PDA

View Full Version : What has each decade brought/contributed to T.V. / Film?



dgiharris
04-07-2009, 11:35 PM
Hi All,

The Teen Movie thread got me thinking. It seems that each decade brings something new to the table in the form of the evolution of the art of storytelling (in this case, movies and T.V.).

This is an opened ended question that I would love to see some debate on. Also, as artists, I think it is important that we know our history (definitely a chance for some of our wiser brotheren to school us)

What has each decade done in the way of film and television?

I can't help but think that the 80s was a pivotal decade for film, riding on the heels of Star Wars.

The 80s also gave birth to the story-telling Music Video, prior to that, music videos just consisted of a thousand different views of people playing their instruments and singing the song.

But this question isn't just about the 80s, but all decades.

How has T.V. / filmed evolved on a decade by decade basis?

Does any decade reign supreme?

Does any decade hold supremacy over a particular story form?

What did the various decades bring to the table?

ANy particular decade catch your fancy?

And any other general comment debate about the evolution of film/TV and where you think it is going.

Mel...

katiemac
04-08-2009, 02:16 AM
Well, let's see ... I'm going to run this off of my memory, so I might not be entirely correct here.

I Love Lucy/1950s - Pushing the boundaries a bit here ... it was the first time they would have shown a married couple's bedroom on television, even if they had separate beds. Also progressive since we had a non-white lead in a leading role.

The sitcom went along for awhile and then started dying until the 1980s with the Cosby show. That put NBC on the map, and we can probably thank part of the Cosby success for NBC's future sitcoms. Seinfeld also in the late 80s I feel also had a lot to do with revitalizing the sitcom genre. And their big Thursday nights lead us to Friends.

Then in the 90s I think serialized dramas got their first real roll out ... Buffy, the original Battlestar Galactica, I think? Also in the 90s we got the gameshow revival in Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, which lead us to Survivor .... which then gave us probably the worst-spawned television genre in 2000 -- reality television.

Still in the late 90s, though, there's some more tolerance moves ... the Roseanne kiss, Ellen Degeneres and teen shows like Dawson's Creek were breaking those boundaries.

In early 2000s we have more single-camera sitcoms than the traditional "laugh track" comedies like Scrubs, Arrested Development. Networks starring drawing the line between hour-long shows that were both comedy and drama ("dramedy").

In terms of where television is going ... the sitcom is on its way out again, I think -- and definitely the laugh-track comedies. I can't think of a single show that uses a laugh track anymore. Even though serialized dramas are popular, they're expensive, so I don't know if LOST (which spawned a whole bunch of attempted serialized dramas over the last few years, Heroes included) can hold the genre on its own in this economy -- if they can't hook an audience in a couple of episodes, it's over. (Like Kings.)

My guess is we'll be seeing more and more hour-long dramedies that can rely on single episodes but at the same time can reuse sets like sitcoms, so they aren't as expensive to produce.

dclary
04-08-2009, 08:26 AM
The 60s, 80s, and 00's gave us William Shatner.

Beat that, any other actor.

Phoebe H
04-08-2009, 11:22 AM
Then in the 90s I think serialized dramas got their first real roll out ... Buffy, the original Battlestar Galactica, I think?

The real ground-breaker here was Twin Peaks, which set the stage for all the long story arcs to follow. (It was '89, but I'd count it as '90s.) The ones that followed immediately were X-Files and Babylon 5, and their success allowed shows like Buffy to flourish. (The original BG was late 70s, btw.)

That was quite the exciting time for sf/paranormal on TV, btw. It used to be possible to watch every single sf show, without even spending that much time. It was somewhere around Deep Space 9 when I remember I had to start choosing between shows.

James81
04-08-2009, 05:50 PM
The 70's brought us Star Wars.

The 80's brought us Back to the Future

The 90's brought us the Matrix (the first one at least)

The past decade hasn't really brought us....anything unique trilogy-wise. LOTR was overrated (and wasn't UNIQUE).

DeleyanLee
04-08-2009, 06:05 PM
Can't forget the 70's and the decade of the mini-series, kicked off by Roots.

Now Roots was pivotal, IMHO, since it was (IIRC) the first mini series and focused on a non-white family and totally spotlighted some of really good actors who were previously ignored because they weren't white.

