1917 Explained: How and Why They Did One Shot
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 сен 2024
- Get a full month of MUBI FOR FREE: mubi.com/thetake (With the support of Creative Europe - MEDIA Programme of the European Union) | Sam Mendes' 1917 is made to look like one continuous shot -- without being gimmicky. How did they do it, and why did they choose to do it? The one-shot exercise is a showcase of technical excellence, but more importantly it creates a sense of immersiveness, a potent emotional effect that brings us back to the trenches, allowing us to imagine the reality of being in that horrific war. If you like this video, subscribe to our channel or support us on Patreon: / thetake
Follow The Take on Instagram: / thisisthetake , Twitter: / thisisthetake , and Facebook: / thisisthetake
We are The Take (formerly ScreenPrism).
#1917
Get a full month of MUBI FOR FREE: mubi.com/thetake (With the support of Creative Europe - MEDIA Programme of the European Union)
Support The Take on Patreon: www.patreon.com/thetake
Subscribe to keep up with our latest videos, and let us know what you want to see next!
As a layman, this seems like a beautiful letter to cinematic processes that otherwise have been forgotten
Which really brings us back to a historical period
@The Take Why did you leave out ma boi Mark Strong? He's in the film too.
Please do article on days of our lives
To say that those soldiers fought for a free and unified Europe is a bit of a stretch. A lot of them had no idea what they were fighting for, many others were doing it for king and country, and many others were forced to.
Apart from that, I really appreciated this analysis
The Americans thought they were fighting for a free Europe but that's partially just what they were told. Their fellow Allies mostly saw them as extra manpower to tip the scales.
If anyone in that war was fighting for Freedom it was the African-American soldiers such as the Harlem Hellfighters or Blue Helmets.
And they were fighting to bring freedom to their kin back home in America.
@@generalhorse493 How were they fighting for freedom? Not trying to be insulting at all I genuinely don't know. Was it to make money to move somewhere else or did you get special privileges if you served or something?
@Tim Evans I was stating what these Black soldiers personally fought for, not the reasons their country went to war in the first place.
@@daltonhernandez721 The Entente told their colonies that if they fought theyd gain Independence (best example is India). So while hindsight is 20/20, and these colonies wouldnt get independence till after WW2. These men did not know that, and signed up thinking this would give their children, and the future generations freedom
@@generalhorse493 Yeah, and he's asking what the soldiers personally got by fighting in the war. You still haven't explained what it is these soldiers were fighting for. How was fighting in the war equivalent to fighting for freedom for them (as you claim)?
The “one shot” drives home the reality of how quickly life throws the unexpected our way.
*two shots
@@boazchapman2353 3 shots
I’ve never been so entrenched in the POV of a protagonist through a film. This was a truly special experience for me and probably my favorite film of the year.
what's POV?
Rohan Tiwari point of view
The one shot style makes the viewer feel like the 3rd person in the group. There were so many times I was trying to look over hills and around corners and felt like I was there.
True, this movie makes me feel like I'm going with Scofield and Blake to deliver the massage 😂
@@NoOne-hl2eo Ah, yes, that WWI massage. Legend has it that it was the most important massage in the history of massaging, delivered by a magical masseuse with golden hands.
The massage that ends the war.
Movie made the viewers feel the war through the lens of the soldiers and live it and it was great.
Agreed, it was an ambitious goal, that's for sure, but I'd say that it DEFINITELY paid off!🙌
Bishal Thakuri I love your character picture! FMAB is one of my favorite shows of all time.
@@kaitlnwhite6809 haha thanks. It's nice to see some fellow FMAB lovers.
Loved that movie!
1. The one-take shot gives it a truly personal, intimate journey feeling.
2. Two unknown actors are given big roles while big name actors have mere cameos, that I loved.
3. How many WW1 movies do we have compared to WW2?
4. That it's inspired by one man's stories rather than by a big, well-known event gives it an even more intimate sense.
I loved this film and the people saying it's a gimmick and there's no character development are so frustrating. Schofield goes from being reluctant and even angry to be chosen for the mission to complete devotion to it. George MacKay's acting and subtle transformation is absolutely brilliant.
