Tweet NY Post: Millennials don’t really care about classic movies

I took a friend of mine to see some silent comedies at a 1920s theater, and after seeing the theater organ, the great films, and the cool design of the theater itself he said, "I didn't know movies could be like that."

Hooray! That's the way to do it! I am happy to see that all is not lost!

I took a friend of mine to see some silent comedies at a 1920s theater, and after seeing the theater organ, the great films, and the cool design of the theater itself he said, "I didn't know movies could be like that."

That made my day!

Russell Baker, writing of the new Penn Station, said "Once, visitors to New York entered like gods. Now, they scurry like rats." A movie is not just what's on the screen, it's the experience. An elegant house, an appreciative audience, these can make the experience far better than otherwise. Good choice.

Bob

As in all previous generations, those who become interested in old movies will pursue this interest; those who don't, won't. I did, though none other of the friends I grew up with did.

OP, sounds bout right.

With the type of movies thy make nowadays that is what the kids are raised on, so they don't know any better.

I don't think this is anything new and this article could have been written at any point in the last thirty years. I think a big part of it is there's a lot more out there for young people to watch or do than there was in earlier generations when there was only two to four channels in most cities, no vcrs, no videogames, etc. Kids were a little more open to watching old stuff in the 50's through early 80's because there wasn't much else to watch. When this issue comes up online somebody usually posts "I'm 14 and love old movies" or "my kids are big fans of James Cagney" or something like that but those are the exceptions not typical reactions of young people today. I'm sure somewhere there's some sixteen year old who collects books on 19th century American theatre but that hardly means that the average teenager is interested in the subject. I have one niece - born in the 1980's - who was raised on Shirley Temple movies and another one a decade her junior who don't think has ever even seen a Shirley movie although she knows who she is.

It's not just that millennials are ignorant of anything that was created BMB (Before My Birth); anybody can be ignorant of something. It's that they're willfully ignorant, sometimes even pridefully ignorant. They think it's cool that they've never heard of Chaplin or Bogart or Groucho. When I stand in the lobby of the Cinematheque after a screening of NORTH BY NORTHWEST or GOLDFINGER or even JAWS and listen to them whine about how "slow" and "boring" they are, I realize why some people become ax murderers.

Mike S.

...anybody can be ignorant of something. It's that they're willfully ignorant, sometimes even pridefully ignorant. They think it's cool that they've never heard of Chaplin or Bogart or Groucho.

YES!

Proud to be ignorant has always been my definition of 'stupid'.

The story doesn't focus on what's important about this: the vast majority of millenials don't go to these films, which means they are not replacing audiences that are getting older and dying. That means people are barely breaking even
or losing money when showing classics and silents, and therefore they are showing films that people ARE buying tickets to see: 1960s films and on. While it's great some millenials like the films, if they don't bring lots of friends with them, these films are not going to be shown for a generation or so until they are once again revived, like silents after sound came in. That's why TCM is going to post 1960 films (even 1990s-2000s), AMPAS is mostly showing post 1960 films, etc. Randy Haberkamp at an AMPAS silent screening and Shannon Kelley at a UCLA screening in the last year or so have said they don't know how much longer these films will be shown publicly as the audience keeps decreasing, but they both saw them being revived in a generation or so.

The story doesn't focus on what's important about this: the vast majority of millenials don't go to these films, which means they are not replacing audiences that are getting older and dying. That means people are barely breaking even
or losing money when showing classics and silents, and therefore they are showing films that people ARE buying tickets to see: 1960s films and on. While it's great some millenials like the films, if they don't bring lots of friends with them, these films are not going to be shown for a generation or so until they are once again revived, like silents after sound came in. That's why TCM is going to post 1960 films (even 1990s-2000s), AMPAS is mostly showing post 1960 films, etc. Randy Haberkamp at an AMPAS silent screening and Shannon Kelley at a UCLA screening in the last year or so have said they don't know how much longer these films will be shown publicly as the audience keeps decreasing, but they both saw them being revived in a generation or so.

