What does it mean for a film to "no longer hold up"?
Does that mean that the film was good when it came out, but now it is no longer good? I'm not talking about movies you watched when you were younger that you thought were good and then you grew up and your tastes changed. Is a good movie not still a good movie even if some of the technology or references are outdated?
Pic is somewhat related as I've heard this criticism used against it and I saw it recently and it's still a great movie.
>>67679353
The first Matrix will never ever be surpassed.
We do not talk about the other two.
>>67679353
I suspect you are a shill here to try to plant the seeds for the public accepting a matrix remake.
fuck off kike
I downloaded a Blu Ray rip of The Matrix recently and it still holds up. The most hilariously dated parts I found were all the kicks that made people slowly drift towards the nearest wall, where they would collide and quickly fall to the ground.
>>67679488
No. I just needed to use a picture for the post and I decided on the matrix. I'm here for the discussion idiot.
>implying this isn't the best fight scene you've ever saw to this day
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4puUo4OYViE
>>67679419
But the other two are better
>>67679547
>/tv/
>discussion
I guess I shouldn't have used the matrix pic. I didn't make this thread to be about the matrix. I made this thread to discuss what it means for a movie to not hold up anymore because I don't think it is a valid criticism.
>>67679353
matrix is still awesome
blazing saddles might be one....people claim it is a good movie, but I didn't find it all that funny
>>67679726
you fucked up this thread, commit sudoku please.
Look at the old Superman movies, and even Man of Steel, the effects are laughable, they are really bad.
Why? Because it doesn't hold up, it feels like a cheap movie.
rewatched it recently and just realised almost all the fights are non lethal and too long, making most of them pointless, like when neo faces 100 smiths in reloaded.
>What does it mean for a film to "no longer hold up"?
People don't understand film. This is the root of all stupidity when it comes to evaluation and discussion of film.
When people use the word 'dated', they don't necessarily openly equate it with 'bad' but it is definitely implied, as if a film reflecting the time period it was made in somehow qualifies as objectively poor filmmaking, a mistake or a flaw. This is inherently tied with the idea that history is a linear progression from worse to better, or in the context of our topic from imperfect to perfect where the latest aesthetic is always closer to some kind of universal and absolute truth and therefore 'more timeless'. This is, of course, wrong. The problem is that people have trouble finding substance in film because as previously stated, they don't know what film is.
>>67679353
negative nostalgia.
>>67679657
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74OBuMA2qEk
>>67680565
Interesting post, and one I agree with mostly. However, to me it seems films are mostly accused of being 'dated' when they take a step forward technologically, but the technology soon races past it. For example, The Matrix had plenty of cgi and bullet time. This was a reasonably new innovation, and one it seemed to pride itself on. However, soon after all films were using cgi, and a lot in the early 2000s used bullet time as well. Both of these things were done better in many other films. Thus, when we look back on The Matrix (admittedly as you point out this is from 'our' perspective) it's drawing attention to something almost pointless.
>>67679353
>What does it mean for a film to "no longer hold up"?
It means people realised it's shit
HOL UP HOL UP
YOU MEAN TO TELL ME
*CHECKS IMDB*
YOU MEAN TO TELL ME
WE WUZ GREAT N SHIET????
