MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Why do films from the 60's, 70's, 80's a...

Why do films from the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's look so bad??

posted 7 years ago by LetThemEatCake (2717)
17 replies | jump to latest

For instance Rosemary's Baby. Grainy, dark, zero definition. The scene after Rosemary's party were they are arguing in the apartment, there is no definition to her face, like at all. And this is the 18 GB bluray file. A LOT of the films from this period look like that, and well into the 90's. By contrast, Cleopatra from 1963 looks incredibly sharp, focused and detailed, it even looks better than films today. I know that a lot of films had their original negatives destroyed and maybe that's why they look so bad now, like Cat On A Hot Tin Roof for instance, and yet Vertigo, whose negative was in very very bad condition, looks really good. I'm not sure why people back in the day would want the films to look like Rosemary and many others do.

[–] AngularTurnip (3337) 7 years ago

The first two "Godfather" films look great. So does "Chinatown."

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

the first godfather is insanely grainy.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AngularTurnip (3337) 7 years ago

I do abhor the look that surfaced in the late '60s/early '70s of smearing what appears to be Vaseline, or some shit, on the lens; it looks terrible.

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

any examples?

[–] AngularTurnip (3337) 7 years ago

"Carrie" comes to mind. So does "Dressed to Kill."

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

oh yeah lol, the penthouse editorial look.

[–] AngularTurnip (3337) 7 years ago

But, then again, DePalma is a canny filmmaker, and likely intended "Dressed to Kill" to exude the qualities of a tawdry short story you might read from the likes of Charles Beaumont in Playboy.

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

I don't even know who to credit for that anymore because his last films have been horrific and look just like everyone else's.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

I said 60's to the 90's, some 90's films look ugly and unremarkable too.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AngularTurnip (3337) 7 years ago

The look had its origins in the late '60s/early '70s (I recall this look showing up in episodes of "Night Gallery"). By the time "Carrie" and "Dressed to Kill" arrived the trend was in full swing and DePalma's opuses, among others, exploited it for all it was worth.

[–] Iamozz (26) 7 years ago

"Cleopatra from 1963 looks incredibly sharp"

The most expensive movie ever made at that time. It better have looked good.

What about "Lawrence Of Arabia" I remember that looked better then most movies from that era.

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

I haven't seen Lawrence Of Arabia. I haven't seen Cleopatra on a theater either but I did download the 20 GB bluray and I must say the definition is truly incredible, way far superior than any modern film. Unfortunately, the stupid director who shot it all f*cked up on drugs, chose not to make any closeups, but they would have been spectacular. I don't know much about film formats, but Cleopatra was shot on 70 mm film, even if it didn't use the full frame, which I believe means it has the same quality as a modern IMAX film. Yet other 70 mm films don't fare so well, I seem to recall 2001 A Space Odyssey was shot in 70, I saw that one at a theater in digital of course, it looked good but nowhere like Cleopatra, I downloaded the bluray too and it wasn't really that sharp or defined, which is a shame because the sights are incredible.

[–] croft_alice (12180) 7 years ago

We had some good movies too,back in the 60's...

[–] RussellNash (2087) 7 years ago

I was born in the 70's and I'm starting to look pretty grainy myself, I tell you.