when u only like one pretty specific sound/style/era of a genre u aren't actually into that genre. it's the same as only watching baseball and then trying to say or pretend u fck with all sports. it doesn't work.
I'm more hiphop than you'll ever be kid.
I've been part of hip hop while you sit in your couch.
Hit me up when you've spent hours and hours in the studio, going to shows and rap battles or when you've recorded demos and had your shit played in the streets.
but what i don't understand is why there are so many posters on here who are exactly like u. can u guys just migrate to okayplayer and leave this poor forum alone?
Also, was there a show as good as Daily Show wtih Jon Stewart in the 90s? if one wants to go back at satirical news analysis I guess it would be the Smothers Brothers. SNL only has a small segment and even they've had their ups and downs.
The 90s was edgy and groundbreaking I'll give you that.
But the 2K era is an evolution of that.
90s had LIving Color, 2k era had Chapelle Show… smarter funnier, that's just an example.
A lot of Curb's hilarity owes to Seinfeld, and Seinfeld is better anyway. The 3seasons 2eps I've seen of AD are fantastic, but not as good as Seinfeld and there isn't the same quantity.
Stewart is good, but not GOAT.
Everybody Loves Raymond sh!ts all over modern family.
I would try to debate it had you any knowledge or understanding of what makes a movie greater. Beause if you knew anything you would not be dismissing works by directors like Bunuel, Hitchcock, Kubrick and Ford, just to name a few, trying to sound like you know WTF you are talking about. I know you like to look hip and keep up with the times and shit, you are probably past your 20s but never matured as you aged so you feel insecure about the unfamiliar numbers you have to get used to. So Do me a favor and try to be less of a fool and stick to stuff you actually know something about.
I've been part of hip hop while you sit in your couch.
Hit me up when you've spent hours and hours in the studio, going to shows and rap battles or when you've recorded demos and had your shit played in the streets.
I would try to debate it had you any knowledge or understanding of what makes a movie greater. Beause if you knew anything you would not be dismissing works by directors like Bunuel, Hitchcock, Kubrick and Ford, just to name a few, trying to sound like you know WTF you are talking about. I know you like to look hip and keep up with the times and shit, you are probably past your 20s but never matured as you aged so you feel insecure about the unfamiliar numbers you have to get used to. So Do me a favor and try to be less of a fool and stick to stuff you actually know something about.
Acting all across the board in past eras was shitty. Even in many of the great films the acting wasn't as good as today's acting (again… overall). Aside from a handful of method actors in the late 60s and 70s it was mostly Europeasn conventional actors. It's as if they're on stage at times, stage acting doesn't translate into screen. Cinema was filled with tons of B movies, Westerns and shitty films overall in the 50s and 60s. Let us not pretend as tho they were all cinematic masterpieces.
Storytelling techniques have only improved and evolved. And even while there is some lack of originality almost everything else is built upon past eras. Take away special effects and concentrate on films that don't have that and you'll see how things have evolved.
If you want to dive into this I'll be more than engage, name dropping doesn't make you any sort of expert or connoisseur.
As I mentioned before, compare the best with the best, the average with the average and the bad with the bad, you'll see how things have evolved overall. YOu'll see how films like Spring Breakers will shit all over films by Gidget and the f*ckin Monkees. Oh what, you forgot those existed?
Storytelling and writing techniques have advanced, they combine multiple elements and genres more than ever before, and boxy dialogues have become more realistic and intricate. You have commercials that rival and better films great films shot in past eras. Some damn near pieces of art compared to some films from the past. Some of it has to do with technological advancements that make it easier for productions of course, but alot of it is building upon a foundations set.
YOu have tv shows today that will SHIT on top films from past eras. From music, cinematography, directing, acting, writing etc.etc. Band of Brothers is >>> >than 98% of the war films shot in the past.
Sopranos alone is superior than all but perhaps 2 gangster movies
Same goes for the Wire>>> all but perhaps 2 urban films
Storytellng, production, acting, etc.etc. have advanced
Last edited by andgar923 : 09-16-2013 at 11:42 AM.
Acting all across the board in past eras was shitty. Even in many of the great films the acting wasn't as good as today's acting (again… overall). Aside from a handful of method actors in the late 60s and 70s it was mostly Europeasn conventional actors. It's as if they're on stage at times, stage acting doesn't translate into screen. Cinema was filled with tons of B movies, Westerns and shitty films overall in the 50s and 60s. Let us not pretend as tho they were all cinematic masterpieces.
Storytelling techniques have only improved and evolved. And even while there is some lack of originality almost everything else is built upon past eras. Take away special effects and concentrate on films that don't have that and you'll see how things have evolved.
If you want to dive into this I'll be more than engage, name dropping doesn't make you any sort of expert or connoisseur.
