Why has the quality of mainstream film and music taken a nosedive since the 70's?

castletownman · 23-04-2019 06:19AM

I genuinely find it ironic that as technology has grown and CGI has advanced, that at the same time the quality of screen writing has diminshed.

Just look at the top 10 highest grossing films every year for the last few years. They are generally remakes, sequels or the latest iteration of the 'Marvel Universe'. Probably visually awesome to look at it in terms of 'action', but lacking in any sort of substance otherwise.

Now I know that highest grossing doesn't equate to best movies of the year, but it certainly is a valid point.

Sonics2k · 23-04-2019 06:35AM

This entire thread can be summed up with this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV0wTtiJygY

Censored11 · 23-04-2019 06:38AM

I've thought for a long time now that all the good sh!t has already been done. Music & film have had its best times, it's as simple as that imo.
The sweetest melodies have been played and the greatest stories have been told...

AAAAAAAAA · 23-04-2019 06:41AM

You know why we don't see any music like Pink Floyd or the Beatles now? Because those things were already done.

Genres that didn't even exist in the 1970s are having their 10/10 albums being made today. You don't hear them because you're old and not continuing to try them. You're already caught in the lazy headspace of "the 70s were the best, nothing will ever be better".

Ri_Nollaig · 23-04-2019 06:51AM

I dunno about music as I am sure the same will be said in 20-30 years time. There is a lot of crap around today but there was plenty crap before too, its easy to look back and only pick the better songs.

As for movies! I definitely agree with you!

I think movies in the past ~10 years have definitely dropped in quality.
Nothing but endless super hero movies...
Really can't think of anything that stands up or is even worth a second watch. Bar the now very odd few like Mad Max Fury Road.

Meanwhile TV has exploded, used to be where washed up actors went now it seems to be where you find the best.

sk8erboii · 23-04-2019 06:53AM

Arghus wrote: »

You're spoofing hard kid.

Nah mate you know its true. Your ‘classics’ are just childhood movies youve latched on to

Yermande · 23-04-2019 06:54AM

castletownman wrote: »

I genuinely find it ironic that as technology has grown and CGI has advanced, that at the same time the quality of screen writing has diminshed.

Just look at the top 10 highest grossing films every year for the last few years. They are generally remakes, sequels or the latest iteration of the 'Marvel Universe'. Probably visually awesome to look at it in terms of 'action', but lacking in any sort of substance otherwise.

Now I know that highest grossing doesn't equate to best movies of the year, but it certainly is a valid point.

I'm loath to make simple year-by-year comparisons because there's all sort of demographic shifts and commercial factors at play, but looking at the top grossing films from the 1970s versus the current decade makes for grim reading, and I say that as someone who enjoys the Marvel Universe films.

It brings to mind something the author Will Self once said about Saturday night television. When he tuned into Parkinson as a kid he might see a novelist or a playwright being interviewed on prime time television and that that instilled in him the belief that becoming a writer was the ultimate cultural goal that a young man of his background could have. Can you imagine anyone, even a young middle-class British child, saying that in 2019?

I'm a firm believer that talent will break through and that high-quality literature and film, to quote Jeff Goldbum in Jurassic Park, "will find a way". But it does seem that my generation (I'm 34) has to dig a bit deeper for it and that a certain superficiality or weightlessness is what dominates the mainstream.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 23-04-2019 06:59AM

sk8erboii wrote: »

Low IQ comparison. There were tens of thousands of artists in the 70s, and only a handful stood out. Without the internet, they could not launch into platforms and fell into obscurity.

Fifty years from now there will always be a niche for contemporary artists due to the internet. Your bias doesnt even compare, you only know of pink floyd because theyre the few lucky ones that endured out of the thousands.

Meanwhile, theres hundreds of wikipedia pages of bands you never heard of

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Musical_groups_established_in_1970

Get your head outta your arse

Bands nobody ever heard about now are not going to be remembered in the future.

sk8erboii · 23-04-2019 07:01AM

Ri_Nollaig wrote: »

I dunno about music as I am sure the same will be said in 20-30 years time. There is a lot of crap around today but there was plenty crap before too, its easy to look back and only pick the better songs.

