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.
Public domain has nothing to do with consumption. You can go to your library right now and watch new movies for free.
Sorry! Library is closed at the request of Hollywood
My town doesn’t have a library. But it does have internet connection and access to thousands of free movies on YouTube.
Good for you but I’m of the opinion that public domain nowadays is a bad joke of the cursed capitalist world we live in, if I wait to see something modern “for free” I’ll be 150 years old and I won’t even be able to see that Oppenheimer movie because of that stupid 95 year period of time… seriously, if the waiting period were 15/20 years I would make a genuine effort not to pirate but as I said above the public domain law is a joke and will continue to be…
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.
There are plenty old movies I have seen or would love to see, but very few of those were made before 1940, and 1940 won’t reach public domain for another 15 years.
Method Acting (which is a pretty powerful Acting technique for getting actors to genuinely feel the emotions of the character) dates back to the 60s in Movies (it dates back even longer to Stanislavski in 19th century Russia, but its popularity really took off mid 20th century) so before that actors were just faking it whilst after that it will be more and more them reacting genuinely to imaginary circumstances (in terms of the audience it means we will actually empathise with what’s hapenning to the character because the emotions on display are genuine).
So the quality of the acting in the kind of Films that are now coming into the Public Domain will be lower than what we are use to (though in stuff like Comedy and certain kinds of Action it’s seldom noticeable).
And this is before we even go into the quality of the Production (in audience terms, how believable are the scenarios).
I doubt Hollywood will be threatened by this for at leat a couple of decades.
OP that’s a killer list of books you’ve read. IMO you have a point. To all the people who say that you’d be alienated from watching old movies, that method acting is important and that special effects of the last 20 years are what makes it different, idk. It really depends on what you’re looking for.
Hitchcock movies or the stuff with Humphrey Bogart, Marlon Brando, even the super racist Italo Western movies, the very old Kubrick stuff, that’s all great cinema.
I’m as left wing as it gets but I also get very alienated by the “diversity” and “feminism“ modern Hollywood & Netflix cinema. It’s the same type of diversity and feminism that exists in corporate, where there is diversity in terms of ethnicity and sexuality, but only within class. It’s a fictional world to me the same way the old movies are, just done by a different bunch of people living in their own world.
There’s still some good cinema and good shows out there every now and then, but to think old movies can’t compete with modern TV & cinema just because they’re old is a very simplistic take.
I also get very alienated by the “diversity” and “feminism“ modern Hollywood & Netflix cinema. It’s the same type of diversity and feminism that exists in corporate, where there is diversity in terms of ethnicity and sexuality, but only within class.
Are you talking about Rainbow Capitalism?
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.
Moby Dick is good in a way where I don’t care about any of the characters or the story, but I could read Melville describe water or argue that dolphins are fish for the rest of my life, just because of how beautifully he does it.
I expect a report when you return, along with an essay about what you did during the summer.
theyrethesamepicture.jpg
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 ;)
White Nights - Dostoevsky
The Demons - Dostoevsky
The Death of Ivan Ilyich - Tolstoy
Polikushka - Tolstoy
Short Stories Collection - Tolstoy
The Metamorphosis - Kafka
The Trial - Kafka
In Search of Lost Time - Vol. 1 - Proust