Renee Lasswell The scene when he got out of the river and started crying was heartbreaking
Renee Lasswell YES! He was amazing!
I don't think it was a gimmick but I felt it detracted from the "journey." Since we saw the whole thing in real time, it didn't feel like he traveled very far.
Colin Firth says in the beginning "Do you think you can make it on time?" And he does, despite being knocked unconscious for what seems like a pretty lengthy period of time. I guess there was a time skip in the truck?
@Renee Lasswell I agree, I think that there was enough character development for what little we're given. The audience is plopped right into the middle of the lives of these two young soldiers without any backstory or an exposition dump. The movie shows, it doesn't tell, which makes the audience have to pay attention and pick up on subtle details.
@@timyac He didn't make it on time though, the first wave already charged at the enemy and many men died and injured.
"War has no winners, only victims"
“Poor kids are just as bright, and just as talented as white kids.”
This film had me in it's first 10 minutes..with the 2 men starting out chilling against a country backdrop underneath a tree...and then as they walk the scenery transitions into gradually increasing grimness as you release they are walking back into the trenches and the front lines.
You are right about WWI fading from memory, at least here in America. We didn't get involved in it, until relatively late and isn't near as much a part of our consciousness as WWII. It's over 100 years ago now, but it was the first 'modern' 20th century war. It transformed Europe as it marked the end of the Romanov Dynasy, the Hapsburg and Ottoman Empires. This film and "They Shall Not Grow Old" brought this conflict back to life and it is important to remember.
Especially when they get to the front line and all of the trees are dead and the mud. My heart actually sank like they were asking me to cross it. I also noticed it was the first movie with loud guns, people who don't shoot guns don't understand how deafening loud they are but in the movie they're incredibly jarring.
They Shall Not Grow Old is a masterpiece and I always try to show it off when I can.
I will show it to a family one day...of course, not when the kids are like 10 or something, that'd be kind of cruel, but certainly when they can handle such a film (like 16 or so).
Anyone calling it a "gimmick" in the first place has no idea how much hard work and effort is being put into this amazing film.
@2manynegativewaves Right? These things aren't mutually exclusive. Even an analysis that tries to tell us how not gimmicky it is, only seems to want to talk about the gimmick. That is not to say that this isn't a good film or it isn't a technical achievement. But the one shot thing is literally the only reason why this movie matters. And why it is different than all the other fifty eleven war movie we've seen before. The film is literally built around it. So gimmick. Outside of that it is a standard World War story.
The very idea that a 2 hour film could filmed in one continuous shot is horrendously ridiculous. The fact that they market it as such instead of saying the truth that it uses "long takes" is not only a gimmick but also an insult to people's intelligence, but i would not expect you a person with a anime profile pic to understand that.
@@GAME4WAR ok boomer.
@@GAME4WAR imagine being this pretentious and yet not saying anything of value.
@@GAME4WAR that was so dumb.
they never claimed it was all shot in one take, the move creators only said that it LOOKS like it has all been in one take so you can fully immerse yourself in the movie as you are literally going on a journey with this man.
rewatch the movie
It was like being in someone else's nightmare, that you couldn't wake up from. It was such an emersive movie. I found myself not blinking enough. I can't recommended seeing this movie in theaters more. Do not skip this to just watch at home.
3:22 "These men were fighting for a free and UNIFIED Europe."
That is perhaps the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
Yeah. Granted many of them were indoctrinated to think that was the case, but think of how many of them really came to see that was bullshit.
this movie was so engaging that it took me shockingly long time to realize that it was a long take. I hadn't even noticed.
This film is the antidote to EVERYTHING that is wrong with modern films: The endless micro edits and jump cuts, the cartoonish cgi, the lack of character development, the failure to develop a narrative, the repetitiveness, the bland endings, the weak stories,
The forced plot twists
There are plenty of modern films better than 1917.
@@AF-qc5vo such as?
@@spottydog4477 a lot of Christopher Nolan movies are all very interesting with practical effects. CGI is used, but it is very well integrated. Pulp fiction is great too. John wick has great choreography. Not saying 1917 is bad, its great. Its just not the best modern film.