I seriously got tired of the mini-series obsession after a year or two, but Roots was absolutely riveting.

DeleyanLee
04-08-2009, 06:12 PM
The 70's brought us Star Wars.

My problem with defining the 70's in movies with Star Wars is the fact that it came out in 1977. Yeah, the Fx set the world on its ear, but I see that more as the gateway into the 1980's. Especially since the other movies came out in '80 & '83.

There really weren't any good series movies in the 70's. I think that's because, as I mentioned in my post upthread, the TV was blanketed with series stuff. My memory of the 1970's was movies were one-shots and sequels weren't really considered at the time. Not that I was a big movie connoisseur or anything, but I just don't remember sequels being part of the movie-scape when I was a teen.

James81
04-08-2009, 06:56 PM
My problem with defining the 70's in movies with Star Wars is the fact that it came out in 1977. Yeah, the Fx set the world on its ear, but I see that more as the gateway into the 1980's. Especially since the other movies came out in '80 & '83.

There really weren't any good series movies in the 70's. I think that's because, as I mentioned in my post upthread, the TV was blanketed with series stuff. My memory of the 1970's was movies were one-shots and sequels weren't really considered at the time. Not that I was a big movie connoisseur or anything, but I just don't remember sequels being part of the movie-scape when I was a teen.

Every one of those examples I gave, had the first movie start in one decade and the other movies come out in the next.

Saint Fool
04-08-2009, 11:11 PM
1950s - sheer range of entertainment that television presented from sit-coms to live drama to variety shows to news documentaries.

1960s - Exact opposites but Johnny Carson and the Tonight Show and the influence of technology on television giving the nation live coverage of JFKs funeral, the Mexican Olympics, the moon landing, and nearly live coverage of the Vietnam War. EDT: Late in the decade, PBS discovered British TV and began importing the good shows and pulled back on the static, talking head stuff they had been producing.

1970s - Norman Lear's comedies, world-wide real time news coverage, Saturday Night Live and miniseries. EDT: MASH. How could I forget Mash?

1980s - Hill Street Blues. MTV. Daytime shock/schlock shows (Jerry S and all)

1990s - Damned if I know. Homicide: Life on the Street and ER stand out as dramas, Fox News becomes the go-to news place for conservatives.

2000 - the reality show decade - and the slow suicide of network TV.

I'm sure I've put some things in the wrong decade, but that's what I remember.

In general, I'd say TV is slicker and faster but I also think that for the most part it has become shallower. I'm hoping the idea of the short run series catches on with the networks.

DeleyanLee
04-08-2009, 11:21 PM
Every one of those examples I gave, had the first movie start in one decade and the other movies come out in the next.

I'll take your word on it--I don't remember the years of the other movies. While I enjoyed those (well, the ones I saw), none of them quite had the impact on the culture that Star Wars did, IMO. SW pretty much opened the door for the modern film experience, as far as I can tell. Despite the fact I personally don't like SW, I'm not foolish enough to deny what it did for the industry.

This is an interesting thread, though--while I'd thought about music and decades defining each other, I hadn't thought about it in movie/TV terms.

The 60's also had the more interactive talk shows (ie The Mike Douglas Show), and the variety shows (ie The Carol Burnett Show) which are gone (and missed) that carried a bit into the 70's.

eyeblink
04-08-2009, 11:27 PM
My problem with defining the 70's in movies with Star Wars is the fact that it came out in 1977. Yeah, the Fx set the world on its ear, but I see that more as the gateway into the 1980's. Especially since the other movies came out in '80 & '83.

There really weren't any good series movies in the 70's. I think that's because, as I mentioned in my post upthread, the TV was blanketed with series stuff. My memory of the 1970's was movies were one-shots and sequels weren't really considered at the time. Not that I was a big movie connoisseur or anything, but I just don't remember sequels being part of the movie-scape when I was a teen.

The Godfather Part II?

Come to that, Sounder Part 2. Both sequels to Best Picture Oscar nominees.

I take your point though - there aren't many.

Plenty of people regard the 70s as a golden age for American cinema - well 1968 to 1977 to be more exact, from Bonnie and Clyde to Star Wars.

