nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

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

sxt

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 musicianshttps://rateyourmusic.com/charts/top/album/1979

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

Take the oscar winning movies of the 70s vs today. Every single one of those movies is a bonified cinematic classic!

1979 - "The Deer Hunter"
1978 - "Annie Hall"
1977 - "Rocky"
1976 - "One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest"
1975 - "The Godfather Part II"
1974 - "The Sting"
1973 - "The Godfather"
1972 - "The French Connection"
1971 - "Patton"
1970 - "Midnight Cowboy"

So many average movies winning oscars these days like argo,slumdog millionaire, chicago ,kings speech etc

it seems to be the late 1990s was where the steepest nosedive took place, in films anyway, thats when dreadful movies like titanic and shakespear in love started winning oscars

That correlates with the start of the Internet? Did the Internet kill creavity in the mainstream?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Gimme A Pound

People are still trying to make out that mainstream music is no worse, when there used to be the likes of David Bowie, The Smiths, The Jam, Elvis Costello, The Who, New Order, The Cure, Marvin Gaye, Primal Scream, Talking Heads, Blondie, Kate Bush and the Stone Roses high in the charts.

The equivalent of Westlife in the 80s was Duran Duran, Spandau Ballet and Wham. Not a fan of any of them but they were still infinitely better.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

This argument has been made a few dozen times on this thread. While it’s true that older people might not like new music it’s also true that not every era is going to produce the same kind of brilliance across all art.

Most people acknowledge that TV is better, so maybe TV is actually better and music is actually worse rather than everything being the same all the time.

I wouldn't even bother engaging with TRoL. You'd think they'd read stuff properly though. I started thinking music was getting sh1t when I was a teenager in the 90s. 13 actually. Most people would agree "oldness" is a long long time after 13.

snotboogie

Leandro Clever Sunbonnet wrote: »

On the flipside, TV is likely the best it's ever been.

This! You can’t bemoan modern film without acknowledging modern television. Compare The Duece to Midnight Cowboy....

dxhound2005

vetinari wrote: »

Moves are either incredibly "arty" these days or completely dumb.

That's incredible.

sk8erboii

silverharp wrote: »

there have been studies done on music, reading age of the lyrics has dropped and so has complexity, so objectively you could say music is worse now, except you have all the older stuff to fall back on i guess

Low IQ argument.

I guess everyone should just listen to the exact same Tchaikovsky compositions

twinytwo

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.

As Connery said when he retired hollywood is now run by idiots (or something along those lines)

Unfortunately these day, similar to most things its about making as making as much money as possible, these means movies for the masses - this means generic superhero movies etc.

Dont get me wrong, these have their place but the market is saturated with it.

That being said, how many actors and directors have come through in the last 10/15 years that you would consider outstanding? For me most of them are british or trained in the likes of the old vic etc

twinytwo

Gorilla Woods wrote: »

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

None of the marvel stuff can hold a candle to the dark knight. That set the bar so high i dont think it will ever be matched.

sk8erboii

twinytwo wrote: »

None of the marvel stuff can hold a candle to the dark knight. That set the bar so high i dont think it will ever be matched.

Lmfao

Nah. Nolans series didnt age well at all. The actors carried the movies but Nolan’s direction is laughable in hindsight.

The first 10 minutes of dark knight rises is the height of unintentional comedy. Bane’s voice and Nolans fight choreography is funnier than most comedy

https://youtu.be/IsF2DkNSZ7s

Really the only redeeming parts of Nolans trilogy are the actors (ledger especially) and the setpieces

The Rape of Lucretia

sk8erboii wrote: »

I guess everyone should just listen to the exact same Tchaikovsky compositions

If they did, they would prefer it to the mainstream music, regardless of their age.

Low grade music is propped up by the crutch of the ephemeral, fashion, rebellion, a sense of the search for the new, or specifically that which older people reject. Which leads to the phenomenon all are agreeing with here - becoming older is linked with a sense that modern music isnt as good as the past.