As for movies! I definitely agree with you!
I think movies in the past ~10 years have definitely dropped in quality.
Nothing but endless super hero movies...
Really can't think of anything that stands up or is even worth a second watch. Bar the now very odd few like Mad Max Fury Road.

Meanwhile TV has exploded, used to be where washed up actors went now it seems to be where you find the best.

Nah lad, you just havent seen enough movies. If you want the *CLASSIC* aesthetic and narrative beats go check out Taylor Sheridan, Saulnier, Villeneuve, Nicolas Refn, Pizzolatto, Fukunaga, Gaspar Noe ETC ETC ETC

Mate good movies never went away, they just went indie.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 23-04-2019 07:03AM

sk8erboii wrote: »

Ah yes the ‘classics’ aka the non-quantifiable certification of movies that are simply OLD.

Mate i love some old movies, since they display innovation that simply wasnt done before. But if those same movies aired today they’d be lost in a dime a dozen police serial/slow burn artschool noir that now populate indie filmmaking scene.

Oh yeah those types of movies are still around, even better than ever. Except mainstream now means comicbook movies.

To to back to the french connection, where Hackman mumbles his way inbetween relentlessly static shots (technical limitation due to the nature of 35mm film cameras) Refn copies this style. Except now its nearly comedy because it turns out having slow, mumbling people bounce around long shots just give off the vibe of autism.

Drive (2011) is the prime example of this. If released in the 70s it would have been a ‘classic’ Instead of the unintended comedy that it actually is.

Movies like chinatown and its sequels are also like this. (((Classics))) with bad acting that is really only held together by innovation and good aesthetics

Chinatown has bad acting? Maybe you should stick to guardians of the galaxy or the latest Spider-Man.

You’re an odd fish - very defensive of your generation’s ability (although of ourselves the makers and actors in modern movies are middle aged).

If it makes you feel any better TV is in a golden age now.

the_syco · 23-04-2019 07:06AM

sxt wrote: »

but 50 years later ,people are still listening to those mainstream music albums
that were released in 1979. that is a testament to the quality of the music. all those albums are still classics today

If you go Bach far enough, you'll wonder if music started going bad in the 1700's :pac:

sk8erboii · 23-04-2019 07:11AM

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Chinatown has bad acting? Maybe you should stick to guardians of the galaxy or the latest Spider-Man.

You’re an odd fish - very defensive of your generation’s ability (although of ourselves the makers and actors in modern movies are middle aged).

If it makes you feel any better TV is in a golden age now.

Im not defensive. Im merely pointing out the stupid assertion that older = better. Its pretty pathetic that you even have to mention marvel movies.

Its not about generations either, i never mentioned this. It seems YOURE the defensive one.

Chinatown and its sequels have bad acting. The first one was saved by its editing and strong visual aesthetic,

https://youtu.be/_7Y_OCGOKTk

sk8erboii · 23-04-2019 07:14AM

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Bands nobody ever heard about now are not going to be remembered in the future.

Mainstream =\= no ones heard of

You realize theres hundreds of artists on YouTube who are indie but still has hundreds of millions of views?

Yermande · 23-04-2019 07:16AM

sk8erboii wrote: »

Im not defensive. Im merely pointing out the stupid assertion that older = better. Its pretty pathetic that you even have to mention marvel movies.

Its not about generations either, i never mentioned this. It seems YOURE the defensive one.

Chinatown and its sequels have bad acting. The first one was saved by its editing and strong visual aesthetic,

https://youtu.be/_7Y_OCGOKTk

What's the second sequel to Chinatown?

Also, what exactly about the editing saved the film?

sk8erboii · 23-04-2019 07:18AM

Yermande wrote: »

What's the second sequel to Chinatown?

Also, what exactly about the editing saved the film?

Mistype

Also read

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg

Roman polanski’s direction carried the movie. His european style of focusing on landscape, lighting and dynamic camera that changes POV to objects to convey emotion.

