I love cheese dick 90s disaster movies.

[JoeBrotheChildSpitGuzzler]

I watch The Rock, Con Air, Independence Day, and Starship Troopers at least once a year.

All classics. Even the TV edited versions of the Rock and Con Air are funny. Independence day was the first movie I saw twice in the theaters (and still one of the few), but the bit on OnA when they smashed it it was hilarious. Going back and watching it I couldn't stop thinking about heebie kikeburger.

 

[analeggsalad]

I watch The Rock, Con Air, Independence Day, and Starship Troopers at least once a year.

I saw Con Air in theaters and was bummed. Took me a while to come around, but it is top shelf "playing in the background" kino

 

[DiarrheaDick]

Dante's Peak? Volcano? Hard Rain? White Squall? C'mon guys!

 

[Mick_Mickerson]

Probably more "thriller" than "action," but Harrison Ford Jack Ryan movies are great nostalgia watches. Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger.

Fawwkkkkk, shoulda made this a '90s movie appreciation thread to be honest witcha

I'm pretty much resigned to the fact I won't like any new movies and am always looking for cool ones from 80s or 90s

 

[Juschippinyababe]

The 90s was just a great decade. You ever watch The Nanny?

I go deep with the nanny and Blossom brotherman

 

[MunchausenByProxy]

Movies are done, brotherman. In the era before they died VHS, Cable TV, magazines and radio were the rate limit on media consumption. The attention span was formed by that.

It's too fast now. It's not that people are genetically suddenly ADHD. It's that the rate limit on access/choice/consumption went from a steady, decades long 25 to 400 MPH. Movies as we know of them were born of and can only exist in that smooth 25 zone. The format and its ability impact the broader culture is a relic. It can't be reproduced. New movies are cringe not just because of woke ideology or ticket sale calculation pandering, but because they present themselves as having the capacity to influence as the format used to. They can't, it's a legacy format.

You're looking at something that can only exist in that media context, limited by technology of its time. The 90s were the last decade in that smooth 25mph zone. It's done brah, it's over, we can't go back. But it's def nice to pretend now and then. Personally, I don't watch any movie made after say about 2009

But then again, cinematic TV series are as popular as ever. Shows like Ozark, Game of Thrones, Stranger Things, etc, are as popular as ever and they require you to sit down and watch 45 minutes or up to an hour of film at a time that is shot exactly like a movie. So I think it might just be that all the effort and talent in the industry is just being put towards major TV shows now

 

[sorchEDearth]

But then again, cinematic TV series are as popular as ever. Shows like Ozark, Game of Thrones, Stranger Things, etc, are as popular as ever and they require you to sit down and watch 45 minutes or up to an hour of film at a time that is shot exactly like a movie. So I think it might just be that all the effort and talent in the industry is just being put towards major TV shows now

Long form narrative is unfashionable. Even commercial free TV is bound by market constraints in a way which guarantees it A) must be safely consensual, and B) has to be digested context-free in readily digestible chunks. It's cultural junk food.

Because everyone confuses long form vs. short form as a matter of length (as if wasting 20 hours on junk is more nourishing than only 2) we have these much talked about season/series-long "arcs" that shows employ (with tiny episodic ones resolving in 45 minutes supposedly being reflections of the ultimate larger arc) but if you watch these things lucidly you'll realize how utterly bankrupt and simple they are (indeed, have to be) because of how they are consumed; they have to be a certain length to keep running, with the equation backwards, they're not the length they are because they're furled out as themselves but because they have to meet standardized chunks, and do so (if successful) for many years on end. It's the same reason McDonald's also sells chicken and fish.

also, TV has certain conventions unique to the medium, the most constraining being the need to break the narrative so as to capture the viewer for ads, but even when the channel does not demand those breaks, the narrative still usually conforms because that is how we have learned to relate to that screen. (There are other restrictions as well, having to do with how shots are blocked and edited. These come from the size of the screen and suppositions of how our eyes move and attention is managed.)

