• brown567@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    I feel like a lot of these films are important because they did something first. The problem is that it doesn’t mean that film did it best.

    • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      I’ve always talked about The Rolling Stones like this. I respect what they did, but I was born when rock had really gone beyond it. The Beatles too for the most part. Even a lot of '80s punk. I wanted faster, heavier, more technical. All the old stuff just felt basic to me, but I know it’s a matter of perspective.

      • Soggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 days ago

        The Stones, The Who, Led Zeppelin, these guys were inventing the sound of rock. I think they’re fantastic musicians. But Rush and Pink Floyd stand out more to me as timeless art.

        • Danquebec@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          Those artists arrived much later than the invention of rock. It was invented by Chuck Berry and other black artists in the US during the 50s.

          • Soggy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 days ago

            I didn’t think my point needed a “history of music” lesson attached. The rock bands of the 60s were taking the experiments of swing and blues musicians from the decade prior and refining them into the aggressive, over-driven and distorted arrangements. Not “rock & roll”.

      • FudgyMcTubbs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        The Stones could write one hell of a catchy, riff, hook, and chorus tho. Their sloppy musicianship (im being generous) is part of their charm.

        Im sure they invented a sound as much as any of the other groups that get credited with that nonsense.

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      7 days ago

      And then there’s movies like Dr Strangelove, where I had no idea that old movies could be that entertaining still. Though it has been at least a decade since I watched it, I bet it still stands, even if it invented the iconic “ride a nuke like a cowboy” image.

      Also the whole Soviets built a doomsday device but didn’t tell the world about it, which reality copied (eventually they told the world).

      • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

        I mean it isn’t an automated doomsday device, just some generals in a bunker who could send the command if moscow vanishes, the same way the US president can via the Nuclear Football.

        • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          As I recall, it was a combo of automated and manual and they went public with the info because they lost knowledge of how it all worked.

    • NannerBanner@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      7 days ago

      I believe there’s a copypasta/good comment floating around out there from the reddit days that details everything that has been referenced about the godfather films, and so, if you watch many movies that are popular or considered good, you’ve already seen almost everything that stands out in the godfather films. Throw in the great many improvements in cameras, acting methods/filming techniques, and the ‘drift’ that means one generation prefers certain tropes/themes/scenes/actions over others, and of course an older film is going to be less entertaining for us.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 days ago

        It’s also written for a different time. Shakespeare is the classic example for this problem, where his plots are timeless and his plays are so Elizabethan that they famously bore teenagers forced to read them, yet simultaneously will be adapted into very popular media somewhat regularly.

        • KinglyWeevil@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          7 days ago

          I’ve been saying since I was in highschool that Shakespeare should probably be an elective in college, except for maybe Julius Caesar in AP Literature classes. It’s just so far out of date and the teachers aren’t allowed to explain what any of the slang means so it’s just… soulless. If they were able to explain how filthy it is, the kids would probably enjoy it more.

          • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 days ago

            My senior year high school English teacher was allowed to explain the dirty jokes and we loved it. I think it’s a disservice not to do just that. Yes, it can be boring as hell at times, especially when read, but he’s the most foundational author in the English language, and understanding that and why should be part of a high school education. It’s just that you actually have to do it right.

            My teacher began the year telling us that we were 17 or 18 years old and he was going to speak to us like adults and expected us to behave as adults in turn. From there when literature touched on adult subjects like sex and drugs we actually addressed it, including the poem Kublai Kahn which was one of the first poems I actually really liked as a young person. These topics are major parts of literature and culture and I’m frustrated that people seem to think 17 year olds should be shielded from them even if that means that people who only engage in free education don’t get that literature education.

        • rumba@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          Yeah, My kids/teens don’t have the patience for anything old.

          We were used to watching the storyteller unfold the tablecloth, neatly set out the plates, polish all the silverware, light the candles, place the napkins, and even the chairs in anticipation, then clap while they covered the whole meal. We were thrilled to notice how that fork being slightly off snowballed into a murder scene. Nothing exciting happened in the first half of anything while they setup the story.

          You have about 5-10 minutes these days to cast the first hook or they’ll be asking to watch some short form videos.

          • MBech@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 days ago

            I’m fairly sure that just boils down to taste. I’m not here to watch an hour of foreplay through subtle clues, red herrings, and artistic masturbation. Give me some plot and get on with it.

  • mavu@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    7 days ago

    If you don’t care for it, don’t let people make you watch it.
    No one (sane) will go “Oh! you have to go to this 4 hour 17th century italian Opera with me! You will love it!” .

    You don’t “have to” value any kind of art. If you don’t, you don’t. That said, it might be worth trying at least once, you never know if you find something that stays with you.

    • Katzimir@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 days ago

      I think that most of Art needs a bit oft commitment to be consumed and understood, you cannot expect to immediately understand a piece oft Art just because you can see colour and hear sound. It boils down to education, as you need to learn most things in manageable steps. What im saying is: if someone offers to show you something they like, they are likely a good resource to guide you through the experience.

      • Soggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        More likely than the average Joe but guiding, like teaching or storytelling, is a distinct skill. Lots of people are totally blind to their own biases and the hypothetical 4 hour opera without context would definitely make me doubt their advice.

    • Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      “Oh! you have to go to this 4 hour 17th century italian Opera with me! You will love it!”

      So you’ve never been dragged to Swan Lake?

      • mavu@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        I personally would probably enjoy it. At least the Ballet part. And i always carry ear buds, so the terrible opera style singing can be dealt with.

  • Zink@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    6 days ago

    If you are a user of any mind altering substances, or have any interest in starting, it might be worth giving the movie or show another try in that state. Assuming your chosen goodies leave you coherent and able to form memories, lol.

    And it’s not just to put you in a good mood, though that certainly helps. Maybe it’s just the spicy neurons in my case, but being high can qualitatively change the experience of how I relate to characters. (not extreme like empathy on / empathy off, sometimes things might just land different)

    • It’s easier to read the subtext and make connections, catch Easter eggs, etc. Although sometimes your brain is just making shit up.

      I got super stoned before I watched RoboCop 2 a few months ago, which I hadn’t seen before. Holy shit the satire is deeply baked into every scene. I was laughing more than I have in years.

  • tino@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    The Godfather is far from being a difficult movie to watch. It has a rich story, plenty of action, great scenes,… You want serious stuff? Try Nouvelle Vague French movies from Eric Rhomer or Jean-Luc Godard, German or Finnish movies where absolutely nothing happens and it’s just people eating soup. Try Jim Jarmusch’s Stranger than Paradise. It’s great, it’s a classic, but you’re going die out of boredom if The Godfather is already too much for you.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Yeah, some of these criticisms are bad just on their face. Godfather is too slow for you? Come on. Is Rambo to slow for you as well? What about Speed?

      Some of this just feels like kids who just graduated from watching Paw Patrol deciding they should veto what anyone else puts on the TV.

      If you want to throw a fit because everything isn’t Marvel, I guess that’s fine for you. But don’t be shocked when you’re not invited back to College Movie Night.

    • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      But I can’t watch the Godfather and doomscroll at the same time, so it’s objectively bad.

    • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 days ago

      Try Jim Jarmusch’s Stranger than Paradise. It’s great, it’s a classic, but you’re going die out of boredom if The Godfather is already too much for you.

      And if you survive that you can move right on to Eraserhead.

  • FinishingDutch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    7 days ago

    You know what my favorite food is? A plain pepperoni pizza. Absolutely love it.

    You can take me out to dinner to the fanciest restaurant: five Michelin stars, the best trained chefs, the most expensive ingredients, the perfect ambience… and it would be utterly wasted on me. Because nothing beats a plain pepperoni pizza.

    Some people are like that with movies. Even movies which are objectively some of the best ever produced in the history of cinema, will have people who don’t like them. And that’s perfectly fine.

    • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 days ago

      Plain and pepperoni are two different things!

      In a similar vein, I’m a sausage pie guy. Give me some ground sausage on pizza and I’ll eat that for life. Anytime I get together with people, there’s always the “what toppings” discussion, and people bring their fucking bullshit to the table, and I say get sausage, and people go mehhh mehhh mehhh, and you know what? Everyone eats the goddamn sausage, and were left with olives and mushrooms, and peppers and onions, and fucking Hawaiian.

      So I appreciate it. The classics are classics for a reason.

    • Nalivai@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      You might want to actually try one of those fancy restaurants, you might be surprised.
      But also maybe it’s better to not bother and be happy with what you got

      • FinishingDutch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 days ago

        Oh I’ve been to some :D

        One time our boss took us to a fancy restaurant that had a Michelin-starred chef owner. We did some ad work and publicity for him, so this was sort of a thank you, and a way for him to go all out and make a surprise menu to try things. Basically, we were dining for free there.

        They go all out. Nine course meal. And as you’d expect, that means giant plates with tiny portions.

        Now, thing is… our company is more of a steakhouse crowd.

        Halfway through, they serve a perfect steak. Cooked to heavenly perfection. Best steak I’ve ever had in my entire life. And garnished with gourmet fries. They serve those in this tiny ramekin, intended to share. Basically, everyone gets a handful of fries.

        One colleague sees the steak, grabs three ramekins and proceeds to load up his plate. He promptly flags the waitress and asks ‘hey, can you get some more fries?’.

        Waitress comes back with some more. Colleague again: ‘hey uh, you wouldn’t happen to have a bottle of curry sauce?’ The look on her face was priceless. That was not a question this restaurant had ever had. ‘I’ll go ask… the chef’

        Luckily the chef had a good sense of humor about him: out comes this wild, tattooed, giant bearded mountain of a man carrying the biggest kitchen knife I’ve ever seen. ‘WHO’S THE FUCKER WHO JUST ORDERED CURRY SAUCE IN MY RESTAURANT??’ Colleague meekly raises his hand. Chef hands him the bottle of curry sauce he was holding behind his back 😂

  • M137@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    7 days ago

    And then, sometimes, you watch it years or decades later and it clicks. And other times you are just convinced everyone who likes it are saying so because critics like it.

