• over_clox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 day ago

      It’s only old if you’ve seen it before. The movie could be 100+ years old, but if you’ve never seen it before, it’s still totally new to you.

      • rumschlumpel@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 day ago

        ‘old’ and ‘unknown to me’ aren’t the same thing and never were. When someone says they’re into ‘old movies’, they never mean that they like rewatching movies from the 2020s.

        • over_clox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 day ago

          Then please define exactly what NOS means?

          New Old Stock. Yes, NOS is a thing, literally old stuff still in the original box, unopened, never used.

          Shit, you got any idea how much money Biff got for his OG unopened box set copy of Back To The Future?

          https://youtube.com/watch?v=dsIcCtylbUw

          Just because a thing was made ages ago doesn’t necessarily mean it’s ever even been used/viewed/played or whatever.

          And Biff wasn’t stupid, he learned from the very movie he played in.

          • rumschlumpel@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            That’s just not what “old” or “new” mean for media. You could maybe make that argument if the movie was made a long time ago but only released now, but that’s a very rare case. The public has already consumed the media, if it was somewhat popular you might be aware of what people thought about it before you even watch it for the first time, and if it was influential it might even interact with younger movies, possibly leading to you thinking that certain elements of it are overdone or old hat when this might actually have been one of the first works to have used these elements.

            On top of that, the general societal context is not that of today, but of when the movie was made - few works are so timeless that this doesn’t matter at all.

            • over_clox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              1 day ago

              Try watching Pink Flamingos

              If you’ve anything like the audience of the time it came out, you’ll almost certainly turn it off within about 10 to 15 minutes.

              But it’ll likely be new to you.

              Highly not recommended…

      • Crazyslinkz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        I’m watching the original “twilight zone” made in the 60s. This is an old show, that is new to me.

        It’s not a new show to everyone. It’s an old show that was made and released many years ago.

      • remotelove@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        I have been working through my “must watch” list with my teenage daughter recently. While all the movies are absolutely new to her, that hasn’t stopped the occasional snickering about how “old” some of the stuff is. (And honestly, I can’t disagree. I had a few “ah fuck I’m old” moments rewatching Predator and Blade Runner recently.)

        So, in spirit, I 100% agree with you. In reality, nobody can quite escape how old some movies actually feel.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          I wanted to watch the OG Nosferatu before the new one, my wife could not stop laughing.

          “No! This serious horror movie!”

          (snort)

          • remotelove@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 day ago

            Sorry, I couldn’t quite get the feeling you described. It’s partially because I have seen that before and partially because it still looks old and the sound quality was reminiscent of a cylinder phonograph.

            Good try though. ;)

            • over_clox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              Hah, interesting that you’ve seen that before, cool cool 👍

              As crappy as the audio is, honestly it’s still pretty good for when it was made.

              • remotelove@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 day ago

                I actually like the audio. (I’ll leverage faux tape recording effects and plate reverb on occasion with music I write.)

                And honestly, it was kinda refreshing to watch Charlie Chaplain again.