Classic Films aging badly
- Thread starter xipotec
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
This is a good one. Forces one to be honest and think critically.
Off the top of my head, the big one for me would be... Batman '89... it is far from being the "dark" film it was once pretending to be. Its silly. Has a lots of sketch comedy. Is really poorly directed. And has only two fights and very little action. Despite its lighting, its pretty campy. And yes, I find cringe moments in it.
There are movies that I liked in their time that I have left far behind, just can't remember them. So most movies that go back which we collect now have lasted because they were ahead of their time and stay fresh, like Raiders, Die Hard, Alien and Matrix -- the pace, camera work, lighting, everything seems to keep it feeling modern even when its 20-40 years old. But Batman '89 was not a traditionally "well made film" even in its day.
I don't think anyone would be shocked to hear me also add Return of the Jedi. We've talked at length about its problems.
I'm growing tired of Terminator 2 also. For me, it no longer holds my attention. But I don't think I can say that it has aged badly. Perhaps I have.
Off the top of my head, the big one for me would be... Batman '89... it is far from being the "dark" film it was once pretending to be. Its silly. Has a lots of sketch comedy. Is really poorly directed. And has only two fights and very little action. Despite its lighting, its pretty campy. And yes, I find cringe moments in it.
There are movies that I liked in their time that I have left far behind, just can't remember them. So most movies that go back which we collect now have lasted because they were ahead of their time and stay fresh, like Raiders, Die Hard, Alien and Matrix -- the pace, camera work, lighting, everything seems to keep it feeling modern even when its 20-40 years old. But Batman '89 was not a traditionally "well made film" even in its day.
I don't think anyone would be shocked to hear me also add Return of the Jedi. We've talked at length about its problems.
I'm growing tired of Terminator 2 also. For me, it no longer holds my attention. But I don't think I can say that it has aged badly. Perhaps I have.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2013
- Messages
- 10,918
- Reaction score
- 4,798
Agreed, I can't get through it. Loved it when I was... 16 was it?
The next one for me is Return of the Jedi. I can't sit through it anymore.
Yep, was adding that as you responded.
I keep trying to critical-think my favs. It is hard because many have already been removed from my interest. Like Rambo.
Then there's films that just keep getting better. Like The Thing.
I keep trying to critical-think my favs. It is hard because many have already been removed from my interest. Like Rambo.
Then there's films that just keep getting better. Like The Thing.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2013
- Messages
- 6,483
- Reaction score
- 102
Really interesting topic. If I really think about it, I would say Gremlins hasn't held up as much as I like. It's incredibly slow moving just to get to just a decent ending with Spike.
I finally opened the 4K disc of The Matrix that I purchased quite a few months ago and gave it a spin last night. First time I've watched the film in probably a decade or so (not that I deliberately avoided it, I'm just shocked at how quickly time passes.)
WOW was I blown away all over again. First off the 4K Dolby Vision transfer is as good to my eye as any modern release and yes I'm including things like Dunkirk. It literally looked like a 2020 or 2021 release (or better, lol.) I was pretty enamored with The Matrix back in the day, I thought it totally stole TPM's thunder (which it did) and now I remember why all over again. It's a shockingly good combination of style and story. Like you said everything from the pacing to the cinematography to the timeless story tropes and the action was just as white-knuckle as it was 20 years ago. I could even see a "new" sci-fi thriller being set in the future and having the AI use 1999 as its setting for a virtual world at the "peak of human society." They certainly wouldn't choose this time period we're in as the peak, lol.
It was so ahead of its time in ways the filmmakers couldn't even have envisioned. And it's open ended but in a way that doesn't need any sequels (thank God.)
Just a brilliant all around film. Ever since the LOTR came out I ranked them higher than The Matrix but after revisiting FOTR and TTT on 4K a few weeks back as well I was saddened to realize that they were a bit of a chore to revisit, even as well made as the were. In fact I still haven't even watched ROTK on disc yet. But I'm kind of already wanting to go another round in The Matrix.
I'll ditto T2, though I admit I've always been bigger on T1. The areas in which it's aged the most are the score and performances, namely Furlong's.
Prime Clone
Super Freak
Harryhausen's stop-motion FX?
The hairstyles and fashions in pretty much any movie from the '70s to the '90s?
Also, in a similar vein: https://www.sideshowcollectors.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231145
The hairstyles and fashions in pretty much any movie from the '70s to the '90s?
Also, in a similar vein: https://www.sideshowcollectors.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231145
Yeah, Matrix really got sabotaged by its sequels and its kooky creators. Just instantly became... uncool. Which is unfortunate because the first movie is just so epic. Its what action/adventure filmmaking is all about. Plus, it had a surprisingly in-depth concept.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2013
- Messages
- 10,918
- Reaction score
- 4,798
I disavow any subsequent films but will accept the Reloaded costumes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Prime Clone
Super Freak
Reloaded is my fave of the three, followed by the original then Revolutions.
Like Lucas, the Wachowskis did it their way regardless of expectations.
On the flipside of this thread's theme, I've found Star Trek I and V have actually gotten better with age, for me. Among the other odd-numbered entries I always liked III and VII, IX not so much.
Like Lucas, the Wachowskis did it their way regardless of expectations.
On the flipside of this thread's theme, I've found Star Trek I and V have actually gotten better with age, for me. Among the other odd-numbered entries I always liked III and VII, IX not so much.
wamphyri13
Super Freak
Batman was on a marathon over the weekend. I'll add Batman Returns to your list. (Not counting B&R or BF because they didn't age well 10 mins into their premiers) The whole Catwoman storyline was just old school camp and very hokey. Selina Kyle was a catburgler, not a supernatural reincarnated cat woman. The performance was just silly. Not knocking Pfeiffer, she worked with what they gave her, but today, it just seems goofy. Penguin was just a little better in that he seemed grittier than what we were used to. (Burgess Meredith) Christopher Walken was Christopher Walken, which is part of his charm. No matter what character he plays, they could all almost be the same person from film to film.
