As always, I have a different perspective on things.
In my opinion, the reason why so many current films are so mediocre
or bad is that they are too expensive.
Why is that a problem? Well the more money a movie costs, the more
the bottom liners, financiers, merchandizing interest and others will have
influence on the content. And you can't blame them because the risk
is so high they need alternative venues to make sure there is income
generated from it. So you're not going to get challenging or daring or
innovative movies by 'auteur' directors in large numbers in these financial
conditions.
If they can dramatically reduce the cost of films then they can take more
risks with cutting edge filmmaking techniques and approaches. So that's
how I see it.
In terms of TV shows listed above, I don't think "All in the Family" (or others
like "Laugh In") hold up in the long run because they are too topical and
linked with the years they were produced which is always a problem with
'message' shows and movies or those with a political slant. Times change
and so do the political stakes which dates those episodes to the point where
they are no longer relevant or entertaining...at least not for me. I had a tough
time sitting through Season One of "All in the Family" and had to really rewind
my memory banks to remember what topics they were referring to back in the
early seventies. I also don't think "Gunsmoke" holds up, at least not the color
episodes. It's too tame and doesn't have enough action for my tastes. The whole
point of a Western was action and some strong characterization. I thought the
series was too cliche. I prefer "Have Gun will Travel" or "Wanted: Dead or Alive"
in that genre. Much better shows.
"Band of Brothers" was very well acted but somewhat sloppily constructed as a series.
I don't think the characters were that well established or individualist enough and I had
to go back to some previous episodes to figure out who was who. It did grow on me
during the run but not every show worked on it's own and was too dependent on what
the previous show was. Good but not great and I wouldn't want to screen it again.
I thought the history was quite interesting but I didn't become that emotionally involved
with the people in the story.
"The Honeymooners" holds up fine because it has very strong characterization and is the best Laurel and Hardy clone of all time. So good you almost forget that most of the plots were recycled from the Roach team shorts.
In my opinion, the reason why so many current films are so mediocre
or bad is that they are too expensive.
Why is that a problem? Well the more money a movie costs, the more
the bottom liners, financiers, merchandizing interest and others will have
influence on the content. And you can't blame them because the risk
is so high they need alternative venues to make sure there is income
generated from it. So you're not going to get challenging or daring or
innovative movies by 'auteur' directors in large numbers in these financial
conditions.
If they can dramatically reduce the cost of films then they can take more
risks with cutting edge filmmaking techniques and approaches. So that's
how I see it.
In terms of TV shows listed above, I don't think "All in the Family" (or others
like "Laugh In") hold up in the long run because they are too topical and
linked with the years they were produced which is always a problem with
'message' shows and movies or those with a political slant. Times change
and so do the political stakes which dates those episodes to the point where
they are no longer relevant or entertaining...at least not for me. I had a tough
time sitting through Season One of "All in the Family" and had to really rewind
my memory banks to remember what topics they were referring to back in the
early seventies. I also don't think "Gunsmoke" holds up, at least not the color
episodes. It's too tame and doesn't have enough action for my tastes. The whole
point of a Western was action and some strong characterization. I thought the
series was too cliche. I prefer "Have Gun will Travel" or "Wanted: Dead or Alive"
in that genre. Much better shows.
"Band of Brothers" was very well acted but somewhat sloppily constructed as a series.
I don't think the characters were that well established or individualist enough and I had
to go back to some previous episodes to figure out who was who. It did grow on me
during the run but not every show worked on it's own and was too dependent on what
the previous show was. Good but not great and I wouldn't want to screen it again.
I thought the history was quite interesting but I didn't become that emotionally involved
with the people in the story.
"The Honeymooners" holds up fine because it has very strong characterization and is the best Laurel and Hardy clone of all time. So good you almost forget that most of the plots were recycled from the Roach team shorts.
