What is an old movie that couldn't be made today?
Often, in discussions about old movies, someone will say, "That movie couldn't be made today.", and inevitably someone else will disagree.
View original on lemmy.world
Often, in discussions about old movies, someone will say, "That movie couldn't be made today.", and inevitably someone else will disagree.
ITT
You couldn’t make the sixth sense either, because people would already know the ending.
But seriously, some racist stuff in there would never fly
Richard Pryor helped write the movie. The racists components were intentional as they were period relevant and ripe for mocking
EVERYthing made by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buster_Keaton
We've got laws, now, against the insane shit they did on-set, back then..
Lives were too-cheap, back then..
_ /\ _
One of his stunts literally broke his neck.
He was told by his doctor about it 9 years later.
Agree, but the problem with doing it today would be they couldn't get insurance to cover it.
Blazing Saddles.
Probably the Blue Brothers, but for different reasons. I feel like most of the blues legends are gone.
A lot of the blues legends are gone and a large number of Americans would be upset that they hate Illinois Nazis.
Also used cars cost wayy too much these days.
Yeah they would get sued to oblivion. Fucking copyright law.
Also; most of the actors are dead.
Also you'd need to revive the Bolivian cocaine industry to 1980's levels.
I watched this recently. I agree it couldn't be made the same, but it amazes me how many people miss the point. The racists were the ones we were supposed to laughing at, not with.
I think people laugh at the racists for different reasons. Some because they are ridiculous, others because they are saying what the people wish they could.
Blazing saddles was (loosely) remade in 2022 as paws of fury
Sorry about the "up yours, slobber face." You will of course have the decency not to tell anyone I talked to you?
Idk. It would have to be a REALLY loose adaptation.
I take your meaning but it is a remake and Mel Brooks is involved so…
Yeah I think it's cool. I'll have to give it a watch.
Tropic Thunder
Eh. I think a comedy could still get away with black-face today.
any black-face media has been systematically removed from the internet. you can't stream any episode of any show that has it. you can typically only watch that content on DVD.
Hmm. Okay, I haven't paid much attention to that. Although Tropic Thunder does seem to be available for streaming on several major platforms at the moment. Paramount, Amazon, Apple, Tubi, to name a few.
Even the D&D episode of Community was removed due to one of the characters cosplaying as a dark elf.
You can def watch the Sunny blackface scenes on youtube.
It really isn't blackface though, in the sense that blackface is meant to be a caricature which diminishes black culture and behavior. The RDJ character was written as kind of the opposite - the "blackface" character is shown to be sane, courageous and even wise, while the actor playing the character is shown to be an out of touch Hollywood twat.
You'd get lynched if you make something like this today.
American History X, easily. In fact, that movie had a troubled production during the time it came out, but it would be censored to hell and back were it made today.
The original Robocop as well because Hollywood is too scared of violence nowadays, fun fact, the original Robocop almost got an NC-17 (then X) rating for violence alone and had to be edited 13 times to get downgraded to a hard R* rating.
*Hard R in the movie rating sense, is when an R-rated movie truly earns that R rating through having a lot of violence, gore, swearing, explicit content, or a combination of those factors. It's when an R-rated movie is teetering on the edge of getting upgraded to NC-17, basically. This old AVPGalaxy post should go more into what the hard R rating entails. The original Robocop got downgraded to this from the NC-17 rating it almost got (X when that movie was in production) after 13 edits like I said.
Here's an archived version of the Bloody Disgusting article referenced in that AVPGalaxy post since that reference is a dead link.
American History X would be tough just because of all the picketing of the movie for being so mean to Nazis.
That movie wouldn't see the light of day if it were to be made today.
Jurassic Park, Terminator 2, TMNT ‘89, Lord of the Rings.
Whatever the JP franchise is now, it will never go back to full scale animatronics, and without Stan Winston’s magic, it’ll never be quite what the first (and a bit of the second) were.
Cameron himself can’t recreate the magic of T2 even if his films make billions. He never risks having to “nail this in one shot” stunts.
As for TMNT. Nobody gives a shit they’re suits, we could suspend our disbelief and watched mindblowing performances by great stuntmen in some of the most advanced animatronics ever. Michael Bay can’t even fathom how much better that is.
The Hobbit was plagued by a lot of problems, but I don’t know if even Jackson could pull off the practical effects with digital overlay magic that was the first trilogy if he tried.
That era of Hollywood, practical first, digital to enhance (sparingly) is gone it seems. It’s sad Hollywood has forgotten that that boundary pushing era was what made those films iconic. Rexy had weight, she literally tore a car apart. You can see the chaos of the semi landing in the canal. The turtles hit. The Riders of Théoden truly rode for ruin. Tell me you don’t get giddy when you know that scene is about to hit.
