Half of you just sound like you're bored of watching the same movie over and over again and that is just inevitable. Some of these films are obviously going to look dated with their effects when they're made in the 70's and 80's. Matrix wasn't until 1999. In another 20 years, we'll probably get the same complaints about that film.
We're all getting older and our opinions are changing because the world has changed so much since this these films were made.
In 2019, I saw the rerelease of Matrix for it’s anniversary after not seeing it for nearly 10 years.
Thought it was lame.
That core crew of Neo, Morpheus, Trinity, Cypher, Switch, Mouse, and Apoc in their gender neutral 90s fashion with the sunglasses and trench coats is peak cringe. Nothing cool about it in retrospect. Watching the film again, it’s not surprising that the creators became trannies. The Matrix itself has an interesting presence, but the whole disgruntled office worker thing and Jesus/Messiah trope has been done to death. It had two good things going for it, Agent Smith and the action set pieces.
In 2019, I saw the rerelease of Matrix for it?s anniversary after not seeing it for nearly 10 years.
Thought it was lame.
That core crew of Neo, Morpheus, Trinity, Cypher, Switch, Mouse, and Apoc in their gender neutral 90s fashion with the sunglasses and trench coats is peak cringe. Nothing cool about it in retrospect. Watching the film again, it?s not surprising that the creators became trannies. The Matrix itself has an interesting presence, but the whole disgruntled office worker thing and Jesus/Messiah trope has been done to death. It had two good things going for it, Agent Smith and the action set pieces.
I don't know if The Matrix is dated per se, more like it doesn't hold up in general, aesthetics aside. It's a mishmash of ideas that have been done better in their original incarnations. But I don't really mind the "look". Black Leather was a thing before it, and I doubt it'll ever completely go away, same with Tacticool.
T2 (always liked T1 better anyway)
Aliens (loved Aliens, didn't like Alien - now love Alien, don't like Aliens).
Top Gun
The Lost Boys
Commando
The Untouchables (so melodramatic now, it's almost laughable).
Highlander
The Matrix (still love the story, action, etc - but the look and some of the support acting is woeful).
Temple of Doom (favourite as a kid - least favourite of the 3 now... *not mentioning the 2008 abomination.*
King Kong (Peter Jackson's - appalling to watch now, in soooo many ways).
I love how T2 is this sacred cow that everyone is always out to slaughter. It’s not just on here, but other sites as well. People are always gunning for it.
It’s untouchable, perfect movie really. The criticisms against it are always so hollow and basically amount to bringing up the first movie.
[...] 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.[...]
SO MUCH of collecting hinges on how a given property once made you feel. And so much of that is connected to the emotionally concentrated zones of childhood, teens and young adulthood.
We mark time with these movies but the more time passes the more likely it is those markers fade and lose any meaning -- as they should -- because outside of a few good memories, people should outgrow these things. That's probably the real reason why less and less of this genre stuff moves me anymore. There were a few classics that came before but the real issue is we all change.
In my experience, this is very, very rare. Unless someone experiences something traumatic, they very rarely change.
There are very few people out there that are willing to accept that their own character traits and choices are the main determinants of the kind of life they are living.
I don?t mean to say this thread was to see if the emotion attachments were left behind over the years. We can remain emotionally attached to something, for the history we have with it, yet still view it today as a film that has aged poorly.
Hearing songs written and recorded in 1950?s cannot compare in fidelity to modern recordings. BUT we can also say many of those songs just have silly subjects and lyrics that, while once serious now seem trivial or childish.
Age of Aquarius can evoke memories and emotion for children of the 60?s , but today it?s pretty damn silly song with a very dated view of the world.
In 2019, I saw the rerelease of Matrix for it?s anniversary after not seeing it for nearly 10 years.
Thought it was lame.
That core crew of Neo, Morpheus, Trinity, Cypher, Switch, Mouse, and Apoc in their gender neutral 90s fashion with the sunglasses and trench coats is peak cringe. Nothing cool about it in retrospect.
I give the clothes a pass because they're in the Matrix, where they can break the rules of physics...and I guess, fashion too, like Morpheus with his tiny sunglasses that somehow stick to his face without temples/arms. Also, they were probably making up for the fact that in reality they lived in a crappy dystopian future where they're real clothes were raggedy and ugly. I think Neo still looks cool in his final battle trench coat outfit with all the guns and pouches.
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.
Batman is a good one.. Well except that I never really ever thought it was very good.. Pretty much for all the reasons you listed.
T2 has always been overrated to me. Its a good solid film but I hold a lot against it because its nowhere near as good as the original and always making the top 1 or 2 action films of everybody's list. So I hate on it more then I should
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.
With regards to The Terminator.. Does it count to hold its dated F/X against it when the rest of the film is so good?
