• over_clox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      7 天前

      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
        ·
        7 天前

        ‘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
          ·
          7 天前

          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
            7 天前

            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
              ·
              7 天前

              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…

      • remotelove@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        7 天前

        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
          ·
          7 天前

          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
            5
            ·
            7 天前

            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
              ·
              7 天前

              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
                ·
                7 天前

                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.

      • Crazyslinkz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 天前

        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.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 天前

    As much as I hate to admit it, yes. That’s 30 years ago now.

    Think of it like this… If Back to the Future came out today, they would be going back to 1995.

    🤯

    Movies from 1955 were old in 1985, so movies from 1995 are old now.

        • Skullgrid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 天前
          Doc:
          Tell me, Future Boy, who's President of the United States in 1985?
          
          Marty:
          Ronald Reagan.
          
          Doc:
          Ronald Reagan? The actor? [rolls his eyes] Ha! Then who's vice-president, Jerry Lewis? I suppose Jane Wyman is the First Lady?
          
          Marty:
          Whoa, wait. Doc!
          
          Doc:
          And Jack Benny is Secretary of the Treasury!
          
          Marty:
          Doc, you gotta listen to me!
          
          Doc:
          I've had enough practical jokes for one evening! Good night, future boy! [slams door]
          
  • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    7 天前

    1995 was 30 years ago.
    In 1995, 30 year old movies would have been made in 1965, and in the 90s we would have absolutely considered movies made in the 60s to be “old”.
    So, I’d say yes, movies made in 1995 could be considered old.

  • Deestan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    7 天前

    Absolutely. It’s from the time when families used to share a single phone! That they glued to the wall!!

    • XeroxCool@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 天前

      Meanwhile in 2025, I’m deciding if I need to wall mount my bidet remote for “anti theft” purposes

  • Ziggurat@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    7 天前

    A while back, someone told me. If you read a book from the 19th century, you won’t call-it an “old book”, so why would a movie from the 1950’s be an old movie. And indeed, even in movies, there is some master piece which came out a while ago and are still relevant today (Seven Samurai, the Godfather or the Good, the bad and ugly immediately come to my mind) and tons of movie which while not being a recent release are still fun to watch today.

    Movie don’t have an experiation date.

    • SanguinePar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      7 天前

      Old doesn’t mean irrelevant though.

      I absolutely would consider a book from the 19th century an old book, just as I’d consider the movies you mentioned as old movies. But a great movie is a great movie regardless of age.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      6 天前

      Let me add 12 Angry Men to that list.

      Had no desire to watch it, but people on reddit were flipping over it. Put it on late, figured I’d get to bed for work the next day. Nope. Glued to the screen for every second of it. You can feel the heat and physical closeness of the single room it takes place in.

      Didn’t think my Filipino wife would like it, maybe wouldn’t get the English. Nope. She was perfectly still absorbing it all.

      Only thing that feels out of place is the old-timey, fast-talking 50s feel from some characters. OTOH, you could re-shoot the whole thing, almost word for word, and it would still be a masterpiece. LOL, and make an excuse for a borked AC unit.

    • i like this comment a lot :) and that someone made a rlly good point.

      i feel the same way with games. i feel a lot of pressure to buy better gaming specs but then spend my time playing games like half life, doom, and command and conquer. also pixels and polygons are so much prettier than realism

    • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 天前

      I would call a 19th century book old. Like, no one I know has been alive in 19th century. That’s pretty old by my standards.

  • richieadler 🇦🇷@lemmy.myserv.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    7 天前

    Yesterday I re-watched Copycat. Part of the suspense fell on the main character not having a cell phone and the would-be killer cutting the land line.

    It felt… weird.

    And yes, it was old 😢

    • exasperation@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 天前

      Colin Farrell in Phone Booth perfectly captured that early 2000’s feeling of where we were, technologically.

      1998’s You’ve Got Mail does, too.

  • Fondots@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    7 天前

    I think it depends on the movie

    If, after 30 years it still has a lot of cultural relevance, I’d think of it as a “classic” movie.

    If it doesn’t, if it hasn’t aged well and/or faded into obscurity, I think it’s fair to think of it as an old movie.

    Probably around '95, I would have been watching Star Wars for the first time. It didn’t feel like an old movie to me then and it still doesn’t to this day. Other movies from that same era haven’t aged quite as well and felt “old” to me.

    Looking at some of the top movies from '95, some of them are just as enjoyable or relevant today as they were when they released, others feel dated and not relevant to me today.

    It’s going to depend on your personal tastes and experiences of course. I can also sprinkle in a lot of platitudes like “you’re only as old as you feel” and “one man’s trash is another man’s treasure”

    I think there’s also room for some overlap. There’s classic movies that also feel dated. I think some movies can be both old and classics. You’d be pretty hard-pressed to find someone who wouldn’t agree that, for example, Casablanca, isn’t old, but I think that just about everyone agrees that it’s also a classic. Where the line is is pretty murky.

  • meyotch@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 天前

    If you watched it when it was new, you are now old. Therefore by the transitive property, the movie is also old.