Great Movie Ride to Close?

[AEfx]

Older movies are usually long...

Actually movies are longer today - though not by much. It depends on what time period you are looking at. From the beginning of the sound era to the 1960's, there was a definite increase, and since then it's remained somewhat constant somewhere around the 90 minute mark with variations here and there. They have jumped a bit since the 80's to now, but not hugely as that early rise in the mid-century previously. Of course, these are all averages - but for every 3 hour Transformer movies, there are plenty of 87-minute horror and comedy flims to pull the number back down. There is a great article about it here.

That said, the shots and scenes were generally markedly longer. That's why folks perceive them to be more lengthy. The average shot is somewhere around 3 seconds these days, when it used to hover around 10. That may not seem like a lot - but when you consider those are averages, and that means we have many 1-second shots and they had many 15 or longer ones, it's a pretty big difference in range.

Somewhat tangentially, that's kind of the Achilles heel of modern 3D and why it is already fizzling. We finally have the technology to do it well, but the way films are made now with "MTV-era" cutting there simply isn't enough time to absorb a lot of what 3D offers as films have to be "after-market friendly" where in most cases the viewer will be watching in 2D.

To bring it back to GMR - sort of LOL - that's why pretty much the best example of 3D done so far is Wizard of Oz - which is especially remarkable since it's post-converted (as opposed to being filmed natively in 3D, but at this point a good conversion is as good as native, it's just that there are not a lot of folks doing good conversions). Besides the bang up job the conversion house did, it's precisely because the shots are longer and there aren't constant camera kinetics that the 3-D is breathtaking. It's almost like it was filmed for 3D - as soon as you see Dorothy on the farm balancing on the fence it's an almost indescribable experience of "WOW".

If you don't have a 3D TV and haven't seen Oz on Blu-ray period, it should still be your next purchase - yes, it will have black bars on each side of the picture because it was not filmed in widescreen (and if you dare zoom it I will send the ghost of Dorothy after you - I'm a "friend" of hers after all) - but it's like nothing you have ever seen. Because Technicolor was literally three strips of film glued on top of each other to produce the color, it was impossible to line them up fully via manual physical methods (especially as time went on and each strip warped/aged on it's own).

Now they can scan each strip itself, and then composite them digitally so they match perfectly and the clarity is insane. You can see every stitch on every piece of clothing - they even discovered that in the center of the Tin Man's forehead is a jewel that we never saw before. For a film geek that's just nirvana.

 

[Mike S]

Show's you how much I know about movies. Here we go....

That kind of reminded me of Dick Van 's dancing in Mary Poppins. Pretty enjoyable.

 

[TomP]

I guess some of us could "wax nostalgic" for weeks about the movies in GMR. But, there is a reason for that...the fact that they still arouse emotion in a lot of people, even after all these years. It brings to mind probably my most favorite quote from movies: "If we bring a little joy into your humdrum lives, it makes us feel as though our hard work ain't been in vain for nothin'. I'll let the readers here identify the source

 

[roj2323]

Show's you how much I know about movies. Here we go....

it's interesting that this entire sequence seems to only have been separated into 3 shots. To be honest the acting is not my cup of tea but the singing/dancing was impressive.

 

[danlb_2000]

Actually movies are longer today - though not by much. It depends on what time period you are looking at. From the beginning of the sound era to the 1960's, there was a definite increase, and since then it's remained somewhat constant somewhere around the 90 minute mark with variations here and there. They have jumped a bit since the 80's to now, but not hugely as that early rise in the mid-century previously. Of course, these are all averages - but for every 3 hour Transformer movies, there are plenty of 87-minute horror and comedy flims to pull the number back down. There is a great article about it here.

That said, the shots and scenes were generally markedly longer. That's why folks perceive them to be more lengthy. The average shot is somewhere around 3 seconds these days, when it used to hover around 10. That may not seem like a lot - but when you consider those are averages, and that means we have many 1-second shots and they had many 15 or longer ones, it's a pretty big difference in range.

Somewhat tangentially, that's kind of the Achilles heel of modern 3D and why it is already fizzling. We finally have the technology to do it well, but the way films are made now with "MTV-era" cutting there simply isn't enough time to absorb a lot of what 3D offers as films have to be "after-market friendly" where in most cases the viewer will be watching in 2D.

To bring it back to GMR - sort of LOL - that's why pretty much the best example of 3D done so far is Wizard of Oz - which is especially remarkable since it's post-converted (as opposed to being filmed natively in 3D, but at this point a good conversion is as good as native, it's just that there are not a lot of folks doing good conversions). Besides the bang up job the conversion house did, it's precisely because the shots are longer and there aren't constant camera kinetics that the 3-D is breathtaking. It's almost like it was filmed for 3D - as soon as you see Dorothy on the farm balancing on the fence it's an almost indescribable experience of "WOW".