I mean Batman is an example where peeps liked the film and thought it was great but now we can look back and see the issues with the film making itself and not just 'bad effects"
Terminator is almost a perfect horror / Sci Fi thriller that has some issues with its budget constraints but that's it.
T2 (always liked T1 better anyway)
Aliens (loved Aliens, didn't like Alien - now love Alien, don't like Aliens).
Top Gun
The Lost Boys
Commando
The Untouchables (so melodramatic now, it's almost laughable).
Highlander
The Matrix (still love the story, action, etc - but the look and some of the support acting is woeful).
Temple of Doom (favourite as a kid - least favourite of the 3 now... *not mentioning the 2008 abomination.*
King Kong (Peter Jackson's - appalling to watch now, in soooo many ways).
Though I always found it to be a disappointment it is borderline unwatchable to me now.
TOD I loved as a kid. Then I hated it. Now I like it again for what it is and it is my 2nd fav in the series. But its got issues for sure.
Commando.. My friends and I came up with a term called the "Commando effect" - Any movie that you love the first time.. Like really think is great but each time you watch it it gets worse and worse until you realize how awful it is and cant figure out how in the world you ever liked it in the first place.
A lot of 80's action movies have the "Commando effect"
I've never held Terminator's effects against it. Partly because I don't see it so much as having dated effects but rather cheap effects done on a shoestring budget which then always ends up *impressing* me with how good a job they did. The cheap unpolished visuals that the effects artists put their heart and soul into even keeps with the overall theme of Reese fighting a desperate high tech battle without the luxury of the proper weapons normally needed for the job. It just works.
That's part of the reason I hate the remastered audio and can never bring myself to watch the film in HD as a result. I still have the 2003 MGM SE DVD in my collection right alongside the latest 4K movies because that was the last time Terminator was released with the proper Dirty Harry gunshot sounds for Arnold's pistol. Yes it is ghetto to use an iconic sound from another movie but I don't care, that was what they had to work with and I can't separate it from the proper viewing experience now.
Batman 89 I've always had a like/dislike relationship with. Because of the hype and experience of seeing it opening night with a great crowd I kind of forced myself to like it despite its flaws. But to this day I remember sitting in the theater and expecting a Ledger type Joker due to the trailers and then sitting there in shock with my mouth open watching Jack make stupid fart sounds while dancing out of Vikki Vale's apartment. That was my version of Luke tossing the saber or drinking green milk, lol.
I love how T2 is this sacred cow that everyone is always out to slaughter. It’s not just on here, but other sites as well. People are always gunning for it.
It’s untouchable, perfect movie really. The criticisms against it are always so hollow and basically amount to bringing up the first movie.
See you are going to make me hate on this film again
I never thought it was all that good. Never thought the action was all that interesting and thought the pacing of the film overall was a bit boring (all the Miles Dyson stuff) .
I wont get into my issues with Edward and Linda. I found it a lot of it very cringy also.
Just have never been a huge fan.
But I do like it. 7 out of 10. Most of that score is for Arnold and Robert Patrick who are great in their roles and it is a good looking film.
I think the comparisons to the original are easy because its a basic remake of the original.. So its hard not to make the comparisons.
I prefer the Horror aspect of the original and Nothing in T2 tops the Police station shoot out of the original
I've never held Terminator's effects against it. Partly because I don't see it so much as having dated effects but rather cheap effects done on a shoestring budget which then always ends up *impressing* me with how good a job they did. The cheap unpolished visuals that the effects artists put their heart and soul into even keeps with the overall theme of Reese fighting a desperate high tech battle without the luxury of the proper weapons normally needed for the job. It just works.
.
I agree about the new sound effects.. Drives me crazy.
They dont bother me in Batman 89 though.
I also don't hold the F/X against T1. I was just asking if a film with some dated /shoddy F/X work should be considered bad if the rest of the film is good.
The worst shot in Batman ‘89 is the FIRST shot we see of Batman.
It’s that ugly birds eye view after the family gets robbed and we’re looking down at him on the Cathedral with the city and streets below. Every thing about it is unnatural. From the animation of his silhouette moving into the building to the movement of the cars on the streets. It’s just ugly.
I have no idea how that got approved as an establishing shot and his first appearance. Surely they could have either scrapped it altogether and had his first appearance be him dropping down behind the two robbers or come up with a more creative shot that doesn’t involve SFX.
Unfortunately, that's where the film peaks. The final chase and fight in the factory are underwhelming by comparison and the effects look even more dated now. Cameron clearly learned from it when he made T2. The third act of T2 is why a lot people consider T2 the best action film ever made.
The final chase and fight in the factory are underwhelming by comparison and the effects look even more dated now. Cameron clearly learned from it when he made T2. The third act of T2 is why a lot people consider T2 the best action film ever made.