As I mentioned before, compare the best with the best, the average with the average and the bad with the bad, you'll see how things have evolved overall. YOu'll see how films like Spring Breakers will shit all over films by Gidget and the f*ckin Monkees. Oh what, you forgot those existed?
Storytelling and writing techniques have advanced, they combine multiple elements and genres more than ever before, and boxy dialogues have become more realistic and intricate. You have commercials that rival and better films great films shot in past eras. Some damn near pieces of art compared to some films from the past. Some of it has to do with technological advancements that make it easier for productions of course, but alot of it is building upon a foundations set.
YOu have tv shows today that will SHIT on top films from past eras. From music, cinematography, directing, acting, writing etc.etc. Band of Brothers is >>> >than 98% of the war films shot in the past.
Sopranos alone is superior than all but perhaps 2 gangster movies
Same goes for the Wire>>> all but perhaps 2 urban films
Storytellng, production, acting, etc.etc. have advanced
Acting all across the board in past eras was shitty. Even in many of the great films the acting wasn't as good as today's acting (again… overall). Aside from a handful of method actors in the late 60s and 70s it was mostly Europeasn conventional actors. It's as if they're on stage at times, stage acting doesn't translate into screen. Cinema was filled with tons of B movies, Westerns and shitty films overall in the 50s and 60s. Let us not pretend as tho they were all cinematic masterpieces.
Storytelling techniques have only improved and evolved. And even while there is some lack of originality almost everything else is built upon past eras. Take away special effects and concentrate on films that don't have that and you'll see how things have evolved.
If you want to dive into this I'll be more than engage, name dropping doesn't make you any sort of expert or connoisseur.
As I mentioned before, compare the best with the best, the average with the average and the bad with the bad, you'll see how things have evolved overall. YOu'll see how films like Spring Breakers will shit all over films by Gidget and the f*ckin Monkees. Oh what, you forgot those existed?
Storytelling and writing techniques have advanced, they combine multiple elements and genres more than ever before, and boxy dialogues have become more realistic and intricate. You have commercials that rival and better films great films shot in past eras. Some damn near pieces of art compared to some films from the past. Some of it has to do with technological advancements that make it easier for productions of course, but alot of it is building upon a foundations set.
YOu have tv shows today that will SHIT on top films from past eras. From music, cinematography, directing, acting, writing etc.etc. Band of Brothers is >>> >than 98% of the war films shot in the past.
Sopranos alone is superior than all but perhaps 2 gangster movies
Same goes for the Wire>>> all but perhaps 2 urban films
Storytellng, production, acting, etc.etc. have advanced
Quote:
Acting all across the board in past eras was shitty.
I completely disagree. Most old-timey legends were great actors, and had something very important and very lacking in today's stars, called charisma. Most of them had a presence that filled the screen pretty much regardless of the film in question. Most of today's actors are average or downright bad, except for some good ones, and a few exceptional ones (all of this imho). Of course I don't think the actor himself is as important as the director, but classic directors were also superior for the most part, which directly translated in their actors' performances.
Quote:
Storytelling techniques have only improved and evolved. And even while there is some lack of originality almost everything else is built upon past eras. Take away special effects and concentrate on films that don't have that and you'll see how things have evolved.
Can you be more specific? How exactly have they improved and evolved? Pretty much everything you see today has already been done before and, more often than not, better, excluding SFX.
Quote:
Storytelling and writing techniques have advanced, they combine multiple elements and genres more than ever before, and boxy dialogues have become more realistic and intricate. You have commercials that rival and better films great films shot in past eras. Some damn near pieces of art compared to some films from the past. Some of it has to do with technological advancements that make it easier for productions of course, but alot of it is building upon a foundations set.
Again, specifics or GTFO. I've seen you dropping vague terminology quite often before in many different threads. Come and tell me how storytelling and techniques have advanced. Do you really think dialogues are more meaningful and intricate in today's era? Maybe more realistic in some instances, I'll give you that.
Classic cinema drew heavily from theatre, both in writing and acting terms, but I'd say classic films have, generally speaking, way more depth and meaning to them than most of the films that come out today. Most of what I see is aimed at a wide audience, a one that doesn't like thinking too much and only wants to be entertained. I'm ok with that, but as an art form, I'd say cinema has generally devolved. Again, there are notable exceptions every year, I'm not saying it's all garbage these days, but an overwhelming majority is.
Quote:
You have commercials that rival and better films great films shot in past eras
If you really believe that, then I don't know what to say to you.
Quote:
YOu have tv shows today that will SHIT on top films from past eras. From music, cinematography, directing, acting, writing etc.etc. Band of Brothers is >>> >than 98% of the war films shot in the past.
Sopranos alone is superior than all but perhaps 2 gangster movies
Same goes for the Wire>>> all but perhaps 2 urban films
Re: Nostalgia my a@S
