• jordanlund@lemmy.world
    171·
    3 days ago

    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
          3·
          3 days ago
          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]
  • over_clox@lemmy.world
    36·
    4 days ago

    Should Super Mario Brothers 1 be considered an old game?

    It depends whether you’ve ever played the game before (or, regarding your question, whether you’ve seen the movie before).

    If you’ve seen the movie or played the game a half million times, then it’s not new to you.

    But there’s still plenty of people out there that haven’t seen the movie or played the game you speak of, so it would absolutely be new to them…

    • SanguinePar@lemmy.world
      6·
      3 days ago

      It would be subjectively new to them, yes. But objectively it’s still an old game. That doesn’t mean it’s bad, irrelevant or whatever, it’s just old. And that’s fine.

  • Dasus@lemmy.world
    1·
    3 days ago

    Yes.

    And I was old enough to remember going to the movies in 1995.

    Not by myself, but dad took us to see some.

  • Acamon@lemmy.world
    2·
    3 days ago

    Based on when I was young, I basically thought of anything from before I was born as “old”. Not consciously, just that everything from “my” decade seemed modern, and everything else was old.

    Even now, movies from 20+ years ago look old, even though I remember them being super new when they came out. The Matrix had aged pretty well, but it defintely looks old. I thought LOTR was timeless, but I rewatched it recently and did start to feel it was showing it’s age (but none the worse for it!).

    • over_clox@lemmy.world
      810·
      4 days ago

      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.

      • Crazyslinkz@lemmy.world
        3·
        3 days ago

        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.

      • rumschlumpel@feddit.org
        11·
        4 days ago

        ‘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
          27·
          4 days ago

          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
            10·
            3 days ago

            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
              29·
              3 days ago

              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
        7·
        4 days ago

        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.

          • remotelove@lemmy.ca
            5·
            3 days ago

            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
              31·
              3 days ago

              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
                3·
                3 days ago

                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.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.world
          3·
          3 days ago

          I wanted to watch the OG Nosferatu before the new one, my wife could not stop laughing.

          “No! This serious horror movie!”

          (snort)

  • Fondots@lemmy.world
    5·
    3 days ago

    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.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    32·
    3 days ago

    Thirty years. I may have seen it while I was young, but that doesn’t make us both not old.