And go ahead, rip on Hamilton and Furlong’s performances in T2. Her and Biehn‘s performance in the first one aren’t any better. They cut out that scene where he turns the gun on her in the woods when she wants to go to Cyberdyne because the acting sucked, but that’s not the only instance of them being annoying. They’re at their best when they’re running and not talking.
Hamilton is much more interesting as a militarized psycho high on her own BS than she is a waitress damsel in distress. I ****ing LOVE that scene where Sarah is sneaking throughout Pescadero at night and takes Silberman hostage. The only scene in T1 that gets as atmospheric as that in T1 is the Tech Noir shootout. As much as I love the police station shootout, nothing beats that slow build up of the T-800 wandering around the crowd scoping out Sarah whole Burning in the third degree plays.
SO MUCH of collecting hinges on how a given property once made you feel. And so much of that is connected to the emotionally concentrated zones of childhood, teens and young adulthood.
We mark time with these movies but the more time passes the more likely it is those markers fade and lose any meaning -- as they should -- because outside of a few good memories, people should outgrow these things. That's probably the real reason why less and less of this genre stuff moves me anymore.
We've talked about this before, but this is generally how I see things too. You're meant to "shed" things as you grow up and reach a certain age. A few things remain from each period and together they form a sort of "collage". A person isn't meant to keep holding onto literally everything they've ever consumed. That's asinine and it has no point. It doesn't reflect character. It sounds a bit silly to say this about pop culture, but I take taste in all things into account. Music, Literature, Film, Sports, anything and everything. As time goes on you focus on a few specifics and indulge in them only.
In my experience, this is very, very rare. Unless someone experiences something traumatic, they very rarely change.
There are very few people out there that are willing to accept that their own character traits and choices are the main determinants of the kind of life they are living.
In my experience, people don't change. Even the ones that make a mistake, a big one at times, and are forgiven, still don't. The more you give them, the more they'll take. And aside from "leeches", nobody I've ever known has ever changed. Even after going through near, and sometimes actual, death experiences. They just keep on being themselves, whatever that is. From what I can tell, up unil 25 people exhibit different aspects of their personality across the various age brackets. And their personality changes depending on how they develop through those stages. And then you factor in the envirnoment. But besides all that, by that time a being has been formed. Sometimes earlier. To truly change, one has to have the need to change something. If you're happy with what you are, there's no point. If you do want to change, you need to look inwards and recognize your faults. And then comes the hardest part which is taking action. It requires will and determination, and the majority simply lacks those things. They can theoretically change, but it's not some constant; it happens rarely. I don't believe that everyone enters a coocoon at some point and emerges a butterfly. Some are born snakes, others lions, others worms and so on and so forth. A person's type is visible since childhood. At least IMHO.
Tastes don't change, they just sometimes evolve. A kid becomes obsessed with a genre, a type, a trope, and carries it with him throughout his whole life. Kids I knew that were obsessed with football, still were last time I saw them. Ones obsessed with blood & gore, B-Movie schlocks and the such, still consumed the same things. I knew people that were "free spirits" in their youths, turned into "homeless bikers" riding throughout the continent, and even after settling down, still have an obsession with bikes. People usually have a couple of things that really interest them from their early days, and keep at it. Or they have a predispotition to certain views and lifestyles, which then take them throug different paths. EG you can have a kid obsessed with space specifically since being a toddler, which could lead it to being an Aerospace Engineer, an Astronaut, an Astronomer or a Physicist, assuming it has the talent or at least the work ethic. But it's space it's obsessed with; not just "science". So it won't pursue Chemistry or Coding. It's that one specific thing. Another kid however may be inclined to the arts in general. And in time it could turn into a Writer, a Painter, a Poet or whatever else. Its predisposition is towards a larger whole than the previous kid. But still, you won't see the first kid suddenly turn into a Director, and the other go into Law School. Assuming they have the freedom of choice and aren't living under specific circumstances and times that make their choices for them, that is. But you get my point.
When it comes to collecting and generally pop culture, I think we all follow a constant path too. We have a type since childhood and that caries us across the mediums and genres and everything. I'll take myself as an example.
Spoilering because it's not really relevant to the discussion that much; it's just an example. And I like writing...
The first character I remember really being obsessed with was Anakin/Vader. I regularly talked about how cool it'd be to lose my arm and get a cybernetic one. Yeah... The pathos, the tragedy, the brooding, the cool armour. That set the stage for my taste. The first comics I read, aside from Bande Dessinee, were Ultimate, so my tastes are very 90s/00s Nostalgia-Wise.
