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.
That’s delusional man. We’re talking movies older than most people can even relate to. If this was maybe movies in the 80s we’d have a bigger problem but I’m sorry the content from 1920-1940 is just not relatable enough in most cases. If we have something like Batman and Superman Spider-Man, whatever right, things people care about, or like The Office or shows from yesterday hit the public domain, I think what you’re saying would have far more validity.
What’d you read
The Count of Monte Cristo is excellent. No movie has done it justice. No movie has come close to doing it justice.
The Three Musketeers Saga is very, very long, and very, very inconsistent in quality.
Moby Dick is really good. Also makes for a good movie, because there’s a lot of stuff about whaling that nobody cares about anymore.
Start with those, I expect a report when you return, along with an essay about what you did during the summer.
Thanks for the recommendations! Haven’t read any of these books and after reading some reviews, I’m intrigued.
If you liked the details in Moby Dick about whaling, you may also be interested in this great BBC series I’ve discovered a few weeks ago: Inside nature’s giants where they dissect large animals and explain their anatomy and evolution. There are also two episodes of stranded whales being dissected ;)
Another thing is paying for new films when you have hundreds of old movies as good as the new ones (or better) for free.
Yeah, no. Movies made in the past, say, 20 years, are WILDLY different from the ones made 90+ years ago. I’m not talking about technology, image quality or special effects, I’m talking about cinematography (shot composition and camera angles), acting and the kinds of stories that they’re trying to tell. Some stories are classics and timeless, but not all of them are, many are a direct byproduct of the historical context in which they were created, thus serving as interesting glances into the past.
If all you end up watching are these movies, you will get alienated from the world you actually live in. For instance, I bet there isn’t one of those public domain movies that portrays native americans as anything other than uncivilized, tent-living indians; or any movie that attempts to portray, even somewhat respectfully, the struggles they had to endure against european descended settlers. Movies that don’t shy away from showing some grim, dark realities? Not gonna be in public domain for another couple decades.
Maybe I was a little radical in the OP. The fact is most people don’t need to agree 100% with what I said for Hollywood to be in trouble. If 50% of movie fans decide that 20% of the movies they’ll watch will be free old movies, the demand for paid movies will already fall 10%. If these numbers keep increasing little by little over the years, it’s easy to imagine a scenario where half of the movies consumed are public domain. I don’t know how much of the total number of books read every year are public domain books, but I would guess it would be at least 25%. I will try to find some research about this.
Other thing is people don’t look for historical accuracy and political lessons on movies. The vast majority of them just want entertainment. For each movie made about the holocaust, you will find a dozen generic thriller movies that are very similar to what people have been producing for the last 90 years. So you can find escapism in 1930’s Hitchcock classics easily. And you can watch your new stuff later, but your screen time with paid movies would already have been reduced, and Hollywood won’t like it.
Public domain has nothing to do with consumption. You can go to your library right now and watch new movies for free.
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.
There’s no need for most people to agree with me. Even if 10% of Netflix subscribers decided to cancel it and move to classic movies, that would already be a crisis for them.
And don’t forget that humans have flock mentality. If this gets a little popular, it will be easy for it to explode. Just look at Nintendo now trying to contain the retro gaming boom and emulation.
Next ten years we will see classics led by John Wayne, James Stewart and Kirk Douglas going public, and that would be enough for millions to drop the new so-so movie stars.
Where will people watch the movies? Someone still has to provide a service where you can get them. Most people don’t want to download and store them somewhere, Netflix is just easier. And Netflix can easily add them to their collection as well.
exactly this. I have no desire to watch a “talkie” in 2025. movies from my childhood don’t even really hold up anymore. society and culture changes so fast. I think it would be a real niche group of ppl that go back and watch these old movies
I don’t understand that at all. What about being old makes something boring by default?
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?
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.