@@AF-qc5vo Agreed!
Still waiting for the analysis on Jojo Rabbit...
(This video is heckin interesting btw, great job!)
It should be coming along shortly, they generally analyze all of the best picture nominees around the same time. 🏆
I. Just happened upon this video in the side feed and had never heard of it, the movie that is. Never knew it existed. But first thing I thought after the watch was...I gotta go find their analysis of JoJo Rabbit... I guess I don't have to now.
Thanks guys! The only way to make this video more perfect would be if your video had a run time of 19:17.
The Take: Meanwhile Mendez casts some of Britain's most recognizable male actors like Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Andrew Scott as officers.
Mark Strong: Am I a joke to you?
Never heard of Andrew Scott.
@@georgeemil3618 that's literally Moriarty in Sherlock and a lead character in one of the best back mirror episodes
Fun fact: that scene at the end when the main character is running and runs straight into another soldier & falls, that was completely unscripted. It accidentally happened during one of the takes and they decided to leave it in.
So much yes. It seems the film is getting backlash, but this video explains the brilliance of 1917 better than anyone else has so far. Thank you!
Why was it getting backlash? Was it the part with a "united" Europe? If so, I can understand that.
@@1685Violin There's is someone with blue check mark on twitter with lot of likes that say this movie lacks of women and complain that the story kept being told, I don't understand these people smh
@@NoOne-hl2eo The story kept being told? There are few movies and video games about WWI compared to WWII.
@@1685Violin I know right, I bet those people don't even watch the movie, they're just like hating on it.
@@NoOne-hl2eo And where is said person complaining that 1917 "doesn't have enough women"? Because I haven't seen them...
Honestly, people seem to complain about SJWs in as annoyingly a fashion as SJWs lecture others at times...
Honestly it felt like a videogame. A thrilling and emotional one.
I was so amazed by the inmersion feel I got when I first saw it, how emotionally distressed it made me when it was over that I really hesitated on watching it again, but the entire thing is such a masterpiece I can't let it be taken out of the cinema without watching it again, and I would encourage anyone to watch it just for the opportunity to experience true cinema and be amazed just like in the old days
I'm begging you to go see It in theaters in you haven't yet. Let's give my boy Roger Deakins a financial success
Roger Deakins deserves the Oscars!!
Banan4slug All of the GCSE History students saw the movie at my school at a privated cinema
It will cross 300 million this weekend on a 95 million budget. Will that make it profitable if you include all the marketing costs?
@@amanms1999 Pssh, Idk but I like those numbers haha usually the marketing costs a ton
@@banan4slug357 I know that. But since this is a war movie, its marketing cost is probably not as high as other blockbusters like marvel, DC, Star wars, Disney remakes etc
My favourite actor, George Mackay, is in this. I loved it, Oscar worthy performances. I might actually be upset if they don't win anything because it's that /good./
This movie made me check out his other film and all I have to say is he is such an amazing actor and become my celeb crush 🤤 (sorry for the thirst comment lol)
@@NoOne-hl2eo you're perfectly fine, I actually think he's quite handsome, but I don't really thirst over him
I'm so glad I watched this movie in theaters. The sounds of the explosions were so loud that it made me jump in my seat and cover my ears every time there was a loud bang! Especially *spoiler* the scene where the rat trips the bomb trap. Having suddenly heard such a load explosion had me shaken up just like the characters, which added to the intensity of the scene! Everything in this film just immerses you, I really felt like I was walking behind Lance Corporals Schofield the whole time.
That background music is so noble and angelic ❤️ Thank you, ladies! 🌹 I’m always so happy to watch your masterpieces, I mean analysis! ❤️
Sincerely hope that they bring back the long shot to films. Older works have an elegance, a sophistication that could all possibly be related to the long shot and which collectively had us call it the Golden Age of Cinematography. So glad and thankful that these people had the mammoth sized balls to use it so thoroughly and ended up creating a masterpiece.
I felt the movie needed another 15 minutes or so at the end of the film. The first 2 acts are incredibly well paced, but the 3rd act just comes and goes entirely too quick. Given it's technical aspects, adding any extra time would be a big challenge, but it's my only flaw of the film.
