Films that have aged badly? (Humour, VFX, pop culture etc)

[BK007]

I started a "most beautiful CGI animation thread" in the animation forum, but here this goes for all movies. CGI, since invention, was used to WOW audiences year after year, but as we all know, you cannot rely solely on it. Poor CGI is often lumped together with a poor production these days. Not enough money and poor foresight by director/producer to attempt to do what they cannot. However, effects that looked superb years ago, now also look clunky and pedestrian, unfortunately it will also affect the movie simply because the tool is so obviously out of place and therefore affects the movie.

 

Evidently, if the story is good enough, it doesn't matter, but the movie has to be stellar and nothing less otherwise your eyes wander, attention drops and nitpicking begins. 

 

Because I've been watching Disney animation this year, I'll begin with films as recent as Treasure Planet (2003) having quite ugly looking special effects now, but because I liked the charm and sense of adventure, I was fine by the movie's end. 

 

I think I might use the X-Men franchise and the Matrix franchise too. On first watch I loved both series and then, they slowly just kept getting worse. Cheese factor off the charts on the first and the second just was kind of lame and storytelling stilted, cold and decidedly second rate. 

 

I guess watching a comedy in which you get none of the jokes would count, two comedies I've seen which I loved from years and years ago but still not that old, were Groundhog Day and Midnight Run. I mean, I don't know if they will hold up on round 2, but as for an initial watch, some of the best comedies I've seen. Today's physical jokes and rude language pale in comparison to wit and creativity. I mean, comedies these days can't even last 90 minutes much less the talk of aging. 

[AniNate]

I don't mind Back to the Future Part II's kitschy vision of 2015 so much, but the CGI of those Pit-Bull hoverboards is just awful.

Edited August 13, 2014 by tribefan695

[Accursed Arachnid!™]

When it comes to comedies, it greatly depends on when you were born. I think Airplane! is one of the greatest comedies ever, and my wife, who is ten years younger just doesn't get a lot of it. She wasn't around in the late 70's to see some of the commercials and movies of the time. Even though I love it to death, even I'm not even old enough to fully appreciate Airplane! since I did not experience the Airport disaster films of the early 70s. I guess it would be like watching Spaceballs without seeing any of the Star Wars or Robin Hood: Men in Tights without seeing Costner's Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. I don't like the Scary Movie series since I really don't like horror and really do not stay up on who's popular in music or news these days.

 

As far as films that don't hold up as far as SFX, I'd say the only films that don't hold up are the ones that didn't look that great to begin with. E.T. holds up because it was well crafted, but something like Krull looks horrible because it may have passed muster in 1983, but the innovation was not there like it was with Star Wars, or even Star Trek. I think Star Wars would hold up even with the boxes visible around the tie fighters because it was such an innovative film. Watch Superman: The Movie, then watch the Richard Lester directed scenes in Superman II(which had the same size budget) and the whole of Superman III for another example of the contrast of innovation vs just getting by.

[TServo2049]

I don't mind Back to the Future Part II's kitschy vision of 2015 so much, but the CGI of those Pit-Bull hoverboards is just awful.

Those aren't CGI. They're actually models.And you couldn't actually see the garbage mattes around the TIE fighters in the theater, at least not clearly. That was only a big problem on TV/video. Edited August 13, 2014 by TServo2049

[AniNate]

Those aren't CGI. They're actually models.

 

Well, I guess that shows it is possible for practical effects to age badly, too.

[Hanamichi Sakuragi]

When it comes to comedies, it greatly depends on when you were born. I think Airplane! is one of the greatest comedies ever, and my wife, who is ten years younger just doesn't get a lot of it. She wasn't around in the late 70's to see some of the commercials and movies of the time. Even though I love it to death, even I'm not even old enough to fully appreciate Airplane! since I did not experience the Airport disaster films of the early 70s. I guess it would be like watching Spaceballs without seeing any of the Star Wars or Robin Hood: Men in Tights without seeing Costner's Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. I don't like the Scary Movie series since I really don't like horror and really do not stay up on who's popular in music or news these days.

 

I'm like ten years younger than your wife, and I love Airplane!

[Accursed Arachnid!™]

Well, I guess that shows it is possible for practical effects to age badly, too.

 

 

I think it was just the way Zemeckis(or whoever was in charge of the SFX) decided how to "squish" the boards as they fell out of their cases. It was just bad design, but honestly, BTTF2 is the worst of the trilogy so in that way, it fits. The effects of BTTF3 hold up so much better.

 

The quality of the film as a whole does color how you look at the effects, just like a girl's flaws are that much more noticeable when she's got the personality of say, Snooki. 

[Accursed Arachnid!™]

I'm like ten years younger than your wife, and I love Airplane!

 

 

Well, either you're a guy or I'd consider leaving my wife for you.

[Breakspear]

When I rewatched the X-Men's before DOFP I did find the first one was a bit aged but the second still stands great to this day. 

[mrmrscott]

I recently watched Blade Runner for the first time after my older boss saying it was brilliant. Pretty terrible, in my opinion.

