Bring back old Hollywood!!

[SweetieStarr]

I agree, I like all the older movies/fashions/ways/etc better. I love to knit too! I still have to learn how to sew!

Remember, they had the Hays Code, which is quite fun to read if you have a few minutes.

Also, the stars all had "morality clauses" in their contracts with the studios. So even though many of them were having affairs on set, etc. they had to keep them secret and they weren't in all the magazines like today.

 

[Naphtali]

Yes, market forces. Movies exist today because poor saps do enjoy them. Or at least enjoy the trailers enough to pay to see them. I've not seen any pre hayes code films but from what I've read here they didn't mind their sex and violence back then either.

Also, remember that a great deal of Disney is just bowdlerized versions of racier and much older tales. They didn't mind the sex and violence back THEN too.

It is not the modern world a lot of us rebel against. It is the real world of past, present and future.

While my instinct is to wholeheartedly agree that production companies make the motion pictures current ticket buyers will pay to see -- that is 12 to 25 year olds -- I observe that most of the most profitable motion pictures of the last 35 years have been "G" or "PG" rated -- that is, family entertainment. . . which brings me back to the original query. If family entertainment is immensely profitable, and production companies make the motion pictures current ticket buyers will pay to see, why the superabundance of non-family fare?

 

[Nighthawk]

http://www.starwarsontrial.com/

The above is a link to an interesting book that I am thinking about picking up.Star Wars is essentially 1930s/1940s "sci-fi". As a fan of literary science fiction, I find this topic extremely interesting. Note also that the book also deals with Star Wars' influence on films as well.

NH

 

[LondonLuke]

Plenty of modern films are just as good as films made during the so-called 'Golden Age'. Likewise, just as there are plenty of bad films made today, plenty bad films were made in the past. Many of the older, terrible films no one sees anymore, and thus never mentions. As for sex/violence/drugs, plenty of that goes on in society, now as in the past. It was only because of forced censorship that such things couldn't be shown. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want censorship today. In fact, many older films were based on the novels of the time, which often were much more risque. In translating such works to film, many 'controversial' elements had to be dropped.

NH

The classic "train going into the tunnel" cutaway, unlike today where director's are just keen for the actress to take off her top, despite the fact she's often too skinny to even have anything, unlike the real women of 50 years ago or so! (Keira Knightley springs to mind)

 

[Nighthawk]

While my instinct is to wholeheartedly agree that production companies make the motion pictures current ticket buyers will pay to see -- that is 12 to 25 year olds -- I observe that most of the most profitable motion pictures of the last 35 years have been "G" or "PG" rated -- that is, family entertainment. . . which brings me back to the original query. If family entertainment is immensely profitable, and production companies make the motion pictures current ticket buyers will pay to see, why the superabundance of non-family fare?

Not exactly answering what you said, but I just rememberd that a little while ago I heard Eddie Murphy complaining that too many PG-13 comedies were being made nowadays, which are more profitable but less risqe than R-rated comedies, which Murphy would like to see more of.

 

[Paisley]

If family entertainment is immensely profitable, and production companies make the motion pictures current ticket buyers will pay to see, why the superabundance of non-family fare?

This was the subject of an article in the Wall Street Journal a few years ago. One premise of economics is that people are rational beings whose transactions give them the most benefit. Not all benefits are in dollars. A wholesome and profitable movie isn't likely to get a movie maker peer recognition, awards, or a hot babe (the WSJ's words, not mine).

BTW, Phil Anschutz of Denver has bankrolled family friendly films because they make more money.

 

[J. M. Stovall]

There's a thread here on the lounge that touches on the 'not so great' films of the era. Studios used to turn out a lot of budget junk that would get double featured all the time because they wouldn't be worth seeing on their own. Those in turn would provide the budget for the better stuff. Most films now take up to a few years from concept to screening, back then it was a matter of months with the lesser stuff, and it showed. A lot of those films are thankfully lost to oblivion. Studios were literally churning out films left and right, 'A', 'B' and 'C' grades, the B and C stuff paying the bills for the A stuff(hence the terms A- and B- list now).

I'll have to slightly disagree about the "thankfully lost to oblivion", I think it would be fascinating to see some of those now. They would at least be an interesting record of the low budget, good old days. I'll pick up movies like that at the Dollar Store sometimes, definitely worth a buck.

 

[Nash Buckingham]

Language too

One of the reasons I prefer old movies is that the writers were actually students of the English language. I love to hear classic actors speak - they spoke well and had well written lines.

aside from that, the actors/actresses studied their craft and could say more in a long close up with their facial expressions than most today can with their "action" and the foul word a minute lines.

By the way, that is what drew me to this forum is a group of people that appreciate things done with style and class - and some excellent writers on the forum as well.

 

[Charlie Noodles]

A little quote from back in 1999 from Lorenzo Di Bonaventura about making 'smarter' family movies.