Do you ever get, after completing an arduous task, that jarring feeling of 'now what,'? At the end, the commands he's given are less and less important (tend wounds, go eat something, etc.) and then the commands - the thing that propelled him through the whole movie - just stop coming in. He endured the most horrific day of his life... So now what? I think that was what was so poignant at the end. The stillness after a car crash, the light after an exam, the bus ride to the hospital after you've been told someone passed away. Now what?
@@YesLikeThePrincess I think I might have gave a poor explanation, my problem was the 3rd Act moreso how it ended. I'm referring to when he listens to the soldier sings to when he meets Benedict Cumberbatch's character. That part should've been much longer, I felt like it was building up to something (especially during the scene where he's running on the battlefield), but it goes no where. I have no problems with how the "falling action" was delivered (meets the brother and goes to the tree), as you gave a great description of it.
I thought the 3rd act was too hollow. Great start and great end, but not much in between.
@James Burgess I don’t completely agree - for Schofield it was just a moment and just surviving enough of them so he could get back to his wife and family. And the ending eloquently showed this.
I was wondering if 1917 was one shot as I saw it on theater. It's just an amazing film. There are really no words to describe how wonderfully thrilling, meaningful and beautiful this movie is.
This was such an amazing video ! Thank you for your work !
I keep saying that 1917 should have won the Oscar for Best Picture. It wholly deserved it.
I was just thinking today how much I'd like you guys to do one on 1917...
Should’ve been an Oscar winner ...
Allow me to over-analyse this film.
The film is basically supposed to look like two long shots. There's a break in between when our guy exchanges shots with a German soldier.
Why was this break there?
According to an interview, Sam Mendes said that he wanted this break because he wanted to show a shift in time from morning to evening. There was no option other than to have a cut. He also said that he wanted to give this second half a "dreamlike" feel to it.
Now, I found the second part of that explanation especially interesting. Was a cut really needed to signify a change in time? Was the change in time itself that necessary? Think about it. Surely for all the effort that was put in order to make the two big shots, it wouldn't have been that hard to avoid that cut. Maybe he could've just taken a shot around the building, or just do a wall stare scene like in Taxi Driver.
So here's my theory.
In the exchange both people die. The second half of the movie which looks "dreamlike" and almost surreal is just a hallucination that our guy has during the last moments of his life. He survives the head injury and the shot, he meets a scared woman and child and gives them food, he dodges multiple shots from a number of enemies, he makes it through a waterfall, he runs through bombs and grenades. He successfully warns the others AND manages to see his friend's brother ALIVE.
Now doesn't all that sound a bit too good to be true?
The main star of the movie is the camera.
what a box?
Sam Mendes should be commended for this amazing piece of filmmaking. ScreenRant said 34, I counted at least 38.
There is a beautiful italian poem, "Soldiers" (written by Giuseppe Ungaretti during WW1), which I immediately thought of when I saw the film. Here it is:
"Si sta come/ d'autunno/ sugli alberi/ le foglie" --> We are as
/ in autumn / on branches / the leaves
Just saw this movie yesterday and I was amazed by it ! And your analysis (and answers) is also very intersting and amazing ! :D
1:31 Paths of Glory
My dad saw this and couldn't quite put a finger on what he liked about this movie in particular. Maybe by sending a link to this video, he will be able to :-)
6:00 Blake is played by Dean-Charles Chapman who played King Tommen I Baratheon in Game of Thrones Season 4-6.
Russian Ark actually WAS done in one long, long, looong take. No stitching. Check it out.
Not fighting for a unified Europe, as difficult in can be for today's children people to understand, they were fighting for King and Country. That was a time when that actually meant all to men then.
I love your channel and I was hoping you’d do a video on 1917. A cinematic masterpiece!!
I really loved the movie. I would definitely watch it again.
For the record I am relatively young, and I certainly was a member of the "young audience" when I first watched the 1930 All Quiet on the Western Front, and I still find it incredibly immersive and really impactful. I watched it in the early 2010s and I was perhaps 21 or so.
This is such a good video! Its like a small documentary and love letter to/about the movie.
