I was talking to a 19 year old in my office recently about the series ‘Fargo’, which she very much enjoys. I recommended the 1996 ‘Fargo’ film. A couple of days later she informed me that she didn’t enjoy the film as it was “really old”. I wasn’t really able to decipher exactly what the problem is, however, i suspect it was because, compared to the recent TV series, she thought this 22 year old film was shot on film and, therefore, is a bit grainy and not quite HD enough for her. I was also talking to an 11 year old about films from the 90s and he described such films as being “fuzzy”. What do you think of these kids today and their reaction to stuff that doesn’t have the modern digital HD sheen to it?
Same way I feel about old albums with rubbish (by today’s standards) production: grow up, idiots
my kids love old fiims - especially my 14 year old son, but his big sisters also enjoy watching films from the 60s/ 70s/ 80s/ 90s, B&W films like Some Like it Hot and the Apartment etc
But I suppose I’ve always been eager to show them films I love - so they were used to seeing older films from a young age
Nothing’s good everything’s bad
I’m in my 40s and work with a lot of younger people in their 20s and 30s. Many of them see any films made before they were born as very old and totally irrelevant.
I was asked if I like black and white films. I said that obviously it depends on the film but I do like old classics. One guy interrupted and said that he’s only see one black and white film. I asked which one. Sin City was his reply without sarcasm.
oh and they all love Fargo (the movie)
An HD version of a 35mm film shouldn’t be fuzzy though would it? Isn’t film inherently high-def?
I find it both incredible and a wee bit sad just how fucking old the footage of football in my formative years looks despite it being fresher in my memory than matches I’ve actually attended this season.
you still get that “grain” I suppose on some films.
Like the godfather 3?
I would think so! I think the 11 year old was just using the word “fuzzy” as he wasn’t sure what he was trying to say. I think things shot on film do look different to the current TV shows and films he is used to watching and “fuzzy” was the most apt word he could come up with. Regarding the 19 year old though, i simply cannot fathom a mid 90s beautifully shot film like ‘Fargo’ being somehow dis-pleasing to the eye.
It’s not considered the best one
my sister in law is 19, and a couple of years back told me most of her friends refused to watch films pre 2000 as they were too old and looked shit.
Depends in large part on the transfer I guess.
I think late 80s/early 90s films do have a specific look, in the same way that those “technicolor” movies from the 40s have a particular vibrancy to them.
I think the ‘grain’ is possibly what they have a problem with.
yeah they do - I’ve watched a bunch of classic 90s movies with the kids recently and they do definitely have more of a look to them with hindsight then you realised at the time maybe
I like old movies (I like old movies)
Like Godfather 3 (like Godfather 3)
It’s not considered the best one (It’s not considered the best one)
But that’s just me (that’s just me)
Films made this side of the millennium definitely have a particular ‘sheen’ and texture to them. I think it can be quite unsettling to people when old films don’t have this. I don’t think it’s a dissimilar to issue to people’s reaction to the Hobbit in 48fps - that things just felt a bit off. In time the films of today will also obviously look dated too. It’s just about what you’re accustomed to.
Doesn’t help how few old and classic films are on popular streaming services.
It’s interesting - feels a bit like you need to expose kids to old films when they are young like you need to expose them to a variety of foods so they don’t end up as picky eaters
When mine were young they got a steady diet of classic Spielberg movies plus assorted 80s classics (Ghostbusters, Goonies BTTF etc)