This is the only reason I'm concerned about younger generations' indifference to classic movies. If the studios would just get off their butts and make downloads or streams available to all of their titles cheaply (say a buck or two each) they'd make a ton of money and circulation for the films would be guaranteed. Otherwise, I' don't really care about young people disliking or being indifferent to classic movies; I certainly feel the same about most of "their" movies.

Founded by Alexander Hamilton, foundered by Rupert Murdoch, the NYP has subsequently gone "down market" - becoming the print equivalent of the ICS network in The Running Man

I presume "Millennial" is new-type speak for someone born at the turn of this century? (I can't keep up with all these new buzz words. )

"New?"

From Wiki: "Authors William Strauss and Neil Howe are widely credited with naming the Millennials. They coined the term in 1987"

As to the greater point:

"News"?

Not really. I'll bet the actual percentage of current Millenials who watch and enjoy movies from half-to-three-quarters of a century before their birth, is about the same as when some of us rare Boomers were doing that in our youth...

-Craig

I presume "Millennial" is new-type speak for someone born at the turn of this century? (I can't keep up with all these new buzz words. )

According to several websites, there is no clear answer anymore.

"Overall, the earliest proposed birthdate for Millennials is 1976 and the latest 2004."

I thought generations began every 18 years or so, but apparently, the "three" generations that have come to pass since the baby boomers, overlap depending on the source. So, Gen X can go as far as 1984. Gen Y either ran from '80 to '95, or was completely done away with, having apparently been amalgamated into what became Millennials, who were apparently birthed for 28 years!

How many stupid people does it take to determine when a generation beings and/or ends

The usual albeit flexible timeframe for a generation used to be 25 years. However, since the Baby Boomer generation, it was noticed that each decade's worth of teenagers/youths was so remarkable different from its predecessor that it seemed to be an entirely separate generation. Really, compare the people born in the 1980s with the people born in the 1990s, let alone the people born in the 2000s, and they hardly have anything in common, thanks largely to the stupendous leaps in technologies on the per-decade basis.

For example, people who were young in 1990s grew up with PCs and tiny Blackberries that could only send messages. People who were young in the 2000s grew up with laptops and the earliest smartphones. Yet even the latter "generation" seem completely different from young people in the 2010s who are growing up wired 24/7 and living their lives publicly on social media.

So it makes sense that each group of young people is now being defined loosely as a "generation" based on the decade in which they were born.

Also, think of how many "names" have been affixed since the Boomers of the 1960s. The Me Generation (70s?), Generation X (80s?), Generation Y (90s?), Millenials (2000s?), and Wired Generation or whatever they're calling the current youths.

Nota bene: I am not saying these are hard and fixed categories, nor am I saying these are formally-recognized definitions of "generations". I'm simply offering my personal impressions.

Jim

As yet another "Millennial" (right? b. 1989) I remember being frustrated, in my teens, that so few of my peers were into classic movies, and so on... that I couldn't discuss Chaplin at school, so to say. As I've become older, I've come to realize that, in the end, it's only "fair" that today's youngsters, as a general rule, aren't that much into old things. As Maliejandra points out, how many kids of the early 1900s were likely obsessed with the stuff that their grandparents enjoyed? Perhaps there were a few who lamented that movies & radio were killing vaudeville, but not too many, I'd think. Just as I don't expect everyone to appreciate classical music as I do, I won't expect a majority to find similar merit in silents and Old Time Radio.

Also, consider that audiences of the late silent era are reported, at least on occasion, to have more or less groaned at the sight of early silents, when they turned up as reissues...

Having said that, I think it's important to encourage today's youth to check out old stuff (all the more so now, when "everything" can be found within a few clicks), be it music, movies, books or art... if they don't like it, oh well; but some doubtlessly will, and may turn out to be future film historians (or the parent of a future film historian, or... etc).

