8/2012 2:42:33 PM >

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 59
RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before put... - 24/8/2012 2:44:01 PM   
Timbzy


Posts: 183
Joined: 30/6/2012
When I'm doing year lists, I look at when the film was released outside of festivals in the US or Australia (whichever is first).

(in reply to chris kilby)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> RE: Should there be a certain amount of time before putting a film into a greatest/favourites list? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.125