To each their own. Personally though, films today will never beat films from "the good old days" for me, for several reasons:
1) "films" today aren't films. They're mostly recorded by means of digital mediums, and this has damaged the film photography industry, the movie industry and the quality of what we're watching, for reasons too long to get into. Digital looks terrible, no matter how much CGI and rendering you throw in, it still looks fake and cheap compared to a movie made even on a cheap super 8 home movie film camera. I can't speak for everyone, but in my opinion digital is just something that meaningless things should be recorded on. After all, the storage of digital files is taking a pretty risky chance. Files can become corrupted at any time, files can degrade in as short a time span as 25 years, and though there are archiving programs to store important movies, they're not really considering the storage of low-budget ones so film is the safer way to go, too (it can last over a hundred years and still retains its quality if kept properly, which is more than I can say than a movie being kept on a hard-drive or SD card). These days a company can push out a thousand cheap digital films that look awful and have almost no story at all, and they still get noticed more than movies on film do because digital is mainstream.
2) The amount of nudity, sex, gore, crude humor and swearing in many films today is way beyond offensive and not necessary or funny at all. I love horror films and slasher films, all of which have these things in them and it can't be avoided, but I can put up with it and still enjoy the film. But when it's overused to the point where it clouds over everything else and just becomes repetitive and annoying, then it just becomes a waste of time to watch.
3) Remakes are getting on my nerves. I liked the remakes of The Fly and Village of the Damned, but remakes have reached a point now where it's getting extremely difficult to find a good film to watch that has any originality at all. My Bloody Valentine, Carrie, Friday the 13th, Last House on the Left, Ringu, Nightmare on Elm Street, Black Christmas, The Bad Seed, Prom Night... the list just goes on and on, and that's in horror films alone. Some films are good as they are, they don't need to be remade at all. There are so many good ideas out there that aren't even getting noticed because producers are too busy arguing over which films should be remade, it's completely crazy. Also, it isn't very often anymore that a remake shows any respect for the original film it was based on, which is just sad. :(
4) Overuse of CGI and 3D technology. I like 3D films, and sometimes CGI has its place. But almost every film today is in 3D and it doesn't look right in many films. It looks choppy, fake and overly-cheap, as does CGI in many cases.
5)Soundtrack. I don't want to sound like a little old lady or something, but I'll take the soundtrack from original horror films over the cheap electronic noises in films today, any time.
There are several other reasons I could list off, but long-story-short, my opinion is that old school films are far better than films today. Sure, I've found some good films from over the year 2000, like Sinister and One-Hour Photo, but I just can't appreciate a film if it looks like a video game or like it was recorded on a digital camcorder. It just looks like a tech vice and like no effort was put into it more often than not.
"The 21st century is all flash but no substance." ~ Smog City
reply
share
siukong
9 years ago
I'll start off by saying that at times here I'll be playing devil's advocate. I don't necessarily disagree with all your points ... in fact, on many points I agree pretty strongly with you.
1. Aesthetic concerns aside (since these are largely a matter of opinion and are still being debated in the industry), I think the democratization of the medium provided by digital is a good thing. Yes, it will tend to result in a good amount of low quality work, but Sturgeon's Law will still hold true. Increasing the output of the industry by allowing easier/cheaper access to a broader pool of creative people leads to more of the really good stuff as well as the bad. It seems in hindsight we tend to forget that there were plenty of duds in cinema's past. For the most part only the best stuff gets remembered (and rightly so).
As for degradation, any medium will have its vulnerabilities. Like it or not, film does decay too, and the "if kept properly" qualifier can be a big one. I'm no film restoration expert, but I would imagine storage and preservation costs are much higher for film than for digital. Innumerable films have been partially or totally lost. That may end up being the case for digital 4 or 5 decades from now. Currently I wouldn't put one above the other if we're strictly considering preservation and degradation.
2. Yes, plenty of modern films go over the line. But I personally prefer that to the stifling censorship of the Hays Code years, and the general prudishness and excessive moral outrage in society in decades past. Is it a coincidence that the time period when that started to change in the late 60s and on into the 70s is what many people celebrate as a 'golden age' (or "aesthetic apex" as in the post below) of film? There is a place in the art form for crudity, sexuality, raunchiness, extreme violence, etc. Having the freedom for all of that will inevitably lead to some people overdoing it - especially in a genre like horror where things like pushing the boundaries of style and taste are more heavily valued - but on the whole I'd say it's a good thing. If such things bother someone, it's usually pretty easy to tell which films will take that path and avoid them.
