What makes the oldies work, imho.

[hracctsold]

I was just watching one of my favorite oldies, Forbidden Planet, and saw the scene where the monster was walking toward the ship and was invisible. Since it was done in the '50's, they had to rely on something that seems to be missing in most pictures today. They let the audience imagine what was going on when the foot prints appeared in the dirt by themselves.<br /><br />I think the audience can at times visualize the scene better then just seeing it played out. I still remember what I read about Phyco, (that Great Hitchcock movie however you spell it), and the shower scene. It is said that there were some people that came out of the show claiming to have seen red blood in that B/W movie. Now that is imagination!!!!! Even with all the later movies that came years after that, that was still one of the scary-est movies around. You know the movie, about the Bates Motel and Norman and not harming that fly.

 

[jmilsom]

I understand and agree with your sentiments.<br /><br />I do not know when Hollywood decided that the audience was stupid and needed explanations to get through films. I suspect there were three factors:<br /><br />1. The 'man suffers, the world is unjust, he takes justice into his owns hands and saves the day' mentality, which has dominated US film since the early 70s. This has so dominated US film that creativity has been squeezed out in the process (generally speaking of course, there have been some brilliant films, but they are generally not blockbusters)<br />2. The trend of special effects becoming more important than intelligent story line (and of course, special effects leaving less to the imagination - invisible monsters these days is usually a visible force line so the audience can see it)<br />3. Or the fact that blockbuster films are commercially targetted at a much younger audiences nowadays.<br /><br />Psycho is a classic. There is no overt gore in it. The audiences emotions are a medium upon which a symphony of suspense is played. Later generation movies of this genre I find boring. The plot is usually: Group of people, each one killed in a different way (Yawn), last one or two get the bad guy and get out alive (ZZZZZ). <br /><br />Maybe I'm just getting old fashioned. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[hracctsold]

I liked your analysis of the problem,and thought of these things as well in agreement. <br />1. Just because there is the ability to do advanced F/X, does not mean they have to overdose the show on it.<br />2. There does seem to be a dumbing down of people today that has been around for a while. I have seen it in politics, entertainment, and many areas of life.<br />3. As for the fact that the younger people have to be told what is funny or what is scary is probably due to being babysitted by the TV and not having to think at all. When I was a kid, (back in the stone ages), I was priveleged to get to use my imagination when I read or played games.<br /><br />And I wholeheartedly agree with your parting statement, "Maybe I'm just getting old fashioned." That description you gave of the present horror shows, for example, just about explains most of them today. And it even seemed to describe that old show, Night of the Living Dead.

 

[luciusverus]

Well said.........<br /><br />Nice post.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[JonClarke]

Grrat points. I think there is also poverty of imagination. When the same story gets remade not once but twice there is something wrong in the state of Denmark. There is a new film about some monkey or other than is just come out that illustrates this nicely. <br /><br />When a existing story is adapted to film there is also this trend to overstate rather than understate. Not a new thing of course, the early adaptation of King Solomon's Mines had a totally superfluous blonde and an unnecessary volcano thrown in. But it has got worse since Indiana Jones where unless there are constant spectacular chases, cliff hangers and other suspense the film is judged boring. LOTR, HP all suffer from this.<br /><br />One of the greatest war films is "The cruel sea". Very little action, B&W, no sex, just quality acting, gritty but not over done realism, and a stellar plot that sums up the brutality and boredom of the battle of the Atlantic. The wonderful line about dying with the minimum inconvienence to anybody, the scene where survivors are depth charged and the conversation at Gilbraltar between the skipper and other survivors arwe pure gold. It would be very difficult to make a film this way today. The audience would demand constant action, sex, the whole shebang.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