So most TV is and some can only ever be short form. The introduction to season long arcs formed when market forces wanted to increase viewer loyalty by providing rewards for watching each episode (Sopranos, the Wire, and Arrested Development were major leaps in this). One common device is to have story lines that continue and develop over many weeks. Almost always, these are just more short form narratives thrown into the mix with the requisite two short form stories that are wholly contained in each episode. If you parse out the stories, you will find that though these stories can be complex and sometimes convoluted, they never escape the confines of the static situation in which they exist.

Short form is all about giving the viewer a situation, within which things happen and agents interact. It engages; it can produce twists, (though big surprises are uncommon). The audience enters in easily and experiences, but the world surrounding and governing the situation is static, this is why so many TV and movies are so thoroughly hollow right now. The actual length is irrelevant, (the average show is 10x longer than a movie) what matters is the ease in which one can engage with it.

Because short form is so prevalent (as it is easier to create AND consume), people have come to prefer it because though the rewards are relatively trivial it doesn't;t cost the viewer anything. This is the cultural diabetes showing. It's the reason no one can have a reasonable discussion on anything of any weight without mocking or la-la-ing like an incessant child anymore, for example.

Long form on the other hand, shares similar methods of delivery with short form but all similarities stop there. Any trek through long form has at least one explicitly acknowledged platform for the viewer/reader that is outside of the situation of the story proper. This is a requirement (occasionally mimicked by short form -- but in motion only). Here the viewer can use (based on the promptings given by the artist) this platform to see the dynamics of the world of the story as well as to visit its surrounding situation or cosmology. This allows the viewer to hold two stances at the same time.

The historical precedent is in the stories told a few millennia ago (some are probably much older) where there're literally two worlds: the world of humans where things just happen and the world of gods which we see and where certain dynamics are revealed (the cosmology becoming the most important part). Usually those are causal dynamics explaining why things happen the way they will in the human lives. It's the reason the Bible and Star Wars still hold such sway over people.

Kubrick was a master of this with one example everyone knows being The Shining, where King got huffy when his simple short form story with clear, static dynamics, was turned into a long form where by the end we know only some of what has happened and only some of why, (and those little bits depends on our skill as viewers/world-builders).

Long form is the reason things like The Thing from 1982 is so damn re-watchable and most everything else isn't.

 

[analeggsalad]

But then again, cinematic TV series are as popular as ever. Shows like Ozark, Game of Thrones, Stranger Things, etc, are as popular as ever and they require you to sit down and watch 45 minutes or up to an hour of film at a time that is shot exactly like a movie. So I think it might just be that all the effort and talent in the industry is just being put towards major TV shows now

I read this post earlier and have been thinking about this because you're right, your argument pokes a hole in mine.

One part of my argument is the culturally unifying aspect being gone still holds up. Even though people binge watch and listen to 3+ hour podcasts regularly they are free to choose from so many options there's no guarantee the people at work, school, your friend group, strangers, will have seen it. This is a basic bitch observation everyone knows already, but I don't think you realize when you Nostalg over 90s films, besides just being funny and good, it's of a sense of lost communal aspect they represent. Same is true of old TV shows.

As for the contradiction in my claiming instant and unlimited access creates ADHD while in reality normies constantly binge watch and listen to full Joe Rogan episodes, again this is extremely basic but I think it's a combination of social atomization and the ability to entertain yourself rathe than tolerate friends IRL who you don't really like that much. So someone craves hanging our or human to human contact, but after 5 or 15 minutes everyone is checkign their phone for something more interesting. This creates a gulf for the need of protracted conversation, interaction, and human/narrative engagement, and people use these faggy binge shows to full up that void

 

[analeggsalad]

Long form narrative is unfashionable. Even commercial free TV is bound by market constraints in a way which guarantees it A) must be safely consensual, and B) has to be digested context-free in readily digestible chunks. It's cultural junk food.