Meanwhile the sequel is american in its direction, focusing on characters actions and reactions. Unfortunately this only highlights the poor acting

23-04-2019 07:25AM

sxt wrote:

Who are mainstream today? ed sheeran ,adele? Taylor swift? kathy perry. none of these artists have made an album that will be listened to in 50 years time

sxt wrote:

Compare the top rated albums of 1979,joy division,pink floyd, the clash ,talking heads ,michael jackson ,ac/dc ,fleetwood mac etc) All made by main stream musicians

There were many people who heard the bands you mentioned above at the time & compared them to Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley etc and claimed no one would listen to them in 50 years

Yermande · 23-04-2019 07:29AM

sk8erboii wrote: »

Mistype

Also read

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg

Roman polanski’s direction carried the movie.

Explain what it was about the editing that saved the film. I personally only notice bad editing. I don't have an eye for identifying when editing carries a film. The film critic Mark Kermode once said the same thing about George Lucas' American Grafiti. He said it wasn't directed very well, it was just brilliantly edited. I don't understand that. You evidently do. If you have the time please gives us a brief tutorial, to accompany the philosophy tutorial material you've shared above.

sk8erboii · 23-04-2019 07:35AM

Yermande wrote: »

Explain what it was about the editing that saved the film. I personally only notice bad editing. I don't have an eye for identifying when editing carries a film. The film critic Mark Kermode once said the same thing about George Lucas' American Grafiti. He said it wasn't directed very well, it was just brilliantly edited. I don't understand that. You evidently do. If you have the time please gives us a brief tutorial, to accompany the philosophy tutorial material you've shared above.

Aside from what i already wrote, Polanski uses strong visuals to hide bad acting. Rosemary’s Baby has the leading lady screaming in bed and were it not for the POV jump cut to a demons face it wouldve been comical.

Likewise in Chinatown, the strong visual motif of the gritty urban noir hides the poor acting. Notice during heightened scenes the camera cuts and focuses on OBJECTS rather than the actors. Because said objects conveyed abstract emotions more effectively than bad acting

Someone else might be able to give a detailed analysis, im just a casual watcher with no formal education on the subject

Gimme A Pound · 23-04-2019 07:51AM

Deleted User wrote: »

it hasnt

Mainstream music absolutely has.

And Hollywood is churning out superhero franchises and remakes at a rate of knots for a reason also (anything else too risky).

There is still plenty of brilliant stuff of course, but it's the mainstream being referred to here.

Yermande · 23-04-2019 07:55AM

sk8erboii wrote: »

im just a casual watcher

That's why I'm interested. I rarely, if ever, hear anyone casually refer to editing.

You were talking about Polanski's choice of shots and his overall approach to conveying emotion. But where does his visual style end and the final edit begin? I mean he didn't edit Chinatown. There are many auteur directors who don't edit their films. It's a relationship I don't really understand and I find it difficult to see where good direction ends and good editing begins. I'm sure there's huge overlap, but then again there are many celebrated editors so it must be a significant creative element in its own right.

You seem to be speaking about Polanski's overall direction, not the editing specifically. But as you say, you're just a casual observer. Cool. So am I.

storker · 23-04-2019 08:00AM

Woke Hogan wrote: »

Star Wars came out in 1977 and the generations who grew up watching it never graduated to serious films for adults.

So...anyone who watched Star Wars never watched anything else after that. Riiight.... :rolleyes:

Franz Von Peppercorn · 23-04-2019 08:05AM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

There were many people who heard the bands you mentioned above at the time & compared them to Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley etc and claimed no one would listen to them in 50 years

They were popular at the time so can’t be compared to obscure bands now. There was an explosion of genres at this time as it happens.

The “you like old stuff because you’re old” argument doesn’t work. I wasn’t born when Chinatown came out, and I doubt if the op or most other posters saw it in the cinema on first release. The age limit was 14 or 15 depending on the country, according to google, and therefore the youngest people who saw it on release in 1974 are 60+ now.

I saw it on a DVD. I’ve seen most all those movies on dvd or streaming and they are in fact better than most Oscar winners these days, although that could be the fault of the academy and not the era. However the op limited his movie list m to Oscar winners, and i agree - in terms of Oscar winners the 70s rocked.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 23-04-2019 08:09AM

Although rocky is overrated and I haven’t seen Patton (which might indicate it isn’t great).

Franz Von Peppercorn · 23-04-2019 08:17AM

The list for the 80s is much much worse. And although newer I haven’t seen half the winners, although I’ve seen plenty of nominees.