Project Hail Mary was practical first. Real sets, real puppet, with digital enhancements. There is a scene that was filmed with loads of LEDs on wires to cover the shot in blinking red lights. I think it pays off hugely and the film is better for it all.
At the moment I think it's an outlier and most films will continue to just film green screens and tennis balls but it might herald the return of practical, maybe even full-scale animatronics! I can only hope.
I hope that film wins awards, genuinly good sci-fi made by people who understand movies and dont just fix it in post. It fealt real, the sinple trick of not having sound if the camera is not in a place with atmosphere is one of the most important little details. 2001 gets it right, Firefly gets it right, but if you can hear lazers in space, your just bring a wizard in 0g.
In the sequel of The Thing they first used animatronics and later replaced them with CG. I'm still angry about what could have been an awesome movie. With CG it looks just bad.
You know I was just thinking about this the other day. Netflix will put out their standard 10 hour "epic" and the world still manages to feel a tenth the size, and there will be a tenth of the action as any one of the three hour LOTR movies. It really makes me appreciate just how masterful those movies were, and how every artistic license they took with the original material feels more than justified.
Jurassic Park used CGI for many of its dinosaur scenes, they weren’t all animatronic.
What animatronics were used in LOTR? Gollum was CGI.
I’m not saying you’re wrong but some of your examples don’t seem right.
As I said, practical first, digital secondary or to enhance seems to be the secret sauce of creating something stunning. Most of the intimate shots with Rexy and the kids are practical. When she busts through the sunroof and tries to eat them… terrifyingly real because there’s a “real” thing attacking them. LOTR is real for a different reason- physical armor, cast of thousands. Compare the Rohirrim and armies of Mordor in that movie to the unified CGI mess that is the Battle of Five Armies in the Hobbit. Even using physical miniature sets for the big locations like Minas Tirith gives them weight.
Who is JP? Why is everyone throwing letters around assuming everyone else will understand.
The first two words of his comment were “Jurassic Park”…
Tiptoes. Gary Oldman was on his knees the entire time. I can't believe this was even made in 2003.
The fuck? Howd they go and cast Oldman in the role as a little person when they had Peter Dinklage already in the film. Dinklage is a fantastic actor. And oldman playing the role on his knees seems akin to blackface.
The trailer says its the role of a lifetime.
That trailer legit feels like a skit.
I can't believe this is the first I've heard of this.
“In the role of a lifetime”
Looks a mildly interesting film. But no way is that Oldmans “role of a lifetime”
Yes! Maybe it's the role of someone else's lifetime.
Gary played at least a dozen roles that would have been career defining for a lesser actor. Haha.
The list time I saw this posted somewhere, it was an extended version. I believe McConaghy and Beckinsale did have a dwarf baby and Matthew was the one that couldn't deal with it. Can't remember if Kate ended up marrying Oldman.
Look up all the stunts Buster Keaton did, and shiver. Or The Little Rascals or Hal Roach’s Rascals, whatever they were called.
Or the 1968 version of Romeo and Juliet - while probably one of the best versions ever, nobody today would dare to think doing a movie like that today - it would be criminal.
That doesn't mean they couldn't do it today, it would just be a weurd cgi mess wuth marvel level cutaways
Well, the Rascals would be 100% cgi, not just because of the sometimes dangerous things the kids did, but also because they would not be allowed to be 12+ hours a day on set... at that age, they can only be on set for two hours a day IIRC, so filming this today with real actors would be horribly expensive.
And don't even think about topless bedscenes with a 13 or 14 year old actress...
Famously, you couldn't make Blazing Saddles today because they already made that move in the 70s
Idiocracy..
I showed this to my 16 year old nephew and he was legit upset/offended and I had to turn it off.
He was shocked they could say 'those bad words' in a movie. I don't dare show him Pulp Fiction.
Sounds like he needs a cool uncle to counteract the excessive sheltering his parents are doing.
Wait what because of the bad words? I. What?
If you've grown up as a kid only having access to the internet in the last 6 years or so, yeah I could see how Idiocracy might be shocking. The dialog in that movie is the antithesis of the status quo nowadays. For a kid without context about the satirical and parodical nature of the film, they might think that the movie was endorsing that kind of language.
It would take some guidance from a guardian on what it means, why its relevant, and why its actually become important over time.
Its a required watch in my mind.
