Movies you just didn't "get".

[Troy]

Yes, nightflier is right, photographic technology has evolved and grown by leaps and bounds in the 150 years since its invention, so saying that "The process may be different, but the output is nearly identical." is patently not true. Heck, the limitations of early photography were so bad that, unless a person stood perfectly still for the seconds-long exposures, they would never even appear in the image. The process has changed so radically in 150 years that photography is virtually unrecognizable from where it began.

And taking the argument in a different direction as well: Many of the locations in the older photographs you see in galleries and museums are gone or radically changed, not to mention all the human subjects being deceased. No, the output CANNOT be identical, by definition.

Here's the thing you're missing WRT movies and photography: Art is not about the medium, it's about the message conveyed by that medium. Time makes a lot of it obsolete, no argument, but for the best work, the passage of time seasons it, and makes it all the more special and important.

2001 is a classic (aside from the mind-blowing philosophical implications) because of its technology on both sides of the camera. Are the FX dated? Sure, but the movie was about a lot more than the FX.

[Groundbeef]

Here's the thing you're missing WRT movies and photography: Art is not about the medium, it's about the message conveyed by that medium. Time makes a lot of it obsolete, no argument, but for the best work, the passage of time seasons it, and makes it all the more special and important.

2001 is a classic (aside from the mind-blowing philosophical implications) because of its technology on both sides of the camera. Are the FX dated? Sure, but the movie was about a lot more than the FX.

I'm not disagreeing with you about the message being conveyed by the medium.

I'm just saying, all things relative, film IMHO doesn't age as well as the others. And aside from the simplistic nature of early photography, it is essentially the same today as it was in the early days.

You take a picture, develop it, and viola, the picture. Except now it doesn't take weeks, and $$ for anyone to do it.

And aside from film buffs, I do think that how the effects age, does affect how a movie becomes a "classic". Thats why 12 Angry Men will be timeless. It really didn't have any effects, just a great story.