Because everyone confuses long form vs. short form as a matter of length (as if wasting 20 hours on junk is more nourishing than only 2) we have these much talked about season/series-long "arcs" that shows employ (with tiny episodic ones resolving in 45 minutes supposedly being reflections of the ultimate larger arc) but if you watch these things lucidly you'll realize how utterly bankrupt and simple they are (indeed, have to be) because of how they are consumed; they have to be a certain length to keep running, with the equation backwards, they're not the length they are because they're furled out as themselves but because they have to meet standardized chunks, and do so (if successful) for many years on end. It's the same reason McDonald's also sells chicken and fish.

also, TV has certain conventions unique to the medium, the most constraining being the need to break the narrative so as to capture the viewer for ads, but even when the channel does not demand those breaks, the narrative still usually conforms because that is how we have learned to relate to that screen. (There are other restrictions as well, having to do with how shots are blocked and edited. These come from the size of the screen and suppositions of how our eyes move and attention is managed.)

So most TV is and some can only ever be short form. The introduction to season long arcs formed when market forces wanted to increase viewer loyalty by providing rewards for watching each episode (Sopranos, the Wire, and Arrested Development were major leaps in this). One common device is to have story lines that continue and develop over many weeks. Almost always, these are just more short form narratives thrown into the mix with the requisite two short form stories that are wholly contained in each episode. If you parse out the stories, you will find that though these stories can be complex and sometimes convoluted, they never escape the confines of the static situation in which they exist.

Short form is all about giving the viewer a situation, within which things happen and agents interact. It engages; it can produce twists, (though big surprises are uncommon). The audience enters in easily and experiences, but the world surrounding and governing the situation is static, this is why so many TV and movies are so thoroughly hollow right now. The actual length is irrelevant, (the average show is 10x longer than a movie) what matters is the ease in which one can engage with it.

Because short form is so prevalent (as it is easier to create AND consume), people have come to prefer it because though the rewards are relatively trivial it doesn't;t cost the viewer anything. This is the cultural diabetes showing. It's the reason no one can have a reasonable discussion on anything of any weight without mocking or la-la-ing like an incessant child anymore, for example.

Long form on the other hand, shares similar methods of delivery with short form but all similarities stop there. Any trek through long form has at least one explicitly acknowledged platform for the viewer/reader that is outside of the situation of the story proper. This is a requirement (occasionally mimicked by short form -- but in motion only). Here the viewer can use (based on the promptings given by the artist) this platform to see the dynamics of the world of the story as well as to visit its surrounding situation or cosmology. This allows the viewer to hold two stances at the same time.

The historical precedent is in the stories told a few millennia ago (some are probably much older) where there're literally two worlds: the world of humans where things just happen and the world of gods which we see and where certain dynamics are revealed (the cosmology becoming the most important part). Usually those are causal dynamics explaining why things happen the way they will in the human lives. It's the reason the Bible and Star Wars still hold such sway over people.

Kubrick was a master of this with one example everyone knows being The Shining, where King got huffy when his simple short form story with clear, static dynamics, was turned into a long form where by the end we know only some of what has happened and only some of why, (and those little bits depends on our skill as viewers/world-builders).

Long form is the reason things like The Thing from 1982 is so damn re-watchable and most everything else isn't.

"I'll keep this brief"

But yeah, you are reifying my point with your take on "longform" being blocks of short form with a dangled pretense wrapped up that it's some grand arc, so the NPC capacity to watch epic binge shows no longer conflicts with my claim that access to unlimited and instant media choice has changed the role the traditional, 20th C Movie has with the public and the culture.

I have some issues with some of your definition of long vs short form and think you're making some other leaps, I also have take issue with the sgt. Barnes phrase "Cinematic TV" but too lazy to argue

 

[CuntFucker]

Long form narrative is unfashionable. Even commercial free TV is bound by market constraints in a way which guarantees it A) must be safely consensual, and B) has to be digested context-free in readily digestible chunks. It's cultural junk food.

