Movies that don't age well

[ezeroast]

Taxi Driver
i was born a good 25 years after it was made
so never understood the society in which it was set
so it hasnt aged well in that its horrific climax which shocked audiences of the time are commonplace now and are a lot more gruesome in all modern action films

Taxi driver was and always will be AWESOME

Edit: what are you guys talking about, American beauty, American history X, Blade runner, Donnie Darko, Clockwork orange. Dated does not mean that it looks old. Just that it no longer appeals to a current audience. All these movies will always be great

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

was about to agree to this kind of stuff, most "horror" movies in from 1910-1980~ish are utter shit, a good 99% of them i have watched i'm either laughing from how fucking bad/pathetic it is, or I'm bored because it's not even interesting.


honestly our fucking ancestors were such panzy asses when it came to horror movies..

While I agree with you that most of the stuff from the past sucks I'd have to argue, as a horror fan, that most horror movies in general are just plain bad, particularly the modern gore porn.

OT: The Exorcist has aged horribly for me.

oh i don't disagree with you there, especially with the gore porn kind of horror stuff, it's not scary, hell i've seen nastier stuff from yotube videos so they fail in that category too...

Recommend any good horror movies that are actually scary to a fellow horror fan?

 

[Captain Wes]

Little Monsters with Howie Mendel, I used to watch that movie all the time before I went to bed. Than I lost the V.H.S., than I somehow combined it and the ending of the Goonies in my head. When I found it for 5 bucks I almost went back in time to kick my past self in the face.

 

[BeastofShadow]

oh i don't disagree with you there, especially with the gore porn kind of horror stuff, it's not scary, hell i've seen nastier stuff from yotube videos so they fail in that category too...

Recommend any good horror movies that are actually scary to a fellow horror fan?

Depends what you find scary. If you're looking for a good atmosphere movies. I'd say Rosemary's Baby, The Haunting, The Grudge (jap version), Tale of Two Sisters. The Thing, Night of the Living Dead, Alien. The problem with Horror movies is that the good ones tend to be very well known.

 

[Nightmare-Child]

I would definately say Tron. I remember watching that, and wondering why. I would aslo have to say John Carpenters The Thing.

 

[Varya]

A lot of people seem to just name movies that have aged, or aren't groundbreaking anymore, but just because a movie have aged, doesn't mean it has aged badly. Star Wars for example, has definitively aged, but well IMO. It has very few bad effects, although dated ones, and it's still clear to see how this movie change the world of cinema. Compare to the remastered ones, or the prequels, where the effects were shiny at the time, but now makes my eyes hurt.
A lot of early CGI movies suffer from this.
For me, the 90's as a hole seems dated (in general, there are exceptions). The hole decade tried so hard to be "modern" that non of it was timeless.

 

[Speakercone]

Clash of the Titans.

 

[EmperorSubcutaneous]

Pretty much all of them. Our taste in movies changes over time, and we think the older stuff looks cheesy once we've moved on to something else.

See most black and white films. Sure they're still enjoyable, but the style of acting was so very different back then that sometimes it's hard to take seriously. They exaggerated things more than current actors do, so to someone who hasn't seen many old films they'd think the acting was all just bad and overly dramatic.

The Haunting

My favorite!

 

[Echo136]

anything nicholas cage has done within the past 5 or 6 years ,with a few acceptions of course, but come on nicky... stop over-compensating (sp?)

I think you are misunderstanding the question. It says Movies that dont age well, not movies that suck.

 

[faceless chick]

movies based upon pop culture references.
jonas brothers jokes will NEVER get old, amirite?

 

[Fanta Grape]

Clockwork Orange. For something set in the "future" it looks very 60's...

I'm calling Bollocks on that one. The first time I saw it was only a few years ago but it's still one of my favourite films. I think it doesn't make much sense (much like Back to the Future II and how it takes place in the distant future of 2015) but it's still great.

The Batman movies by Tim Burton. Great for their time, but if you saw the Dark Knight first...

