Why doesn't /tv/ watch more old movies? You would think a board that is at all times 80% complaining about modern movies (everything from casts to story and cinematography) would have many more threads discussing things like the golden age of hollywood. A period that spawned almost half a century with a massive library of films that you could spend a whole life watching. And yet most of /tv/ would rather just endlessly cry about super hero movies, browns and ugly people in modern movies, how everything is leftists and how they cannot relate to the modern hollywood machine. Why is there almost no appreciation for the classics and silent era of films on here? Shouldn't the main board of people who say they love film and have grown to hate modern film making so much not at least try and take a look back at the history and massive library of classic film that exists?
It doesn't have to be this way...

>>211584163 (OP)
/tv/ doesn't watch new movies either. It's 90% dysfunctional anons venting their frustrations here.

>>211584163 (OP)
several reasons
>hard to pick a relevant film
>you have to mentally "translate" the movie into your world perspective
-the language/acting is different (harder to understand)
-the life as a whole is "older" and "weirder" (technology, fashion, science)
>no familiar faces, doesn't know the actors except a few
>the same stories are pretty much available in a current form
>no interest in/knowledge/appreciation about technical aspects/quality
>availability/bad film quality/low resolution rips?
>a craving for the "new" to stay relevant and follow the current "it"

>>211584163 (OP)
I grew up on old movies. Hated the 70s though. Goddamn were those movies gross.

>>211584347
Valid points and I'd like to add that the writing in many cases is mediocre and that they're technically not interesting.

>>211584347
>>availability/bad film quality/low resolution rips?
atrocious audio

>>211584378
wut, the 70s is one of the best decades

>>211584378
What did/do you find gross about them?

>>211584163 (OP)
Got any recommendations for black and white gangster films?
I loved The Public Enemy (1931)

>>211584163 (OP)
the modern zoomer, epically the right wing chud variety here, doesn't watch anything older than a few years and definitely not anything not in English. they watch movies and a social performative act, not for the love of the game.

>>211584484
as a social performative act*

>>211584484
You think these same people are the one's with a burning hatred for anime (calling it "tranime")?
I see so much philistine posting on here, it's saddening.

>>211584419
>>211584432
All of the ones I saw were garish exploitative messes. Just bad.
So e were great and worth watching but so much was bad and gross noise


And I grew up on stuff like Tommy and some other stuff. But it all felt wrong.

I only watch old movies but I don't feel like discussing them here because it feels like a waste of time because you will get ignored or a worthless reply like "kino" (this word ruined this board).

>>211584834
Seen anything outstanding recently?

>>211584347
>>211584382
Absolutely deranged behavior.

>>211584936
Blue (1993) is the only outstanding media I've seen recently.

I mostly just watch old films. Nothing against modern ones, I just find the silver screen comfy.

>>211584444
Get into noir

>>211585001
I'm just gonna pretend you mean Kieślowski's because the other one is not a film.

>>211585040
This. So many great noir films. I always recommend Notorious.

Old movies now are 80s and 90s movies. Those black and white ones aren't just old, they're ancient and unwatchable.

>>211585058
Sight and sound call it a film, besides which, I didn't call it a film, I said media and you asked "anything". Either way, feel free to miss out.

>>211584996
Absolutely not an argument.

>>211585089
>Sight and Sound
Yikes.
>besides which, I didn't call it a film, I said media and you asked "anything"
That's true.

>>211585040
Gimmie some names

>>211585059
Will check it out

>>211585086
Grow up, capeslopper.

>>211585091
Who said it was? There's no argument to be had that one is insane if they think that about old films. It's fact.

>>211585218
Do you earnestly believe people like him hold capeshit in high regard? I don't think they do. They likely watch it but doubtful it's what they consider "peak".

>>211585269
No, it's obviously not a fact and anons observations were entirely reasonable.

>>211585280
I suppose peak for them would be Nolan, Tarantino, or one of those zesty bucks who make 'prestige' europhobe horror.

>>211584163 (OP)
I only watch old movies and shows. Anything after the year 2000 can fuck off.

>>211585001
K I N O
I
N
O

>>211585206
Kiss Me Deadly
Murder by Contract
In A Lonely Place
Ride the Pink Horse
The Third Man

>>211585300
I tend to agree.

>>211585325
based anon
thanks

>>211585306
Other side of the retard coin.

>>211585361
eat my wank

>>211585408
>bro's a gooner
Are LARPers ever not?

