New topic
Printable| Author | Message |
Did Hollywood produce its worst movies during the 90s? yeah, a movies thread I've heard a lot of moviegoers complaining that Hollywood started producing self-councious crap during the 80s (some might say since the late 70s, which is kind of true, the birth of the "high concept", merchandising and all), but those bad 80s movies had limited budget and often suffered (a well-deserved) limited theatrical release, but the 90s gave us crap with BIG budgets and long theatrical releases/promotional campaigns
I'm talking about movies like Super Mario Bros, Judge Dredd, TMNT 2 & 3, Barb Wire, Batman & Robin, Congo, Virtuosity, The Real McCoy, Home Alone 2 & 3, Junior, Space Jam, Johnny Memonic, Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, The Shadow, Twister, ShowGirls, Striptease, Waterworld, Romeo + Juliet, Anaconda, The Postman, Virus, etc just to name "a few" clunkers
it was the era of bad sequels, bad videogame adaptations, misguided comic-book adaptations, gross comedies, post-grunge teenage comedies/"drama", Van Damme and Seagal running rampant, Jim Carrey's early comedies, etc
I'm not sayin' that the 90s didn't give us a generous share of modern masterpieces (they did), but in my opinion, Hollywood had never produced so much EXPENSIVE/ANNOYING/UNINTERESTING shit at that point of movie history
so, which decade gave us the worst movies, the 80s? 90s? or the 00s?
discuss
 | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
What would you based this bad rating on? By St. Boogar and all the saints at the backside door of Purgatory! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
It's probably a wash.Late 80's had some bad stuff. My art book: http://www.lulu.com/spotl...ecomicskid
VIDEO WORK: http://sharadkantpatel.com MUSIC: https://soundcloud.com/ufoclub1977 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Sounds like you're describing the 2010s. Most of Hollywood is crap, but you have to activily seek out the good stuff now. I'm talking about directors like Terrence Malick, Gus Van Sant, Quentin Tarantino, Jim Jarmusch and Martin Scorsese. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
That was my first thought. I will forever love and miss you...my sweet Prince. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
My "worst movie ever made" Armageddon was released in the 90's, so yeah. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I think it's the invention of the regular person being able to buy movies that make the bad ones stand out. Prior to that bad movies just fell into a void that eventually nobody remembers they ever existed. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I do remember 1999 as being a good year for movies. It was Being John Malkovich, American Beauty and The Straight Story that year. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
By St. Boogar and all the saints at the backside door of Purgatory! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
I know thats when music started to suck |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
^Yeah, that is true. But at least we had Quentin Tarantino. I discovered The Delfonics, The Coasters and Charlie Feathers thanx 2 him!  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anaconda is a huge guility pleasure. How can you not have fun with Jon Vought being eaten and spit out Pistols sounded like "Fuck off," wheras The Clash sounded like "Fuck Off, but here's why.."- Thedigitialgardener
All music is shit music and no music is real- gunsnhalen Datdonkeydick- Asherfierce Gary Hunts Album Isn't That Good- Soulalive | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Late 80's Keenmeister |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
let's not forget about the John Grisham's adaptations or Speed 2
jezz !!!!! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
which movies???
are those movies worse than the ones I listed?? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Meg Ryan's golden age...
NUFF SAID... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
From what you mention, I only like Showgirls & Mortal Kombat. Those are awesomely bad films that are still fun to watch. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The rest of those other films can f*** off because they really suck! 
). But at least those films were fun to watch on Friday & Saturday Nights. The terrible films of the 1990's just doesn't have that fun charm to me.Every era of film has had good and bad. It's just that, over time, the good stuff is what stays with people and gets replayed. So people think, "Ah, the 30s and 40s - back when film was good." The 90s are more recent - the "filtering over time" thing hasn't really happened yet.
But no matter what happens, 1939 will always be the best year in the history of film. This is a fact. We don’t mourn artists because we knew them. We mourn them because they helped us know ourselves. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
^Please name a few titles. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The Wizard of Oz* Stagecoach* Goodbye, Mr. Chips* Dark Victory* Wuthering Heights* Ninotchka* Mr. Smith Goes to Washington* Of Mice and Men* Love Affair* Gunga Din The Women The Old Maid Drums Along the Mohawk The Rains Came Dodge City Union Pacific Bachelor Mother The Four Feathers The Hunchback of Notre Dame Intermezzo Jamaica Inn Midnight Only Angels Have Wings The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex Young Mr. Lincoln We don’t mourn artists because we knew them. We mourn them because they helped us know ourselves. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I don't know if the 90s is the worst decade for film, but the 60s has been 'proven' to be the most creative: Number Crunching Shows Old Movies Are More Creative Than New Ones
By Adam Mann 10.10.139:30 AM Tell your film buff friends they’re right: the most creative period in cinema history was probably the 1960s. At least that’s the takeaway from a detailed data analysis of novel and unique elements in movies throughout much of the 20th century. How do you objectively measure creativity in movies? Though there’s probably no perfect way, the recent research mined keywords generated by users of the website the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), which contains descriptions of more than 2 million films. When summarizing plots, people on the site are prompted to use keywords that have been used to describe previous movies, yielding tags that characterize particular genres (cult-film), locations (manhattan-new-york), or story elements (tied-to-a-chair). Each keyword was given a score based on its rarity when compared to previous work. If some particular plot point – like, say, beautiful-woman – had appeared in many movies that preceded a particular film, it was given a low novelty value. But a new element – perhaps martial-arts, which appeared infrequently in