Another obvious decade would be the 30s - the beginning of the sound era (well, The Jazz Singer was 1927, and the first all-talkie came out in 1929), the endlessly fascinating era that ended with the enforcement of the Hays Code in 1934, and the arrival of three-colour Technicolor in 1935. (There had been films in earlier colour processes right back to the beginning of the century - two-colour Technicolor began in the silent era).

!950s - in response to the threat of television, the arrival of CinemaScope and other widescreen processes.

Dolby Stereo soundtracks began in the mid-seventies and had become ubiquitous by the end of the 80s. Digital sound arrived in the early 90s. The rise of CGI in the same decade.

The 00s would be characterised by the increasing use of digital video (standard-def and later hi-def) to make films with instead of film.

katiemac
04-08-2009, 11:28 PM
The real ground-breaker here was Twin Peaks, which set the stage for all the long story arcs to follow. (It was '89, but I'd count it as '90s.) The ones that followed immediately were X-Files and Babylon 5, and their success allowed shows like Buffy to flourish. (The original BG was late 70s, btw.)

That was quite the exciting time for sf/paranormal on TV, btw. It used to be possible to watch every single sf show, without even spending that much time. It was somewhere around Deep Space 9 when I remember I had to start choosing between shows.

Yes! I knew there were lots more, but my brain wasn't fully-functioning. So yeah, I feel the 90s was great for original serialized drama, and then LOST came along and took all the credit.


The 70's brought us Star Wars.

The 80's brought us Back to the Future

The 90's brought us the Matrix (the first one at least)

The past decade hasn't really brought us....anything unique trilogy-wise. LOTR was overrated (and wasn't UNIQUE).

Although these movies existed before LOTR, obviously, I do think the recent success of LOTR in 2000s has helped make franchises/trilogies "expected." Comic book movies, for example. Even though we're getting a fourth Spider-man, the "trilogy" seems to be a bigger deal/more common than it used to be ... Pirates, Spider-man, X-Men, the new Batman ...

James81
04-08-2009, 11:40 PM
Although these movies existed before LOTR, obviously, I do think the recent success of LOTR in 2000s has helped make franchises/trilogies "expected." Comic book movies, for example. Even though we're getting a fourth Spider-man, the "trilogy" seems to be a bigger deal/more common than it used to be ... Pirates, Spider-man, X-Men, the new Batman ...

Yeah, but I'm looking more for that "original" factor. LOTR was a book before it became a movie. Comic book movies (even as much as I'm LOVING the new Dark Knight and Spiderman films) still aren't original.

Star Wars was the first of it's kind with FLARE that was completely original. As was Back to the Future and the Matrix. Granted, when you look BACK there were other movies of similar natures leading up to it, but it was almost like these trilogies that I mentioned were the CLIMAX, the top of the mountain (so to speak) of originality within their respective types.

And I really haven't seen much originality this decade.

maestrowork
04-08-2009, 11:43 PM
60s - STAR TREK

70s - Saturday Night Live, M*A*S*H, Mary Tyler Moore, etc. classic comedies

80s - MTV

90s - Must See TV

00s - Reality TV



Movies:

60s - Musicals, counter-culture films

70s - Star Wars, the "new breed" of directors: Martin Scorsese, Stephen Spielberg, George Lucas, Francis Copolla, etc. The birth of BLOCKBUSTERS

80s - the Brat Pack, Indiana Jones

90s - Julia Roberts and romantic comedies

00s - return of the Comic Book/Superheroes movies

Kathleen42
04-08-2009, 11:47 PM
Film:

The late seventies paved the way for the Hollywood blockbuster.
The eighties were the age of great teen flicks and more sophisticated movies for children (thanks Jim Henson!).

dclary
04-08-2009, 11:53 PM
The 70's brought us Star Wars.

The 80's brought us Back to the Future

The 90's brought us the Matrix (the first one at least)

The past decade hasn't really brought us....anything unique trilogy-wise. LOTR was overrated (and wasn't UNIQUE).

Why not give Harry Potter the coveted 00 slot, then?

katiemac
04-08-2009, 11:56 PM
Yeah, but I'm looking more for that "original" factor. LOTR was a book before it became a movie. Comic book movies (even as much as I'm LOVING the new Dark Knight and Spiderman films) still aren't original.

Star Wars was the first of it's kind with FLARE that was completely original. As was Back to the Future and the Matrix. Granted, when you look BACK there were other movies of similar natures leading up to it, but it was almost like these trilogies that I mentioned were the CLIMAX, the top of the mountain (so to speak) of originality within their respective types.