The usual albeit flexible timeframe for a generation used to be 25 years. However, since the Baby Boomer generation, it was noticed that each decade's worth of teenagers/youths was so remarkable different from its predecessor that it seemed to be an entirely separate generation. Really, compare the people born in the 1980s with the people born in the 1990s, let alone the people born in the 2000s, and they hardly have anything in common, thanks largely to the stupendous leaps in technologies on the per-decade basis.

For example, people who were young in 1990s grew up with PCs and tiny Blackberries that could only send messages. People who were young in the 2000s grew up with laptops and the earliest smartphones. Yet even the latter "generation" seem completely different from young people in the 2010s who are growing up wired 24/7 and living their lives publicly on social media.

So it makes sense that each group of young people is now being defined loosely as a "generation" based on the decade in which they were born.

Also, think of how many "names" have been affixed since the Boomers of the 1960s. The Me Generation (70s?), Generation X (80s?), Generation Y (90s?), Millenials (2000s?), and Wired Generation or whatever they're calling the current youths.

Nota bene: I am not saying these are hard and fixed categories, nor am I saying these are formally-recognized definitions of "generations". I'm simply offering my personal impressions.

Jim

Good observations! I always believed there was a big difference between those who were physically adults by the time Y2K rolled around, and kids who were 15 in 2005. BIG difference.

But I guess they are lumping anyone who was "young" (under 20) at the dawn of the internet as a Millennial. Which begs the question; just who are "they" ? Fellow 30 year old, big bearded "Millennials?" 40 year old slacker Gen X'ers? Or baby boomers in their 50's, taking a good, disgusted look at the two younger "generations" they helped create?

Well, as I said in my previous post, I'm an '89-er, and even I find it insane to think that people 7-8 years younger than me literally do not remember a time before the Internet (yeah, I know, technically the web came before my time as well, but I mean on a massive commercial scale; also, the development was a bit slower where I live, in Northern Europe, than the States). I find that people born in the mid-to-late 90s take the web even more for granted than I do; just as, I'm sure, people 10+ yrs older than *me* think I take it more for granted than they do.

T

Also, think of how many "names" have been affixed since the Boomers of the 1960s. The Me Generation (70s?), Generation X (80s?), Generation Y (90s?), Millenials (2000s?), and Wired Generation or whatever they're calling the current youths.


Jim

Velly interlestink! Did they have names for each of the generations in the century previous? My father grew up and saw the big advances of technology such as the motor car, wireless, aeroplanes etc.,

I think that we have only chosen to now differentiate the generations as none of them seem to want to share the same things as they did previously? For one thing generations lived together, talked together and dined together at one time.

...

I think that we have only chosen to now differentiate the generations as none of them seem to want to share the same things as they did previously? For one thing generations lived together, talked together and dined together at one time.

On the other hand, when i was growing up, you had to go out of your way to hear the music of previous generations. Even in a major market like San Francisco, there was only a short-lived big band" station and a couple others that played "old" music late Saturday night. I loved old music because i watched old movies and collected 78s. But now, the music of my youth (60s, 70s) follows me everywhere--in Starbucks, in the grocery store, lots of places where i wouldn't expect it. Growing up i heard only the latest music in public spaces.

greta

...

I think that we have only chosen to now differentiate the generations as none of them seem to want to share the same things as they did previously? For one thing generations lived together, talked together and dined together at one time.