Really good point. Historical context is key
That's nuts. I remember being 11 years old and one of our friends snuck a copy of South Park's Bigger, Longer, and Uncut they stole from their older brother over to my place, and when they started singing the "Uncle Fucker" song, we lost our minds laughing, fumbling for the remote to turn down the volume before the neighbor ladies overheard and got us in trouble lol
It's crazy how much Tiktok has normalized censorship for this generation
Your nephew is kind of wuss.
go away, baitin.
Aw please tell us more about this tragic incident :3
The documentary?
We're living it, baby!
Maybe some dark history drama stuff. Let's hope we will be able to laugh about all this again one day
My highschool physics teacher said the Nazis recorded X-ray video of Holocaust victims knees as they walked. Because MRI machines and other medical imagers aren't large enough to walk around in, the films are still one of the best sources of how the bones actually move naturally under load in situ surrounded by the connective tissue.
The radiation dose required to expose regular film at 24 frames a second killed the subjects.
I really hope they don't ever make movies like that again.
unfortunately China took up the mantle on medical torture with the Uyghurs.
Team America. From the minds of South Park's, Matt Stone and Trey Parker 😁.
I think y'all know why.
Because of the puppet sex scene...?
Yes. Now suck my dick!
I took my son to see a puppet movie when we was about 10. Whoops!
Heck yeah, the unedited or "Not Rated" DVD version had the uncut scene where she defecates on his chest! Quite funny at the time, but I cannot imagine then doing something like that now, nor all the 9/11 jokes. Plus making fun of NK's Jim Jong Il. I feel like you couldn't really do that without stirring the pot at least a little bit.
Big disagree. It was outrageous then and it would be outrageous now. The southpark movie was fucking mindblowing when I saw it in the theater. Parker and Stone push boundaries, and it works for them every time. Theyre kind of American heroes in my book.
Scream.
The killer would try to call the girl in the first scene and she would just be like "Ew, who actually calls on the phone?" and hit cancel. Roll credits.
Alternatively the scariest movie the girl ever saw would be Five Nights at Freddie's.
I'm surprised this isn't a joke in the newer Scream films. At least I don't remember something like this.
Scream 7 did actually change it up a bit, and most of the interactions with the killer were done over FaceTime
The Blue Lagoon (1980)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Lagoon_(1980_film)
and that's a good thing.
The General (1926)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=tgQ8VwW19iw&t=115s
The General actually first bombed at the box office, leading to Buster Keaton being much more restricted in what he could do. Only later did it become a classic, deservedly so.
Came here to make sure people know Blue Lagoon was literally Hollywood CP.
For the sake of truth, all nude scenes were shot with a 32-year-old body double.
But it still depicts CP.
Pretty Baby, on the other hand…
Functionally, it's not exactly that far off from using AI to remove the clothes of someone. Just with no computers involved, and many more creeps.
Also, imagine the casting process.
"We're looking for a teenage girl who's, like, really hot and willing to play a sexual role."
Jodie Foster and Kelly Preston, both 18 at the time, auditioned but they said "Nah, we'll go with an underage actress instead. But then we'll need a body double, so who among these applicants looks like a teenager in the nude the most?"
Oh no, Brooke Shields's parents, specifically her mom, pimped her out relentlessly. She was peddled around NY and LA as jailbait. There's some magazine cover that says something like "is it pedophilia or is it art?" Peddling straight up CP of pics of Brooke naked and like 14. It was specifically a national Brooke Shields creepiness.
Definitely on the Epstein list if they're still alive
The Blue Lagoon is the best answer. No one would touch this with a 10 foot pole anymore.
Blazing Saddles
Seriously. Legal would crucify you before youd even finished exhuming the cast.
Ace Ventura. I love the shower scene, it's hilarious, but today it's unthinkable to make a scene like this.
Honestly, I think the shower scene isn't the problem. It's pretty much in character. But I never understood everyone puking at the end. Never made sense to me.
I always assumed that every one of them had made out or had sex with her at one point.
Yup
Trading Places. It should be a Christmas classic but...
I put it on last Christmas for my kids, not realizing the version I'd always seen on TV was heavily edited. Had to turn that off pretty fast.
I just googled and read the movie is rated R in the US! And Coming to America too!
Here they are rated 12, 6 if adults are present.
So your comment made me smile a bit.
( . )( . )
--Mark Watney
This and National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation have been our family Christmas movies for decades!
I'm autist, so i watch a lot of the same shit. I think I've watched Christmas Vacation at LEAST 400 times. I've watched it multiple times in a row. as in, once, then rewinding it and watching again. It's my ALL TIME favourite movie.
Bad Santa for me.
The blackface is a little out of step with the times. Tough to edit that part out.
Curtis's "Sweedish" accent was at least as offensive...
