Entertainment has gotten better

If you know where to look

Published on February 21, 2005 By Calor In Entertainment

I'm not one of those people who is nastalgic for the good old days. That's because looking at a beloved old movie, book, or computer game usually leads to the destruction of that good memory. We remember things being better than they really were.

One of my guilty pleasures in life is comic books. I have comic books from the 50s, 60s, 70s, and of course contemporary ones. The golden age of comics wasn't. Simplistic plots, poor artwork, and cliched premises were the norm. Today's comic books are far superior in every way to the golden age or silver age of comics. Looking at an X-men comic from the early 70s is enough to cause nauseau.

The same is true of movies. Go back and watch a "classic" movie from the 50s or 60s. Better yet, go and watch one of the movies that won "best picture" in the 50s. Poor acting, plot holes, and melodrama galore. There is gold intermixed in there too. But I can't name a single movie that would stand up in today's competition, especially in terms of acting.

There is a lot of sewage on television today no doubt about it. But there was always a lot of garbage on the boob tube. But do a direct comparison. Justice League vs. Superfriends. Heck, any popular children's cartoon today vs. what we had as kids. Yea, there's Pokemon junk but we had Ultraman and Voltron!

Even fiction books today. If you scrape through the centuries you can find many good books. But read Hemmingway afresh and tell me that there's genius in there? Because I sure don't see it. A good writer of the 30s is not necessarily competitive today. We have plenty of junk but I'm not comparing the typical book of today to the best books of all time. Just the typical vs. typical in both cases.

Today's popular science fiction is also much better done. Compare The Incredible Hulk or The Greatest American Hero to say Smallville or even..shiver..Enterprise. As crummy as Enterprise is, it's gold compared to the drek that was being shown at prime-time. And before someone talks about Battlestar Galactic or Star Trek TOS, go back and watch them. BG was very cheesy most of the time. It doesn't hold up well. ST:TOS has about 20 good episodes. Intermixed with things like "Spock's Brain".

Many things in society may not be what we want. But when it comes to entertainment, the art of it has definitely improved.

Comments

Nakor

on Feb 22, 2005

I don't get kickbacks from Brando's estate (though if that island hasn't cleared probate and I don't have to pay back taxes, give me a call), but it wasn't all total dreck.

And despite my dvd collection, I don't think I qualify as a film buff (as opposed to just liking to watch movies). But for those who might like to make use of their "unlimited" Blockbuster rentals or Netflix subscriptions... And, no, not best picture winners. But several nominees.

The Third Man. Bridge on the River Kwai (great war movie). A Streetcar Named Desire. Some Hitchcock. Godfather II (that was early 70's, but even the Godfather was very good - we don't talk about 3).

If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go look for Underdog DVD's on Amazon ("And away I go!"). And play the Knight Rider theme. While seeing what scrape those Duke boys have managed to get into this week that can only be solved by jumping a car off a trail that abruptly ends.

singrdave

on Feb 22, 2005

I gotta give you props that many of your points are valid. Especially in light of Sci-Fi's updating of the BG show. I watched the show voraciously as a 9-year-old, and loved it. It always held a place in my heart. Then I watched the reruns leading up to the new version and couldn't stand the drivel it actually was. What was exciting for a pre-teen doesn't hold a candle to what is extertaining for me today.
(For the record, I watch the new BG every week now, and it's the only show I watch on Sci-Fi with any regularity.)

Furry Canary

on Feb 22, 2005

'Looking at an X-men comic from the early 70s is enough to cause nauseau.'
I LOVE the early X-Men comics, in part at least because they differed so radically from that which preceded them. But more of this later ...

'The same is true of movies. Go back and watch a "classic" movie from the 50s or 60s. Better yet, go and watch one of the movies that won "best picture" in the 50s. Poor acting, plot holes, and melodrama galore.'
Nakor cites some excellent 'old' films above. My personal contributions to such a list might include the obvious but brilliant nonetheless 'Citizen Kane' (1941) ), 'Nosferatu' (1922), Aleksandr Nevsky (1938), Bringing Up Baby (1938), It's A Wonderful Life (1946), My Favourite Brunette (1947) ... and I haven't even REACHED the 1950s yet! Don't get me wrong - I like many contemporary films too. But if 'poor acting, plot holes and melodrama galore' get your goat, I put it to you that a good 50% of the current output of Hollywood's sausage machine gives you these in spades.

'But I can't name a single movie that would stand up in today's competition, especially in terms of acting.'
If you want good acting, try Charles Laughton in 'Henry VIII', 'Mutiny on the Bounty' or 'The Hunchback Of Notre Dame'. Watch Marlon Brando in 'The Wild One' or 'On The Waterfront', or Orson Welles in 'Touch Of Evil'. Now try and convince me that Denzel Washington, Leonardo Di Caprio or either of the Toms cuts the mustard.