One of the problems is that at some point Hollywood collectively decided that except in very rare cases, people over 30 are washed up. This is especially true for writers and directors -- especially writers. There is a very strong and quite illogical prejudice against older writers. The reasoning is that young writers are fresh and innovative, while old writers are boring, out of touch, and not any good. The irony of course is that the reverse is usually true -- compounded by the fact that only the older writers have developed the expertise to really make their innovative ideas shine.<br /><br />They've also tended to forget that innovations, fancy effects, talented actors, and daring subject matter are utterly meaningless if the story sucks. The most important thing to do is to tell a good story. But they've gotten so caught up in being "daring" and "pushing the envelope" that they've come to believe the story is secondary. That if you have interesting enough elements, the story will follow naturally. But it doesn't.<br /><br />They also notice that books/movies/plays/etc where somebody breaks the unwritten rules of writing tend to get remembered. What they forget is why. They think the stories are good *because* the rules were broken. But the reality is that the rules could only be broken because the story was so good.<br /><br />BTW, the motif of single person saving the world against impossible odds is neither new, nor a strictly American phenomenon. It's enjoyed a resurgence of popularity thanks to the rise of individualism in the latter part of the 20th Century, but it's an ancient archetype. It goes all the way back to myth and legend. However, this gives it a singular weakness -- because it comes up so frequently, the novelty is long since worn off and people will recognize how implausible it is. That means it's actually harder to write a really exceptional story along those lines. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Very nicely said! Washed up and over 30, that's me.....<br /><br />A cliche is an interesting idea, even a truth, that has been done to death.<br /><br />I find it interesting that most of the best SF film in the last 30 years has not been stereotypical space adventures - for example Gattacca, Blade Runner, Minority Report, Frequency. Stories driven by ideas that have been different, disturbing, and challenging, stories where while the individual is important, their significance or achievement only happens as part of a larger community, films where there are interesting characters that develop and change in interesting ways.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[mattblack]

I LOVE "Forbidden Planet"!! I wish they'd remaster it properly and re-release it on DVD again, with lots of special features like documentaries, commentary and interviews with Leslie Neilson, Anne Francis, Richard Anderson and Earl Holliman. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

I think you would like Dark City, seems to meet all your criteria.<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Tell me more! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Gene Siskel says it is one of the best sci-fi movies ever.<br /><br />I was mesmerized. <br /><br />Movie starts and it doesn't seem to even be a sci-fi movie, but just wait till it warms up.<br /><br />I won't give away too much more except there is a major 'aha!' moment 2/3 of the way through that will definitely knock you out of your chair.<br /><br />You will be amazed by what a good flick it is, and even more amazed at how few folks have seen it.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[jmilsom]

Over the last two nights I watched the matrix trilogy again. I was keen to look again, why I liked the first so much and why I felt a little let down in the second and especially the third.<br /><br />The reason is really the same as for the Star Wars movies and no doubt reflects this trend we have been discussing on Special Effects and Blockbuster Action killing creativity.<br /><br />The first film was great because it was a novel concept, that worked with limited special effects and made a lot out of a little. Audience imagination was required.<br /><br />The second film had much more action and dwelt at length on chase scenes, fights and special effects. In fact leading up to the film all the reviews just talked about the "big chase scene" on the highway. The third film has next to no story or contents, but is just an action special effects extravaganza to milk the concept of "The Matrix" for all it is worth.<br /><br />We've dsicussed the differences enough on the Star Wars Films as to why The first (noIV) is so good and the fourth (noI) so crap.<br /><br />I also recently saw an interview with Peter Jackson on the Making of "The Return of the King" and how the Legolas surfing scene came into being. It was all Peter Jackson. He wanted to woo the audience with this scene and directed an incredible amount of creative staff time into this one scene, which to LOTR purists was complete anathema. <br /><br />When are film-makers going to realise that leaving a little bit of good characterisation and plot in movies will make audiences happy? (Or will they? -he thinks as he looks out upon a billion faces eating hamburgers, coke, and frazzling their intellect before cable TV screens!) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jmilsom]

