Which of these movie moments makes you the angriest!

Post Reply New Topic

In the last 20 years or so, cinema has moved in some arguably not very great directions. Which do you find the most distasteful?

I was gonna pick "the death of video stores" until I saw the one about changing movies so they're more PC. I'm so SICK of PC, I could PUKE----and, to change CLASSICS, is a TRAVESTY!! !! !! !! !! !! ! If you don't like non-PC movies / TV, DON'T WATCH----simple, enough!!

The assumption that one person's opinions as to what makes something a "Cinematic Travesty" are valid.

Solipsism is unbecoming of anyone.

I have no real opinion on George Lucas' filmography. Having never seen any 'Star Wars' movie (sans the Holiday Special), I can't speak conclusively on the quality of the prequels, but just like any sequel, they don't destroy the legacy of the originals. The originals are still there and they always will be, and nothing will take that away from the people who despise the prequels.

I picked the death of rental stores. Mine was probably the final generation who grew up with rental stores, and my mom and pop video shops (never Blockbuster) were the foundation of my youth and adolescence. Being an aficionado of cult, horror and exploitation cinema, the video age was a golden era and one I look upon with great fondness and nostalgia. The internet has undeniably made it easier for me to find and watch certain films, but the experience is never quite the same. Plus, there was always the factor of discovering movies I'd have otherwise never heard of because the box art caught my eye on the shelf, or because I saw a trailer on a certain tape.

By "digital downloads", do you mean the industry shift from 35mm to digital? Films look best in 35mm, but digital has its merits, and for most independent filmmakers, it's really the only route you can go. Like the switch from VHS to DVD, it's just the way of the future, but there will always be people who will stick with 35mm and promote its virtues, so it'll never truly die. I also support 3D, though mainly as a chintzy gimmick than visual enhancement (i.e. more 'Friday the 13th Part III' instead of 'Avatar'). Blockbusters are just part of cinema. You can't say you love 'Star Wars' but hate blockbusters.

What are some examples of digitally altering old films? Years ago I remember talk about editing cigarettes out of old movies, but that was a rumor which never actually took effect. The only after-the-fact PC editing I can think of is the removal of old-timey racial content (such as the black centaurs in 'Fantasia'), but even that's more often than not left intact these days (such as the racist Looney Tunes cartoons on DVD, albeit presented with a disclaimer).

Isn't "ILM's digital revolution and the death of celluloid" the same as "Digital downloads and the resultant 3D blockbusterfication of cinema"? Unless the gist of this choice is the prevalence of CGI effects over practical effects, in which case I vociferously agree. CGI has its moments and is used to excellent effect in movies where practicals are either impossible or would look clunky ('Pacific Rim' is a fine example), but I believe that computers should only be used to enhance practicals. I study special makeup effects myself and have friends who do it for a living; it's an art unto itself and it always looks amazing onscreen. At least with bad practicals there's something on the screen contributing to a mildly realistic effect, whereas bad CGI just looks atrocious. I use John Carpenter's 'The Thing' and the 2011 remake as the be-all end-all argument against CGI.

Yeah, voicing opinions for the purpose of friendly debate is stupid. I'm glad you're here to dictate to us what to think.

One refers to the process of film making, and the other refers to downloading movies without permission. A common studio justification for forcing 3d on audiences is that the 3d format makes films harder to obtain without permission.

Digital downloading isn't an issue. Any source can tell you that piracy isn't harming the major entertainment industry (as much as the studios want you to believe otherwise) and low-budget indie filmmakers have started using it to their advantage; I know a lot of indies who have been directly releasing their films to torrent sites simply as means of free distribution. Digital downloads, legal or otherwise, is the present state of film distribution and really the only even playing ground between indies and majors.

As for 3D, I never thought about it as a deterrent against downloading. I just know that by having 3D, you can jack the ticket price up and the studios can yank even more money out of your pocket. Admittedly, I'm not against the gimmickry: I kinda like the schtick of having stuff thrown at the screen, but that only applies to films which are intentionally shot in 3D. I'm against films which have 3D hastily added in post-production, because it doesn't really add anything except for murky picture and higher ticket prices.