Movie decade madness

GePap · August 31, 2003, 20:27

So the question is, which decade of the 20th century was the most creative one in terms of cinema? After all, film is trully the medium of the whole 20th century.

So, was it before the 10's and 20's? (I will put them togather since few films of the era made it to the time when anyone here could see them), the haday of studios in the 30's and 40's? Or was it the 50's as movies battle TV? Or the rebellions years of the 60's and 70's? Or the return of studios in the 80's and 90's?

red_jon · August 31, 2003, 20:31

You fail to specify which century.

GePap · August 31, 2003, 20:31

Shall I point you to the stupid questions thread?

red_jon · August 31, 2003, 20:33

Some of us might like films from the future.

GePap · August 31, 2003, 20:35

Then make a thread about your favorite future films. This thread does not assume the ability to see into what has not yet occured to be possible.

red_jon · August 31, 2003, 20:37

It really depends on the proximity of glue to your nose.

GePap · August 31, 2003, 21:05

Now that the threadjack is over....

st_swithin · August 31, 2003, 21:07

Wait and see...

If Transmetropolitan ever becomes a movie, the WORLD will know the future.

Oerdin · August 31, 2003, 23:03

Everything was new in the 1930s so they simply had to be more creative. They couldn't just endlessly remake old films like they do today. Also there were few special effects so they really had to concentrate on writting a better script if they wanted people to see the movie.

Kirnwaffen · August 31, 2003, 23:17

I think it's hard to really pinpoint a 'most creative' decade. Every decade has seen it's truly amazing and moving films, along with it's massive flops. And while it's true that a more recent film may have a technological edge, that doesn't make it any less creative or innovative than any film before it. So banana.

Sikander · August 31, 2003, 23:59

I voted for the silent era where film as an artform was created from disparate elements such as the stage, photography and painting. It is de facto the most creative period. Ranking henceforth becomes much more difficult, but generally inertia has set in over time with the creative impetus limited more and more to technical innovations and the growth in the sheer number of films and film industries generating the occasional fresh idea. Thus more new ideas occurred earlier, though there have been a number of periods during which nothing much new occurred.

GePap · September 1, 2003, 01:58

I myself voted for thr 70's: filmakers of the time explored lots of social and psychological aspect that previous filmakers had avoided, as well as making some techincal achievements. They also laid the gorundwork for the 80's and later with films like Jaws and Star Wars.

Adagio · September 1, 2003, 06:40

This depends on which part of the world you're reffering to:

USA: nineties
Denmark: Sixties and seventies (The last good danish movie was made in 1979)
Germany: Seventies

Grandpa Troll · September 1, 2003, 10:42

I feel personally that it may be hard to quantify, because expectations were raised each decade by better methods of production, more exposure in the media.

Sensationalism or even slash 'n gash horror films mean more to some than it means to me. Im not into Godzilla or even King Kong, I personally enjoyed the western and war films of the 60's versus any other era.

So I vote 60's.

Peace

Grandpa Troll

alva · September 1, 2003, 11:30

Quote:

Everything was new in the 1930s so they simply had to be more creative.

Shouldn't this be the other way around??? Because it WAS new they didn't have to do alot to 'awe' the audience, abit like like the beginning of special effects.
-
I would say the 70' too, most of the good directors started at that time too.
Deer Hunter, Apocalypse, French connection etc..

Drogue · September 1, 2003, 11:59

I went 70s. I think the rise of Kubrick, Coppola and (to some extent) Spielberg helped in that. I prefer later films, but these were the first blockbusters, and they were decent films too. Star Wars, A Clockwork Orange, 2001 and the beginings of Jaws and large films like it.

Zkribbler · September 1, 2003, 12:03

I would have to go with the silent flicks. They had so little to work with and did such stupendous stuff--Harold LLoyd's forced prospective shots, amazing shots from Buster Keaton (that famouse shot where the building front falls on him but he goes throught a window

and to mortor round in "The General"); Chaplin's sceen in Gold Rush, where the two guys are fighting over a shotgun which remains pointed at Chaplin no matter where flees.

You also have things like DW Griffith's invention of the close-up and feature-length film.

Straybow · September 1, 2003, 17:46

We generally only see the great movies from before our time, and end up sitting through quite a few losers in our own day. That makes it hard to compare unless you try to isolate only the great films, and then you have banana.

Asmodean · September 1, 2003, 18:22

I like the epic films of the fifties. What with Cecil B. De Mille and all. Movies like Ben Hur, and the likes. These films make the fifties my film decade.

Asmodean

st_swithin · September 1, 2003, 19:06

I really liked 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. I think it's the only Disney film I ever really enjoyed.

"The Great Escape" starring Steve McQueen is always a no-miss.

"Racing with the Moon" with Nick Cage and Sean Penn is a pretty good movie, although it's slow at times.