A fantastic film in countless ways.
A message about saving ourselves from reckless and tragic waste of human life, told through the lens of cinema by way of a story about delivering a message; inspired by the tales recounted by the director's own grandfather, who was a messenger during a costly war.
It's beautiful really.
Took ma awhile to realize that that was Tommen from GoT
I love all your videos! Could you do one on Knives Out? Would love to know your take on it!
Speaking of one-shot movie, you should make video or watch a movie called One Cut of the Dead
Can you please do a film analysis on Power (2014-2020)
YESSSSSS SO GLAD YOU DID THIS AMAZING MOVIE
Jojo Rabit next please!!!! 🙏
(what an amazing analysis, as usual ❤️)
Watched this movie last night....Absolutely Amazing
The film is engrossing and gorgeous to look at but most importantly the acting is phenomenal
I can't say that I have yet FULLY experienced losing someone "close" to me. But what I felt during Blake's death, was new and had not been felt before by me in a movie. Especially not for a character that died after 40 minutes of screen time and almost zero dialog by comparable standards. That tells you something.
PLEASE DO JOJO RABBIT -from an avid fan of this channel and this director
I believe you should have talked about the scene with the mother and child. I believe it’s pivotal to the film.
It rapresents humanity hiding in a hole in the inhumanity of the war
"Free and unified Europe".......what a lot of nonsense and typical of the glib, facile and ahistorical analysis common in the US understanding of world history.
Germany was fighting for a unified Europe too. Both sides were fighting for their own empires. I think there must have been four or five empires involved: Russian, Austro-Hungarian, German, British, Ottoman and the Chinese who was hoping for recognition and support at the League of Nations against the Japanese imperial expansion.
I sometimes wish the Academy could wait five years and then award the best film to the one that has stood the test of time - I feel that eventually this one will be regarded as the film most worthy of the Best Picture Oscar and that Parasite benefited from the political winds of that moment.
Too bad MUBI never shows anything even close to this level of quality.
this movie looks amazing i really need to check this out. thanks for the video!
Spectacular observation and breakdown
Good point, I want to mention:
Shell shock includes not just PTSD but nerve damage caused by the concussion of the explosion
@2manynegativewaves
There was another interesting phenomenon: Soldiers heart
The physical demands of prolonged combat was so great many men's bodies simply stopped functioning
They could no longer do basic tasks without getting severely fatigued, and eventually their organs would start shutting down and they would die
I’d say WW2 was fighting for a more unified Europe rather than WW1
Hey Take ,
Can you please cover an analysis on Suits Tv series. It's a brilliant series with pretty awesome characters. Haven't seen much of it on youtube tho. Would like you to cover it ❤️♥️
When you said that people are gradually forgetting about the FirstWorld War, it really got me. Like said in the video, many people who fought in the Great War are not with us anymore and that is just depressing. We need to know and remember what WWI was like and the psychological effects, just as much as any other wars that occurred afterwards. The soldiers back then, were young and innocent and they had no idea what they were going into. 1917 did, what I thought was, an amazing job in communicating with me the horrors of the war and not knowing when you could be facing danger. It's not over until it's over.
Will you be doing a video on Sense8?
They have.
Loved this movie. Would love to see a one shot type movie in 3D
My only flaw with the movie was sometimes the dialogue was a bit on the nose and explanatory, like where the characters told each other what they would need to do next, but I guess the average movie-goer would need pointers like that
That blossom sure is beautiful
The first two acts are fantastic, last act was just aight
What movie showed WWI trenches? Paths of Glory.
One of the best movies I have set my eyes on. Powerful stuff
Shot stupidly well. You can tell where they performed certain wipes but some scenes, I had no idea how they accomplished it. I thought the characters and plot were severely lacking though.
It felt like a never-ending cut scene in a videogame. Props on the cinematography magic, but I like writing better.
The movie had perfectly fine writing. More conversations or more verbose exchanges would've made it feel like a video game cutscene.
