So I decided to write a post after I’ve had some discussion with a friend about what’s better: Beowulf or The Hunger Games (hint – Beowulf). It led me to another question though – is old always better than new? This isn’t only related to the books, no. It involves all the things I write about: books, movies, games, songs etc. Short answer? No.
Allow me to elaborate. Sure, it’s pretty fucking stupid to compare weird teen fiction with an epic of godlike proportions, but hey, it’s 21st century. I once met a girl who thought Tolkien is better than Shakespeare. Oh wait.
I think that the reason why most of the people think ‘old is always better’ is because they don’t learn the fucking history. Sure, there are some older things that are good, but trust me … there are some old things that are bad. You have an amazing example on IMDB: majority of older movies have something like 7.5 plus rating without being anything special. Now, the reasoning for that is that ‘they invented the genre’, ‘they were ahead of their time’ etc. etc., however newer movies aren’t judged by that. Seems a bit unfair, right? That’s because it fucking is. It’d be like comparing the style of Shakespeare’s writing with some of the modern poet. No one today is willing to write like Shakespeare (I’m not Shake’s biggest fan guys, because … well, he’s a bit too dramatic for me). That’s why we have to ‘invent’ new criteria for each new age. It’s quite annoying, if you ask me, to have people always say ‘yeah, 80’s were the golden age of music’ or simply ’20th century was a golden age of movie-making’ or stuff like that. Erm, no. Sure, those periods got their own jewels, but the people in 80’s were saying ’60’s were the golden ages’ and stuff like that (The Doors, ou yeah!). It goes on and on. Another example is Aristotle. He was regarded as the genius in his time, the top-notch philosopher. It may be he was a genius, but he was fucking wrong. With everything. The only reason he’s still known and actually debated is because he’s so bad people need to reconfirm that he’s so bad every year.
Regarding the music, people often take songs like ‘Heaven and Hell’, or ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ etc. and compare them to songs like ‘Baby’, ‘Umbrella’ etc. etc. Uhm, yeah, of course the old songs were better when you are comparing them to crap. Take the best of each age and compare them. That’s how comparing things works guys. Get a grip. I used to be one of those ‘golden old(en) ages’ guys, but I quickly grew out of it since I realized it was fucking stupid. Will you say that the art of eerie is better than modern? Hell, I’ll take modern every time. It’s far more to my taste, with all these fantastic shit being made in Photoshop and shit. I personally thing that half of the artists of eerie are so fucking overrated that they’d be selling shit if they were painting now. Take a Picasso for example. I’m sure he had some great idea when he was drawing squared heads, but hell, even I can do that. Yeah, it’s a cheap argument and shit, but let’s face it: it’s simplistic art. It looks more like a sketch or a draft rather than the finished work. And his paintings are being sold in millions while some of the modern artists are starving (I mean good ones, not those that splash three different colors on the fucking canvas and call it a painting. Fuck you.) It doesn’t end there. For instance, I think Van Gogh is amazing painter, and if I had money I’d probably buy Starry Night.
Let’s move onto movies. I seriously don’t know why the fuck are people so fascinated by old movies. And I mean like pre-70’s shit. Sure, there are some good movies (Psycho etc.), but all of my top 10 movies are nineties and above. Just because something is in black and white doesn’t mean it’s a masterpiece guys. Movies aren’t like whiskey or wine. I bet that, in like 60 years, all of the movies from this age will be regarded as masterpieces because they weren’t in some 56D crap. Valuing something by its age is bullshit. If you’re gonna compare movies, compare them fairly. Take all the aspects you do with modern things: directing, story, characters etc. Not whether it’s black and white or in color. Fuck. Interview with a Vampire is ten times better than Nosferatu, and yet … (I’M WAITING FOR DRACULA REMAKE! MAKE IT HAPPEN GUYS!)
These same things repeat in the gaming industry as well. No guys, fucking Zelda isn’t the best game ever. No guys, fucking Final Fantasy VII isn’t the best game ever. Get out of your high-heel childhood/hipster boots and be a man and admit. I played Zelda for the first time like 2 years ago. And it was barely average. Again, old games are judged on what they did for the world not how well they were made. Hell, the same thing happens with Call of Duty. The fourth part is thought to be the best because of what it did to FPS genre (it destroyed it), while I personally think that 6th one is the best. Same thing with World of Warcraft. No, Vanilla version sucked. It was so buggy you could see little spiders crawling up your fucking screen while playing. No, Civilization III isn’t the best in the series. It’s the 5th one.
I’m getting tired of this shit – of old things being valued over newer ones just because they’re older. Age doesn’t mean anything. For fucks sake, why don’t you just implement it into human society as well? Just because some dude is older than me it means he’s also better than me. Just fucking do it. Make it happen. Split us even further apart your racist fucks. I’m not saying that old sucks. Of course there are some great things that are older, but it doesn’t mean that old always beats something newer. Stop trying to shove that into the youthful minds. It’s not. It’s hipster-like thinking and just because you yizzed over Sephiroth fifty years ago doesn’t mean that FFVII is the best game ever. Far from it. Or that fucking Mario. NO!