I loved Batman when it premiered. It was 180 degrees off of Adam West. Jack Nicholson didn't really make Joker his own. It was a fun show, but he really just seemed a slightly toned down version of Caesar Romero. I still enjoy aspects of all the first four Batman movies, but like you pointed out, they just haven't aged well.
Bo Shrek
Super Freak
There are shows that are old but I feel capture their time like the first 6 Friday the 13th Movies. I enjoy them because they allow me to escape to that time. Other might have been too ambitious for their time and become too dated upon rewatch like Hellraiser. Other are timeless like Ghostbusters (minus a few terror dog effects). I don't mind 89 or Returns Batman if I want a hit of cheese fun flicks. If I want something serious then we have other Batman movies to watch.
People can't seem to remove their experience from a film (nostalgia) to actually critique that film on its merits. It really is two different things.
A lot of dreck movies transport me back to a time just like some good movies.
A lot of dreck movies transport me back to a time just like some good movies.
T2 has been named so I suppose it's only a matter of time before someone says Aliens.
Prime Clone
Super Freak
Yep...
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 32,452
- Reaction score
- 3,156
Batman '89 and Return of the Jedi always felt dated and cheap looking to me, even as a kid.
I don't like how either of them look. They're ugly films. Batman has beautiful matte paintings, costume and production design, but you wouldn't know it because most of the shots don't fit well since the color correction is off. Things are so muted and ugly. Return of the Jedi has great creature effects (I'm looking at you Jabba) but everything is so flat and dull. They both had this ugly 80s "haze" to me where you can tell they were both made in the 80s in some television studio basement filled with cigarette smoke. They're like a grey brown. Any time I've used movie stills in things I make or post from those two, I have to bump up the color, contrast and saturation of the image.
Everyone looks ugly too, especially the extras. Everyone looks REALLY British, and it shows.
Now, compare Batman '89 and Return of the Jedi to Batman Returns and Empire Strikes Back. The latter two are crisp, clean and beautiful. They look timeless. Feels like more money went into them and they weren't rushing to get production finished in bum**** no where. Then the cast looks healthier too. Compare Leia in Empire to Leia in Jedi with that caked on make up.
I also have this feeling with the first two Superman movies, almost to the point where they're impossible to watch in their entirety. They're ugly, slow and dated. It looks like 1970s New York with bad blue screen effects.
As for the Cameron Terminator films, I think the special effects date the Terminator heavily and ultimately fail it. Puppet Arnie during the surgery scene looks like dog ****. Endoskeleton stop motion looks worse and worse every time the resolution gets higher and higher. Terminator 2 is like Empire and Returns. It looks as fresh and polished as it did when I first saw it in the 90s.
When it comes to story and pacing and tone and ****. I know all these classics by heart because I've seen them 100 times. They're boring. I know all their flaws, all the good parts and all the bad parts. I feel like I've seen movies like Robocop and Die Hard a thousand times, to the point where I can quote them ad nauseum.
I don't like how either of them look. They're ugly films. Batman has beautiful matte paintings, costume and production design, but you wouldn't know it because most of the shots don't fit well since the color correction is off. Things are so muted and ugly. Return of the Jedi has great creature effects (I'm looking at you Jabba) but everything is so flat and dull. They both had this ugly 80s "haze" to me where you can tell they were both made in the 80s in some television studio basement filled with cigarette smoke. They're like a grey brown. Any time I've used movie stills in things I make or post from those two, I have to bump up the color, contrast and saturation of the image.
Everyone looks ugly too, especially the extras. Everyone looks REALLY British, and it shows.
Now, compare Batman '89 and Return of the Jedi to Batman Returns and Empire Strikes Back. The latter two are crisp, clean and beautiful. They look timeless. Feels like more money went into them and they weren't rushing to get production finished in bum**** no where. Then the cast looks healthier too. Compare Leia in Empire to Leia in Jedi with that caked on make up.
I also have this feeling with the first two Superman movies, almost to the point where they're impossible to watch in their entirety. They're ugly, slow and dated. It looks like 1970s New York with bad blue screen effects.
As for the Cameron Terminator films, I think the special effects date the Terminator heavily and ultimately fail it. Puppet Arnie during the surgery scene looks like dog ****. Endoskeleton stop motion looks worse and worse every time the resolution gets higher and higher. Terminator 2 is like Empire and Returns. It looks as fresh and polished as it did when I first saw it in the 90s.
When it comes to story and pacing and tone and ****. I know all these classics by heart because I've seen them 100 times. They're boring. I know all their flaws, all the good parts and all the bad parts. I feel like I've seen movies like Robocop and Die Hard a thousand times, to the point where I can quote them ad nauseum.
T2 has been named so I suppose it's only a matter of time before someone says Aliens.
Aliens was what started me to make his thread.....it?s really aged.
I would also add Temple of Doom. While Raiders is older, and many of the effects have begun to look terrible, TOD looks like someone made it on their home computer ......20 years ago.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Clown Prince of Crime
Super Freak
Make up your mind.
While this is true, people can outgrow things, and therefore their lack of enjoyment has to do less with lack of merits or fair criticism and more to do with a change in taste. It's like the opposite of nostalgia.
Personally, I think T2 is as good of a film as it was in 1991. I've seen it hundreds of times. Do I enjoy it as much as the first couple of times back in 91, not even close, but I do find a sense comfort and pleasantness in its familiarity. You don't get that feeling when you watch a film or listen to a song for the first time.
Similar threads
