When speaking of "old film", the only sane criteria is close to this:
Pre 1930: Ancient, and it was the experimental era
1930-1939: Very old films, generally geared onto classic literature taken to film
1940-1949: Old films usually done in simplicity, with as few props as possible to enhance the crux of the story and characters, for better or worse
1950-1965-Golden age classics, and you all have to admit, the best scenery and cinematography, usually the most believable characters, with an emphasis on "credible characters in incredible circumstances".

That's close to any sane cut off date for "old films". After that, we get "modernism", which is "making audiences for movies instead of movies for audiences". Every actor and director of the era even boasted that the audience needed to adapt to their whims. Modernism is "control freak unlimited", whether for good or bad (usually bad).

Now, you all obviously know, and only the liars who don't mind looking like retards have to admit, that modern movies (since about 1965) don't have to be as good as the older films in order to get a good review.

Now, there are many reasons for this.

1. Older films are often compared against each other, so it's "quality vs. quality", good direction, coherent story telling, characters with actual motivation explained, vs. the same, while modern movies are "sloppy, incoherent story telling, insulting, agenda oriented for big business, with no intelligible motivation" vs. the same. It's human nature to compare grapes to grapes and raisins to raisins.

2. The personal factor. The older a film is, the fewer people who were involved with it who are alive. When one looks at a historic factor, modern History remembers the Geronimo and Manson who massacred human beings, and we never hear about the George Washington Carver or Florence Nightingale. Honestly. People remember family feuds, not families who baked pies for their great grandparents. So, same principle applies here. When someone involved in an old film is recognized personally by an individual, it's for more negative information than someone recognized personally in a modern film. Plus, someone in a modern film, even if you don't like him, if you know him, you may want to stay on his good side more than you would a deceased person. The personal factor is overwhelming for many other reasons. A modern film has more people involved. So, it's more likely that you actually know someone whose aunt was the landlord of the setting for a modern film than for an older film. And that sort of feeling adds to the intangible value of a rating.

3. Control freaks. The control freaks are numerous, and by now, most of the regulars can identify the control freaks by their showing their hands at my expose of control freaks. Modern theater has been control freak oriented since about the same time as film. And control freaks have no limitations. They never relent. In a computer age, they will create socks over and over, because they are out of control. A startling revelation is that the most respected of older films are complete glorification and deification of "control freaks". 12 ANGRY MEN is a great film, but honestly, it is a film about the deification of a control freak. Lost are films once seen as classics by a "realistic generation", such as GONE WITH THE WIND, TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE, and CASABLANCA because modern bubble boys glorify control freaks, and can't deal with Rhett Butler being seen as nobler than control freak Scarlet, Curtain being nobler than control freak Dobbs, Rick being nobler than the control freak Nazis. THE SEARCHERS only remains in good standing because the modern bubble boys have replaced the original hero character of Martin (Hunter) with the vile control freak Ethan (Wayne). Thus, modern film makers know they can manipulate audiences and be control freaks, and get great reviews from other control freaks.

4. Overkill is seen as a virtue. Recently, I made a post about actors who played the most roles in which they bought the farm. Buying the farm has always been a dramatic, theatrical vehicle. And in old films, there was even more type casting than today. One never expected Duryea or Pate to survive a film's end. Yet today, the experts who make the statistics have determined that almost all of the top 100 actors who "buy the farm" most are very modern. "Overkill". An old film would have about 12 characters in a situation, and maybe 3 would die. Around the seventies, that changed to 2 survivors, a hero and heroine, which was in conjunction with the "deification of the control freak". By the eighties, it went down to "one" survivor, over and over, relentlessly. After about two movies like this, you can't help but be bored by it, unless you're one of the relentless bubble boy control freaks who have the most socks here. So, dull, monotonous "overkill" movies actually get rewarded for inferiority.

5. Dullness is seen as a virtue. You have to admit the spectacle of the deserts, oceans, ruins of Greek architecture, swamps, mountains, and outer space are more interesting than the city streets, cars, desks, offices, kitchens, bedrooms that most of us see all the time. "Cars" never replaced "horses" the way that the brain dead drug crazed idiots of the seventies insisted would happen. Horses will always be more exciting than cars, except to a few red necks. Look at the 007 films. A franchise based on exotic, spectacular scenery. And one can't deny that the scenery has declined into pathetic dullness of casinos and city streets. Film makers know they are rewarded by critics for dull scenery, so they indulge in dull settings.

There are numerous other reasons that most people can't handle, but these five are explanation enough as to why modern movies don't have to be as good as older films to get a better rating by the dweebs in control.

Has there been more Nazi brainwashing as well?

>>2
Yes, but I didn't get into that, because there are so many here who can't handle the truth.

I have to disagree. The times have changed. Our expectations are different now. You do realize the Dweebs as you call them change over time. People do age and die. Would you expect you and I to watch the same movie and come away with the same reviews?

The only difference between generations that has any influence on film is the factor of "control". Most generations have been through hardships and the reality of not being in control over everything.

Since about 1980, the first world, particularly the U.S., but also those who "idolize" the U.S. (and that includes terrorists, ironically), believe they can "control" everything. Many are born and raised near relatives, and no trouble comes up that can't be fixed. They are promoted over outsiders, given stewardship and responsibility simply by being squeaky wheels, and think that's reality.

That is what the message is from the top film lists, that some people are "gods". They are deified. It isn't "realism", because these people think they can will a bullet to swerve around them and hit someone they consider an outsider, someone who isn't in their Mount Olympus.

I doubt seriously that this trend will continue. We live in a world where we really don't think things will fall apart. And this generation of "control freaks" really believe that the same elitists in control have super powers that prevent them from suffering mortal danger of others.

If this is the way it is in 2200 A.D., then the elitists will have amassed so much control that we really be in a sci-fi world of extremist power with no middle class. Reality is that another reign of terror would happen before that.

So, I don't see the ratings of bubble boys lasting more than one more generation (25 years).

Are you a SFBE sock

Since about 1980, the first world, particularly the U.S., but also those who "idolize" the U.S. (and that includes terrorists, ironically), believe they can "control" everything. Many are born and raised near relatives, and no trouble comes up that can't be fixed. They are promoted over outsiders, given stewardship and responsibility simply by being squeaky wheels, and think that's reality

Drugs are bad okay

There isn't another Audrey Hepburn, this is an example.