>>211584834
This is the reason. Any community large enough to have the sort of interactivity you have on here will come along with the goldfish memory and social concern of the typical normalfag. There exist more specialized places but ou have to embrace the dead forum interactions. This >>211584484 is also true although I don't think there is something special about chuds.

We do bruv

>>211586041
Gross.

>>211586065
>bumping it
Get the fuck out m8

>>211586092
That's literally the reason why I responded to your gross post (that I pressed 'hide' on by the way). Fuck you for posting ugly alien bitches and for saging.

>>211584163 (OP)
Star Wars Prequels, DS9, Iron Man etc are more than 15-20 years ago. They are all old movies.

>>211586195
Hardly that old but it's true more things from this decade that aren't flavor of the month should be discussed.

>>211584444
Cagney stars in several of them

>>211584163 (OP)
>I watched "Marty" a while ago.
>post a thread
>zero interaction
>this thread haa been pruned or deleted

Gee, i wonder why

>>211584163 (OP)
I bet 70% of all regular /tv/ browsershave seen It's A Wonderful Life

What is even considered classic, anything before the 70's?

>>211587588
>classic
>anything before the 70's
No, I'd define it as a movie which must have left a noticable impact, either at the time of its release or even later, which in turn made other filmmakers create movie in its mold. It's a movie which left its mark in history in a more than ordinary way, thereby being reference or getting homage, to the point you can see its ripples through time. Age isn't really a factor.

A recent example of a classic is The Mummy from 1999. It got a number of sequels, made Brendan Fraser a star, established Rachel Weisz, set the tone for CGI-adventure history film, which got its own era in 2010 with Clash of Titans, Prince of Persia and those.

Newer examples are Iron Man, A Separation, The VVitch, The Florida Project

>>211584163 (OP)
how many pre-60s movies have you seen? over or under 300?

>>211584163 (OP)
I do all the times.
It's modern shit I don't watch, since it's all bad

>>211584382
>writing in many cases is mediocre and that they're technically not interesting.
that's modern movies. old movies are the opposite

>>211584444
White heat

>>211584484
>epically the right wing chud variety here, doesn't watch anything older than a few years and definitely not anything not in English. they watch movies and a social performative act, not for the love of the game.

>>211584347
>hard to pick a relevant film
what the fuck does that mean

>>211584936
Gone is 60 seconds, the original one.
Not a great movie, but it made me realize how awfully sanitized the one with Nick Cage was. And the final chase was outstanding

>>211590224
No. That's true for DEI crap or cheap television maybe but generally it's not the case.

>>211586551
I love that movie. I've seen it memed and referenced in a million things, and now I know why

>>211590395
Generally it IS the case
Effects and stunts are all cgi, therefore not technically interesting. And writing took the backseat sing the guild strike in 2007 or even way before that if we are going to be honest

>>211590503
>Effects and stunts are all cgi, therefore not technically interesting.
No. Not everything is CGI and the implementation of CGI is technically interesting.
>And writing took the backseat sing the guild strike in 2007 or even way before that if we are going to be honest
Also no, from what I can tell. It's convenient to hold the writer's strike up as an event on the timeline but the ceiling is higher now and I doubt the average is considerably worse. You're welcome to name some exceptionally well written older movies of course (pre 70s, ideally).

>>211590713
>You're welcome to name some exceptionally well written older movies of course (pre 70s, ideally).
The Sopranos

>>211591059
That's not a movie, nor from the 70s. And there have been exceptionally well written shows in the last 10 years, like The Young Pope, so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove right now.

>>211591170
*before the 70s

>>211591170
I don't think you know who you're talking to, I walked Bob Dylan on stage at fuckin woodstock

>>211591302
>I walked Bob Dylan on stage at fuckin woodstock
What's the joke?

>>211591418
Who the hell do you think you are? You’re any kind of artist? Anybody know who you are? Maybe evrybody else wants to enjoy the peace and quiet. This is one of the most important places in North America and who are you? Who are you? You miserable presumptious no talent. You’re no artist. An artist respects the silence, it serves the foundation of creativity. You obviously don’t have the talent. You don’t have enough respect for yourself or other people, or know what it means to respect yourself. In music or any form of creativity. And I’m an NYU fil-school graduate. Sucker. And the School of Visual Art in the Academy of Art University in San Fransisco. You suck. You’re a no talent. If you really have talent, go practice. And then get yourself a gig, instead of ruining the day for everybody down here. You disgrace. You are everything that’s gone wrong in this world. You’re a self consumed, no-talent, mediocre piece of shit. And I’ve earned my right to say it. Okay? In 1975, I walked Bob Dylan up on stage. Who the fuck are you? I knew the Grateful Dead from 1966. Who the fuck are you? You’re nothing. You are nothing. And you will never be anything. Never. How dare you? You miserable, mediocre nothing. Shame on you. You crack a stupid little smile, you little pimp. Go learn to play. You’re flat. You can’t even carry a fucking note. I don’t care about your little horn lip, it doesn’t mean you know how to play. You’re flat. I’ve trained classically, I’ve trained contemporaneously, and you suck.