 

[Klarinette]

I recently watched The Land Before Time 2 (after watching the first one) was thoroughly annoyed and disappointed. I ignored the fact that the first movie pretty much ends with, "And they lived happily ever after, spawning offspring and passing on their story, so piss off and don't ask questions," but.. just... no. It was annoying. Somehow, opening it with a musical number seemed really lame. And then it occurred to me that Judith Barsi was dead, which made me sad (the first movie was actually a post-humus release). The animation had also changed somewhat.

I promptly deleted the file, not ten minutes into the movie. It was definitely better when I was a kid.

 

[Phishfood]

I was going to say something about how SyFy original movies won't age well because they're crap when they're made but I don't really know anyone that actually thinks they're good movies either.

For real though I'd have to go with Avatar because everyone that saw in the theater busted a nut over the special effects and the 3D and all that crap and now that they've bought it on DVD I've seen quite a few people that have decided the story was a bunch of preachy enviro-hippy bullshit.

Slightly off topic I know, but here is a problem movie bob mentioned. Once you strip away the 3d and hype, Avatar is at best an average movie. Scott pilgrim vs the world (IMO) is a much better movie. HOWEVER - what are they going to make more of - the shitty movie with the $2,782,275,172 Gross or the "better" movie with the $47,664,559 Gross?



Bringing it back on topic - guessing scott pilgrim will not age well, newer generations won't get half the references.

 

[Verlander]

Clockwork Orange. For something set in the "future" it looks very 60's...

I'm calling Bollocks on that one. The first time I saw it was only a few years ago but it's still one of my favourite films. I think it doesn't make much sense (much like Back to the Future II and how it takes place in the distant future of 2015) but it's still great.

The Batman movies by Tim Burton. Great for their time, but if you saw the Dark Knight first...

Just because you enjoy a movie, doesn't negate the fact that it hasn't aged well. As a massive Kubrick fan, I think it's easy to see that this film has aged the least favourably of all of them. Take The Shining for instance. The fashions, and pop culture references are very much of its time, but that doesn't ever detract from the film. CO is very much a late 60's-early 70's film, and everything from it's wardrobe to it's soundtrack, keep it firmly held there.

 

[FC Groningen]

The Monty Python movies. They refer a (60's or 70's) culture I can't relate to at all a lot. Especially "the meaning of life".

Saving Private Ryan. I find the story lacking, Tom Hanks too much of a pussy to be captain. Most of all, it can't compare with Band of Brothers. Too much melodrama for my taste as well.

 

[bdcjacko]

That 1st X-Men movie doesn't seem nearly as strong as it did when it came out.

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

I actually really enjoy these two movies. That said, they've aged pretty badly... Escape From New York and Escape From L.A.

First of all... story hasn't aged well. The first film, Escape From New York is set in the far off year... 1997... when Manhattan Island has been turned into a maximum security prison and World War III has been going on for a few years. Then there's the special effects... which at the time were pretty good (like the navigational computer display in Plissken's glider, which wasn't even computer animated), but by today's standards look incredibly dated. Then there's the movie's weapons... the police in the film use M-16A1 and AR-15 rifles which, in an effort to make them look more 'futuristic,' had their hand guards removed... which doesn't so much make them 'futuristic,' as it makes them impractical.

Then we got Escape From L.A., a story in which a 9.6 magnitude earthquake hits Los Angeles in the distant year of 2000, separating it from the mainland and flooding the San Fernando Valley. The United States has turned into a complete theocracy, exiling people to the now walled-off Los Angeles for committing moral sins (like drinking alcohol or eating red meat). And in the actually-still-the-future year 2013, Plissken is once again commissioned by the government to save the day, this time backed by enough 90's nostalgia to be considered a weapon of mass destruction. Why is Snake playing basketball? 'CAUSE IT'S AWESOME! Why is Snake hang gliding? 'CAUSE IT'S AWESOME! Why is Snake surfing? 'CAUSE IT'S AWESOME TO THE MAX, DUDE! Never mind that the computer generated effects for these sequences are so dated even by 1996 standards that they make the whole thing just that much more laughable.

