Should old SciFi be judged by today's standards?

[Riedquat]

This is a bit fantasy not Scifi. But. Wizard of Oz. Entertaining. Pretty. The effects by todays standards and set design is deplorable.

I'm sorry . . . what?

The Wizard of Oz has "deplorable" set design? The gorgeous sets are half the reason to watch it!

Note the caveat. By today's standards. It does not look like another world or a mysterious land. It looks like a stage. And they filmed a play. Or at least the Oz scenes. Kansas is pretty good. And the tornado I gave my father nightmares and he thought they filmed a real one.

As a bright and colourful, not-intended-to-look-real fantasy land its sets are good, the reason it looks like a stage is the lighting (from what I vaguelly recall, it's a long time since I've seen it).

[Zargon]

So what is the judgment of ''todays standards"?

Sure some movies like Avengers Endgame have million million dollar special super computer effects. And then you have movies with a lot less money in effects. But are you just going by special effects?

Because plenty of modern movies are beyond horrible...even with special effects. How about Green Lanten? Independence Day Resurgence? Battlefeild Earth?

For TV Star Trek Voyager and Star Trek Discovery both have ''good" special effects....and yet are horrible.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Well if we're allowed to like past movies effects just based on the novelty of them being practical, then I don't see much reason to really judge a movie at all for its effects capabilities.

[Darth Wedgius]

We should also judge today's sci-fi by the standards of 50 years from now. The latest Avengers movie had no convincing holography, olfactory or haptic feedback, or plot or character interactivity.

I'd like to think that we can expect better from Marvel.

[Nealithi]

So what is the judgment of ''todays standards"?

I think that sums up the question. What are the standards. I used the Wizard of Oz not because it is bad. I happen to like it. But it misses a cinema quality we expect when walking into a movie today. But note when it was made and it goes into the pile of stuff to be ignored, enjoy the movie.
Then you have a pretty much no special effect movie like The Man from Earth. Mostly a crew of great actors, talking. Still science fiction, still engaging. What will that be considered in twenty years? Fifty?

And Darth Wedgius. I woke my folks laughing at your comment.

[Fianna]

I think you need to make a distinction between "looking bad by today's standards" and "not in fashion by today's standards".

When a movie's trying to make something look realistic, then, yes, it's possible to say that a later movie, with more advanced techniques behind it, objectively did a better job, and thus raised the bar for what's considered good. However, when a movie's not aiming for realism, and is instead trying to make something like that looks otherworldly, cartoonish, or dreamlike, then what looks good and what looks bad is simply a matter of stylistic preference. Certain stylistic trends wax and wane in popularity, but all retain at least a few adherents, and many find themselves getting a revival at certain points (for instance, Tim Burton starting a revival of expressionist costuming and set design in the 80's and 90's).

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Is all we're talking about special effects though?

[clearspira]

Is all we're talking about special effects though?

What else is there? Fact is that good storytelling is timeless, a good story then is a good story now. Ask a man named William Shakespeare for proof of that. The problem as I see it is that people often look at these old shows and think either A) ''the special effects look crappy!'' before they even give the story a chance or B) ''they're smoking! there is only one woman and she is serving the men coffee! too much toxic masculinity!'' before they even give the story a chance.

That is not to say you cannot point these things out obviously, as for example Chuck did in ''It: Terror From Beyond Space'' or ''Forbidden Planet''... he then got down to analysing the story and showing us how awesome these films were despite that.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Is all we're talking about special effects though?

What else is there? ...

Oh don't get me wrong, I kinda questioned that myself while asking. But I'd beg to differ in that there's plenty going on in concept for speculation within the story that you proceed to bring up. Good storytelling is timeless, but that presupposes that anything we watch is just timeless or not from the get go of seeing it. I think Patterns of Force is an interesting specimen for consideration. Really provocative setup, following off of w/ever the multitude of conventions which allowed Star Trek to transplant for instance nazi society into the landscape in its entirety of nuance and with benevolent intentions in the premise no doubt. Just looking at it, I can understand what they were going for I think, but a handful of aspects to consider in retrospect turn it into a rather unintentionally quirky piece.

[Elderdog]

Is all we're talking about special effects though?

I hope not because we'd be cutting out significant parts of the movies.