I've still some more to add to hraccts thread on "What makes the oldies work."<br /><br />Just watched Star Wars IV (the original) followed by Star Wars II (attack of clones) - (I am in a remote place and find it difficult to get hold of any films). I was trying to put a finger on the differences. Why IV is so good, and II comparatively dull. <br /><br />A few points I noted:<br /><br />IV: Actors / Characters were exciting and believable. There was lots of character interplay and character development. The camaraderie between Han Solo and Luke SW was interesting.<br /><br />II: Charactersiations were really dull. Little scope for interaction and character development. Scenes where they are talking to computer generated creatures are contrived and dull. That guy who plays the future Darth Vader is atrocious!!!!<br /><br />IV: You really felt like you were on another planet. Meticulous attention was given to props, costumes and SOUNDS, giving an overall feel of wonder and difference.<br /><br />II: More like watching the muppet show. The computer generated creatures were less tangible and believable. Sounds have far less variation. The backgrounds are obviously pictures and it is more like looking at a computer game.<br /><br />IV: Because of character interaction the humour was more subtle and warming.<br /><br />II: Lots of throw away one liners like in a Shwarzenegger movie. i.e. Young Annikin jumps of the flyer , and Obiwan says "I hate it when he does that." Ho Ho Ho. R2D2 is dragging C3P0's head in the arena and C3P0 says "Oh. This is such a drag." Ho Ho Ho.<br /><br />Again, a lot of this is due to the domination of special effects and action over story line. Too much of the former and not enough time left over for the latter. There were some great special effects in number II and I think the film picks up in the asteroid chase scene - but we, the audience, need stories too, we need more character interaction.<br /><br />It is like all the thought and creativity goes into the sp <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

As a professional illustrator and graphic artist I have always maintained that real art is more about what you choose to leave out rather than what you capable of including.<br /><br />Or to put it another way in the old days entertainers followed the old vaudeville advice of "Always leave 'em wanting more."

 

[hracctsold]

Odell,<br /><br />Yes, the book, "Hunt for Red October" was really a page turner for a fact. It kept you there until the very last page. Another book that did that was "Sphere" by Chricton, where many others here have already heard that from me.<br /><br />I have had a great love affair with books my whole life. My father was a caretaker for a Boy Scout camp for a while, and he always said if he wanted to find my brother look at the swimming pond, and to find me, look under a tree with a good book in hand.<br /><br />I really do think that people who don't know how to use or enjoy their imagination are really deprived in life. And now that I am older, I am again enjoying books I read as a kid, and finding out about them all over again. My latest one I am looking at, when possible, is titled "Calisto", the "true" adventures of a man stranded on one of the moons of Jupitor, (I think). It was written by Lin Carter, and is by no means a "hard" sci-fi, but it fits the bill for my escape-ist desires. I am graduating college with a double major in accounting and business admin., starting my tax service, and keeping busy with my church and other things. That is why I like that kind of reading material. Henry

 

[hracctsold]

odell,<br /><br />3 counties??? I do hope they are legal. I kept using my old libarary card, until they asked for my new address because someone had already moved into my old apartment. Well, so much for that.<br /><br />I thought "Congo" was a much better movie then a book. I had read the book already when we were vacationing on Mackinaw Island here in Michigan, and the movie came on. The book was somewhat dark in nature, but the character "Amy" was what made the movie good, I think, as well as the female lead. In the book she seemed to be less caring or otherwise minded then the lead was in the movie.<br /><br />There is something about Crichton's books and movies. The books I found had a "dark" side to them, and were different from the movie characters. For example, Hammond died thinking a dinosaur was after him when the kids had found a sound effects speaker and were playing with it. This difference is fine because it causes and helps further the movie direction from the book, where both are just fine as they are. The future of the archelogists,(sp), were uncertain in the book as well, and I thought the book ended well.<br /><br />I was excited when I found that the movie "Timeline" was modeled after the book, and did not really mind that they changed the days back in time to hours, because of the time allowed for the movie. As movies go, it was not a bad mix either. But what I did not like was the cussing of every other word or so in the book. I like to have some books on tape as well, but could not make my self keep Timeline on tape because of it.<br /><br />Have you read the "Train Robbers", or the one about the medical story about the people who went crazy or something of that nature? <br /><br />P.S. I have found it indeed strange where the shipping charge is in dollars, and the books are in pennies. But I do know what you mean about those books. I am aways looking for a good deal about what I call "fluff" books, (books for fun reading, and not study or serious con

 

[rogers_buck]

Perhaps with the advent of comodity computing platforms and digital media producers that can take a chance to tell a story vs. plugging and chugging the formula to maximize ROI will once again return.<br />

 

[hracctsold]

hey Rogers,<br /><br />It took me two to three times to read your "techno" babble, but I think I finally got your point. But that is alright, because I need to increase my own vocab anyway. And you say you don't have the time to really write your novel? <br />With a wit and vocab like that, at least you won't be at a loss for words.