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Picture_(1980s)

Probably block busters crowded out some top movies in the 80s as now.

23-04-2019 08:19AM

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

They were popular at the time so can’t be compared to obscure bands now. There was an explosion of genres at this time as it happens.

The “you like old stuff because you’re old” argument doesn’t work. I wasn’t born when Chinatown came out, and I doubt if the op or most other posters saw it in the cinema on first release. The age limit was 14 or 15 depending on the country, according to google, and therefore the youngest people who saw it on release in 1974 are 60+ now.

I saw it on a DVD. I’ve seen most all those movies on dvd or streaming and they are in fact better than most Oscar winners these days, although that could be the fault of the academy and not the era. However the op limited his movie list m to Oscar winners, and i agree - in terms of Oscar winners the 70s rocked.

The opening post said

Who are mainstream today? ed sheeran ,adele? Taylor swift? kathy perry. none of these artists have made an album that will be listened to in 50 years time

Apart from Adele I wouldn't listen to any of them but to call them obscure? These are very reliant artists.

You also need to look at how people listen to their music too. Just because you don't hear it on a radio station doesn't mean it's not popular. I grew up in the 70s & 80s. I'm a Led Zeppelin, Pink floyd fan. Their music got no radio play in the 70s. I think "another brick in the wall" was the first Pink Floyd song to get mainstream play since "see Emily play" 10 years before that

Yermande · 23-04-2019 08:26AM

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Although rocky is overrated and I haven’t seen Patton (which might indicate it isn’t great).

Patton is a 3 hour biopic set during World War 2, which might explain why it's such an underseen Best Picture winner. It also won for Best Director, Best Actor, Best Original Screenplay (by Francis Ford Coppola, his first Oscar win), Best Editing, Best Sound and Best Art Direction. It's a great film.

It's one of those big-winning Oscar favourites that relatively few people seem to remember or talk about. Amadeus is another one.

xckjoo · 23-04-2019 08:28AM

A few years ago I might have agreed, but then I got proactive and realised there's MORE good stuff coming out these days than ever before. Every couple of months I find a new album that gets added to the all time favourite list. What you're calling mainstream is just whatever is being pushed by the big players with the marketing budgets.

Yermande · 23-04-2019 08:31AM

Woke Hogan wrote: »

Star Wars came out in 1977 and the generations who grew up watching it never graduated to serious films for adults.

Including George Lucas.

Mebuntu · 23-04-2019 08:36AM

sxt wrote: »

it seems to be the late 1990s was where the steepest nosedive took place

Nah, the downturn in movies actually started in the mid 70's, dropped like a bomb in the 80's (Golan-Globus anyone?), recovered slightly in the 90's and has remained there or thereabouts since. Modern mainstream movies do little or nothing for me but there are high-quality gems among the Indies and on streaming services like Netflix we get to see a fair share of excellent foreign-language movies.

For me the best movie time was from the mid 50's to the end of the 60's. The emergence and development of large widescreen processes like Cinerama, 70mm, CinemaScope and countless derivatives showing on proper size large screens made trips to the cinema exciting. There is no excitement nowadays watching movies in cinemas on dull screens some only marginally bigger than my TV. Cinemas don't have any prestart atmosphere and some show non-widescreen films with no black masking left or right - a cardinal sin.

I heard recently that, (I think it was in the USA) at a special digital presentation of Ben Hur (1959) when the film started there was just a blank screen for several minutes with just the music playing. It was stopped and then an announcement made that the screening was being cancelled as it appeared they had been given a corrupted drive. What the cinema didn't know was that in those "roadshow" days there was a music overture played behind the red curtains (with no accompanying picture) to get the audience "in the mood" and then the curtains would sweep back to present the giant screen for the start of the film. Them were the days

.

Having said all that, at the end of the day people's opinions are formed by their own experiences so who am I to criticise what people are enjoying on today's screens.

Gorilla Woods · 23-04-2019 08:43AM

The best super hero movie of all time was released in 2018, Avengers Infinity War which included the best villain of all time.

Why has the quality of mainstream film and music taken a nosedive since the 70's?

Comments