My Issue With Modern Movies

[Jason]

I think most of us agree that movies were generally better 20+ years ago than they are today. There's always been some element in movies today that doesn't sit well with me, but I could never really pinpoint the exact issue I have with them. Until just now as I'm watching Spectre.

Marathoning over 50 years worth of movies in one franchise within just a few weeks helped me pinpoint the issue I have with modern movies... They're too "cinematic". About 30 minutes into Spectre there is a scene of pure dialogue where Bond and Moneypenny are having a pretty generic discussion. They are walking together in public during broad daylight having a basic conversation... and there is a 90-man orchestra performing background music. This makes no sense, to me. Why not birds chirping and the chattering of people in public? Less is more, and I can't fathom why there is an orchestra playing dramatic background music for a basic dialogue scene that only lasted like 40 seconds. I absolutely appreciate a good orchestra, but there is a time and place for it. It's created as though every human who watches movies has an attention deficit disorder and can't pay attention unless there is some sort of action or dramatic music playing, and it ultimately waters down the movie when actual drama finally occurs. It seems like Hollywood is filled with a bunch of tryhards nowadays. And it's not to say movies like this aren't still good, or even great, but when compared to the way movies were made in the past, it feels like modern movies are puffing their chest and cranking up the drama and theatrics in parts where it isn't even remotely necessary and it waters down the movie overall when it's at a constant like it is. Just my thoughts. Anybody else get what I'm talking about?

[DancesWithWerewolves]

"It's created as though every human who watches movies has an attention deficit disorder and can't pay attention unless there is some sort of action or dramatic music playing"

Dead on, if you swap "human" with "teen". The bulk of movies are made for teens these days, and teens are retarded like this. They've done the homework where if there is a scene like you describe with simply birds chirping, the little assholes are checking their phones.

[Tiggnutz]

Movies from the 30's thru the 50's have nothing but loud orchestrational pieces playing the whole time. I just rewatched African Queen and I was thinking the same thing what's with all of this pointless orchestra shit.

[Headhunter]

Late 60s-early 70s movies make every small moment feel significant.

[Jason]

Movies from the 30's thru the 50's have nothing but loud orchestrational pieces playing the whole time. I just rewatched African Queen and I was thinking the same thing what's with all of this pointless orchestra shit.

Movies in that era were loaded with emotion, for sure. I can understand an orchestra for a big emotional scene or even a scene of dialogue that is setting the audience up for the very next scene, but not when it's just a basic "Sup bro? sup?" conversation. This occurs today.

My favorite scene in movie history is probably in the movie Dial M for Murder (1954). There is a 15 minute conversation of absolutely nothing but dialogue between two characters, with no music until the very end of an extremely detailed conversation which sets the tone for the entire movie. No music necessary. If there had been an orchestra for that scene, it would have severely watered down the intensity of the whole rest of the movie. Less is more. If there's a scene where the dude's gotta break up with his special ladyfriend or whatever, yeah, break out the violins for that scene, I don't care. Just don't use the orchestra in every. single. fucking. scene.

By the way, check out Dial M for Murder if anyone hasn't seen it. Probably my 2nd favorite movie of all time.

[Foo]

I am not disagreeing, but when we consider movies by era, we have to consider selection bias and attrition.

For instance, none of us were adults in the 60s and 70s. We did not experience the entirety of cinema. Instead we view it through a filter. The best of that era survived and we view based on the opinions of others. Pick any year in that 20' year span and you are likely to have watched a very small percentage of what actually existed at that time and people thought enough of to preserve, transfer to new media, talk about years later, etc.

How many shitty knockoffs of Psycho and Night of the Living Dead came and went that are completely off our radar? Now imagine how many dramas, comedy, action movies etc that are lost because they did not feature stars, are no longer topical, and there is zero interest in preserving. It probably numbers thousands in each decade.

[Foo]

There is also just a change in the way we consume entertainment. We largely go to movies for spectacles and stay home and watch tv/Netflix for character/dialogue driven entertainment.