  • halvar@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    I was like this with 2001: A Space Odessy. I love Kubrick, I love sci-fi, I even like art that may require a change in perspective/that is more abstract and I’m an old movie buff. Yet Space Odessy wasn’t for me for some reason. It’s long, streched-out and has some scenes you wish would already end by the second minute, yet they last for 20. I liked the surreal bits a lot but for the almost 3 hours it took to watch it I really can’t say I was entertained.

    I ended up watching Interstellar later and while it’s far from Space Odessy in artistic value I ended up feeling that was more like the movie I wanted Space Odessy to be. Obviously they are not very similar but it had some concepts that without watching I hoped Kubrick already figured out for some reason.

      • Soggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

        I think the book and movie work best as companion pieces. Experience both, either order works but I prefer the film first for the spectacle and mystery.

    • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      Interstellar is a very plot driven movie, it’s leads you by the hand saying “these things are happening, in this order, and it’s interesting and engaging”, and when the movie is done you get it: the journey is at an end, and the good guys conquered the big problems, emotions were felt along the way, and you’re not really left with any lingering questions afterwards. It’s a great movie, but it’s also a rather easy movie to enjoy if you’re into space stuff.

      Whereas 2001, aside from being an absolute visual feast, is more abstract and theme driven, about humanity’s place in the cosmos, and it makes you ask deeper questions, but you must actually pay attention and discover those questions and explore them in your own mind to actually engage with the movie. It’s not a passive experience, and your engagement with the movie can stay with you for days. It’s certainly a much more difficult movie to enjoy.

      When I was in my 20s, I hated movies like 2001 and Bladerunner, I found them so tedious, because I wanted scifi like Aliens goddammit. Later, I learned to really enjoy these more cerebral movies that took effort to engage with, because they were so rewarding when that effort paid off.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 days ago

        I mean, which version?

        I almost think the early low budget adaptations are better because of how zany they get with the art and effects.

        The Timothee Chalamet version is just another action movie. But Lynch gets wild with it.

        • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          6 days ago

          “Just another action movie” but the guy up the comment chain is literally dozing off. Part one actually has very little action in it, most of it is packed landscape shots, politics, and lore dumping. Which is very accurate to the source material. If you dislike Villeneuve’s adaptation, I can only assume you did not love the Herbert books because he was incredibly faithful to the tone, especially for material that was thought to be impossible to adapt to the big screen.

          Lynch’s stuff is simply not comparable because he said “fuck the source material” and just kinda did whatever came to him in some acid trip or other. Fine if that’s your thing but that’s not what Dune is - especially not the first few books.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            7 days ago

            Any time you put electrical tape on a cat and use it as a prop, I reserve the right to describe the film as low budget

            • lilmookieesquire@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              7 days ago

              The funny part is that Sting didn’t even know he was supposed to be acting in a movie. He just showed up on the set randomly and just did his regular daily routine.

  • stupidcasey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 days ago

    You should watch 2001 A space Odyssey it is exactly like this.

    It is a historical documentary set in the early days of AI and Space Travel before SpaceX and ChatGPT, it’s kinda neet to see how far we’ve came in such a short time though.

  • FatVegan@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    7 days ago

    Ugh, lord of the rings. I tried watching it alone, with friends, with a girlfriend… Nope, just boring

  • trslim@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 days ago

    Blade Runner for me. Great themes, great plot, great visuals and music, horrendously boring and plodding. 2049 was better imo.

    • dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      Wrong opinion. You can definitely enjoy 2049 more, but the better film is the first. I enjoy 2049 much more often, it is a very palatable movie that appeals to a greater, higher volume selling, family-friendlier audience than the original. It’s the lager vs a craft beer between the two, though.

    • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      7 days ago

      I used to throw westerns on if I’d had one too many drinks and going to bed was not recommended. I was trying to turn off my mind, but also not get into watching something, and a boring ass old spaghetti westerns was it. Lots of silences, strange noises to keep me from really falling asleep, it was perfect.

      Ended up really getting into the genre because of it. Fistful of Dollars trilogy is fantastic. Once Upon a Time in the West is amazing. The Shooting is a lesser known acid western starring a young Jack Nicholson that was just weird.

      I think a reason I like them now is a lot of them are really well directed with these sprawling desert shots juxtaposed with in-your-face views of the characters. The movies don’t tell you what’s going on, you just watch.

      • TrooBloo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 days ago

        I love the way the long, ultra-wide shots of empty landscape give you the sense of isolation, the notion that if that guy looking for that lost gold feels like he needs to shoot you dead in your own home, he probably can get away with it. Who’s coming to save you or seek your justice? There’s no one around for miles. There’s a mule outside grinding flour you could beckon, maybe.