'Today's popular science fiction is also much better done.'
If, by 'better done', you mean more sophisticated, better FX, more convincing (pseudo-)science - sure. But how often do you walk out of a science fiction film saying, 'Well, I suppose it LOOKED good, but ...'? Personally, I love those great leaps into the unknown that I think science fiction took with 'Forbidden Planet', '2001: A Space Odyssey' and (you guessed it) Star Trek TOS. I see precious few such leaps occurring these days, despite the small armies of IT worker ants toiling away within such factories as Industrial Light & Magic. (And, despite such technological advancement, no animation to my mind has yet come within spitting distance of the glory of the very first full-length feature animation, Disney's 'Snow White And The Seven Dwarves'.)

I loved 'Dr. Who' as a kid and still do, but when I watch its long, static scenes of unhurried dialogue now, it emphasises to me how film and TV has been tailored to accommodate the oft-reported shrinking attention span. The point being that while the technology and technique employed has doubtless improved, is it really better 'art'? Today's entertainment products are intended to sell to those who live in today's world, so how can we compare them objectively with those produced within and for another, very different era? Is today's X-Men better than the X-Men of the 1970s? Is 'World of Warcraft' better than 'Space Invaders'? Is it even meaningful to ask these questions, given the very different circumstances of their respective origins?

Ultimately of course, it's all a matter of personal preference. Still, I note some gaps in your discussion of 'entertainment' - notably, music. Do you also believe that any music produced before the 1980s is by definition inferior? I suspect that, for example, Vivaldi or the Beatles will still be listened to and enjoyed at the end of the century, while I would not put money on the same being true of Justin Timberlake or Christina Aguilera. An unfair comparison? Perhaps. But it serves my point, which is that blanket statements, such as 'entertainment has gotten better', don't necessarily tell us much - except perhaps that you prefer modern 'stuff'. Which is, of course, just as the manufacturers of such 'stuff' would want it.

Draginol

on Feb 22, 2005

I watched Bridge over the River Kwai recently. Drek in my opinion. Poorly edited. Inconsistent acting. Poor pacing. Was about 45 minutes longer than it should have been. There ARE great war movies, no doubt about it. But what was considered a good movie long ago doesn't IMO hold up so well now in general.

Moderateman

on Feb 22, 2005

ssorry but any movie with the great Katherine Hepburn, coupled with Spencer Tracy, John wayne, or Humpphry Bogart far out strips todays serious acting films,the comedy of hepburn and tracy was and is still funny, altho I appreciate deniro, nicholson, pacino and hoffman too.

Gideon MacLeish

on Feb 22, 2005

Casablanca: a work of art in any era. The main limitations of older movies was the production; they were limited in their capacity to translate their image to film. Add to that the fact that many films HAD to be shot in one take; the production budget didn't allow for the massive outtakes that are part and parcel of the modern film industry.

As with the music industry, much of today's movie "quality" is based on illusion. Just as with the proper filter you can make ANY voice sound tolerable (c'mon, now people, do you really think Kelly Osbourne has ANY talent?), the same can be done with movie editing.

Literature, on the other hand, is another story. While there are few contemporary authors who will find their place among the classics, it would do us well to remember that we're weighing a recent era of writers against thousands of years of writers that we have deemed "classics". I would say contemporary authors are, at best, equal with those of other eras.

As for comic books, ya got me there. I definitely think they've made some positive strides.

Nakor

on Feb 22, 2005

24 and the new Battlestar Galactica are probably the 2 shows I look forward to most each week. And Arrested Development and Scrubs, for the comedy side.

Dynosoar

on Feb 22, 2005

Technology has improved the final production to meet your criteria for improvement, if present day editing, computerized enhancment, and special effects were as they are today in the era of "golden films" you would cite the very films you deride as beyond reproach.

As for TV and Sci-Fi, the drivel that is produced now to fill in spots between commercials, seems to be nothing more than recycled, revamped, and disguised reruns.
A fresh, new, and exciting idea hasn't come out of television since "All in the Family".Just as an example watch a week of Nick at Nite, and then watch a week of current Tv offerings....with the exceptions of production quality and "sexier" characters the plots are the same.

NYPD Blue, same as Dragnet
Sex and the City, same as Rhoda or Golden Girls...ditto for Friends, same as Mary Tyler Moore. Law and Order, same as Perry Mason.
Srubs, same as St Elsewhere, ditto E.R., 24 compares to Mission Impossible. Alias is a new version of the Saint, and on and on and on.

Granted, technology has sharpened all of the same old plots, but lets not detract from the originators, they paved the way for the plagerist to improve/recycle the once fresh ideas.

Moderateman

on Feb 22, 2005

hollywood has a saying that there are only 7 different plots. with all the different genres you still run out of new material soon, hence all the remakes of movies that sucked in the first place.

Furry Canary

on Feb 26, 2005

'A fresh, new, and exciting idea hasn't come out of television since "All in the Family".'
I agree with almost everything you say, Dynosoar. 'New, fresh and exciting' ideas - as opposed to improvements in production technology - are decidedly thin on the ground these days. However, even 'All in the Family' wasn't quite that innovative when it first appeared in 1971. It was based on the UK sitcom 'Till Death Us Do Part' (which was first broadcast in 1965), and consequently credited Johnny Speight (the writer and originator of the British series) as a writer on the American 'version'.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!