Fright Night (remake) - Page 2

Those are two different concepts. A good movie can still be good regardless of when it was made, but it can also be dated or not "hold up" over time. To think that "time" doesn't have an effect on the perception of a film is a delusion.

That is three separate levels of subjectivity. No doubt whatever I choose as an example you will disagree with and underhandedly dismiss the very notion of in some manner.

There is a great difference in appreciating a great classic for "what it was", and evaluating for what it currently is. Both in "illogicality" and "malignancy". It really boils down to how much nostalgic value one assigns to the past and how much repugnant disdain they have for the present (or future).

Because film, like music, is a constantly evolving and dynamic medium. What works in the context of one era, doesn't necessarily work in the context of the next. Film is the only medium I can think of as well where the tools, delivery method, presentation, and various other facets are constantly being changed and reinvented.

Right, and that's where I can appreciate something for "what it was" precisely because of that context. But the fact remains that if you put two films of a similar concept that were made more than 10 years apart, the majority of the time the newer film is more enthralling, exciting, and enjoyable. Obviously not all the time, and probably less so when comparing mainstream and it's endless bouts of sequels and remakes, but still. Anyone who claims otherwise typically holds some sort of nostalgic value for the older film, or a jaded disdain for current films in general.

Well, I agree to a point. Personally, I saw The Exorcist for the first time about 7 or 8 years ago and it was laughable, hardly timeless. Why? Because it's age was showing. For one example, it used techniques that have now been parodied or reused to the point of cliche. Did the film itself deteriorate? No, of course not. But the effect of the film has deteriorated due to the evolution of the medium. I still appreciate it's significance in cinema, but that doesn't make it any "better" to watch for the first time in this day and age.

Except I don't think that. nor have I ever said that.

And despite the many disclaimers that come with having a discussion with FendersRule, that's exactly what we're doing. Why don't you try contributing instead.

Agreed.

Those are two different concepts though, which is the point I'm trying to get across. I can (and consistently do) step out of my own "myopic little box" and absolutely do appreciate the past, but that doesn't make The Maltese Falcon (your example) feel any less dated or archaic. It doesn't make the acting any less wooden or melodramatic, or the dialogue any less cheesy.

I'm not arguing whether these older films should be remade for contemporary audiences though, so I won't address that aspect.

One can "truly appreciate history" without pretending that something isn't dated.

I agree with this, but I am not one of those people.

There are, sure. And there are others that are quite excellent in my same mindset as well.

And again, with those two examples, I gave clear, thoughtful reasons why I felt the way I felt about those films. Hardly just "ranking" on them. But you don't seem to pay opposing opinions the respect you demand of your own.

Well, it is a subjective statement for a reason.

Neat.

The irony of this statement coming from you is wonderful. However, I am not "spewing ****" about anything, or to anyone. I am simply stating my opinions in forum designed specifically for that purpose.

My point was a bit broader than that, but a good movie from a prior time can certainly feel like less of a good movie based those (and other) aspects. Perhaps though I am not wording it in a way that full realizes the point I'm trying to make, so at this point I'd like to just agree to disagree on that particular topic, however...

I agree with everything you said initially, until that last part. You don't think the original Nightmare on Elm Street was a commodity item of the 80s? Furthermore, you think it was a work of art? It was a cheesy, campy teen slasher flick, and in fact serves to prove my point. The remake certainly sucked, but it was at least a more enjoyable experience than the original (when compared side-by-side today). While I can appreciate it's history and what it meant for it's era, there is no way anyone should prefer it over a modern rendition unless it was for nostalgic reasons (or because they themselves are jaded towards "modernized" remakes and such). Again, this is my (simplified) point.

But I'm not talking about 'horror buffs' and their preferences, I am talking about movies in general. And if I say that about the bad remake (I did say it was bad), then that should tell you something about the original. Again, my point is comparing the two as a regular movie-going experience today.

And for the record, you clearly don't know people like me. I am a HUGE lover of cinema and watch as many films as you claim you do earlier in this thread. Most people around here could vouch for that I'm sure, but that's because they facilitate and encourage discussion while being able to have a healthy respect for opinions they may not agree with; and aren't arrogant enough to think that theirs is the only right one.

Lol, you just can't help being condescending, can you? You have my pity.

Literally every single thing you just said -- save for the two parts in bold -- isn't true. With reading comprehension and basic reasoning skills this bad, it's no wonder every conversation you get involved with digresses to the point of inanity. I think you have less of my pity, and more of my curious fascination at this point. At any rate, you have successfully derailed yet another thread topic and I will stop contributing to that as of now.