If you don't have a 3D TV and haven't seen Oz on Blu-ray period, it should still be your next purchase - yes, it will have black bars on each side of the picture because it was not filmed in widescreen (and if you dare zoom it I will send the ghost of Dorothy after you - I'm a "friend" of hers after all) - but it's like nothing you have ever seen. Because Technicolor was literally three strips of film glued on top of each other to produce the color, it was impossible to line them up fully via manual physical methods (especially as time went on and each strip warped/aged on it's own).

Now they can scan each strip itself, and then composite them digitally so they match perfectly and the clarity is insane. You can see every stitch on every piece of clothing - they even discovered that in the center of the Tin Man's forehead is a jewel that we never saw before. For a film geek that's just nirvana.

http://www.slashfilm.com/by-the-numbers-the-length-of-feature-films/

 

[lover_doll]

Older movies are usually long because they're based on the lengths of live plays (Casablanca), Broadway musicals (Singin' in the Rain), epics (Alien), or live symphonies (Fantasia). People had longer attention spans back then, too. Plus they read more and didn't mind waiting for a plot to be established.

Break the movies up over a day or two. You'll be glad you watched them. There's a reason the best modern movie makers study the classics: they were made before Wall Street controlled Hollywood, and the quality of writing and visual creativity are still unsurpassed. Special effects, on the other hand, are much better now.

EDIT: For example, modern horror movies use graphic gore for scares. Classics used camera angles, high contrast black and white (or color), and music to create dread, and rarely showed much gore—and are widely considered more effective.

You are so right about the use of black and white, music or silence to create dread. The biggest scare I every had watching a movie was in one of Val Lewton's movies---The Leopard Man---when the young girl is walking home late at night. Well, I don't want to say any more, because it would involve giving the story away. But, it still gives me the shivers every time I see it.

 

[Goofyernmost]

Show's you how much I know about movies. Here we go....

Got it that time... all is forgiven!

 

[Mike S]

Actually movies are longer today - though not by much. It depends on what time period you are looking at. From the beginning of the sound era to the 1960's, there was a definite increase, and since then it's remained somewhat constant somewhere around the 90 minute mark with variations here and there. They have jumped a bit since the 80's to now, but not hugely as that early rise in the mid-century previously. Of course, these are all averages - but for every 3 hour Transformer movies, there are plenty of 87-minute horror and comedy flims to pull the number back down. There is a great article about it here.

That said, the shots and scenes were generally markedly longer. That's why folks perceive them to be more lengthy. The average shot is somewhere around 3 seconds these days, when it used to hover around 10. That may not seem like a lot - but when you consider those are averages, and that means we have many 1-second shots and they had many 15 or longer ones, it's a pretty big difference in range.

Somewhat tangentially, that's kind of the Achilles heel of modern 3D and why it is already fizzling. We finally have the technology to do it well, but the way films are made now with "MTV-era" cutting there simply isn't enough time to absorb a lot of what 3D offers as films have to be "after-market friendly" where in most cases the viewer will be watching in 2D.

To bring it back to GMR - sort of LOL - that's why pretty much the best example of 3D done so far is Wizard of Oz - which is especially remarkable since it's post-converted (as opposed to being filmed natively in 3D, but at this point a good conversion is as good as native, it's just that there are not a lot of folks doing good conversions). Besides the bang up job the conversion house did, it's precisely because the shots are longer and there aren't constant camera kinetics that the 3-D is breathtaking. It's almost like it was filmed for 3D - as soon as you see Dorothy on the farm balancing on the fence it's an almost indescribable experience of "WOW".

If you don't have a 3D TV and haven't seen Oz on Blu-ray period, it should still be your next purchase - yes, it will have black bars on each side of the picture because it was not filmed in widescreen (and if you dare zoom it I will send the ghost of Dorothy after you - I'm a "friend" of hers after all) - but it's like nothing you have ever seen. Because Technicolor was literally three strips of film glued on top of each other to produce the color, it was impossible to line them up fully via manual physical methods (especially as time went on and each strip warped/aged on it's own).

Now they can scan each strip itself, and then composite them digitally so they match perfectly and the clarity is insane. You can see every stitch on every piece of clothing - they even discovered that in the center of the Tin Man's forehead is a jewel that we never saw before. For a film geek that's just nirvana.

Now you made me wish I saw Oz in 3D when it was out.

 

[TomP]

Actually movies are longer today - though not by much. It depends on what time period you are looking at. From the beginning of the sound era to the 1960's, there was a definite increase, and since then it's remained somewhat constant somewhere around the 90 minute mark with variations here and there. They have jumped a bit since the 80's to now, but not hugely as that early rise in the mid-century previously. Of course, these are all averages - but for every 3 hour Transformer movies, there are plenty of 87-minute horror and comedy flims to pull the number back down. There is a great article about it here.

