Its a trend....

[scouse mac]

So filmmaker2
You applying for the role in the new Godzilla movie? The one with a budget of $127 and a need to bring your own packed lunch.

[filmmaker2]

No, but the squirrel in the picture wants the job. He figures, well, the smaller the suit, the less they'll have to spend on the suit.

[newb]

Perhaps i shall make a go at a serious answer.

There were great movies "back in the day" and there were shitty ones.Same holds true today.The differance being there are tons more movies being shit out than ever before. As far as doing it for the money....well duh!....i go to work everyday,not because i like to....i do it for the money.A mans got to eat....and drink beer. So i guess my answer is...............what was the question again?

[newb]

Originally posted by Zero
Its funny - the whole debate about whether the horror films are better now or then seems off the point. What seems interesting to me is that some of these films - no matter how "good" or "crap" made an impression on the audience. Case in point - the first American horror film, Dracula (1931) is, for all effect and purposes, crap - stagy, bad sets, all the action takes place off screen, etc. BUT, people in 1931 were blown away by it. I think the big problem with the internet and most of the books out there about horror is they either celebrate everything or condemn everything without really trying to think about why some of these films become so humongously popular. I mean, why Michael? why did those of us growing up in the late 70s suddenly get totally blown away by Halloween? Why did it spawn like a billion imitators? So I agree with the main point of this post - picking holes in any film or period of film is easy - the more interesting question is to think about why? Either why the film matters to you - or - why it matters to the broader culture.

I agree with this.....as far as the "broader culture"...you can keep that shit...any culture that makes stars out of the likes of Paris Hilton or embraces "reality TV" can kiss my ass.

[novakru]

Originally posted by newb
Perhaps i shall make a go at a serious answer.

There were great movies "back in the day" and there were shitty ones.Same holds true today.The differance being there are tons more movies being shit out than ever before. As far as doing it for the money....well duh!....i go to work everyday,not because i like to....i do it for the money.A mans got to eat....and drink beer. So i guess my answer is...............what was the question again?

Reread this entire thread and you will understand why I am having trouble following all this.
Your comment-'what was the question again' is exactly where I'm at right now.:D

[Zero]

Originally posted by newb
I agree with this.....as far as the "broader culture"...you can keep that shit...any culture that makes stars out of the likes of Paris Hilton or embraces "reality TV" can kiss my ass.

I'd rather kiss Paris Hilton's ass - even if I had to do it on reality TV.

[filmmaker2]

I stand by my answer that I believe everything new is bad because I am older and grumpier than the rest of y'all. In other words, I know I am full of it, and I know why, but I don't care, and I will dig in my heels to protect my ignorance.

[ItsAlive75]

I think everything that's new sucks because I want to be trendy and I love going with the crowd. Even if I haven't seen the movie I'll say the original is better, and that its a tragedy that someone even THOUGHT about redoing it. Then when people agree, I'll feel like I've accomplished something.

[The STE]

Originally posted by SKOOFx
cause 98% of us cant do better...so who are we to judge?

We're the audience. If ANYONE should judge, it's us.


Though I do agree with your main point about how trendy it is to bash modern movies.

[The_Return]

Originally posted by Zero
the first American horror film, Dracula (1931) is, for all effect and purposes, crap - stagy, bad sets, all the action takes place off screen, etc.

Ok man, that's my cue.


Dracula, 1931 version, is an anazing film. Lets start with these "bad sets", shall we? From the opening shot of the Transylvanian mountains, to the final shot, John and Mina walking up the stairs of Carfax Abbey, they sets are beautiful. Dracula's castle was filled to the turrets with atmosphere, the cobwebs were a great touch. The shots of London, or anywhere for that matter, in the fog are breathtaking. Carfax Abbey's beautiful staircase, and it's sprawling subteranean lair is equally so. Sure, the interiors of the houses might be a tad boring....but aren't most houses?

All the action takes place off screen. All that much better as far as Im concerned. My major beef with most modern day horror movies is they have to show us everything; typical filmmgoers are too dumb to imagine anything for themselves. Not saying that I dont enjoy a nice shot a violence and gore, but Id much rather have something happen offscreen where my imagination can reun wild. Personally, I think this is why audiences were more easily scared back in the day of Universal classics. Movies hadnt dumbed down the population yet, most people still read, still stimulated their minds. Imagination still thrived!

Back to Dracula. The scene in the parlour between Von Helsing and the Count. Without question the pinnacle in the career of two very talented actors, one of which had a long and ilustrious careerin the horror industry. The performances from all were great, but Lugosi's Dracula will forever be the greatest interpretation of the role. There will never be a better Renfield either, Frye as his greatest lunatic. Van Sloan gave an incredible performance as Von Helsing, that should without question be known as one of the best of all time.

Basically, your decision of using Dracula as an example exposes many of the flaws of the modern day horror "fan". The Need to be shown everything, the utter lack of imagination. And, in my own personal opinion, lack of taste [Ok, maybe thats a bit too far;)]

Ok, Im tired...long enough rant for now. Dracula's defender must rest.