>>211590348
the word relevant wasn't the most suitable, perhaps suitable is better, the old movies are a bit "uneven", one persons taste may not suit anothers, so not knowing anything beforehand (actors, genres etc) makes it harder to pick out a movie you'd potentially like

>>211591464
Okay but explain why the micropasta/meme is funny. Is it a boomers making shit up to sound cool thing?

>>211591518
You're blowing your own horn.

>>211591507
Relevant was fine. Culturally relevant. Politically relevant. Perhaps even emotionally relevant. Movies serve a purpose, they aren't the purpose themselves after all.

>>211591576
I'm not that flexible.

>>211590713
CGI isn't technically interesting. It's just a bunch of things that aren't actually happening
an nobody does stunts and car chases without cgi
>>211590713
>Also no, from what I can tell. It's convenient to hold the writer's strike up as an event on the timeline.....
that's just recency bias faggotry
12 angry men
The thin man
Chimes at midnight
Some like it hot
Flight of the phoenix
this is a wonderful life
white heat

I could go on all day. you have nothing. writing is dead

>>211591602
The only duty of a movie is being a good movie

>>211591688
>CGI isn't technically interesting. It's just a bunch of things that aren't actually happening
That's just your total lack of imagination speaking. I'd be mortified having posted that to be honest.

>that's just recency bias faggotry
>you have nothing. writing is dead
It's not though. There's always been a lack of named writers but now there are at least some and no, I don't mean Tarantino.

>12 angry men
>The thin man
>Chimes at midnight
>Some like it hot
>Flight of the phoenix
>this is a wonderful life
>white heat
Not terribly impressed.

>>211591896
I concede. Enjoy the rest of your day!

>>211591932
>I concede
I accept your concession.
>Enjoy the rest of your day!
You too!

>>211591989
That wasn't me, I'm typing a rebuttal now.

>>211592011
Kek.

>>211592020
Just you wait.

>>211584347
But mostly intelligence, that's the problem, not any of that bullshit. It's a distinct lack of intelligence or imagination. This is the problem with modern films.

No. Rejected. Your image and name don't suggest intelligence while we're on the topic. Why add the jew star to a self-explanatory meme?

>>211594647
for >>211594420

>>211584163 (OP)
This is a very low IQ board on a very low IQ site. Go to letterboxd or something if you want people with actual functioning brains and actual knowledge of cinema.

>>211594703
>letterboxd
I thought you were serious for a moment.

>>211584347
I understand you're giving reasons as why you think others aren't interested in older films and not necessarily why you yourself are or aren't. I'm addressing them to a 'you' for simplicity's sake.
>hard to pick a relevant film
It's easy to pick a relevant film to whatever interests you in life or maybe going through the same thing that an older film is showing off. You like war movies? They're out there. You like detectives? Plenty of those. You like beautiful women? Classics are filled with gorgeous girls.
>you have to mentally "translate" the movie into your world perspective
>the language/acting is different (harder to understand)
>the life as a whole is "older" and "weirder" (technology, fashion, science)
You have to do this with anything sci-fi or not taking place on contemporary Earth. You telling me you think people can do this with Star Wars, but not the Maltese Falcon? The language really isn't that different. People need to realize that we've mostly been the same since about the 1920s. You can go back and read old magazines on archive.org from around that time and you'd be shocked at how similar we really are. Especially you find some nudie ones pre-code.
>no familiar faces, doesn't know the actors except a few
You get to learn a whole new set of actors. Follow their careers from start to finish. It's pretty interesting.
>the same stories are pretty much available in a current form
the same stories will always been recycled, that's how it goes
>no interest in/knowledge/appreciation about technical aspects/quality
this is the modern viewer being lazy, but anyone interested in any field should know the roots
>availability/bad film quality/low resolution rips?
most of the classics are available with great rips for free on youtube, tubi, archive. it's true this wasn't always the case, but today it is
>a craving for the "new" to stay relevant and follow the current "it"
this is too true and sad

prejudices... old movies lack nudity and explosions