>there was not a single good movie that came out prior to 1975
>film acting did not come into it's own as an art until the 80s and any and all acting from the early 1900s is straight dogshit
>if the movie is in black and white, it sucks
>if the movie is silent, it sucks
>if the movie is in another language, it sucks
Yes, even the one you're thinking of that everyone pretends to enjoy. No, not that one either.
No, significance to film history is not quality in and of itself.
Other urls found in this thread:
lighthouse bros, its over...
Boomers on suicide watch. All old movies are slow and boring.
Not going to argue the points, but it’s fun to see the progress of the film industry. Especially since most shit is rehashed and refined over the years. Take Twilight Zone for example. The best episodes are all pre 1965, and they were the catalyst for the horror we see today. It’s hard watching old movies if you’re a post 2000 baby, I’ll admit. But, it is subjectively more interesting to those who want to look deeper into film. Both views are acceptable.
70's and 90's were the greatest decades for film, with the 30's, 20's and 40's very close behind. The Kid by Chaplin is the only flmthat genuinely makes me laugh an cry. The 80's were the worst decade for movies, followed closely by the 2010's and then the 2000's. No one is pretending anything, your just a retard. You sound like retarded ADHD autistic atheists who think all religious people, spiritual experiences, and meditators are just pretending. No, some things are really over your head and outside your boundaries.
>film acting did not come into it's own as an art until the 80s and any and all acting from the early 1900s is straight dogshit
Ignoring all the other retarded shit in this post, I think this is the funniest. You're desperately trying to come off as knowledgeable in something you clearly know absolutely NOTHING at all.
youtube.com
this is pretty trash
fr no cap, i love when movies are soulless advertisements for the next movie in the series, written by a bunch of (((executives))) in a boardroom, it's bussin on god.
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! YOU NEED TO NEED TO STOODY FILM MAKING TO UNDERSTAND!!!!!!!! YOU CAN'T JUST WATCH SOMETHING AND SAY IT'S SHIT!!!!!!!!!
Ah, nicely moving the goalposts from the 80s to the 40s. Other than that, it seems like what is REAL acting to you is muh naturalistic mumbling, which once again shows how shallow your understanding of acting is
Yeah, you're right. I have a life so film history is a waste of time to me and I've never written a 20 page thesis on the subject. I'm just telling you what i see, and that is that actors in old movies sucked.
Now, i can intuitively assign that to the fact that film as a medium was relatively new and most actors were trained for stage where comically overexaggerated lines and gestures were necessary. This seemed to be gone by the late 1900s when technology and new acting styles were developed to better fit the medium. sorry i don't have a source for any of this, midwit, but that doesn't make it wrong
>nicely moving the goalposts from the 80s to the 40s
I said acting wasn't good until the 80s and all acting before that was shit
I'm pretty sure the 40s came before the 80s
>muh naturalistic mumbling
yeah, how dare actors try to portray reality believably. i really want to see some oh lawdy i seem to have gotten the vapors let me enunciate every syllable with wide-sweeping hand gestures because OLD THING GOOD NEW THING BAD
listen, i don't care about no Stanislavski method or marlon brando or whatever other intellectual words you made up to justify your lack of pussy. boomer shit is trash
And of course you're unable to form any coherent thoughts unless you can aim them at some strawman you've invented in your head.
You obviously have based your views on "old film acting" on 2 minute youtube clips and Family Guy spoofs, since you want to equate the entire era to just Hollywood melodramas. Either way, what is explicitly wrong and bad about "overexaggerated gestures" and "unrealistic" manners of speaking? Which is more entertaining and captivating to you, some Humphrey Bogart noir film or a modern Sundance-bait indie drama?
You think every film between the 50s and 70s was a hollywood melodrama like gone with the wind? kek.
>yeah, how dare actors try to portray reality believably
Do you think it's ok when films have "unrealistic" lighting for cinematic effect?
not a single good movie has come out after 2010
1980 - 1999 was the golden age of cinema. The technology was just right, movies were made for (white) Americans and not the rest if the world. They were made to entertain and be re-watched, not to lecture or mindlessly consoom.
There were good movies before 1980, and there's been good movies since 1999, but the further you get away from that block the worse they are.
Resevor Dogs
this
what are your favorite movies
There are no realistic movies, movies aren't meant to be realistic, people were more articulate back then and there were accents which no longer exist, like Katherine Hepburn, and you can still hear William F. Buckley speak like this in the 80's. There are no realistic fights I movies, and nothing about the 80's was realistic. It was explosions, neon, hairspray and synth music. Movies are meant to tell a story, and everything is heightened, including the emotion which is the most realistic thing in cinema.
>he doesn't enjoy Once Upon a Time I'm the West
Lmao
Yeah well I'm the West these days kid, get lost