Last year we saw Mickey Mouse going public domain and now every year more and more talkie movies are going public domain too. The talkies began in 1928, and I would say they got very close to what we have today in about 1934 or 35.
That means that every year people will have hundreds of "new" releases on public domain, making paying for watching new movies unnecessary. One thing is preferring the new movies when you have to pay both for new and old movies. Another thing is paying for new films when you have hundreds of old movies as good as the new ones (or better) for free.
I don't know about you, but I could spend the rest of my life watching public domain classics, no problem. For instance, I read a dozen books last year, only two of them were less than a 100 years old.
I would say Hollywood is in a pinch right now, something that will make them miss the days when their biggest enemy was piracy.
Well, I read around 20 books last year and neither was older than 50 years old. I've also seen a few movies and neither was older than 34 years old.
If I was watching a movie made in 1934, I'd be bored as hell. My point kinda is: don't assume people have the same preferences you do.
I don't understand that at all. What about being old makes something boring by default?
Well, you don't really have to understand, that was my whole point - different people like different things.
For me it's mostly the pacing and the horrible acting in old movies.
There's lots of bad pacing and horrible acting in movies today though. You can obviously watch or not watch whatever, but I think you're limiting yourself unnecessarily if you put too much weight on the year of release.
Acting techniques improved massively during the XXth century, so stuff that relies on that (basically anything but slapstick Comedy and mindless Action) will feel less believable, which impacts mostly things from the 60s and earlier.
Then there are the Production values: the scenarios in early XXth century films were basically Theatre stages whilst more recent stuff can be incredibly realistic (pay attention to the details in things like clothing and the objects and furniture in indoor scenes in period movies) and Sci-Fi benefited massive from the early XXIst century techniques for physically correct 3D rendering and Mocap techniques so there is a disjunction in perceived realism between even the early Star Wars Movies and something like The Mandalorian.
Tell me what's better: a 21st century hammer or a stone-aged one? Do you prefer a cell phone or an old phone? It's not about being "old", it's about usefulness or how useful you actually find it. We've been riding horses for hundreds of years, and they're still useful, even though cars have taken over the planet, and we've ditched black/white TVs for better ones with colors.
None of that makes any sense. An old book and a new book aren't different in the way a rotary phone and a smartphone are. They are functionally the same object: text on paper.
You could have, for example, a story about someone stranded on an island, and the era it was written in would make almost no difference at all because technology doesn't have any bearing on the story, and we haven't changed as a species. The culture of the author would influence things, but that's true even of media today since we don't all share the same culture.
Old media can also be very illuminating when it does affect the story because it can teach you something about the era in which it was made. You might think to yourself, "Gosh, people used to be able to feed and house their families on a single paycheck? Why can't we do that today?"
And yeah, having stuff in black and white is less visually interesting, but I'm not going to rule out something I might find enjoyable just because of that. I watched quite a few old sitcoms in my childhood that I enjoyed just as much as the modern cartoons, and I still enjoy some of those cartoons today alongside modern TV.
Do you think the Home Alone sequels are better than the original?