I liked Spider-Man as a kid, because alongside Batman and Superman he was the only superhero that was widely known and had media I could consume on the regular. But, I kept waiting for specific episodes to see Doctor Doom, Iron Man and Doctor Strange. Now, I still like them; not Spider-Man and Venom. Why? Because I always liked the mature, cultured, smart, powerful type of character, not the teens. So Spider-Man fell to the side, and it's why I still have some attachment to Batman. I discovered Namor a bit later, through MUA, and I still like him. Why? Because I have a familial connection with the sea, and I prefer his type of character, the brooding, strong-willed snob, to Aquaman's more Heroic type; even though they share the same environment and function. I never cared much for the X-Men, and gravitated towards the F4, because while the X-Men had cooler characters, and I've enjoyed some runs here and there, the theme of the F4, Space Exploration, appealed more to me. My favourite comic team were the Illuminati, and it's self-explanatory why. When I got into my tweens and I got into spikes and blood and all that, aside from the regulars like Spawn and Ghost Rider, I also discovered Vertigo and 2000AD. Those titles remained with me because they touched on more themes I found relevant, JonCon was a more interesting character, and despite outgrowing the teen angst, I could still find merits in them. Whereas with GR, Spawn and the such, beyond the superficial aesthetics, I can't. I vastly prefer Sci-Fi over Fantasy; I could never stand the latter. I was into Halo and Half-Life, not WoW. But(!) I have an affinity for Ancient settings and History, which means that I'm into Conan. Aside from his character, which obviously appeals to me, his world is something out of a real History book about the Sumerians, the Egyptians and the Mycaneans. He is the exception to my rule. However, I like Gothic Fiction due to its brooding nature, so I'm a pretty big Vampire fan, even though that could be classified as Fantasy, but I see it as Horror. In contrast to it all I love Green Lantern, part because it's about Space Exploration, but also because it's the embodiment of the "my superpower is my Will" trope.
Now, we're stopping around 12 or so, which is when I think most people develop their "childhood taste". What comes next is an evolution based on the already laid foundations. I discovered WH40K near that time and still hold it dear to me because of the genres it blends. It's silly, but it's a guilty pleasure that I've chosen to preserve. It's Gothic Sci-Fi full of brooding, blood and has Ancient A E S T H E T I C S. Naturally I was drawn to it. Meanwhile fads that I was into, like Pokemon, didn't hold me. Because there was nothing in Pokemon for me to really connect with. It's a popular game I played and that was it. Same goes for Gears Of War or CoD. Metroid is closer to my heart because its setting appeals to me and I played it earlier in life. Same goes for something like God Of War, which is something I've carried with me. Time moved on and I discovered more franchises and "creations". Some new, some old. I played "hot" games and read popular comics of my time. I got into the world's literature and started going through the classics. I started watching older cinema and again, started getting into the PopCult classics. Some of them have stuck with me. Some are tied to certain periods and experiences, like, say, the WildStorm stuff for example. Or MGS. But nostalgia doesn't influence me much, or at least completely; I always look at the content and how much it alone resonates with my inherent tastes. It's why I've lost interest in tons of things over the years, because lots of them were just fads or ways to kill time or curiosity.
The point is that the ones that have stayed with me are the ones that have offered me more than just nostalgia; they have to have that extra something that resonates with my basic taste. And that basic taste transcends genres, ages and mediums.
What I'm getting at, is that, IMHO, what people call "taste" is compromised of two things; nostalgia and inherent inclinations. Something like PotC appeals to me because of nostalgia, since I have many memories connected to it, and also because of my relationship with the sea and ships. NTNBXMAS also appeals to me due to nostalgia and my inclination to Gothic Fiction. Generally there is one thing that is constant about the things that draw me in; the Byronic Hero archetype. This is my type. This was always my type. And it's why my favourites across all media and genres revolve around that specific type. Do I like things that fall outside of that? Sure. But it's because they push other buttons of mine that I always had. I'll never get into The Lord Of The Rings for example. I liked The Count Of Monte Cristo. Throughout my life I tried many things. Not everything, of course, but I like to believe that there was variety. But at the end of the day, my taste never really changed, it just evolved into different forms.
Depending on one's age, they have different nostalgic ties. Which means that we all like some songs or movies that are objectively not that great, simply because of the time they were released. That doesn't mean we like everything, or that we have no critical thoughts. But it means that a 5/10 flick for someone might be a 7/10 comfy watch for someone else. And so on and so forth. But it's our natural taste that decides what out of childhood, teen years and such, we decide to keep as part of our nostalgia. Hundreds of films were released during the year your most cherised movie also came out; but you're tied to that one and maybe two or so more. That's your personal taste, derived solely from you, your genes, your ties. It's why specific things attract a child. There are tons of flashy things to catch its attention, but only a few will "click".
TL;DR I don't believe people and tastes change. There's always an internal, constant core that simply branches out in a few available paths.
