And the movie industry needs this. There are only so many stories to tell. If the back catalog was still first tier entertainment there wouldn't be nearly as many new movies.
Timeline:
• Silent movies: Tell all the stories.
• Sound!: Tell al the stories again, no one will watch a silent movie.
• Color: Tell all the stories again.
• Style change: Never look like a play. Look "real". Tell all the stories again.
• Decent CGI: Tell all the stories using special effects again.
• High frame rate? 3D? HD?: If one of these hits the industry is set for the next decade.
␄
[1] This is where I came in. Movies from before the '70s have either a video sitcom or musical theater look that does not engage me as "real".
[2] My 18 year old daughter can't really engage in a movie filmed before about 2000 if it has special effects. They are just too campy looking to her. She can tolerate some cinematography from the mid '90s, but before that it looks cheap and fake to her.
The assertion that new movies exist and are watched because they are higher tier than older movies seems completely ridiculous. There are movies made before the 70s with absolutely amazing cinematography on beautifully detailed film stock; "Lawrence of Arabia" comes to mind as one that stands up quite well, perhaps with the exception of modern pacing. Do you really think people watch "The Hangover," "The Hobbit," or "The Avengers" because they are higher tier entertainment or more realistic than "Lawrence of Arabia?" I'd also counter that "The Bicycle Thief" feels more heartbreakingly realistic than anything I've seen recently from a major studio. Of course there's no multi-million dollar ad campaign/media blitz or major studio release for it.
I think the problem is that any film made before those that the viewer was first introduced to the film format with (or is used to watching) is going to seem old and be judged as less appealing. This mostly unconscious judgement made in a a few seconds based primarily on the 'look' of the film (b/w vs color, film stock, lenses etc.) and secondarily on it's pacing and editing style.
There may be older films that have good cinematography but the viewer is still going to judge it as 'old' before they get to appreciate that.
Plenty of films do seem dated in a negative way to me, and I can get that someone expects carefully mastered soundtracks with impressive thumpy sound. But I think there are some films were well made that stand the test of time.
The LA Times ran an article[1] arguing lack of interest in old movies stems largely from new films having a social function that is similar to fashion. I'm inclined to agree.
Therefore, while 48+fps might become the fashion, I doubt it's required to retain interest in new movies as referenced in the great-grandparent post.
I certainly wasn't around when The Seventh Seal was filmed, yet I find it astonishingly beautiful and impressive (which makes the parody film De Düva even better.) Of course, I can't talk about it the way one talks about the weather or of theater run films-- "Did you see Argo yet? I want to check it out, the trailer looked cool."
Timeline:
• Silent movies: Tell all the stories.
• Sound!: Tell al the stories again, no one will watch a silent movie.
• Color: Tell all the stories again.
• Style change: Never look like a play. Look "real". Tell all the stories again.
• Decent CGI: Tell all the stories using special effects again.
• High frame rate? 3D? HD?: If one of these hits the industry is set for the next decade.
␄
[1] This is where I came in. Movies from before the '70s have either a video sitcom or musical theater look that does not engage me as "real".
[2] My 18 year old daughter can't really engage in a movie filmed before about 2000 if it has special effects. They are just too campy looking to her. She can tolerate some cinematography from the mid '90s, but before that it looks cheap and fake to her.