The Tschaikowsky is music intrinisically interesting and of high enough quality to stand the test without the need for fashion, style, clique, etc. So is interesting if looking for music. If looking for simple music as an accompaniement to non-musical peripheral frills, then contemporary music probably suffices.

Arghus

sk8erboii wrote: »

Lmfao

Nah. Nolans series didnt age well at all. The actors carried the movies but Nolan’s direction is laughable in hindsight.

The first 10 minutes of dark knight rises is the height of unintentional comedy. Bane’s voice and Nolans fight choreography is funnier than most comedy

https://youtu.be/IsF2DkNSZ7s

Really the only redeeming parts of Nolans trilogy are the actors (ledger especially) and the setpieces

What would be a modern cinema classic in your view?

Franz Von Peppercorn

sk8erboii wrote: »

Low IQ argument.

I guess everyone should just listen to the exact same Tchaikovsky compositions

Can you try up your game and stop starting your responses with ad hominems, insults, lols or zzzzzzzs.

If you try that you might find that people take your posts more seriously.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Arghus wrote: »

What would be a modern cinema classic in your view?

I think he said earlier on he prefers the marvel
CGI stuff with all the explosions and all. Biff, bam, wallop. Boom.

The dark knight is probably the only superhero movie that’s any way a contender for art, although I do like Ang Lee’s hulk as flawed as it is.

Dr_serious2

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Can you try up your game and stop starting your responses with ad hominems, insults, lols or zzzzzzzs.

If you try that you might find that people take your posts more seriously.

Don't forget LMFAO and dude.

rossie1977

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Music took a nose dive when Nirvana came out, got worse when Oasis started trying (and failing) to sing.

Ten, Dirt, Nevermind, Superunknown, Temple of the Dog are all time classic Rock albums. That period of time gave us RATM debut album that's still getting airplay today, AC/DCs Razors edge, Metallica's Black album, GNRs Use your Illusion albums, Angel Dust from faith no More, Core from Stone Temple Pilots... phenomenal period of time for Rock music

[Deleted User]

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

If they did, they would prefer it to the mainstream music, regardless of their age.

Low grade music is propped up by the crutch of the ephemeral, fashion, rebellion, a sense of the search for the new, or specifically that which older people reject. Which leads to the phenomenon all are agreeing with here - becoming older is linked with a sense that modern music isnt as good as the past.

The Tschaikowsky is music intrinisically interesting and of high enough quality to stand the test without the need for fashion, style, clique, etc. So is interesting if looking for music. If looking for simple music as an accompaniement to non-musical peripheral frills, then contemporary music probably suffices.

Good music is ageless, my dad liked a lot of the songs from bands I would have discovered when I started to listen to music, but I always listened to rock mainly.
He personally listened to everything from classical, rock, blues, trad and singers from the rat pack. I'd be similar now in that I will try to listen to most forms of music, but I've never got into/liked dance/techno etc just not my thing.

A lot of what is in the charts now is not what I would listen to and I don't think it will stand the test of time, but that's the same for every era, the only difference at least in my opinion is that shows like x factor, the voice etc are just highlighting singers rather than actual bands/musicians and singer song writers. There's plenty of good bands out there but the exposure they get isn't the same.
In saying that I hate reality TV so it could be seen as a biased view.

In terms of films, the 70's was when the Hay's code was no longer in force and directors could make movies without it interfering and to an extent the directors were at times telling stories of their own life experiences for example Mean Streets, and cultural changes in the U.S. meant that they had an audience. But a good few movies that would be seen as classics now were unsuccessful either with audiences and/or critics at the time and because cult classics, The Blues Brothers for example.

That is not to say that there were no classic films prior to the 70's of course there was, and that a lot of very forgetful stuff wasn't made.
In terms of movies today, studios seem to be just sticking to what will make money and are afraid to try something different. The fact that since The Sopranos and The Wire (not actually poplar when first aired) actual movie level money has been spent on producing quality series for TV and the number of writers and directors producing stuff for platforms like Netflix is definitely a factor also at least again in my own opinion.

sk8erboii

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Can you try up your game and stop starting your responses with ad hominems, insults, lols or zzzzzzzs.