Labyrinth and The Dark Crystal. No way would a studio agree to do that much hand-crafted work. They'd just have the stars reacting to a bunch of tennis balls and "fix it in post."
I think the biggest issue is David Bowe just hanging dong.
His leotard does not hide much in that movie.
No zoom-in necessary.
Any of the stunts Buster Keaton pulled.
Birth of a Nation.
Although Tarantino would probably try, so long as he could star in it alongside Samuel L Jackson, and call Samuel L Jackson the n-word 'for the cinematographic art of it, really, it's crucial to the film'. Because, aside from feet, that's his fetish.
I was gong to say Birth of a Nation but then I thought about who the American people elected and I changed my mind.
Any 80s fantasy movie. The vibe is gone. And it's not just CGI.
not a film, but a show. Little Britain. God, they got away with soooo much.
Silent films using tens of thousands of performers and large-scale stage sets will probably never be made again.
This is because modern audiences take sound in films for granted, making it impossible to expect box office returns that match such an investment.
Like Metropolis by Fritz Lang.
Short Circuit. I always thought that guy was Indian.
Was there any reason he needed to be Indian? Did it play into any part of the story at all?
I don't think so. He was one of the programmers I believe.
Big Trouble in Little China
and it shouldn't be. it's perfect as it is
In 2021 my friend's roommate said you couldn't make a movie like Borat these days. I immediately pointed out they made a Borat movie the year before.
I didn't point this out, but he claimed to be 6'2" while being a few inches shorter than me, and I'm 5'11".
North, starring elijah wood.
I had that on VHS when I was a kid, and absolutely loved it! Still have gone memories of Bruce Willis in it but if I'd watch it today, it'd probably be shit lol. I'm not going to destroy those good memories like I did after rewatchind Dude, Where's My Car.
there were some...interesting...choices made. lol but idk if it deserves the "worst movie of all time" title. the scene that sticks out in my memory is when he is trying out the Inuit (i think?) parents and they send the grandpa out to sea on an iceberg to die lol. i liked bruce willis in it tbh
I don't remember it that well, but for a 7 year old, it was great 😝
Stalker from 1979. Any attempt at it today would be a boring action movie with none of the original thoughtfulness.
huh, that isn't a hollywood movie, it's an art film.
plenty of weird art films still get made.
‘Stalker’ isn't a studio film, same as Tarkovsky's other films. They are ‘auteur’ films. ‘Stalker’ doesn't even really follow the novel, it's rather Tarkovsky's ideas put into the same setting.
Directors who want to make slow films, make them still. See e.g. ‘Boyhood’. Of Russian films, try ‘Hard to Be a God’, the last film of Alexey German, made in 2013. There's a whole movement called slow cinema, with extreme examples like Lav Diaz's work having runtimes of up to ten hours. The second-longest ever cinematic film was made in 2024.
Time Bandits
You absolutely need the original cast. But you also need modern special effects.
Didn't they just remake this? I think it's a TV show so idk if that counts
Also, does Greece still have the lowest standard of living on Europe? Gonna ruin that while single joke.
Kentucky Fried Movie
The popcorn you're eating has been pissed in, film at 11
"Rex Kramer, danger seeker."
And the whole kung fu sequence (about half the film).
Yeah this wouldnt go over well. But it's hilarious as a time capsule.
Honestly, I didn't care for it.
Went into it expecting Airplane-type humor and was sort of let down. I think I might have been born just past the cut off for the age demo where the jokes land, as well as for The Jerk, which I was shocked to find I didn't laugh even once at the first time I finally put it on despite being a fan of most Steve Martin stuff. Oh well.
I guess, first "define old".
Blazing Saddles? 1974?
That was the first one I thought of. I knew it would already be in the comments haha.
Down Periscope. It is the best and most accurate submarine movie in existence.
"Buckman! There was a fingernail in my food, ya fatass moron! Yesterday, it was a Band-Aid!"
Buckman: "Sorry, sir. The Band-Aid was holding the fingernail on."
Cleopatra. There's no way anyone would release a 4 hour historical drama as a movie. It would be a TV series these days.
They made it twice. We're overdue for another one.
Heathers
Not because it’s too controversial, but because dead school children have lost their shock value in the US
Ooo, this is a big one
Basically all of them, but in particular, and I can't believe nobody's mentioned it yet, Ben Hur (1959). And lest anyone doubt that it couldn't be made today, we have the 2016 attempt at a Ben-Hur movie as evidence that it couldn't be done then.
In a certain way, almost anything. Movie companies seem loathe to make anything original, with no IP history on which to build nostalgia-based marketing.
Anything with Peter Sellers. Pink Panthers, the Party etc.
Dr. Strangelove
Anything with practical effects.
