Angelus said:
Don't know if you realize this, but most people don't go online to rate everything they watch. Now, I don't know exactly how many movies I've seen in my life, but I grew up with a father who bought literally every movie that touched shelves for the better part of a decade, so by the time I was 12 or so we had well over a thousand different movies around the house. I watched a great many of them, and a great many since. Plenty in any case, and I've never felt bothered to go rate any of them. The book comparison is ridiculous, which you well know. It's equally ridiculous to suggest that technical advancements, and spectacle aren't hugely important for movies. It's a visual medium. The experience of seeing a movie today is NOTHING like seeing a movie decades ago, and that's a damn good thing. Fortunately for us, most of the classics have been remastered as best as possible. |
You're essentially equating bigger screens, HD and other technical aspects with movies being better. These are all superfluous. It makes me think your some kind of Marvel fan that cares CGI and spectacle more than actual script and acting. Tell me that Jurassic world is better than JP? New alien better than original? There's virtually no remakes I can think of that approach the originals in quality, and it all comes down to script, pacing and acting.