Some movies just don't age well.

Is it just me, or do some movies not age well?

For example an 80's classic... The Terminator. Back in 1984 The Terminator was amazing. The effects and animatronics were great... for its time... but compared to the latest Terminator movie the original almost seems amateurish.

Now take another 80's classic... Sixteen Candles. To this day Sixteen Candles is still amazing. Because it is a period piece its like an 80's time capsule. In my view period piece movies stand the test of time much better than effects driven movies... the 1957 movie 12 Angry Men is a good example of this.

Now with that said, effects are now photorealistic and we can do mind blowing things with CGI. So I am thinking that a newer effect driven movies like The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey... will be just as wonderful 25 years from now... while older movies like The 7th Voyage of Sinbad are now laughable with its stop motion animation.

What are your thoughts?

 

I think youjust put your finger on it. 16 candles is great because it has a great director (Ferris Beuler even better)and is drama not effect based. There are old scifi filmshat are still great because they are about ideas and dram not showing effects.

 

Strangely enough, Terminator 2 has held up remarkably well.

 

I still think the first King Kong movie was the best King Kong movie.

The effects were kinda campy but the story line was the best. And the acting was much better.

I love old movies from Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton to Sgt. York and Knute Rockne All American.

Special effects have their place but it sometimes covers up bad plots, poor story lines, and less than stellar acting.

 

Some kind of first experiences defines what you think, this happen to all.
When film is made to get money more than their passion and when audience is effect by animation, gun, explosion,.... then they forget what they have to learn!

 

I'm the last person who should make a comment about movies because I'm a great fan of things that blow up and body counts but I think I can take the points in the posts so far.

I particularly like Sab's comment. I am a HUGE sci-fi film buff and I totally agree that the ideas are the thing that drive a brilliant sci-fi film/television show. I loved every sci-film I ever saw that had great effects but only a few remain in my memory and only a few are watchable time and time again and the reason for that is that those films told it in some way. By "it" I mean they had some sort of impact with ideas. Take "Silent Running" for example.

 

Bet I am a bigger sci fi fan than you!! So there!!

(At present watching Fifth Element for perhaps the nth hundredth time)

But for me the ones that have not stood the test of time have been a lot of the '50's B grade movies that are now just plain hilarious!! One though that forever made me grind my teeth was "War of the Worlds"

My personal award to worst SF movie ever made - Stephen King;s "The Mist" with a close second "Cloverfield" the latter has the distinction of being the one movies whose central characters were so annoying I was cheering the monsters

 

Them's fightin' words Bower!

I was reading Arthur C. Clarke as a kid! Sands of Mars (but a few years after it was originally published though). And I got kicked out of the lounge when Quatermass and the the Pit came on tv (BBC).

With you on War of the Worlds though, very disappointed by the film. I thought they could have learned from the Rod Taylor version of The Time Machine (the bloke who went on to play Wilbur in Mr Ed was one of the main characters). They more or less stuck to the novel. The Spielberg version was better I think (WoW I mean).

My hugest fav is Aliens.

But again, it's the central theme that makes the film. I found the various manifestations of Star Trek interesting but not memorable.

 

I hated the Spielberg War of the worlds. I hate it where Hollywood has to reset everything in the USA. Spielberg wanted to take Harry Potter and put it into a US high school FFS

 

One of my favorites was Predator. And the follow up with Danny Glover was entertaining.

[video=youtube_share;lOoOP2l_ahQ]http://youtu.be/lOoOP2l_ahQ[/video]

 

I didn't mind the Mist, thought the ending was excellent! (no spoilers if you choose to respond)

 

Sorry HATED it!!

Stuck in a general store and complaining your only ammunition is one gun - er HELLO!! Didn't ANYONE do high school chemistry?? As for the "bugs" nobody who has seen a Darwin mozzie (Mosquito) would ever be frightened of them - a couple of years ago one mozzie landed at Darwin airport and they refueled it before they realised........................still looking for the six Japanese tourists boarded it.........................

 

Willing to put my credentials on the line here - Loved Babylon 5 and Joss Wedon's "Firefly" even though the latter was unreservedly a "space western"

Dr Who - what more could be said - the BBC managed to put together a series on 1/100th the budget of Hollywood and not only were successful but have one of the longest running series ANYWHERE

Red Dwarf - classic Beeb comedy but they should have stuck with the first five series

 

I agree. CGI was just starting to get good when T2 came out.

 

Back in the day I loved the original Star Trek, but when I try to watch it now it almost laughable. Makes me sad because I really use to love it. The latest Star Trek movie was amazing, and the CGI flawless... I am hoping 25 years from now I find it just as good.

 

So you disliked D Fanning in War of the Worlds too huh? I wanted her to be eaten.

I think those old sci fi movies stand the test of time just fine if you enjoy them for what they are/were rather than for what they weren't/aren't. Look at Star Wars as an example. The acting was terrible, the plot was full of holes, the special effects were silly, and the directing was just so so, but that movie is what started it all, and that is why it is the measuring stick for sci fi movies.

 

Sorry but no, it was not the movie that stated it all - that distinction goes to "Metropolis"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3X6KtQ7nxQ

I have linked to the 1987 georgio morodor version rather than the original 1927 version

 

A good example is "The Matrix". A classic movie with regard to concept and I truly believe that we are living in it. The problem is that the directors had no concept of the future and required the characters to go to phone booths to teleport between the reality and the animatronic world. It was only 1-2 years later when cellular phones had internet capability.

 

But the cell phone revolution affects a LOT of movies - ever watched a 1940's thriller and they have to leave messages and hope that the cop gets them??

 

or the Buffy the Vampire slayer world where the plot often only works because Cell phones DON'T work in Sunnydale.

 

The Matrix to this day is one of my all time favorite movies. But in hind sight, the phone booths do look awfully retro now instead of futuristic. But I suspend reality by saying the phone booths were just a method of control by the machines. After all, doesn't chicken taste like everything in the Matrix?

 

Do you mean that literally or figuratively? Or are you referring to the holographic theory of quantum physics?

 

I disagree. Sure, the special effects were lame by today's standards, but it was the best movie of the series. It started "I'll be back", which was actually cool the first time Shwarzenegger said it (and kicked the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of "Hasta La Vista"). Reese was kick ass. We got to see Sarah Conner's boobs. And there was no annoying little John Conner punk.

Or even better, The Breakfast Club.

I don't know. We'll really have to wait and see what we think of this CGI stuff in the future. Sometimes, it's not all that great. I mean, compare the old Yoda to CGI Yoda. CGI sometimes just looks "computery" and fake. Or maybe, CGI will look so good in the future, that we'll look back on today's CGI like we look at the special effects from the first Terminator.

 

Metropolis is like the ultimate steampunk movie so the original will always be better than the remakes .

 

You (*)(*)(*)(*)ing take that back! The Terminator is still the superior Terminator film. One of my favourite movies of all time.