Blankman but only because you can't improve perfection.
Song of the South
Hell, I'm a bit surprised they managed to make that one in 1946.
I'm not.
No Way Out (1950). Depicts a race riot. At one point a character uses the N word dozens of times in a row uninterrupted. Much of Sidney Poitier's career would be hard to remake these days. Pressure Point (1962) where he's a therapist trying to deprogram a Nazi. Maybe that's exactly what the world needs a remake of right now, but we're not gonna get it.
Basic Instinct (1992), Body Heat (1981), that sort of thing. They might remake it into a TV show, but they're not putting that much sex in theaters.
Charlie Chan. A series of detective films about a Chinese detective who was always played by a white guy. Though you could make this movie in 2026, you wouldn't cast a white person.
Countless movies where the subject matter is painfully out of date. They used to make anti-alcohol pictures when prohibition was a thing. Couldn't vs. wouldn't, I guess.
Even if you cast an East Asian actor, i don’t think you could do Charlie Chan films, given how he’s a ” Yellow Peril “ stereotype. Even Marvel had to make their equivalent character a deliberately racist stereotype played by an actor
Welcome to the Doll House.
Had to look this up, holy fuck that goes from 0-100 fast...
I think the idea that you couldn't make any of these movies today is silly.
Austin powers. It really didn't age well, even though it was fairly progressive at the time.
Some ones I’ve seen recently: Scary Movie. The Witches. Dressed to Kill. Cape Fear.
There is literally a new cape fear movie coming out, with Javier Bardem as Max.
Battle of Britain.
All the old warbirds are in museums now
Roar [1981] It's quite amazing that it even got made at that time!
That one is freaking wild.
And sadly, it's a terrible movie. Weird plot makes little sense. It's spectacle for spectacle's sake.
I like it for the cats! :D
Pootie Tang.
Sah dah tay, my damie!
Sah Dah Tay!
Say, Sine Yo pity on the Runny Kine
police story
Because literally any movie could be made today...
Whether it would be shown in theaters or even assigned a rating is different, but anyone can make a movie about anything today.
There was some valuable discussion to be had even just 20 years ago. But in 2026 anyone saying:
Doesn't know what they're talking about. Like, they're basically just saying they don't understand what a film festival is...
Pretty Baby. A mainstream movie, distributed nationwide, by Paramount. Could not be made today.
Now you'll say, "well, there would need to be changes, of course."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Baby_(1978_film)
They could absolutely make that today, especially if casting an 18+ actor to play the lead...
Like, who do you imagine stopping that unless you think it would require graphic and illegal material?
I haven't seen this movie, but are the required changes casting an adult for nudity in the film? Was that not a thing in the 70s?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Baby_(1978_film)
I still don't understand. I saw the wiki linked earlier as well. Is the claim that a film about a child being sexually abused cannot be made today? Because I don't think that is the case.
Or is it because there would probably be an actor that is 18 cast? I don't see that being a different film. If you want to argue that casting a 16 year old or an 18 year old changes the film, then you could say that not casting Brooke Shields changes the film. It seems like a ship of theseus argument at that point.
If your argument is something else, I'm interested to hear. I had never heard of this film before and have not seen it, so I could very well be missing something.
My 2 cents: She was 11 when the movie was shot - it's one thing to replace a 16 year old with a 18 year old actor, even with a similar story, but there is not one 18 (or even 16) year old you could put into that role and say it's still the same movie. The psychological impact of being confronted with literally a child's body in this context is not comparable in my opinion.
Pretty Baby, the movie made in 1978, could not be made today. If all of those people could be transported forward in time, including 11-year-old Brooke Shields, they would not be allowed to make that movie and distribute it. Yes, could be made now with an 18-year-old actress, as it could have been then, but that's not what was made, so that movie could not be made now, as it was made then. That's the whole point of the question. So that exact movie couldn't be made now.
The question is not whether a similar movie could be made, it's if the movie itself, as it exists currently could be made. And Pretty Baby absolutely could not.
Nope. See also: Romeo and Juliet from 1968. While it is probably the best adaption of the story ever, underage actors and nudity is somehow frowned on today.
If you have a Nebula subscription, Lindsay Ellis has a fascinating video about Blazing Saddles and why it really couldn't be made today, but not for the reasons you'd think; it has more to do with the history of the Western genre and the state of race relations in the US than "political correctness." I wish she'd put it on Youtube.
So I guess that's my roundabout answer: any movie that "couldn't be made today" is probably because of larger social forces than just "too much swearing/violence/nudity/etc."
Inevitably someone will disagree because someone is always right and someone is always wrong and the devil is in the details.