Defining Culture
Let's get my position on the matter out of the way first: kids are stupid, they like anything and everything. And what they don't like, they cave into peer pressure to pretend to like to better fit in with the pop culture crowds. I was no different, and neither was anyone else.
Claiming that a certain movie (or set of movies) is a defining feature of a culture (specifically North American, in this case), is a slippery slope. It's not a specific style or genre that gets labelled, it's the piece of work itself. At the time of it's initial unleashing on the masses it may have been creative, original, and all sorts of good words. But twenty years later, it just doesn't fly.
This is where the nostalgia comes in. Of course Indiana Jones seems a lot better than you remember, and of course the last movie was utter crap compared to those bright, shiny memories of the original trilogy. But in reality, the movies were stupid. They were laughably stupid, and can only be seen as "good" now because they details and bad production and stories have faded into the back of your mind.
This was inspired by the shitstorm of Ghostbusters fans at Fandom Wank freaking out. So maybe I should address that film set in particular...
I didn't like it in 1990 (both movies coming out in 1984 and 1989, respectively), and I didn't like it when I watched them again a couple of weeks ago.
Yes, the movies are "iconic" (not really), in North American culture. But if I'm going to sit through a cheesy movie from my birth-decade, I'd rather watch David Bowie prance around as the Goblin King. At least Labyrinth has music and a kickass heroine.
The rants at Fandom Wank over all this is not actually about the reviewer not having seen Ghostbusters growing up-- it's that she didn't like them when she did finally see them. And a lot of responses seem to be "well, if she'd seen them sooner, when normal people did..."
See, I can relate. It took me 20 years to see The Princess Bride. But I liked it. It was stupid, cheesy, but well written and funny. I'd still take Stardust over it in a heartbeat, but it wasn't that bad. And I also watched Dirty Dancing for the first time a few weeks ago, and thought it was shit (really, how the fuck did that get seen as a good movie?). Same with Ghost.
I don't even like Disney stuff that much. I have a soft spot for Oliver and The Fox and the hound but that's about it.
Maybe it's my reluctance to jump on bandwagons, but even that doesn't make much sense since I fangirl over Supernatural and video games.
...Guh, still half-asleep.
Claiming that a certain movie (or set of movies) is a defining feature of a culture (specifically North American, in this case), is a slippery slope. It's not a specific style or genre that gets labelled, it's the piece of work itself. At the time of it's initial unleashing on the masses it may have been creative, original, and all sorts of good words. But twenty years later, it just doesn't fly.
This is where the nostalgia comes in. Of course Indiana Jones seems a lot better than you remember, and of course the last movie was utter crap compared to those bright, shiny memories of the original trilogy. But in reality, the movies were stupid. They were laughably stupid, and can only be seen as "good" now because they details and bad production and stories have faded into the back of your mind.
This was inspired by the shitstorm of Ghostbusters fans at Fandom Wank freaking out. So maybe I should address that film set in particular...
I didn't like it in 1990 (both movies coming out in 1984 and 1989, respectively), and I didn't like it when I watched them again a couple of weeks ago.
Yes, the movies are "iconic" (not really), in North American culture. But if I'm going to sit through a cheesy movie from my birth-decade, I'd rather watch David Bowie prance around as the Goblin King. At least Labyrinth has music and a kickass heroine.
The rants at Fandom Wank over all this is not actually about the reviewer not having seen Ghostbusters growing up-- it's that she didn't like them when she did finally see them. And a lot of responses seem to be "well, if she'd seen them sooner, when normal people did..."
See, I can relate. It took me 20 years to see The Princess Bride. But I liked it. It was stupid, cheesy, but well written and funny. I'd still take Stardust over it in a heartbeat, but it wasn't that bad. And I also watched Dirty Dancing for the first time a few weeks ago, and thought it was shit (really, how the fuck did that get seen as a good movie?). Same with Ghost.
I don't even like Disney stuff that much. I have a soft spot for Oliver and The Fox and the hound but that's about it.
Maybe it's my reluctance to jump on bandwagons, but even that doesn't make much sense since I fangirl over Supernatural and video games.
...Guh, still half-asleep.