Are they entertaining movies? Hell yes. Is Kurt Russell awesome? Hell yes. Am I thankful for Snake Plissken being the direct inspiration for Solid Snake and Big Boss? Without a doubt. But despite that, and despite my love for them, I have to admit... they've aged really, really bad.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Last summer I got my girlfriend at the time to watch the original Star Wars trilogy for the first time (I know, I know) and she went on about how dated it looked. Quite often, when people say stuff like that to me, I then see it from their point of view but, with this, I couldn't. Star Wars still looks fantastic! It was the 1997 VHS edition so it was slightly remastered but not to a huge extent

Anyway, no, I can't think of any. I agree with OP about E.T. but I've just never liked that film, I think it's overrated and I love Spielberg usually

Actually, the 1997 version and the 2004 version are mostly the same. The main differences are that the colors are off in the 2004 version, Boba Fett's Voice has been changed to match the prequels, Hayden Christenson replaced the guy playing Anakin at the end of Jedi, and a lot of the 1997 CGI, which was looking really dated by 2004, was re-rendered with higher quality models. The '97 version looks dated, a lot more so than either the original cuts or the 2004 cuts.

OT: Pretty much anything involving CGI. It doesn't age well, and mark my words, by the time 2020 rolls around, 2011 CGI will look just as bad as '97 CGI does now. One movie that springs to mind is Lost in Space. While nobody could ever have called it a good film, the effects were quite good for the time. Fast forward to today, and it looks terrible -- especially that chameleon/monkey hybrid thing. I have a feeling that Star Wars, Blade Runner, Forbidden Planet, Metropolis and the like are still going to look good 100 years from now, whereas modern films like Transformers, Star Trek (2009) and Avatar are going to look terrible in retrospect -- and this is coming from someone who enjoyed every movie listed in this sentence.

 

[Phishfood]

OT: Pretty much anything involving CGI. It doesn't age well, and mark my words, by the time 2020 rolls around, 2011 CGI will look just as bad as '97 CGI does now. One movie that springs to mind is Lost in Space. While nobody could ever have called it a good film, the effects were quite good for the time. Fast forward to today, and it looks terrible -- especially that chameleon/monkey hybrid thing. I have a feeling that Star Wars, Blade Runner, Forbidden Planet, Metropolis and the like are still going to look good 100 years from now, whereas modern films like Transformers, Star Trek (2009) and Avatar are going to look terrible in retrospect -- and this is coming from someone who enjoyed every movie listed in this sentence.

This is where such classics as Ghostbusters have the edge. Most of the effects were actually just done. Flying books? on a wire. Eggs cooking on a kitchen counter? the counter is hot. Flying index cards? lots of minimum wage bodies with straws.

I think the whole CGI thing is just bad. I'd rather have something that looks like its made out of plastic but physically there than a CGI construct that is blatantly not in the same room as the actors.

Captcha: Demand Funeye.

 

[Fanta Grape]

Clockwork Orange. For something set in the "future" it looks very 60's...

I'm calling Bollocks on that one. The first time I saw it was only a few years ago but it's still one of my favourite films. I think it doesn't make much sense (much like Back to the Future II and how it takes place in the distant future of 2015) but it's still great.

The Batman movies by Tim Burton. Great for their time, but if you saw the Dark Knight first...

Just because you enjoy a movie, doesn't negate the fact that it hasn't aged well. As a massive Kubrick fan, I think it's easy to see that this film has aged the least favourably of all of them. Take The Shining for instance. The fashions, and pop culture references are very much of its time, but that doesn't ever detract from the film. CO is very much a late 60's-early 70's film, and everything from it's wardrobe to it's soundtrack, keep it firmly held there.

I believe that 2001 has aged rather horribly. Not because of modern trends, but because of audiences. As a spoilt child of generation-y with no attention span, I found the film incredibly hard to watch. My mind got so easily bored by the lack of cuts and dialogue. I mean I think it's genius. It works really well. I can totally understand why it's made. But...

On that note, I'd say A Clockwork Orange doesn't really show toooooo many pop culture items from its period. I mean the undoubtedly late sixties, early seventies fashion style is prominent but the set direction is other worldly, Beethoven is from the 19th century, Singing in the Rain was already a couple of decades old and the cinematography is extremely kubrickian.