Originally posted by DavidY Is that the Superbit version of The Patriot? If so, have you compared it with the regular version?

It was the regular version. Excellent picture and sound.

I don't think that I will be upgrading to the Superbit version of The Patriot...since it was only a fair movie.

I feel the same way.

Isn't he meaning that todays movies are better, thus when looking back at older movies, they dont appear as good. Thats why it went from a 9/10 to a 5/10 ?

Originally posted by Chuck Isn't he meaning that todays movies are better, thus when looking back at older movies, they dont appear as good. Thats why it went from a 9/10 to a 5/10 ?

Partly. Fact is, great sound, picture and CGI add a lot to the entertainment value and generally speaking, today's filmmakers are (or should be) more knowledgeable, thanks to the older movies. It's called evolution. Many older movies deserve the praise for their originality and should be remembered and taught in film schools. However, that, in itself, does not mean that they will remain fresh and hold the test of time forever. Not only that, but 'important' movies could be boring and painful to watch, too (see Jean-Luc Godard).

The other reason is that we change over the years. Well, most of us do. Others get stuck in a particular mindset forever. For me, what once was great may be adequate at best by today's standards. What once was hilarious may not be even remotely funny today. Of course, it works in the opposite direction as well, and naturally, it does not happen overnight and may not happen at all for many movies. However, I am not afraid to change my mind about what I like or don't like. It's not written in stone. (Yet. )

Originally posted by CigarsAndPars Partly. Fact is, great sound, picture and CGI add a lot to the entertainment value and generally speaking, today's filmmakers are (or should be) more knowledgeable, thanks to the older movies. It's called evolution. Many older movies deserve the praise for their originality and should be remembered and taught in film schools. However, that, in itself, does not mean that they will remain fresh and hold the test of time forever. Not only that, but 'important' movies could be boring and painful to watch, too (see Jean-Luc Godard).

Although I grew up on the movies of the '80s and early '90s (I'm 30 now), I'm not sure how I feel about this. I would agree that improvements in sound, image and special effects can increase the impact and enjoyment of a film, but is that all there is? I remember having a great time watching Independence Day in the theatre, but now that the initial "gosh-gee-golly-wow" has worn off I look at it on my DVD shelf and think, "Why did I buy that?"

Today, a string of cool effects scenes can be strung together and called a movie (Swordfish, anyone). It places less demand on the filmmakers to provide original plot and storytelling.

This is why some of the best films continue to emerge from the independent filmmakers. When filmmakers don't have these huge budgets and SFX resources at their disposal they had to be more creative. An involving story can overcome the limitations of the production budget.

So while current production quality can make that pill tasty and sweet. It doesn't change the fact that what you're getting is a placebo.

Originally posted by brash Today, a string of cool effects scenes can be strung together and called a movie (Swordfish, anyone). It places less demand on the filmmakers to provide original plot and storytelling.

I am 30 also, however a string of cool effects seems to work pretty well for me as I enjoyed Swordfish.

Originally posted by Chuck Yes -- this is a must have in any true DVD collectors library ! I could only part with my copy if someone had a sealed copy of Killer (OOP) for trade !

Is Bikini Hotel OOP? And is your copy the Criterion edition?

I believe it is OOP. Give me 2 minutes and a magic marker and I can make it a Criterion Edition !

Originally posted by brash Although I grew up on the movies of the '80s and early '90s (I'm 30 now), I'm not sure how I feel about this. I would agree that improvements in sound, image and special effects can increase the impact and enjoyment of a film, but is that all there is?

Certainly not. A good plot and decent acting will win over special effects every time. However, if it's a (likely banal) story which has been told a thousand times, at least spice it up with something... it need not be special effects, of course. Nudity will do just fine!

I remember having a great time watching Independence Day in the theatre, but now that the initial "gosh-gee-golly-wow" has worn off I look at it on my DVD shelf and think, "Why did I buy that?"

I am sure it will generate a few laughs once you decide to view it again (uploading virus, etc. ), plus it has a really great line: "What do you want us to do?" "Die!"

Today, a string of cool effects scenes can be strung together and called a movie (Swordfish, anyone). It places less demand on the filmmakers to provide original plot and storytelling.

Hey, bad example, I love "Swordfish"! How about "Fast and the Furious", "Ghosts of Mars" or "Gone In 60 Seconds"? All of these are devoid of content with well done effects, in my opinion.

This is why some of the best films continue to emerge from the independent filmmakers. When filmmakers don't have these huge budgets and SFX resources at their disposal they had to be more creative. An involving story can overcome the limitations of the production budget.

I said it before, I say it again. There are a hundred worthless indie movies for every watchable one. Also, there is a huge difference between making a no budget and a big budget movie (or anything, really). You are not gonna get many chances to screw up things that cost a fortune...

So while current production quality can make that pill tasty and sweet. It doesn't change the fact that what you're getting is a placebo.

True, but at least you are getting something, and I call it an improvement.

Originally posted by vangleason Generally speaking, today's standards are at about the level of a rock video, or worse, video games. If that is evolution, I think I'll continue living in the past.

Nobody says that you shouldn't. I certainly won't call you names because of that. BTW, did you get those 'classic' 50s sci-fi and monster DVDs at Sam's you wanted to buy a week or so ago?

Originally posted by Chuck I am 30 also, however a string of cool effects seems to work pretty well for me as I enjoyed Swordfish.

Exactly, Swordfish was great, along with armageddon, id4, pearl harbor....the list goes on. Can't wait to see the fast and the furious.

Originally posted by lorrod Exactly, Swordfish was great, along with armageddon, id4, pearl harbor....the list goes on. Can't wait to see the fast and the furious.

While I would tend to agree that these films are entertaining, I wouldn't describe them as "good". Maybe I'm being picky but I really believe a "good" film should offer something which goes beyond the two hours it occupies.

Once you strip away the visuals and the high impact surround sound... there really isn't a lot left to these movies. Does that make them less fun? Not really, but then I thought the limerick about the "Man from Nantucket" was funny for years.

The question is have movies improved in the past twenty years because of advances in film making technology? Visually, yes, incredibly so... but I think this has been at the expense of narrative, and creativity.

As an example, Jaws was arguably more effective because you didn't see a lot of the shark. This wasn't intentional. It was because they had so many problems with the robotic shark that they couldn't use it as much as they originally planned.

Originally posted by brash While I would tend to agree that these films are entertaining, I wouldn't describe them as "good". Maybe I'm being picky but I really believe a "good" film should offer something which goes beyond the two hours it occupies.

This is pretty vague. Care to elaborate?