I must admit that Tim Burton's "A Night Before Christmas" was excellent, in my token nod to recent films. Also Fight Club, but everyone here already knows that (shameless plug).

I thought "Undercover Brother" was pretty funny. I've been told it's not as funny as the Austin Powers series, but I didn't like Myers' accent, so I didn't bother watching them.

Kuciwalker · September 1, 2003, 19:09

I think that, though the lack of sound and special effects may have forced moviewriters to think up more creative scripts, sound and special affects ALLOW moviewriters to think up more creative scripts.

st_swithin · September 1, 2003, 19:18

That's how they made Shrek, Monsters Inc., Nightmare Before Christmas, Chicken Run, Ice Age, South Park, etc.

The Andy-Man · September 1, 2003, 19:20

the 50's

So many directors, Orson Wells, Sydney Lumet, Andrej Wada, Fellini, jon luc goddard, early kubick, john huston

not to mention the actors, like Kirk Douglas, Edward G Robinson etc

Sikander · September 1, 2003, 20:57

Quote:

Originally posted by st_swithin

I thought "Undercover Brother" was pretty funny. I've been told it's not as funny as the Austin Powers series, but I didn't like Myers' accent, so I didn't bother watching them.

You should see the first Austin Powers movie, it really is a classic. It's even better if you've seen an old James Bond film recently, but that's not a requirement. I've seen it three times and it has never failed to crack me up. I see new things every time I see it. Sometimes jokes that I laughed through in an earlier viewing become audible in a later viewing. Anyway, it's as funny as Fight Club to me (which is high praise), though not as cool.

st_swithin · September 1, 2003, 22:18

I've seen every Bond film from "Her Majesty's Secret Service" through "Goldeneye."

I still can't stomach Brosnan as Bond. I used to think Timothy Dulton was bad, but then Brosnan came along and changed my whole perspective on bad.

Austin Powers as funny as Fight Club? Surely you must be joking.

Sikander · September 1, 2003, 23:35

Quote:

Originally posted by st_swithin
I've seen every Bond film from "Her Majesty's Secret Service" through "Goldeneye."

I still can't stomach Brosnan as Bond. I used to think Timothy Dulton was bad, but then Brosnan came along and changed my whole perspective on bad.

Austin Powers as funny as Fight Club? Surely you must be joking.

I never joke about comedy.

Adagio · September 2, 2003, 07:13

Quote:

Originally posted by st_swithin
II thought "Undercover Brother" was pretty funny. I've been told it's not as funny as the Austin Powers series, but I didn't like Myers' accent, so I didn't bother watching them.

Exactly how I feel... I haven't bothered watching AP, but the UB was pretty funny (Though I wouldn't watch this movie twice... it's only a "one time watching" movie)

Quote:

Originally posted by st_swithin
I've seen every Bond film from "Her Majesty's Secret Service" through "Goldeneye."

I still can't stomach Brosnan as Bond. I used to think Timothy Dulton was bad, but then Brosnan came along and changed my whole perspective on bad.

Funny, I agree again...

After watching Goldeneye I didn't bother watching any more James Bond movies... unless they change the actor... I really like old James Bond movies...

Rufus T. Firefly · September 2, 2003, 07:28

The Seventies. It's the only decade in which the studios by-and-large stopped interfering with directors and let them make what they want. The result was some self-indulgent crap, but also some of the greatest films ever made. I love the films of Hollywood in the 30s and 40s, but its only in the 70s that American films consistently transcended entertainment and became Art.

And then some idiot had to go and make Star Wars...

Drogue · September 2, 2003, 08:31

Thinking about it, the 90s and 00s (though not included here) have CGI, new ways of making films (such as the Matrix) and plots that wouldn't have worked earlier (Fight Club in the 60s wouldn't have been gone down so well IMHO) that do show creativity. The lend of the 20th and begining of the 21st century show mainstream films being more creative. Creative and new thinking isn't just for indie films now. I think each decade does has it's creativity, but I'd still go for the 70s as most overall in the last decade.

Austin Powers is incredibly funny, although James Bond parodies itself at times. All 3 of them are hilarious IMHO.

As for bond, if you've only seen them from "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" then you've missed all Sean Connery's ones except for Diamonds are forever. I have to say I like Brosnan as Bond, although I think the's better in The Thomas Crown Affair.

Connery

Lazenby

Moore

Dalton

Brosnan

st_swithin · September 2, 2003, 12:40

FC cost more than $64million dollars to make. I could have remade the entire film the way it was meant to be (based on the real-life characters, NOT the book or the crappy screenplay) for less than half, sans CGI and sans Brad Pitt.

Eddie and Helena would have taken a paycut if I'd been the director, and they would have LIKED IT.

Sure, they'd have screamed at ME a whole lot more, but then again, what's a good director without a little motivation for the actors?