And I really haven't seen much originality this decade.

Agreed. Just saying that strictly from an industry standpoint, trilogies/sequels are the norm in 2000s, original or no. Not to mention major, major blockbuster numbers for those sequels .. Dark Knight, Pirates 2 and Spider-man 3 hold strong in the top slots of highest grossing films, all sequels, all 2000s. Only Titanic is staying in the top spot (90s, original).

maestrowork
04-09-2009, 12:06 AM
If we go by trilogies, then the 70s gave us the Godfather (although III was made years lateR). The 80s: Indiana Jones. 90s: Scream. 00s: Lord of the Rings, Spider-Man, Harry Potter, Matrix... etc.

90s also brought us the revival of Disney and the rise of Pixar.

ChunkyC
04-09-2009, 12:24 AM
Ray pointed out some of the trilogies from earlier decades that I was thinking of. The trilogy has been around for ages. Perhaps there are more of them now than before, but the concept was established long ago. As for the numbers, the Star Wars, Back to the Future, and Indiana Jones movies smashed box office records ever time one of them was released. Again, what's happening now really isn't all that new. If you adjust for inflation, I'd bet the records being set now aren't really all that much more than twenty, thirty years ago.

This first decade of the new millennium could be defined by the explosion and refinement of digital effects that really got its jump-start with Jurassic Park in 1993 (first of another trilogy). I vividly remember sitting in the theatre on opening weekend, watching that T-Rex step out onto the road -- that was a pivotal moment in cinematic history and the movies haven't been the same since. Even though we saw other CG dinos earlier in the movie, that was the killer scene that stood the industry on its ear.

maestrowork
04-09-2009, 12:35 AM
Chunky has a point... what are the defining moments that changed cinema? I think that's more interesting than merely list a bunch of blockbusters.

70s: Star Wars changed cinema. Period. The opening shot was nothing anyone had ever seen before. People literally stopped breathing. Movies are not the same anymore. Also, JAWS redefined horror -- it scared the bejesus out of everyone. It was also the first summer blockbuster. It made history.

80s: I think this is the era when CGI opened a lot of doors and people started to realize how powerful it could be. The Last Starfighter and TRON paved the way. Who could forget seeing the Lightcycle race? That's the beginning of modern CGI moviemaking that we sometimes take for granted, now.

90s: Jurassic Park, as CC mentioned. CGI became not just a gimmick, but a necessity in creating movie magic. The decade ended with another cinematic jawdropper: Titanic.

00s: Lord of the Rings, definitely, in terms of complexity, scope, themes, special effects, writing, etc. People went back to the theater to be awed. The 00s is also the birth of the 100M+ opening weekends.

ChunkyC
04-09-2009, 12:41 AM
Jaws scared the crap out of the entire planet and put Steven Spielberg on the map as a director. I don't think any movie since has had such a visceral impact on an audience. After seeing that flick, I was even afraid to take a bath. ;)

Yeah, Tron blew people away at the time. It was the harbinger of what was to come. Like you say, it was the first time people really started to get serious about the use of computers in creating effects for film.

Good way of putting it re Jurassic Park. I think you're right: before JP computer effects looked like computer effects. Then that T-Rex showed up and all bets were off. Too bad it led to Jar-Jar Binks. :D

robeiae
04-09-2009, 12:52 AM
Well you know, the whole "culture by decade" bit is overdone in the extreme, imo. I know it makes for easy shorthand to look at trends, but sometimes, it fails to capture beginnings and endings, if it ever really does that, to begin with.

There's no doubt that Star Wars represents a watershed moment in film, as Ray just noted. And let's not forget how BIG it really was. It's easy to let that get lost, nowadays, with multiplexes showing every first-run movie five times a day or more.

But my point is, it's a mistake I think to define the "70's" with Star Wars. If anything, the 70's gave us Al Pacino and Robert De Niro. And Vietnam movies. I think those define the period better than Star Wars, by a long shot.

Star Wars is the beginning of Lucas and Spielberg. And their run was longer than ten years--obviously.