[darkelf]

Yeah, Treasure Planet really looks horrendous

 

As far as comedies go, I don't think Animal House or Caddyshack were funny at all. They have pretty much the same structure (no structure) like Airplane (a true classic), but not much is funny about them.

 

Also, in POTC2, the Kraken effects were awful. Seriously, much better CGI can be found in the first one.

[SchumacherFTW]

Yeah, Treasure Planet really looks horrendous

 

As far as comedies go, I don't think Animal House or Caddyshack were funny at all. They have pretty much the same structure (no structure) like Airplane (a true classic), but not much is funny about them.

 

Also, in POTC2, the Kraken effects were awful. Seriously, much better CGI can be found in the first one.

I started watching Caddyshack yesterday, and I really don't understand the big deal about it. Can't agree about Animal House though, THAT is still awesome!

[lilmac]

I don't mind Back to the Future Part II's kitschy vision of 2015 so much, but the CGI of those Pit-Bull hoverboards is just awful.

 

 

I just had a conversation about BttF 2 with someone.  She said it was 2010 but I thought 2015.  I was right.  LOL.

 

 

LOTR FX hasn't aged that well...

Edited August 13, 2014 by lilmac

[keysersoze123]

I started a "most beautiful CGI animation thread" in the animation forum, but here this goes for all movies. CGI, since invention, was used to WOW audiences year after year, but as we all know, you cannot rely solely on it. Poor CGI is often lumped together with a poor production these days. Not enough money and poor foresight by director/producer to attempt to do what they cannot. However, effects that looked superb years ago, now also look clunky and pedestrian, unfortunately it will also affect the movie simply because the tool is so obviously out of place and therefore affects the movie.

 

Evidently, if the story is good enough, it doesn't matter, but the movie has to be stellar and nothing less otherwise your eyes wander, attention drops and nitpicking begins. 

 

Because I've been watching Disney animation this year, I'll begin with films as recent as Treasure Planet (2003) having quite ugly looking special effects now, but because I liked the charm and sense of adventure, I was fine by the movie's end. 

 

I think I might use the X-Men franchise and the Matrix franchise too. On first watch I loved both series and then, they slowly just kept getting worse. Cheese factor off the charts on the first and the second just was kind of lame and storytelling stilted, cold and decidedly second rate. 

 

I guess watching a comedy in which you get none of the jokes would count, two comedies I've seen which I loved from years and years ago but still not that old, were Groundhog Day and Midnight Run. I mean, I don't know if they will hold up on round 2, but as for an initial watch, some of the best comedies I've seen. Today's physical jokes and rude language pale in comparison to wit and creativity. I mean, comedies these days can't even last 90 minutes much less the talk of aging. 

 

I can say Groundhog Day is still awesome. Holds really well. Bill Murray is fantastic and the concept works really well.

[AniNate]

I recently watched the movie Slapshot with my uncle. It's apparently a classic, but I maybe laughed twice during that entire film. I thought it was mostly boring and mean-spirited.

[TServo2049]

I don't think Caddyshack is AS funny as Animal House, but I do agree about the lack of structure. I always remembered a collection of disparate, disconnected scenes, but when I went to a theatrical screening in honor of Harold Ramis, and saw it from beginning to end in a theater, I was amazed to realize that it wasn't just my memory; the film really IS a collection of disparate, disconnected scenes!Maybe that's for the better - IMO the film stops dead whenever the focus shifts back to Michael O'Keefe. He is THE weakest part of the movie, and I prefer the collection of disconnected scenes of the supporting cast hijacking the film from him that we actually got, to the idea of a Danny-centric coming-of-age story that the film started as.

[TServo2049]

Actually, Animal House has the same issue to a lesser degree - the parts that focus on Tom Hulce are IMO the least funny parts. But I still dislike Danny Noonan more.But enough about Animal House/Caddyshack. One film I will argue has aged quite badly? The first Shrek. That movie is like a time capsule of that pre-9/11 "Y2K period" of American pop culture right at the turn of the millennium. Smash Mouth, Matrix riffs, Riverdance jokes (hell, that was old IN 2001!). And snark, snark everywhere.

Edited August 13, 2014 by TServo2049

[Webslinger]

I wouldn't say that the first Shrek has aged badly. The animation still looks decent, the story holds up as well as it ever has, and it's still edgier than most family-oriented films today. If anything, it's a victim of the "Seinfeld Is Unfunny" trope, where its style is imitated so much after its release that it no longer seems as fresh as it once was.

 

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny

[TServo2049]

I guess I meant that its style dates it. Even with the Genie's anachronistic pop-culture references, Aladdin doesn't feel distinctly "90s" to the same degree as Shrek feels "early 2000s."

Edited August 13, 2014 by TServo2049

[filmlover]

While watching the first Spider-Man not too long ago, it seemed even more obvious than ever that the bridge scene where New Yorkers are taunting the Green Goblin and standing up for Spidey was definitely something that was added right after 9/11.