If you try that you might find that people take your posts more seriously.

I dont know whats cringier. You taking afterhours seriously or taking tabs on my posts. Either way, discuss the topic at hand

sk8erboii

Arghus wrote: »

What would be a modern cinema classic in your view?

Terrence Malick, Alejandro Innaritu, Derek Cianfrance, Jeremy Saulnier, Taylor Sheridan, a few of Gaspar Noe films, Cary Fukunaga, Robert Rodriguez, Paul thomas anderson, Coen brothers, Alfonso cuaron, Kathryn Bigelow, andy muschietti, Denis Villeneuve, David Mackenzie etc etc etc

Notice how the only people saying i watch Marvel (i do cause they’re entertaining with friends) are the ones whove never watched those directors ive listed either. Its just different sides of the same ignorant coin.

If you’re complaining about the lack of good movies and have not seen any of the above, youre part of the problem.

sk8erboii

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I think he said earlier on he prefers the marvel
CGI stuff with all the explosions and all. Biff, bam, wallop
The dark knight is probably the only superhero movie that’s any way a contender for art, although I do like Ang Lee’s hulk as flawed as it is.

Nah man. The dark knight trilogy is laughable. I hang out with people who actually work in film. The only people impressed with nolans trilogy are the mouthbreather types

pretty much only the acting is excellent. Everything including direction and script is barely held together.

Though i get that most people not into the craft will see the bare surface and think its excellent because its a comic book movie played straight without a hint of irony.

Its actually pretty cringy; on par with marvel. But atleast the latter isn’t up its own arse

764dak

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 musicianshttps://rateyourmusic.com/charts/top/album/1979

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

Take the oscar winning movies of the 70s vs today. Every single one of those movies is a bonified cinematic classic!

1979 - "The Deer Hunter"
1978 - "Annie Hall"
1977 - "Rocky"
1976 - "One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest"
1975 - "The Godfather Part II"
1974 - "The Sting"
1973 - "The Godfather"
1972 - "The French Connection"
1971 - "Patton"
1970 - "Midnight Cowboy"

So many average movies winning oscars these days like argo,slumdog millionaire, chicago ,kings speech etc

it seems to be the late 1990s was where the steepest nosedive took place, in films anyway, thats when dreadful movies like titanic and shakespear in love started winning oscars

That correlates with the start of the Internet? Did the Internet kill creavity in the mainstream?

Ipso

sk8erboii wrote: »

Nah man. The dark knight trilogy is laughable. I hang out with people who actually work in film. The only people impressed with nolans trilogy are the mouthbreather types

pretty much only the acting is excellent. Everything including direction and script is barely held together.

Though i get that most people not into the craft will see the bare surface and think its excellent because its a comic book movie played straight without a hint of irony.

Its actually pretty cringy; on par with marvel. But atleast the latter isn’t up its own arse

Laughable, give me a break.

Arghus

sk8erboii wrote: »

Terrence Malick, Alejandro Innaritu, Derek Cianfrance, Jeremy Saulnier, Taylor Sheridan, a few of Gaspar Noe films, Cary Fukunaga, Robert Rodriguez, Paul thomas anderson, Coen brothers, Alfonso cuaron etc etc etc

Notice how the only people mentioning Marvel are the ones whove never watched those directors ive listed either. Its just different sides of the same ignorant coin.

That's a fine list of director's there, but not one movie you'd be proud to name?. I'd class Malick(who made his name in the 70's), the Coens and Paul Thomas Anderson as directors whose work will last. I wouldn't put anyone else on that list in the top-bracket of all time movie directors - maybe there's an argument to be made for Gasper Noe, as his stuff is on a technical level pretty astounding - but some of the other names are laughable - Cary Fukunaga? Derek Cianfrance? Jeremy Saulnier? Don't get me wrong I think they are amongst some of the best directors working today, but they haven't produced any genuine classics.

