I'm responding to an older comment but if you're still looking for replies here's mine:
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Sand Pebbles
mpofarrell — 13 years ago(November 30, 2012 04:00 PM)
I'm responding to an older comment but if you're still looking for replies here's mine:
I am so encouraged to know there are younger people out there who appreciate older movies. It's your friends' loss that they fail to be entertained by quality films with well written screenplays. The majority of today's moviegoing public, including older adults, are basically ignorant when it comes to seeking out good movies. The junk foisted on the american public is accepted by most people as quality entertainment so garbage such as "Meet The Fockers" and countless other films of that ilk become substantial box office hits. "The Sand Pebbles" is a fine movie, thought provoking, superbly produced, epic filmmaking. There are so many great movies out there , silent, foreign, you name it. Your friends will never change, most likely, so be glad you have the intelligence to appreciate good films. -
keith48322003 — 13 years ago(March 04, 2013 11:01 AM)
So, I'm watching The Sand Pebbles one day, and I'm totally engrossed by it, and all of a sudden a couple of my friends show up and want to hang out. I basically told them to **** off, I'm watching a movie. Anyway, I go back to my movie, and they sit down and start watching it with me. For the next hour and a half I have to listen to these two guys bitching about how boring this movie is, and how I never like good movies. So one of them goes to the DVD player and tries to put Happy Gilmore in and I once again have to tell them to **** off. They don't. They just sit there, and tell me how much this movie sucks.
Which brings me to my original point. Why is it that other people my age have no attention span when it comes to movies? It's like they need a movie with either no plot, a ton of CGI, or lots and lots of lame, disgusting jokes to hold their attention. To me, a movie can be over three hours long and still manage to entertain. A movie can have a couple of scenes of nothing but dialogue. A movie can pull off a battle scene with realistic amounts of explosions and fire. A movie doesn't need to go over the top with every single detail in order to hold one's attention.
Maybe this is just a passing thing. Maybe once my friends and I get out of high school we'll all be able to appreciate good movies. But I don't think so. I think that our nation's youth has lost all of it's good taste and intelligence. I don't think that there's a way out of it. A couple of months ago Meet the Spartans was the number one movie in America. In my opinion, this is what politicians should be campaigning about. It's a very pressing issue! I want my president to promise me that he or she will solve this ongoing problem! Am I all alone? Who's with me?
Oh, and I didn't mean to put Happy Gilmore down. I thought it was a fun movie.
I think you're to that something which explains a lot about how contemporary movies are designed and why they are promoted over other possible movie projects.
Probably the only way around this is to encourage greater film education among young people, and both government and broadcasters have a significant part to play in that. Parents and others can also assist by deliberately encouraging young people to watch a range of movies from different eras/decades. Another important thing is to encourage a greater interest in history, which helps provide context to a range of films but especially to period type films like Sand Pebbles. -
canuckteach — 12 years ago(August 16, 2013 07:23 PM)
It's like they need a movie with either no plot, a ton of CGI, or lots and lots of lame, disgusting jokes to hold their attention.
I enjoyed reading this thread, and I totally agree with 'possums' that most kids his age are movie illiterates. There are a lot of reasons for that:- starting with
Speed
, producers adhered to the notion that action needs to be non-stop from beginning to end. The idea of starting slowly, building character and suspense, was lost. Directors stopped doing it, and the public stopped expecting it. In a way, it was a cop-out - you could get any actors to sleepwalk through the lines, and just count on the CGI boys in the lab to produce a glitzy piece of cinematography. - parents stopped teaching their offspring about the great movies they saw in earlier eras, and just handed their kids 10$ to go see the latest offering at the Cineplex. Kids have no sense of what went before: they are culturally-illiterate. On the other hand, I remember my dad taking me to see 'Bridge on the River Kwai', and commenting at length on the dysfunctional walk of Alec Guiness when he is finally released from the sun-baked prison where he was being held to break his will. Guiness stumbles, but portrays a character trying to keep his dignity. We also watched the Bogart collection (made 10-20 years before my time).
- everything is handed to kids quickly, with instant-replays and the Internet. kids have not been taught the joy of undertaking something that unfolds slowly. Many are poor readers.
- Directors are producing low-quality stuff, cutting corners, and NOT using he camera to create mood, or to give the audience that mysterious sense of
'You-are-there'
. I always say that the camera is the BEST special effect. That means you mix angles and close-ups to 'tell' a scene. Example: in High Noon, when the Sherrif Kane watches his former girlfriend (Mexican) riding away on a horse-drawn cart, try counting the 'shots' - closeups, opposite angles, long shots for what is maybe a 30-second scene -
let me tell you: that is hard work.