@@radicalstanza3614 I was talking more about plot than characters go from point a to point b without dying is not a great plot
what song plays during the mubi ad and what movie is the shot of a dancing woman from? thanks
I loved the film as for me it is most personal when the story is simple yet great idea in terms of taking the viewer through the horrible path of war along with the characters. You sort of feel like the silent third soldier sent in with the main two. I have always been interested in seeing what happens over the trenches and the first hour was the most thrilling, because personally I only got to imagine this having read books on ww1.
We definitely need more POVs movies on the subject of ww1 as there are so many lifes that intersected over the 4 years, so many forgotten heroes.
« the goal was to make people forgot about the camera »
Me for 2 hours straight: how the fuck did they do that, wow, cool cool cool
Mark my words: this movie is a masterpiece and it’s going to win Best Picture.
If it doesn’t then this comment isn’t going to age well
Edit: This didn’t age well
I guess it didn't. But, at least Parasite won.
Shanice Abdou yeah I loved Parasite ands its a good choice, I just thought this film was better
@@inception-report5621 Yea I know. I would have loved for that movie movie to win too
So...we shouldn't watch old war movies?
What!!!!
I remember seeing RUSSIAN ARK on it's release, then the longest single take film ever made, over 45 min.
As much as I admire the work of Roger Deakins and Sam Mendes, I could not get involved or go the whole distance of 1917.
Primarily because of the dizzying effect of the constantly moving camera. Did the film makers create a rod for their own back
in their quest to convey a "real time" experience in minimizing the use of traditional screen grammar of cutting?
Much is made of in-camera editing and the avoidance of unnecessary unjustified camera movement, yet ironically and paradoxically,
the whole film is shot in almost drone like FPV fashion. The camera in fact never stops moving. For that reason, I cannot help but feel the constant
seemingly contradictive and curious statements as regards "justified" camera movement.
In the very first scene breakdown of the briefing session, the clever solution to avoid repositioning the camera for a traditional reverse reaction shot, is to have the actors move around while the camera moves in. From then on it's on the move constantly, with sets being painstakingly designed and constructed so as to keep the camera moving
just to avoid cutting the running shot or "MOVING" the camera? You can't have it both ways, especially in an intensive dialogue laden narrative drama.
An interesting analysis of a flawed philosophical concept from it's inception. Not all Directors are equally gifted at Writing.
I may have to revisit 1917, for another attempt to stay the distance, not for the drama, but purely for the technical achievements in all the respective departments.
I hate war movies but had to go see this in the theater after I heard about it having super long shots. Very glad I did. I was only disappointed with how the 1st guy died. I was so mad when they helped the guy from the plane. They didn't have time for all that, then boom. He deserved a better death. I cried that he had to die for being a good guy. I guess that was the point but he could had diedfor someone worth saying so it wouldn't have felt so stupid. He took his mission so seriously it didn't make sense that he would risk his life for the enemy.. But more importantly, how did y'all leave out Mark Strong?!?!?!
I like the one take.
1917 remains films most high masterpiece. Good luck all other film makers. Not sure that one can be topped. It’s the zenith of this type of storytelling.
As far as I’m concerned, the 20th century as we know it, didn’t really begin until WWI. The years before, were closer to the late 19th, sort of how the stereotypical image people have of the 60s (with the hippies), didn’t really take off until after the Kennedy assassination. Until then, the 60s were about as staid and buttoned-downed as the 50s. Nearly every major conflict of the 20th century can be traced directly or indirectly back to WWI. It makes you wonder why all these time travelers are always trying to kill Hitler rather than save the Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
If you liked this movie you should watch Peter Jackson's "They shall not grow old". You'll love it!
Make no mistake. One-shot is not real-time. Schofield did not get to the bridge from the dugout in only one hour.
I thought Russian Ark was the first film to be shot in one take
Eeehh???
What about mister Strong?
The main character in "Sherlock Holmes"..... quite a bit more famous,than the " Blake-brother"....
War Horse isn’t Disney, it’s Dreamworks.
Whya arent their a lot of ww1 movies
I think this has something to do with not only the war not having as much impact to Americans (as they didn't enter it until relatively late) compared to WWII but it seems Hollywood is a little obsessed with WWII a little too much.