I hope you aren't suggesting that they're better than some of the names of the past - Ingmar Bergman, John Huston, Stanley Kubrick, Fellini, Hitchcock, Tarkovsky, Dryer... the list is endless.

sk8erboii

Ipso wrote: »

Laughable, give me a break.

The dark knight was at one point the biggest meme on reddit and 4chan because of how bad the intro was.

The story is also full of plot holes. Batman gets a bionic implant that lets him kick down stone pillars. 20 mins later he doesnt even kick Bane.

And remember when Batman was on the nuke but somehow escaped the blast radius in ten seconds?

Yeah its laughable. No one who works in film thinks the movies are as good as the masses think.

sk8erboii

Arghus wrote: »

That's a fine list of director's there, but not one movie you'd be proud to name?. I'd class Malick(who made his name in the 70's), the Coens and Paul Thomas Anderson as directors whose work will last. I wouldn't put anyone else on that list in the top-bracket of all time movie directors - maybe there's an argument to be made for Gasper Noe, as his stuff is on a technical level pretty astounding - but some of the other names are laughable - Cary Fukunaga? Derek Cianfrance? Jeremy Saulnier? Don't get me wrong I think they are amongst some of the best directors working today, but they haven't produced any genuine classics.

I hope you aren't suggesting that they're better than some of the names of the past - Ingmar Bergman, John Huston, Stanley Kubrick, Fellini, Hitchcock, Tarkovsky, Dryer... the list is endless.

I named those directors because i didnt want to exhaust you with a list of 50 movies. And you said modern, meaning they're still around. Thats why i didnt list Kubrick(who also was hit or miss) And you forgot Scorsese

EDIT: Saulnier has made a bunch of movies that will be considered classics. Fukunaga is immortalized in True Detective and Beast of No nation. Cianfrance is literally the staple in indie discourse because of Blue valentine.

(Classics) only become so with time

Ipso

sk8erboii wrote: »

The dark knight was at one point the biggest meme on reddit and 4chan because of how bad the intro was.

The story is also full of plot holes. Batman gets a bionic implant that lets him kick down stone pillars. 20 mins later he doesnt even kick Bane.

And remember when Batman was on the nuke but somehow escaped the blast radius in ten seconds?

Yeah its laughable. No one who works in film thinks the movies are as good as the masses think.

Well if reddit and 4chan says so.

Arghus

sk8erboii wrote: »

The dark knight was at one point the biggest meme on reddit and 4chan because of how bad the intro was.

The story is also full of plot holes. Batman gets a bionic implant that lets him kick down stone pillars. 20 mins later he doesnt even kick Bane.

And remember when Batman was on the nuke but somehow escaped the blast radius in ten seconds?

Yeah its laughable. No one who works in film thinks the movies are as good as the masses think.

Nolan's films all suffer from sloppiness. There's usually plot-holes, continuity errors or gaps in logic in nearly all of his films. But that, to me, doesn't make him a terrible director. I do appreciate how he reaches for the grand and spectacular in his work and tries to bring in a seriousness and thematic depth to his movies. He doesn't always quite pull it off and you can nit-pick flaws if you so want, but you shouldn't be blind to the merits of his films either.

sk8erboii

Ipso wrote: »

Well if reddit and 4chan says so.

Nah. My friends who actually work in the industry says so.

No one with a brain can watch this awkward and unnatural dialogue without laughing

https://youtu.be/9OXbfo3Mbx0

BIG GUY
FOR YOU

Ipso

sk8erboii wrote: »

Nah. My friends who actually work in the industry says so.