Because everyone confuses long form vs. short form as a matter of length (as if wasting 20 hours on junk is more nourishing than only 2) we have these much talked about season/series-long "arcs" that shows employ (with tiny episodic ones resolving in 45 minutes supposedly being reflections of the ultimate larger arc) but if you watch these things lucidly you'll realize how utterly bankrupt and simple they are (indeed, have to be) because of how they are consumed; they have to be a certain length to keep running, with the equation backwards, they're not the length they are because they're furled out as themselves but because they have to meet standardized chunks, and do so (if successful) for many years on end. It's the same reason McDonald's also sells chicken and fish.

also, TV has certain conventions unique to the medium, the most constraining being the need to break the narrative so as to capture the viewer for ads, but even when the channel does not demand those breaks, the narrative still usually conforms because that is how we have learned to relate to that screen. (There are other restrictions as well, having to do with how shots are blocked and edited. These come from the size of the screen and suppositions of how our eyes move and attention is managed.)

So most TV is and some can only ever be short form. The introduction to season long arcs formed when market forces wanted to increase viewer loyalty by providing rewards for watching each episode (Sopranos, the Wire, and Arrested Development were major leaps in this). One common device is to have story lines that continue and develop over many weeks. Almost always, these are just more short form narratives thrown into the mix with the requisite two short form stories that are wholly contained in each episode. If you parse out the stories, you will find that though these stories can be complex and sometimes convoluted, they never escape the confines of the static situation in which they exist.

Short form is all about giving the viewer a situation, within which things happen and agents interact. It engages; it can produce twists, (though big surprises are uncommon). The audience enters in easily and experiences, but the world surrounding and governing the situation is static, this is why so many TV and movies are so thoroughly hollow right now. The actual length is irrelevant, (the average show is 10x longer than a movie) what matters is the ease in which one can engage with it.

Because short form is so prevalent (as it is easier to create AND consume), people have come to prefer it because though the rewards are relatively trivial it doesn't;t cost the viewer anything. This is the cultural diabetes showing. It's the reason no one can have a reasonable discussion on anything of any weight without mocking or la-la-ing like an incessant child anymore, for example.

Long form on the other hand, shares similar methods of delivery with short form but all similarities stop there. Any trek through long form has at least one explicitly acknowledged platform for the viewer/reader that is outside of the situation of the story proper. This is a requirement (occasionally mimicked by short form -- but in motion only). Here the viewer can use (based on the promptings given by the artist) this platform to see the dynamics of the world of the story as well as to visit its surrounding situation or cosmology. This allows the viewer to hold two stances at the same time.

The historical precedent is in the stories told a few millennia ago (some are probably much older) where there're literally two worlds: the world of humans where things just happen and the world of gods which we see and where certain dynamics are revealed (the cosmology becoming the most important part). Usually those are causal dynamics explaining why things happen the way they will in the human lives. It's the reason the Bible and Star Wars still hold such sway over people.

Kubrick was a master of this with one example everyone knows being The Shining, where King got huffy when his simple short form story with clear, static dynamics, was turned into a long form where by the end we know only some of what has happened and only some of why, (and those little bits depends on our skill as viewers/world-builders).

Long form is the reason things like The Thing from 1982 is so damn re-watchable and most everything else isn't.

 

[Dennyislife]

The mix of early cgi but perfected models and miniatures make 90s films somehow more grounded than the cgi filled special effects green screen heavy stuff now.

Terminator 2 is the best example of this. The cgi doesn't hold up too well for the melty robot but it feels more real than the shite today.

 

[diane]

The modern disaster genre probably more closely resembles itself from 20-30 years ago than any other genre.

Dante's Peak? Volcano? Hard Rain? White Squall?

Armageddon, deep impact. The best part is how they came in pairs.

 

[Chive Turkey]

even a film from the 90's that failed is still a far better watch because of their individuality.