That said, the shots and scenes were generally markedly longer. That's why folks perceive them to be more lengthy. The average shot is somewhere around 3 seconds these days, when it used to hover around 10. That may not seem like a lot - but when you consider those are averages, and that means we have many 1-second shots and they had many 15 or longer ones, it's a pretty big difference in range.

Somewhat tangentially, that's kind of the Achilles heel of modern 3D and why it is already fizzling. We finally have the technology to do it well, but the way films are made now with "MTV-era" cutting there simply isn't enough time to absorb a lot of what 3D offers as films have to be "after-market friendly" where in most cases the viewer will be watching in 2D.

To bring it back to GMR - sort of LOL - that's why pretty much the best example of 3D done so far is Wizard of Oz - which is especially remarkable since it's post-converted (as opposed to being filmed natively in 3D, but at this point a good conversion is as good as native, it's just that there are not a lot of folks doing good conversions). Besides the bang up job the conversion house did, it's precisely because the shots are longer and there aren't constant camera kinetics that the 3-D is breathtaking. It's almost like it was filmed for 3D - as soon as you see Dorothy on the farm balancing on the fence it's an almost indescribable experience of "WOW".

If you don't have a 3D TV and haven't seen Oz on Blu-ray period, it should still be your next purchase - yes, it will have black bars on each side of the picture because it was not filmed in widescreen (and if you dare zoom it I will send the ghost of Dorothy after you - I'm a "friend" of hers after all) - but it's like nothing you have ever seen. Because Technicolor was literally three strips of film glued on top of each other to produce the color, it was impossible to line them up fully via manual physical methods (especially as time went on and each strip warped/aged on it's own).

Now they can scan each strip itself, and then composite them digitally so they match perfectly and the clarity is insane. You can see every stitch on every piece of clothing - they even discovered that in the center of the Tin Man's forehead is a jewel that we never saw before. For a film geek that's just nirvana.

You are truly a movie geek...and I mean that in the best way possible.

 

[Gomer]

If you don't have a 3D TV and haven't seen Oz on Blu-ray period, it should still be your next purchase - yes, it will have black bars on each side of the picture because it was not filmed in widescreen (and if you dare zoom it I will send the ghost of Dorothy after you - I'm a "friend" of hers after all) - but it's like nothing you have ever seen. Because Technicolor was literally three strips of film glued on top of each other to produce the color, it was impossible to line them up fully via manual physical methods (especially as time went on and each strip warped/aged on it's own).

Now they can scan each strip itself, and then composite them digitally so they match perfectly and the clarity is insane. You can see every stitch on every piece of clothing - they even discovered that in the center of the Tin Man's forehead is a jewel that we never saw before. For a film geek that's just nirvana.

I had been holding off on the 3d Oz Bluray. I already have the 2d Blu and I've never been a huge fan of post conversions. But you convinced me. Gonna have to pick that one up.

 

[lover_doll]

Casablanca is a classic. It was included for many reasons but obviously for Bogart. Considered one of the finest actors of the Golden Age and even today. Actually, if you want your heart broken check out Petrified Forest. Bogie, Bette Davis, and Leslie Howard at their finest. Yeah, if you see my earlier post, my grandma was right. Leslie Howard is a dream.

You would just have to look up Busby Berkeley because of his prolific work and what he did for that time. Actually, the extremely disciplined people he worked with and what he was able to do choreographing large numbers of people. I heard Judy Garland worked extremely hard with him. He was no nonsense and then some. Have you seen the Great Muppet Caper? True, a bit Esther Williams too and other influences, but check out Miss Piggy's number with Charles Grodin. It ties in with Busby Berkeley. James Cagney was also in Footlight. He is also represented in the ride with The Public Enemy.

The Searchers, John Wayne, and Westerns are cross-generational. Western in general is a big part of our history, and a big part of the movies over decades and decades. But even to get another perspective/facet. Check out the Quiet Man. John Wayne was amazing.

I couldn't agree with you more---love The Petrified Forest. Casablanca is one of my favorites. The Searchers followed closely by Stagecoach are my favorite westerns.

But, when anybody asks me, what my favorite movie of all time is---It's The Quiet Man. Sexiest kiss ever---John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara in the rain.

 

[Goofyernmost]

When all is said and done the movies in the GMR are not now nor ever supposed to be depicting anything other then the films of the Golden Years of Hollywood. Some could change to better movies from that same era, but, certainly cannot be updated to modern stuff. That would completely alter the purpose of the ride to something else. These are iconic and time tested movies. Even the biggest blockbuster of today still has to stand the test of time to become classics. Today's classic can easily become tomorrows nothing.