No one with a brain can watch this awkward and unnatural dialogue without laughing

https://youtu.be/9OXbfo3Mbx0

BIG GUY
FOR YOU

A few posts above you basically said any one who doesn’t like what I like is the problem and now it’s I have friends who work in film. Come one, can’t you tell how this sounds?
I like Nolan, you don’t. Having an iphone and an internet connection doesn’t make any of our opinions automatically right.

sk8erboii

Arghus wrote: »

Nolan's films all suffer from sloppiness. There's usually plot-holes, continuity errors or gaps in logic in nearly all of his films. But that, to me, doesn't make him a terrible director. I do appreciate how he reaches for the grand and spectacular in his work and tries to bring in a seriousness and thematic depth to his movies. He doesn't always quite pull it off and you can nit-pick flaws if you so want, but you shouldn't be blind to the merits of his films either.

Dunkirk is fine piece of cinema but Batman really isnt. I dont dislike his films, i dont even dislike batman but theres some serious flaws for it to even be considered an excellent movie. Its a pretty subpar trilogy, but with very good acting

sk8erboii

Ipso wrote: »

A few posts above you basically said any one who doesn’t like what I like is the problem and now it’s I have friends who work in film. Come one, can’t you tell how this sounds?
I like Nolan, you don’t. Having an iphone and an internet connection doesn’t make any of our opinions automatically right.

What? Read my post above. I actually LIKE nolan. Im only dispelling the notion that the dark knight trilogy deserves the praise its getting

Arghus

sk8erboii wrote: »

I named those directors because i didnt want to exhaust you with a list of 50 movies. And you said modern, meaning they're still around. Thats why i didnt list Kubrick(who also was hit or miss) And you forgot Scorsese

EDIT: Saulnier has made a bunch of movies that will be considered classics. Fukunaga is immortalized in True Detective and Beast of No nation. Cianfrance is literally the staple in indie discourse because of Blue valentine.

(Classics) only become so with time

I disagree.

I enjoyed Blue Ruin and Green Room - I really thought Green Room was excellent - but I think they are just excellently made modern genre pictures with a slight twist.

Fukunaga did pretty well with the first half of season one of True Detective, which briefly threatened to be something special, but the second half of the season collapsed under the weight of it's own self-seriousness and undergrad philosophising. He's a showy director: I don't think his work has depth that matches the spectacle. Even though I think Sin Nombre is quite good.

"Cianfrance is literally the staple in indie discourse because of Blue Valentine" - Well that's a statement that isn't true. Blue Valentine came out nearly ten years ago, a lot of time and trends have happened since then.

Cianfrance has made two films since. The place beyond the Pines - a self-indulgent and overly long melodrama - and the extremely underwhelming and totally forgettable The Light Between Oceans. He's a working filmmaker with an okayish CV, to say he's some sort of indie film God whose name is on everyone's lips is patently untrue. And it demonstrates to me that you really don't know what you are talking about.

sk8erboii

Arghus wrote: »

I disagree.

I enjoyed Blue Ruin and Green Room - I really thought Green Room was excellent - but I think they are just excellently made modern genre pictures with a slight twist.

Fukunaga did pretty well with the first half of season one of True Detective, which briefly threatened to be something special, but the second half of the season collapsed under the weight of it's own self-seriousness and undergrad philosophising. He's a showy director: I don't think his work has depth that matches the spectacle. Even though I think Sin Nombre is quite good.

"Cianfrance is literally the staple in indie discourse of Blue Valentine" - Well that's a statement that isn't true. Blue Valentine came out nearly ten years ago, a lot of time and trends have happened since then.

Cianfrance has made two films since. The place beyond the Pines - a self-indulgent and overly long melodrama - and the extremely underwhelming and totally forgettable The Light Between Oceans. He's a working filmmaker with an okayish CV, to say he's some sort of indie film God whose name is on everyone's lips is patently untrue. And it demonstrates to me that you really don't know what you are talking about.

Youre wrong. Fukunaga’s direction was excellent the entire season. The writer, Nic Pizzolatto, is who you want to blame.

I never claimed Cianfrance is an ‘indie god’ only that his film is shown literally at every indie movie event. Its a staple as its themes touches on very pertinent subjects today: Abortion, Abusive Relationships, working class struggle etc etc

YOU dont know what youre talking about.