Dead on. A terrible 90's movie is often still worth checking out because it can be a hilarious trainwreck. Watching even a mediocre modern Hollywood flick is just a miserable experience. They're just bland, boring and have nothing redeemable about them. Even the 'good' ones are only so because they're competently-made enough to outweigh and distract you from all the obnoxious corporate checklist shit, and pass the treshold into 'tolerable' territory.

A while back I rewatched The Phantom Menace for the first time in fucking eons and I was laughing my balls off throughout the film. The CGI and greenscreening has aged fucking horrifically, and the goofy dialogue and writing is still as bad as it was back then. I actually had fun laughing at how this was an anticipated major release production.

I can't imagine ever watching any of the Disney ones for the first time, let alone again. I only saw the second one because people dragged me into it and it was a dull mess.

 

[DiarrheaDick]

The modern disaster genre probably more closely resembles itself from 20-30 years ago than any other genre.


Armageddon, deep impact. The best part is how they came in pairs.

Volcano and Dante's Peak came out the same year, and had a similar rediculous premise (holy fuck, a volcano...here?) with Volcano taking the cake with regard to how silly it was. Yeah, surely row of Jersey barriers with dirt piled behind them is going to divert a lava flow.

 

[sorchEDearth]

Volcano and Dante's Peak came out the same year, and had a similar rediculous premise (holy fuck, a volcano...here?) with Volcano taking the cake with regard to how silly it was. Yeah, surely row of Jersey barriers with dirt piled behind them is going to divert a lava flow.

Speaking of... If anyone is the in the PNW making a road trip, be sure to stop into Wallace, ID. Dante's Peak was filmed there and you can see memorabilia for the film all over town.

 

[Naked_Militiaman]

Just look at Tommy Lee Jones’ filmography from the early 90’s alone:

1991 - JFK
1992 - Under Siege
1993 - The Fugitive

I’d watch any one of those over ANY capeshit movie released in the last 10 years (or any movie in fact). It’s depressing how many fun movies there used to be vs. now. I’d even take The Mighty Ducks or Beethoven over The Avengers or Get Out or whatever other fag shit they put out now.

 

[aRTie02150]

I remember when they filmed Blown Away and one of the controlled explosions was larger than anticipated and ended up blowing windows out all over my neighborhood. I was a very young kid and thought it was a real explosion down in the fucking river. Jeff Bridges almost died during that stunt if I remember correctly.

 

[Snake]

Just look at Tommy Lee Jones’ filmography from the early 90’s alone:

1991 - JFK
1992 - Under Siege
1993 - The Fugitive

I’d watch any one of those over ANY capeshit movie released in the last 10 years (or any movie in fact). It’s depressing how many fun movies there used to be vs. now. I’d even take The Mighty Ducks or Beethoven over The Avengers or Get Out or whatever other fag shit they put out now.

He carries The Fugitive. It's great, but he's just so good he steals every scene.

JFK while excellently directed and edited, the entirety of everything around the assassination is moot when you research the Israel connection and it's literally the only thing never discussed in the film.

 

[Mr. Faggotry]

Just look at Tommy Lee Jones’ filmography from the early 90’s alone:

1991 - JFK
1992 - Under Siege
1993 - The Fugitive

I’d watch any one of those over ANY capeshit movie released in the last 10 years (or any movie in fact). It’s depressing how many fun movies there used to be vs. now. I’d even take The Mighty Ducks or Beethoven over The Avengers or Get Out or whatever other fag shit they put out now.

Add in “Blown Away” for Jones early 90s movies too. Dogshit by 90s standards but would probably win an Oscar in 2021 if they replaced Jeff Bridges with a nigger.

 

[guest]

I was actually thinking about Twister the other day in one of those "wow, I'm old" moments. When I was a kid that was such a massive movie but I doubt anyone under 25 has even heard of it.

It's literally one of my 6 year old son's favourite movies.