3. While there are probably more remakes being made now than ever, it still isn't a new phenomenon, both in film and in more general storytelling terms. (as an aside, I find it ironic that this has come up on the board of a movie that is itself an adaptation of a retelling of a medieval Swedish legend) Not getting into the larger discussion of the history of cultural appropriation, the idea of remaking something is not in itself a bad thing. Often, the remake will be of a foreign film that domestic audiences largely haven't heard of. Other times, it will bring attention back to an older work that may have fallen out of the cultural consciousness, especially for the younger generation that wasn't around for the original. In an ideal world, the original works would still be cherished and loved the same way as the years pass without some people needing these 'reminders'. Unfortunately, that's not how we humans work.
If a remake is made for creative reasons - in other words, because of the strength of the original story - then it can succeed. Sometimes there's just something that grabs people and will keep bringing them back to the same story told with a few tweaks. Sometimes the original is great but is in some way dated and can benefit from an update. Where many remakes (and sequels) seem to go wrong is that they fall into the trap of creative laziness. They tell themselves: "Hey, the original earned oodles of money and/or praise, so why put much work into a reworking of it?" They may really only be made to further milk the cash cow of the original, and usually that's very apparent in the final product. It will seem hollow and soulless.
4. As you say, CGI has its place. It can be incredibly liberating and let you tell stories and show things in ways that would otherwise be impossible, or at least very difficult. It can also be (but usually isn't) incorporated very subtly to add to atmosphere or to change background details. I would say it's best used as just another tool in the toolbox, in tandem with all the other visual, special and practical effects that can be used. Too often lately it seems to have been overused to the point of being a crutch, and as you say it has become too obvious and thus fake-looking.
5. This seems to be another matter of opinion. I've heard great soundtracks and scores from all eras, and clunkers too. If you're only referring to horror films here, I can't recall offhand any memorable recent ones, good or bad. I can say after watching it that the music in LHOTL was pretty bad - distracting, inappropriate in tone, and cheesy.
At the end of the day, you're entitled to your opinion of old vs new. However, I'd say you're doing yourself a disservice if you sincerely use terms like "never" and "just meaningless".
reply
share
gasmaskproductionsbooks
9 years ago
Actually film is cheaper to archive than digital, which I was very surprised by, but that could change as time goes on. I agree with you on some of your points, and my own points are based mostly on my own opinions so there's no one right answer as far as the aesthetic of film vs. digital goes; I honestly think that it depends more on the story or message a film is trying to convey which medium it uses for recording as well. For example, a film from 2012 called Moonrise Kingdom used 16mm film because it takes place in the 1960's and wanted to evoke nostalgia with the bright colors and the film grain, but the Disney film Frozen used CGI to create many of its glittering ice effects and digital animation for the characters. Unfortunately only very popular directors or huge companies can afford film these days too, so most indie filmmakers are automatically going with digital, not because film is better or worse, but because digital is what's cheaper and what's available. Kodak still sells film, I always place a new order for super 8 film and photographic film every month, but it's expensive and every year the prices are getting higher and the variety of films is changing. When my dad was a kid in the 70's, a cartridge (3 min.) of home movie color reversal film could be bought at the corner drugstore in one of Nova Scotia's small towns for $4.00 Canadian. Now in 2015, I can't buy super 8 film in Canada. I can buy it from Kodak in the States, but they no longer sell color reversal movie film so to get reversal film (it's the only type that will play on my projector), I have to order it in from Germany's Agfa company, which costs $50.00 plus the shipping, for one 3-minute cartridge of film. When a digital file is near-free and cameras are getting cheaper every day, it's perfectly understandable that indie filmmakers would want to go digital. Sadly though I think that film is a dying art, and I think in the next couple of decades it might reach a point where it could disappear altogether, except maybe for archiving. I think it looks great when film and digital are used together. In the 2012 film Sinister, a man finds super 8 snuff reels in his attic, and they used real film to record on. But the film incorporates vague uses of CGI as well that actually look pretty impressive for a horror film. Movies like Harry Potter incorporated CGI onto film very well, too.
"The 21st century is all flash but no substance." ~ Smog City
reply
share
siukong
9 years ago
I see where you're coming from. I myself have an old super 8 camera that was my uncle's, which I've always wanted to play around with but never have. As you say, the difficulty and cost of getting film/developing is becoming more and more of a barrier.
I agree that it's a shame that it seems to be a dying medium in relation to digital. I'm glad there are still people like you so passionate about it.
reply
share
gasmaskproductionsbooks
9 years ago
I hope it continues to remain an option for filmmakers to use real film. I think digital has come such a long way now that it won't be long before film disappears from the big screen forever sadly, but I hope film remains out there at least as an artistic medium for people to record on. :)
"The 21st century is all flash but no substance." ~ Smog City
reply
share