Quote Originally Posted by Kagemane_no_Jutsu View Post
I think it just comes down to allowing yourself to appreciate the aspects of a film in the context of their own eras. While acting is probably one of the few things you can compare to its modern-day counterparts.... I think a strong argument could be made for directing and editing as well. Sure there have been tons of advancements in the technology that has clearly made these jobs easier, but if you can't recognize good directing and editing from years ago then chances are you can't recognize it in this age either.
Well yeah, I wouldn't even be watching the old movies if I didn't think there were something worthwhile in them. Some of the classics are worth a watch regardless, but many more are unwatchable for the reasons I mentioned. Some examples I can recall are Serpico and Bad Lieutenant. I also recently watched some Charlie's Angels episodes from the late 70s and they were terribly acted and edited.

But the point I guess I'm trying to make is that just because its easier these days, doesn't mean films are better. Hell I'd say its the opposite. It takes less skill to produce something of great quality.

So instead of there being a lot of great directors making okay films and occasionally making an outstanding movie.... we have a lot of okay directors making decent films and sometimes not even achieving that. Then there's the few geniuses in both eras of film who produce consistently great cinema and occasionally reach perfection. If you want to try to compare those to each other, good luck with that, but thats not what I'm saying.
Hence my original bitch about modern Hollywood movies, films have improved aspects like direction and editing, but they reuse storylines and concepts and aren't much better for it, usually ruining the concepts they are trying to improve upon or update. So while the films aren't better intrinsically, they are still easier to watch than the old time movies because of production values.