Maybe you should do a tiny bit of research about the reasons WW1 started before saying they were fighting for a "unified Europe"..... Literally the complete opposite was true.
I don't think that was a quote from them but from the director.
And then there’s Liam Neeson jumping a fence.
A good technical made movie.
Movie at 11:06?
And in a matter of hours it’s gonna be Best Picture 😀
3:40 There are plenty of people, including me, who LOVE black and white movies and who prefer the effects of black and white movies. I honestly don't believe you guys have ever seen a black and white movie EVER because the effects they used then were a heck of a lot better than the CGI that they use now. Back then they used real fire, real explosions, real blanks. Now it's all computer generated and we can tell. Why do you think Gen Z is so stupid as to not be able watch a black and white WW1 movie and feel moved by it? Especially when it was made just a couple decades after the war ended. Why would you guys just assume that young people are so stupid that they just HAVE to have color and computer effects to like/enjoy/get emotional about a movie? The black and white movies are far FAR better than this computer generated hell of remaking the same movie slightly differently over and over again that we are trapped in now. The movies today have horrible dialogue, the most basic of plots, horrible writing and hide that all behind special effects. This is the description of EVERY. SINGLE. SUPERHERO movie made in the last 15 years and even star wars with it's MC Mary Sue and horrible plot hole filled writing has been ruined by modern movie directors. You really think any of these modern movies are on the same level as Gone With The Wind, or Casablanca, Citizen Kane, Sunset Boulevard, A Streetcar Named Desire, To Kill A Mockingbird, A Farewell to Arms, or Paths of Glory???? Because they are NOT and will NEVER compare to any of these black and white movies. I honestly think YOU guys are the ones too stupid to enjoy a black white classic movie seeing as all you make videos about are stupid superhero movies and the greatest television flop of the last 50 years, Game of Thrones. I haven't seen one single video on ANY black and white movie from you guys. At least not in the last two years. So maybe don't throw stones if you live in a glass house
They list things that are unlikely to appeal to "younger mainstream viewers." Obviously, if those people were coaxed into actually watching an old classic from beginning to end, there's a good chance they'd find something to enjoy, but I don't think it's inaccurate to say that old-fashioned black and white films aren't going to be immediately immersive for young mainstream viewers. It's not even a remotely controversial statement.
@@radicalstanza3614 yeah it is! Why would you even think that? I'm gen Z and have no issue at all watching Black and White movies. I far prefer them to this hell of superheros we live in now. I just don't get why you would think Gen Z NEEDS color and shitty computer effects to be immersed in a movie? My sister is even younger than I am (14) and she loves to watch the black and white movies with me. Please explain WHY you think we HAVE to see a movie with horribly fake computer effects and color to immersed in it? We aren't stupid. We don't have the attention spans of squirrels. Gen Z doesn't even like these super hero movies. That's all Gen X and Millennials that watch that total crapfest. I'm just curious as to why you think young people have to have shitty fake computer effects and color to get into a movie? It doesn't make any sense at all. I have been immediately immersed in far FAR more black and white movies than I have in the modern movies which I don't get into at all. I don't need to be coaxed into watching Black and White movies because they are GOOD movies. Nothing made in last 30 years even comes close to the quality of any black and white movie. Why do you think I'm so stupid that I have to be coaxed into watching a black and white movie? Because I don't. I seek them out on my own and always have. You base your opinion off of nothing but totally wrong assumptions.
@@WhitneyDahlin I think you need to take a chill pill, first of all. You're basically screaming about something that's not exactly a heated argument. If you honestly can't imagine why modern cinema might be an easier sell to people who grew up with modern cinema than black and white films made several generations before they were born, you lack perspective, empathy and/or critical thinking ability. No one is saying black and white films are obsolete, unwatchable, or devoid of quality. They are, however, clearly, undeniable, less mainstream viable than modern cinema. It's great that you dig 'em; I like them, too, but that's not the issue in question. There's a million old bands that are incredibly musically, melodically, technically and compositionally advanced compared to modern radio bands, but obviously groups like these are going to be, for your average young mainstream listener, a considerably harder sell than something with a more contemporary sound. It's not that complicated.
Ok, boomer