The actors have to re-assemble for the new shot, the set guys have to
re-configure the props, cameras have to be moved, lighting re-checked, etc.
But that effort made those older films so compelling.
To the new Directors, it's too much like work.
- Anyway, possum: keep up the good work. No need for you to have a movie-iq of 35 just coz your friends do.
canuckteach
- starting with
-
PrometheusTree64 — 12 years ago(September 03, 2013 03:25 PM)
Although I'm five years too late to this thread, as others have said, these kinds of attitudes existed with older generations, too it just depends on the individual.
That said, the problem was not that their tastes were "different" or even that they have no attention span it's that they were trying to prevent you from doing your own thing, to deliberately ruin it for you. And just for "power" purposes.
That will play out in any number of other ways, not just movie watching
Hopefully, you've since found higher quality folks who don't try to stop you from enjoying something they don't happen to share an interest in.
Anybody who trashes Christina Crawford is akin to a satan-worshipper -
photoe — 12 years ago(September 30, 2013 04:18 AM)
A man is judged by the company he keeps. Its a cliche, and its supposedly good to be flexible with people, but there are smarter and dumber people out there, so you might need to get new friends.
Frankly, the thing I love about movies from the 50s-70s is that the filmmaking chops and acting were there, but the budgets and technical advances were such that a lot of these movies use real period ships, and weapons, and there's a budget for lots of extras, and locations.
This movie would cost a fortune today, and they would use a CGI ship, not a real one, which would have compromised many of the scenes. The locations as well would be difficult to reconstruct, and the incredible junks in this film wouldnt be cheap.
THe entire theme of the movie wouldn't be done. Noone would bother to set an anti-war film in such an obscure piece of history (to us now). The trajectory of the end of the movie, from the deaths at the cutting of the barrier rope to the captain's pointless death and McQueen's dialog railing at fate before his death, prove just how deeply and genuinely anti-war this movie is, and it would never have been made during our last decade of rah-rah war (again). It was made early for anti-military feeling as well, 1966, so I now understand why I just saw it. It's been kept deliberately obscure. For endings, this is up there with WIld Geese, except that at least one hero makes it out of the end of that film. Hwood just doesnt make movies this nihilistic anymore. It's considered too much of a handicap to box office. Syriana was a pretty nihilistic war movie. I'll give that one credit.
Still, people preferring a bonehead comedy to a depressing drama can happen. Its a totally different mood.
However, yes, some people are irretrievable dolts, with zero interest in history. Up to you if you want to continue
to be around them (they also don't protest wars or economic injustice). -
Catherine-Mullins — 12 years ago(November 28, 2013 05:25 AM)
ROFLOL!
Why is it that other people my age have no attention span when it comes to movies? It's like they need a movie with either no plot, a ton of CGI, or lots and lots of lame, disgusting jokes to hold their attention. To me, a movie can be over three hours long and still manage to entertain. A movie can have a couple of scenes of nothing but dialogue. A movie can pull off a battle scene with realistic amounts of explosions and fire. A movie doesn't need to go over the top with every single detail in order to hold one's attention.
All the comments you made are just spot on. That's exactly how I felt in highschool and still do now (early 30's). Get used to feeling alone.
It was just ironic to come across this post because I was thinking the same thing. I don't understand the obsession with CGI. To me it looks almost as fake as cartoons. And if I have to sit through another every-joke-is-cruder-than-the-next movie I'll puke.
In fact, it had been so long since I saw a decent plot driven, multi-faceted, film with three dimensional characters, that while I was watching it for the first time, I was like "what is this incredible feelling that's coming over me? My brain feels stimulated, , my eyes pleased,
and
my heart gripped? It's too good to be true." Then, when the feelling didn't end, and the film became more and more engrossing, I felt like I'd just won the lotto. A movie that made me think and feel at the same time? I thought I'd seen all those,and was doomed to the same marvel comic strip repeated in different forms over and over again(Spiderman and Thor are fun, but less than fulfilling)
I'm sorry your friends can't appreciate this, but it's their loss. They may be innocent victims of the A-D-D entertainment universe that afflicts the modern world. Just enjoy the fact that you haven't been spoilt by it yet (and hopefully not ever), and seek out the satisfying films along with the "popcorn" ones. -
rready4198-693-489748 — 11 years ago(June 11, 2014 07:48 PM)
huggin_possums, I believe it has a lot to do with having too much "visual" and not enough "imagination." It has been happening over the last 30 or 40 years. I noticed it in my children, niece and nephew (all born between 1968 and 1978). They do not want to think and want the answer to everything without watching the whole show. I use to have to say, "Hands on lips" just to watch a program and Lord help me if a movie was on! The radios use to have the stories on them so you listened and let your imagination do the work for you. Television dawned and it was all overI know I am a television addict but I also read. That is the last place for the imagination to fill in the blanks. You should have put your friends out if they could not be polite enough to sit stillbut that is another problem young people have todaysitting still!