At any time, 25% of the screens have to be filled with movies based on selling toys and shit. A big reason we will never see a significant gap between spider-man movies is because the merchandising of that character is so good.

[showa58taro]

This seems a very odd gripe. Certainly depends on the film you're talking about and its style.

[Foo]

This seems a very odd gripe. Certainly depends on the film you're talking about and its style.

He does bring up a point in bringing up an old Bond movie, which you can see that same character and similar stories with him presented today in a much different way.

Star Trek, Batman, Sherlock Holmes, The Mummy, Dracula, etc. One can cite numerous instances where dialogue and story are sacrificed for action.

[showa58taro]

This seems a very odd gripe. Certainly depends on the film you're talking about and its style.

He does bring up a point in bringing up an old Bond movie, which you can see that same character and similar stories with him presented today in a much different way.

Star Trek, Batman, Sherlock Holmes, The Mummy, Dracula, etc. One can cite numerous instances where dialogue and story are sacrificed for action.

All depends on the era and film. I mean, sure, Nimoy and Shatner had some calmer dialogue, but it was hardly "natural dialogue" or anything. It felt decidedly stilted. Lots of old films, the dialogue is terrible to the ear. Nothing natural about it.

But there is a stylistic change, to be sure, though I'm not convinced that it is a universalizable trent. The action in Bond has gotten way better. The dialogue has probably changed, but it was hardly Shakespeare before.

[Foo]

This seems a very odd gripe. Certainly depends on the film you're talking about and its style.

He does bring up a point in bringing up an old Bond movie, which you can see that same character and similar stories with him presented today in a much different way.

Star Trek, Batman, Sherlock Holmes, The Mummy, Dracula, etc. One can cite numerous instances where dialogue and story are sacrificed for action.

All depends on the era and film. I mean, sure, Nimoy and Shatner had some calmer dialogue, but it was hardly "natural dialogue" or anything. It felt decidedly stilted. Lots of old films, the dialogue is terrible to the ear. Nothing natural about it.

But there is a stylistic change, to be sure, though I'm not convinced that it is a universalizable trent. The action in Bond has gotten way better. The dialogue has probably changed, but it was hardly Shakespeare before.

Their dialogue was perfectly executed. Nimoy and Shatner sounded exactly like conversations between human and half-Vulcans will sound in 250 years.

[showa58taro]

This seems a very odd gripe. Certainly depends on the film you're talking about and its style.

He does bring up a point in bringing up an old Bond movie, which you can see that same character and similar stories with him presented today in a much different way.

Star Trek, Batman, Sherlock Holmes, The Mummy, Dracula, etc. One can cite numerous instances where dialogue and story are sacrificed for action.

All depends on the era and film. I mean, sure, Nimoy and Shatner had some calmer dialogue, but it was hardly "natural dialogue" or anything. It felt decidedly stilted. Lots of old films, the dialogue is terrible to the ear. Nothing natural about it.

But there is a stylistic change, to be sure, though I'm not convinced that it is a universalizable trent. The action in Bond has gotten way better. The dialogue has probably changed, but it was hardly Shakespeare before.

Their dialogue was perfectly executed. Nimoy and Shatner sounded exactly like conversations between human and half-Vulcans will sound in 250 years.

Can't argue with that.

[Reign in Blood]

Things definitely cater more to ADD nowadays, but we also now diagnose that shit on whim so it makes sense.

[Foo]

Things definitely cater more to ADD nowadays, but we also now diagnose that shit on whim so it makes sense.

I feel like it is just a general boiling down of entertainment. I feel like pro wrestling has always mirrored society and shows us what is happening in a nutshell.

Gone are the days of gritty realism, dialogue, and storytelling. In are high production values, loud music, catch phrases, and spamming of signature moves.

Shit, the superhero movies now do action sequences before they even have a final script.

[showa58taro]

The Mummy was the epitome of one thing. The global market movie. Dialogue and exposition for people who don't speak the language.