[ SECRET POST #2742 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2742 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 094 secrets from Secret Submission Post #392.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

It might not be just that things are old, in the sense that 'old = bad', some of it might be that people are put off by the various conventions and techniques from different eras of film? You see that argument a lot of Doctor Who fandom, comparing the old school pacing and shoddy effects of Classic Who with the rapid-fire and arguably OTT delivery of NuWho, and in a lot of ways it's a fair enough argument. Some older techniques and conventions can sit really oddly with modern audiences, and if someone doesn't have the patience or just isn't interested, they might not want to bother with it.

One of the more interesting film experiences I've had in company was when one of my professors for the History of the City module in Geography put up a short 1921 silent film ("Manhatta" by Strand and Sheeler, for those curious, it's on youtube), and about half the class either stared at it blankly or started muttering comments about the title cards and the music and other silent film conventions (you can get various versions with different music on youtube, I think the original score was lost, and possibly would have been made up on the spot by the cinema musicians anyway). If you're not used to the conventions, it can be really weird. I didn't have that problem, from a combination of growing up with a) only the local TV stations which aired a crap tonne of older stuff because it was cheap, and b) a love of sci-fi that had me looking up things like Fritz Lang's Metropolis and weird 60s TV shows as soon as I had the resources.

Even funny things like the lighting and the film stock can be noticeable. Things made in the 1970s, in particular, tend to be instantly recognisable by the lighting/palette/texture (I don't actually know the film term for it). I think it's part of the reason I find some 70s films and shows so comforting - less for the actual content, and more because the lighting reminds me of the shows I grew up with. (In the 90s, I should add, the local stations really were about 80% reruns).

So, while you'll find gold and crud in all eras, and the actual stories told by film can be either or, whether or not you enjoy certain eras can also be affected by more material things, like the conventions and technology of presentation?