ChunkyC
04-09-2009, 01:04 AM
But my point is, it's a mistake I think to define the "70's" with Star Wars. If anything, the 70's gave us Al Pacino and Robert De Niro. And Vietnam movies. I think those define the period better than Star Wars, by a long shot.
Good point. The 70s also gave us movies like The French Connection (1971), probably the grittiest cop movie ever, at the time.

Come to think of it, the 70s gave us some of the wildest car chase flicks ever: the aforementioned French Connection, Vanishing Point (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067927/) which was almost all car chase (also 1971), and The Seven-Ups (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070672/) (1973). Not surprising this was the heyday of the muscle car, right before the oil crisis in '73. I remember dreaming about owning a Dodge Challenger like the one driven by Barry Newman in Vanishing Point.

robeiae
04-09-2009, 01:07 AM
Don't forget Smokey and the Bandit...

ChunkyC
04-09-2009, 01:09 AM
Oh yeah, 'nother good rubber-burner. Then there was Convoy (1978) at the height of the CB radio craze, and of course The Blues Brothers in 1980, which is notable for pure auto-mayhem. :)

I sense a 'greatest car chase' thread in the offing.... :D

robeiae
04-09-2009, 01:12 AM
Don't be silly. We both know the real winner (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMc2RdFuOxI), there.

But I'm partial to Against All Odds, myself.

James81
04-09-2009, 01:12 AM
Why not give Harry Potter the coveted 00 slot, then?

Well

1. Harry Potter isn't a trilogy
2. It really isn't THAT original. It's kind of like Narnia meets LOTR.
3. It also had a book before it became a movie

I mean, when the idea of a giant space battle hit us onscreen, from out of the blue, we were rivetted.

The idea of time travelling in a car (a Delorean no less lol) was awesome and totally unique.

The idea that reality was a computer generated farce? Absolutely mind-boggling (although the Matrix had it's roots in several different philosophies, from a movie-making perspective it was the first real SUCCESSFUL (key word) movie of its kind with original concepts).

I'm looking for that next new great idea, that we can only see onscreen that will rock us like those trilogies did.

maestrowork
04-09-2009, 01:15 AM
That's why I included romantic comedies or teen movies such as the Brat Pack. I think culturally they had a definitive place. But how do you summarize a decade of cinema or TV by just a handful of films or shows? Vietnam was a defining significance in 70s cinema, for example, but by no means the only thing. Unless we're defining the decades with a sweeping generalized theme: say, social unrest and uncertainly in the 70s, escapism, etc.

ChunkyC
04-09-2009, 01:16 AM
Don't be silly. We both know the real winner (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMc2RdFuOxI), there
True, the poll would have to be for second place. :)

katiemac
04-09-2009, 01:54 AM
00s: Lord of the Rings, definitely, in terms of complexity, scope, themes, special effects, writing, etc. People went back to the theater to be awed. The 00s is also the birth of the 100M+ opening weekends.

This is what I've been getting at with the trilogy/sequels. Those aren't new, but they are what is giving us the current record busters. We're seeing a switch in the number one movie gross ever every couple of summers as opposed to taking a decade (Titanic, Star Wars) to get there.

Kathleen42
04-09-2009, 01:56 AM
Lets not forget the holy grail of trilogies: Gidget, Gidget Goes Hawaiian, and Gidget goes to Rome ;) 1959-196?

James81
04-09-2009, 02:04 AM
This is what I've been getting at with the trilogy/sequels. Those aren't new, but they are what is giving us the current record busters. We're seeing a switch in the number one movie gross ever every couple of summers as opposed to taking a decade (Titanic, Star Wars) to get there.

I wish they'd base their records on the number of tickets sold and not the amount of money they received.

Records are being broken mainly because the price of tickets have skyrocketed over the past decade.

hell, I remember back in the 90's I used to get into a movie for $4 (not a matinee) as a student and $5 for an adult.

Now I'm paying $9 for a regular ticket. That's almost double what it was just 10 years ago.