-
marcellis_robinson — 11 years ago(August 14, 2014 08:22 PM)
Oh, how standards have been lowered over the past 30 years or so. I'm 56, and I began noticing around 1980 how the movies were becoming more and more childish. Fewer good scripts being written, fewer actors who know their craft, fewer directors with literate sensibilities, more studio executives for whom maximizing profit is their sole criterion for greenlighting a movie project.
The end result: Fewer movies like Sand Pebbles, Serpico, or Great Santini. More movies like Happy Gilmore, Rambo, Titanic and Shrek. A great number of dumbed down movies, for a dumbed down audience. Because that is where the most profit is. -
residentevil6901 — 11 years ago(August 24, 2014 08:25 PM)
I think youth has a lot to do with that, when I was young it was all about action movies and stuff, for example a movie like 1990's Presumed Innocent I hated but love it now. The older I got the more patience I would get and I had more of an appreciation for other kinds of movies that I didn't like when I was young. It could also be the intelligence level of some people lol
-
JFMJJ88 — 11 years ago(February 18, 2015 10:40 AM)
In my view,
2001: A Space Odyssey
is the greatest film of all time. For many people,
2001
is boring. Why should I criticize those people for being bored by it? I've always found the original
Halloween
dull. Am I wrong? Of course not. I am neither wrong or right to be bored by
Halloween
, and others are not wrong or right to be bored by
2001: A Space Odyssey
.
Some seem to make too much of their subjective opinions. Many of those who have responded to the OP arrogantly imply that those who don't share their taste in cinema are somehow stupid, or that films are objectively of a lower quality today than in times past. How ridiculous. That a movie entertains you does not mean that it is objectively entertaining and that those are not entertained by it are idiots denying an objective fact. Not enough people seem to appreciate that. -
dannieboy20906 — 10 years ago(May 25, 2015 09:34 AM)
Nevertheless, the OP makes a valid point. I agree with his observation, if it was his intent to make that observation, that the overall attention span of the general public along with their appreciation for sophisticated film exposition has declined greatly over the last two generations. I use "generations" only as a short hand for the time that has lapsed, as in about forty years. I remember both Steven Spielberg and George Lucas discussing in interviews that they were concerned that the revolution in special effects, especially the development of CGI would make writers and directors lazy. They were anxious that the modern capability to create fantastic visuals and phonics with special effects would take away from the desire to create drama. I think their fears have come to pass.
We still see the occasional Oscar nominee or winner that has great dramatic appeal. However, the big money makers are overwhelmingly sensual feasts with insipid plots. I like a roller coaster ride, sometimes. However, I also like someone to come along and make me think now and then. -
JFMJJ88 — 10 years ago(May 26, 2015 11:59 AM)
I agree with some of what you wrote, but there are plenty of small films released every year that may have what you're looking for. I wouldn't expect to see commercials for most of them, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist or are nearing extinction. While it is easy to remain unaware of such films if you do not live in a major city such as New York or Los Angeles, most of these movies eventually make their way onto VOD, DVD, BluRay, etc.
-
dannieboy20906 — 10 years ago(May 26, 2015 12:38 PM)
I think you are right, also. Film exposition, the development of drama has been pushed downward onto smaller venues. The big 'blockbusters' put out by major sources of funding are predominantly, but not exclusively, designed to appeal to as many people as possible. Plots are kept as a simple framework around which to construct a lot of crash, bang, and boom. Serious explorations of interpersonal and individual internal drama must find its place on the internet, cable, or satellite venues.
-
zwolf — 10 years ago(June 04, 2015 06:38 AM)
What's weird to me is a lot of people won't watch black and white movies. They just can't handle black and white. And if you cut out black and white, you're missing some of the greatest movies of all time. They're missing pretty much ALL of film noir!
Some people are just closed-minded. It's not all the younger ones, but, mostly. But, there are always some out there, like you, who appreciate the older films, and there probably always will be. So, there's hope.