On the other hand, when i was growing up, you had to go out of your way to hear the music of previous generations. Even in a major market like San Francisco, there was only a short-lived big band" station and a couple others that played "old" music late Saturday night. I loved old music because i watched old movies and collected 78s. But now, the music of my youth (60s, 70s) follows me everywhere--in Starbucks, in the grocery store, lots of places where i wouldn't expect it. Growing up i heard only the latest music in public spaces.

greta

Oh! You poor thing! Obviously you didn't have a piano or pianola in the house? I suppose too, I can remember the days before television came in (just ) and there would often be nights when singing of old songs took place - with ample gargling mixture available for the men folk. In those far off daze too, even if you went to a wedding - there would be a sing-a-long where all the old standards would be dragged out. Dancing too was still of the actual hold your partner type and the orchestra (yes before electric guitars and drums!) would play all the old music. I know the young ones commandeered the gramophone - buying new records - but there were still plenty of 78's in houses going back to the old days. There were sing-a-longs too at the pictures. Either a bouncing ball talkie or the organist would play to a slide of the lyrics. A roof-lifting experience when 3,000 voices were in unison.

Somehow, I just keep on thinking that the young 'uns of today are missing out on something?

I agree, Donald. I don't believe any ceremony is valid until the witnesses have danced the Alley Cat.

Bob

Living in an age of such wide "availability" has two sides, no doubt. A 94-year old friend of mine (b. 1923, nearly blind now unfortunately but still sharp in the head) recalls that, as a child, he and his siblings would go to the movies once a month... that's all they could afford. It can be safely assumed that he appreciated this monthly visit to the movies far more than I did watching morning cartoons for hours every weekend (he fondly remembers seeing Laurel & Hardy's BIG BUSINESS when it was first screened here, among other things).

On the other hand, there's just no way I'd give up the vast access to culture that we now enjoy. Listening to Jack Benny's radio program, it often strikes me that each half-hour program would be "lost" to listeners once it had aired Sunday evenings... whereas I now can listen to them all hours of the day. I believe the advantages to this do make up for the disadvantages, but will add that there was indeed something special about hunting for old, rare movies on video when I was a kid... still before "everything" could be found on Youtube.

...

I think that we have only chosen to now differentiate the generations as none of them seem to want to share the same things as they did previously? For one thing generations lived together, talked together and dined together at one time.

On the other hand, when i was growing up, you had to go out of your way to hear the music of previous generations. Even in a major market like San Francisco, there was only a short-lived big band" station and a couple others that played "old" music late Saturday night. I loved old music because i watched old movies and collected 78s. But now, the music of my youth (60s, 70s) follows me everywhere--in Starbucks, in the grocery store, lots of places where i wouldn't expect it. Growing up i heard only the latest music in public spaces.

greta

That music is on the soundtrack of recent blockbuster movies as well. Mr Blue Sky (1977) by Electric Light Orchestra
was the intro song in the Guardians of the Galaxy sequel (the first one had as an intro Come and Get Your Love (1974)
by Redbone). Songs from the same era were also featured on both soundtracks. Baby Driver also has vintage songs.
The title is taken from a Simon and Garfunkel single from 1970.

R.I.P. to Walter Becker of Steely Dan.

When my parents were young, they felt as if the music their parents enjoyed came from another planet, and yet only twenty years separates the popularity of Glenn Miller and the Beatles. Turn on the radio today, and it's more likely you'll be hearing a song from two decades ago than one from two years ago.

I think the reason so many boomers watch classic movies is the nostalgia, mostly watching them on TV growing up since they were before their time. At least this is the explanation a lot of boomers give to me.

I love beauty, art, and learning about the past so classic movies is a way for me to explore all those things, and the pool is so deep I can keep exploring. While I do have only a few amount of friends who enjoy classic like I do (I am 28), the people I do meet who have an affinity for them makes for wonderful conversation and an instant connection.

I wish those kids and their "yeah yeah" music would keep off my lawn!

I wish those kids and their "yeah yeah" music would keep off my lawn!

Yeah - with their sissy long hair, too! What's the world coming to today?

Millennials and 'Z' gen are the entitled generations. Look at YouTube. Some videos that cost lots of $ to produce and has outstanding content, it may have millions of views and only a few thousand likes.

...likes are handed out like they cost a million bucks each by the millennials.

YouTube pays content creators for views. They don't pay for "likes". Who cares about likes?