>What kind of edge does the 60s list have? Less explosions?
>Other than (repeating myself) the somewhat older demographic
>focus, I see no difference.

i was just thinking that back in the 60s there were less action films. action films are generally directed to a wider audience than just kid's films. you can't really (or didn't then at least) have children's movies that had adult humor and interest. they aren't earth-shattering works of art and intellect, but that's because they pander to an audience based solely on intellectual capabilities directly related to age. not really a choice to dumb-down, but a necessity.

today?

action films are marketed to a larger demographic range. the target audience isn't handicapped intellectually due to any lack of world experience. they aren't earth-shattering works of art, and pander to an audience based solely on that audience's desire to turn off the brain and see bright colors for an afternoon.

>Art house films have never been mainstream. That's why they
>get shown in shitty little art houses.

alright, maybe i shouldn't have been so limited in my statement. yes, your typical art house movie will continually get ignored. but you have Miramax-esque films, that have substance and get financed and aren't as limited in potential audience. however, Miramax seems to be the whole studio supporting this, supporting the arts.