I don't dislike Frozen in and of itself, but, I would be surprised if it stood the test of time. For one thing they are going to sequel the hell out of it until it is just a fragmented mess and, as some of the posts here prove, tastes change over time. Actually, the only reason that Fantasia is a classic is because Disney told us it was. When it first came out it bombed completely. Storing it away and with some luck, made it a classic Walt Disney original that people wanted to see. At the time, you could hardly pay anyone to go see it.

 

[roj2323]

When all is said and done the movies in the GMR are not now nor ever supposed to be depicting anything other then the films of the Golden Years of Hollywood. Some could change to better movies from that same era, but, certainly cannot be updated to modern stuff. That would completely alter the purpose of the ride to something else. These are iconic and time tested movies. Even the biggest blockbuster of today still has to stand the test of time to become classics. Today's classic can easily become tomorrows nothing.

I don't dislike Frozen in and of itself, but, I would be surprised if it stood the test of time. For one thing they are going to sequel the hell out of it until it is just a fragmented mess and, as some of the posts here prove, tastes change over time. Actually, the only reason that Fantasia is a classic is because Disney told us it was. When it first came out it bombed completely. Storing it away and with some luck, made it a classic Walt Disney original that people wanted to see. At the time, you could hardly pay anyone to go see it.

The least they could do is fix all the broken stuff. I don't necessarily agree that GMR was entirely based on classics however as the Alien (1979) franchise was only 10 years old when the park opened and Indiana Jones (1981) was only 8 years old. Both franchises still had movies coming out when the park opened in 1989. Additionally I don't think John wayne can be considered a classic star either, he was just experiencing a resurgence in popularity when the park opened. Basically what I'm getting at is the Classics'/ golden years of hollywood argument doesn't really hold up and GMR could be updated in a massive way without changing the overall feeling of the attraction.

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

I have always been a huge proponent of The Great Movie Ride. It's one of the last attractions Disney has done and left intact that's anywhere near the level of Pirates of the Caribbean. Seriously. What have they done since, I guess, Splash Mountain that hasn't downsized the quantity and functionality of Audio-Animatronics, has highly detailed show scenes like this one and is slow moving? It's a close cousin to EPCOT Center attractions Spaceship Earth, World of Motion and Horizons from that era. It makes perfect sense considering it was originally going to BE an EPCOT Center attraction. They don't do anything like this anymore, people. We lose it entirely and they'll likely replace it with some dumb thrill ride with screens, very few Animatronics and inadequate capacity. I mean, come on. They even have the chains dangling from the ceiling in the Alien scene. It is incredibly detailed and one of WDI's masterpieces.

 

[Goofyernmost]

The least they could do is fix all the broken stuff. I don't necessarily agree that GMR was entirely based on classics however as the Alien (1979) franchise was only 10 years old when the park opened and Indiana Jones (1981) was only 8 years old. Both franchises still had movies coming out when the park opened in 1989. Additionally I don't think John wayne can be considered a classic star either, he was just experiencing a resurgence in popularity when the park opened. Basically what I'm getting at is the Classics'/ golden years of hollywood argument doesn't really hold up and GMR could be updated in a massive way without changing the overall feeling of the attraction.

You are, of course, entitled to you opinion, no matter how wrong it might be. I will agree that Alien and Indiana Jones was, at the time, a little out of place. Alien more then Indiana though. It was, I believe in there just to identify a change over and different genre.

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

Alien and Raiders of the Lost Ark were great films then and they are great films now. Disney had the foresight to put them alongside The Public Enemy, John Wayne/Clint Eastwood westerns, The Wizard of Oz, Casablanca, Singin' in the Rain and the others. They didn't choose this attraction. They didn't choose these films. They were invited. They belong here more than we.

 

[danlb_2000]

Alien and Raiders of the Lost Ark were great films then and they are great films now. Disney had the foresight to put them alongside The Public Enemy, John Wayne/Clint Eastwood westerns, The Wizard of Oz, Casablanca, Singin' in the Rain and the others. They didn't choose this attraction. They didn't choose these films. They were invited. They belong here more than we.

Great quote from another great movie.

 

[mac_connell]

I'd hate to see the great movie ride go, it's one of my absolute favorites! If anything I'd like to see it updated. Maybe instead of a trip through the greats, change it to a ride through the changes of film throughout history, go through movies that show the advancement in movie technology, from black and white to today, it'd be interesting and exciting!

 

[Phil12]

Actually, the only reason that Fantasia is a classic is because Disney told us it was. When it first came out it bombed completely. Storing it away and with some luck, made it a classic Walt Disney original that people wanted to see. At the time, you could hardly pay anyone to go see it.

And to perpetuate Fantasia as a classic we have the BAH at the center of DHS. It also reinforces Mickey as a true Hollywood star rather than just a lowly cartoon movie theater novelty.

 

[hth1917]

Additionally I don't think John wayne can be considered a classic star either, he was just experiencing a resurgence in popularity when the park opened.

No offense, but I'm baffled by the claim that John Wayne is not a classic movie star.