ChunkyC
04-09-2009, 02:21 AM
Exactly, James. Even a greater number of tickets sold wouldn't necessarily mean a greater number of people going to see the films on a per-capita basis. For example, when Star Wars was released in 1977, there were seventy million fewer people in the US than there are today. Factor in the price of a ticket then compared to now plus inflation, and a movie today would have to gross one heck of a lot more to actually be doing better business than Star Wars did.

maestrowork
04-09-2009, 02:30 AM
Factoring in the population and ticket prices and inflation, etc., Gone with the Wind still is the box office champ. Practically the entire world (at the time) saw the film.

robeiae
04-09-2009, 04:23 AM
Factoring in the population and ticket prices and inflation, etc., Gone with the Wind still is the box office champ. Practically the entire world (at the time) saw the film.
Right (http://www.filmsite.org/boxoffice.html).

And the first blockbsuter from 2000 on to make the adjusted list is The Dark Knight...at number 27. Puts things in perspective.

ChunkyC
04-09-2009, 06:18 PM
Right (http://www.filmsite.org/boxoffice.html).

And the first blockbsuter from 2000 on to make the adjusted list is The Dark Knight...at number 27. Puts things in perspective.
Definitely.

All the hoopla about huge opening weekends and box office records is just media hype, much of it propagated by the studios trying to rake in as much cash as they can before people find out the movie is a dud. ;)

A corollary to the box office numbers ... I wonder what the all time champ for movie budget is, adjusted for inflation, etc. I'm thinking it might still be the Elizabeth Taylor Cleopatra film. Time to google....

ETA: Wow, it's still the second most expensive movie of all time, according to this site (http://blog.knowyourmoney.co.uk/index.php/2008/11/the-10-most-expensive-movies-of-all-time/).

SirOtter
04-09-2009, 09:39 PM
Another obvious decade would be the 30s - the beginning of the sound era (well, The Jazz Singer was 1927, and the first all-talkie came out in 1929), the endlessly fascinating era that ended with the enforcement of the Hays Code in 1934, and the arrival of three-colour Technicolor in 1935. (There had been films in earlier colour processes right back to the beginning of the century - two-colour Technicolor began in the silent era).

There were tons of film series in the 30s and 40s - two separate Universal horror cycles, for example, 1931-1936 and 1939-1948. Most were B-movies - Torchy Blaine, Charlie Chan, Hopalong Cassidy, Bulldog Drummond, Sherlock Holmes, Republic's Zorro serials, Dick Tracy (four serials and four features), etc., etc., etc. Columbia had a bunch based on radio shows - I Love a Mystery, Crime Doctor, The Whistler, Fibber McGee and Molly, The Great Gildersleeve. The first real SF special effects-laden trilogy was Universal's set of Flash Gordon serials from 1936 to 1940 - all still great fun.

The first Tarzan movie came out in 1918. It's not particularly good, but I recently watched the 1920 serial Son of Tarzan and thoroughly enjoyed it. The Weismuller Tarzans of the early 30s were major MGM films; the series only later degenerated into B-movie status.

dgiharris
04-10-2009, 12:11 AM
Maybe i'm off by a decade,

But wasn't it the 50s that was noted for those great gum shoe detective stories in which the narration was in first person conveying the thoughts of the detective.

I loved that. Has a feel and flavor that just brings the character to life while drawing you in.

Narration: In walks a dame with legs longer than the Lincoln Tunnel...

Plus, I love the language in those older films. Seems since they didn't have the special effects, there was more emphasis on writing and acting (and sometimes overacting) to carry the scenes. Loved the crisp precise dialogue.

Mel...

eyeblink
04-10-2009, 01:49 AM
Do you mean film noir? That was at its height in the 1940s, though noir as a style continues to this day - though in colour rather than black and white.

ChunkyC
04-10-2009, 02:20 AM
Plus, I love the language in those older films. Seems since they didn't have the special effects, there was more emphasis on writing and acting (and sometimes overacting) to carry the scenes. Loved the crisp precise dialogue.

Mel...
Humphrey Bogart (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgo4sjxx3Zc) was as good as it gets in noir.

ETA: this has nothing to do with the conversation, but I ran across it while searching youtube for bogie clips and had to share:

Bob Hope (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfea6IWiYu0&feature=related)

SirOtter
04-10-2009, 02:36 AM
Humphrey Bogart (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgo4sjxx3Zc) was as good as it gets in noir.

Amen that. Robert Mitchum did some great noir, too.

Yes, the dialogue in those old movies was great, because of and in spite of the limitations set by primitive special effects, but also the restrictions of the Hays Office. Another great place to learn to do snappy dialogue is old time radio. http://www.archive.org/details/radioprograms