films before the ’60s – was given a high novelty score when it first showed up. The scores ranged from zero to one, with the least novel being zero. Lining up the scores chronologically showed the evolution of film culture and plots over time. The results appeared Sept. 26 in Nature Scientific Reports. The researcher behind the findings, physicist Sameet Sreenivasan of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York, was at first somewhat surprised at some of his results. “You always hear about how the period from 1929 to 1950 was known as the Golden Age of Hollywood,” he said. “There were big movies with big movie stars. But if you look at novelty at that time, you see a downward trend.” This result is likely familiar to any student of film history, who knows that this golden age also corresponded to a time when nearly all movies were produced and released by a handful of studios. The Big Five in particular reigned supreme through the practice of block booking. Studios produced several A-movies with big stars and high production values. But local theatres, which were monopolistically owned by the Big Five, were forced to also show the studio’s B-movies, often starring rising or fading actors and featuring formulaic plot lines. When the studio system crumbled in the mid-50s, there was a burst of creativity. Audiences were introduced to independent films of the American New Wave genre — such as Bonnie and Clyde, released in 1967 — as well as European art house, French New Wave, spaghetti westerns, and Japanese cinema. The novel styles, plot lines, and film techniques create a noticeable uptick in Sreenivasan’s analysis. Unsurprisingly, the research also suggests that unfamiliar combinations of themes or plots that haven’t been encountered before (something like sci-fi-western) often have the highest novelty scores. “I think this reinforces this idea that novelty is often variations on a theme,” said Sreenivasan. “You use familiar elements broadly, and then combine them in novel ways.” Sreenivasan’s analysis shows trends within particular genres as well. Action movies are essentially redefined in 1962 with the release of the first James Bond movie. Science-fiction films, on the other hand, show no similar creative uptick during the same period. According to the analysis, novelty in sci-fi has declined essentially since the genre first made it into movies. It’s possible that this has to do with early science-fiction films codifying the major tropes seen in these movies. Another part of the analysis seem to correspond to theories put forth by social scientists about how much we enjoy novelty in creative works, said Sreenivasan. In general, humans enjoy new things. More specifically, there’s a tendency for people to look at and like things that are new but not too new. “If it’s way out there, it’s hard to palate,” said Sreenivasan. “And if it’s too familiar, then it seems boring.” A model known as the Wundt-Berlyne curve illustrates this result. The amount of pleasure someone derives from a creative piece goes up as its novelty increases. But at a certain point, there is a maximum of enjoyment. After that, something becomes too unfamiliar to stomach anymore. Using the revenue generated by different films as a measure of its mass appeal, Sreenivasan foundthat more novel films sold more tickets until they reached a score of about 0.8. Afterwards, they appeared to decline in popularity and revenue. “I thought overall this was quite an interesting study,” said mathematician and computer scientist Erez Lieberman Aiden of Baylor College of Medicine and Rice University, who helped develop Google’sNgram Viewer. Aiden added that he wondered if there was some bias in the way tags were applied to older movies. Modern day audiences might not notice certain subtleties or differences in movies from the ’30s, ’40s, and ’50s, perhaps making them appear more uniform in the final result. As well, cultural events at the time when a particular tag became heavily used could skew the results. People tagging movies shortly after 9/11 might be more inclined to use the word “terrorism,” for instance. Even with these potential sources of bias, Aiden said the study was “a good starting point for thinking about this question in a quantitative way.”
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
there's alot of crap movies being made from 2000 till now |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Come on! Forrest Gump, Waiting to Exhale, The Usual Suspects, A Bronx Tale, Carlito's Way Fight Club, Analyze This....all 90s movies.....all great to me! LOL! Trolls be gone! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
We were just talking about Jamaica Inn, I haven't seen it. Or much else on the list! There's no time My art book: http://www.lulu.com/spotl...ecomicskid
VIDEO WORK: http://sharadkantpatel.com MUSIC: https://soundcloud.com/ufoclub1977 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Have to disagree with Forest Gump, didn't like that movie. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
The 90s had some of the best cinematography. The high quality of the film stock, improved camera technology and photographers who knew how what they were doing. Pulp Fiction, Casino, Seven, and Boogie Nights had gorgeous, vivid images that popped off the screen. Movies today with the exception of the Master, Tree of Life, and the Assassination of Jesse James look muddy, washed out, and fuzzy. And dont get me started on the abuse of shaky cam in todays movies. I think the 90s was last great era of truly cinematic magic. Movies weren't afraid to be a little hokey or sentimental if the story called for it. There was still a sense of wonder and fun at least in mainstream movies. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Those movies you listed all look completely different from each other! My art book: http://www.lulu.com/spotl...ecomicskid
VIDEO WORK: http://sharadkantpatel.com MUSIC: https://soundcloud.com/ufoclub1977 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
I didn't say they all looked the same. I said they all had expectional cinematography. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The mid 2000's used a LOT of the color saturated cinematography. That kind of look is interesting for short films of dream sequenses, but it was just oversued and took you out of the moment. I love film, but I also love the low light photography capabilities of the new digital cameras used on some TV shows. They bring a whole new dimesion to naturalistic photography, especially low light. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I think film technology of today is a bit odd because you can see damn near every single pore on a person's skin and that's WITH all the makeup, concealer, etc.
Another great 90s movie? The Birdcage (Robin Williams, Nathan Lane, Hank Azaria, etc.) Trolls be gone! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |