People who like bad movies have been conditioned by consumerism to not appreciate art. They believe spectacle, humour, and a tight plot are ‘good enough’, and they don’t value thoughtfulness, novelty, beauty, or abrasiveness nearly enough. Film is more than a way to fill time and have fun. Film is more than an explosion, a laugh, and a happy ending.
On an unrelated note: Mad Max: Fury Road is one of my favourite movies.
It’s strange that you said that and then said you liked fury road. I thought fury road was the epitome of spectacle and production value with actual value.
I added that to sort of admit my own hypocrisy; I tried to exaggerate my opinion a bit for the sake of spurring discussion. I mostly believe what I said, but my real thoughts are much messier and less well thought out.
What would you consider a “bad movie,” because I wouldn’t consider a “tight plot” one of their shared features. Spectacle: absolutely, humor: frequently, tight plot: if only.
I wouldn’t agree that Marvel films have a competent plot, but maybe that’s because I generally struggle to follow the plot through all the other crap, and am left wondering “was that a plot hole or did I space out during all the explosions and miss a critical line of dialogue?”
I explain it like this: people assume beer is one product but most economists actually study it as two distinct products: mass production beer and craft beer. They actually behave like two separate markets. People like each for very different reasons. And consumer behavior is very different around both.
That’s how I feel about Film and Movies. We may watch them both on a screen, but other than that they are very different things. And you can like both! I love the MCU films. But I don’t go expecting intellectual expositions.
I also love Dead Poets Society, Hidden Figures, and Argo. Let people like things. Let people like different things differently. It’s OK.
One of the most recent ones I watched was Whisper of the Heart. It can be summed up as “girl meets a cute guy, girl wants to be an author, writes about a cat in a parallel universe, finds an antique shop, random proposal at the end”, it was like watching a clipshow. I remember reading reviews for Totoro and them trying really hard to beat around the bush with “ah it doesn’t have a cohesive plot, buuuut…” and then the rest of the review, almost like they didn’t care because it was Studio Ghibli. I’ve seen movies panned for that (e.g. Alita Battle Angel or Spiderman 2).
Studio Ghibli today is a pale shadow of what it was in the 80s and 90s.
Most of the new stuff they did has been repeated over and over again to the point that they are no longer ‘new’ to a modern audience. Half of modern Japanese pop-culture, and a significant share of modern Chinese and Western pop culture borrow from their three early films (Cagliostro, Nausicaa and Laputa). Nausicaa is probably the single most influential animated movie in history.
To fully appreciate Totoro, you have to watch Grave of the Fireflies first.
I mean some of them show their age a bit and ok some of them rehash ideas from preceding ones, but it’s hard to think of any Miyazaki movie that did nothing for me at all.
If you ever want to ruin Princess Mononoke, just think "what exactly does the main character guy do to advance the plot?" The answer: almost nothing haha
I don’t think that ruins it for me, rather the opposite. Ashitaka is a member of a tribe far away from the places in the movie. When he gets there he is just an observer to the war between industry and nature and wants to form his own opinion. He gets sucked into it and even if he did nothing the story would have continued almost the same, bar the ending where he then has made up his mind. I’d have to watch it again and spare more than a few minutes before sleepy time to write a better response, but those are my two cents
I mean in general, not really all of them (for example, Spirited Away gets honorable mention on every list). I remember reviewers for Totoro trying their hardest to not spotlight the fact it has such a jumbled plot when movies have been panned for that before. A masterpiece is supposed to impart something onto someone, but except for Spirited Away and arguably Marnie, my main reaction was little more than “well now I can say I saw it”.
Grave of the fireflies left a deep impression with me. I recently saw a bunch of them with my girlfriend and I’ve come to the conclusion that most are nice looking long TV show episodes. Which is fine for what the are.
Being all their ages didn’t change a lot for me (not sure how normal that is amongst those age groups). Except for Totoro which I watched when I was four if I remember correctly, I was roughly a preteen to teen when I watched all of them (or all the ones I watched, which is all but three) up to The Boy and the Heron (which just came out, I’m an adult now) which would only put me out of range with Ponyo and Porco Rosso when I watched those. Most people have a good sense of feeling for a story that adds up. I was little when I watched Totoro and little me had to stop myself from getting distracted from the movie itself.
I don't know...I watched princess mononoke and was pretty impressed by the movie. Only other anime I've watched is ghost in the shell which I thought was alright. I'm not really an anime fan but I'm super glad I watched princess mononoke!
I think Mononoke was easily the weakest of Miyazaki’s movies but it’s the one everyone raves about because it was the first one to see a widespread and non-butchered release in the West on DVD.
The earlier Totoro, Kiki, and to a lesser extent Laputa are all better movies, in my opinion. The former two shine exceptionally by being charming slice-of-life vignettes from a time before that sort of thing was the mega genre it is today, managing to be captivating stories that somehow don’t need or contain any kind of villain, quest, or cliché call to adventure whatsoever.
Laputa does – in spades – but it’s still great. It’s got so many villains that it’s got two sets of bad guys, but one set of bad guys turn out not to be bad guys and basically the entire damn movie is a flying scene of some type or another and it’s fantastic. Castle of Cagliostro is also awesome, and it was arguably one of those pivotal Citzen Kane style moments for the medium that turned out to be surprisingly influential to subsequent works, both animated and not. (And also introduced an entire generation to the only version of Lupin who is not an huge asshole, much to the surprise of everyone who watched this movie first and went on to check out… any… other Lupin III works.) Cagliostro was so influential that Japan’s (former) Princess Sayako based her real life wedding dress off of Clarise’s dress from the movie, and said so.
RIP scroll bar and scroll wheel. I’m swiping down to move the bar, which does the heavy lifting of moving the page up for me. This allows me to scroll more with less fatigue and thus I can consume more internet and therefore get more knowledge. Plus, swiping down works your bigger superior forearm muscles, which is the part of the arm that the ladies like, whereas swiping up works the inferior muscle on the other side that no one cares about. In conclusion, scroll down for bigger brain, better grip, and more birches.
Welp got a feeling I've got a doozy of an unpopular opinion, but that's why we're here. I don't like any of Tarantino's films. I find all the characters unlikeable or insufferable. I also fell asleep in the theater watching Kill Bill 2.
Tarantino is overrated. You have to watch a lot of movies to come to this realisation, because otherwise you don't realise his movies are often in large part a collage of other movies. Movies which did what he does better. That means that it doesn't actually matter that Tarantino is overrated for most movie goers. More generally, this is why critics' opinions don't actually matter that much. They've watched too many movies and likely know too much about movies, to tell the average audience goer if they'll enjoy a movie.
Once you've watched a few thousand movies, and especially if you've ever studied film or read a few books about it, you'll often find you enjoy interesting but shit movies more, than very well made but unoriginal movies. People who truly love film, invariably aren't snobs. They enjoy absolute trash, they enjoy arty farty stuff. If someone has a related degree or even a doctorate or works in the industry, the likelihood is high that they're also a fan of B-movies. They don't need to pretend to be knowledgeable, because they are. A film snob will bore you with the details of a Tarkovski movie. A cinephile is more likely to bang on about 80s horror movies, lesbian vampire sexploitation movies, Albert Pyun's Cyborg, or Troma's The Toxic Avenger.
Almost all art is influenced by other art. But Tarantino very closely copies some scenes. Think a literal collage, made up of photocopied bits of another work, rather than a painting inspired or influenced by another work. Tarantino is honest about this.
Is that a great painting? I quite like it, it's iconic, but it's not the Mona Lisa, and Warhol is not Da Vinci.
People who haven't watched a lot of movies, think Tarantino is Da Vinci. That he created an iconic scene, like Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa.
People who have watched a lot of movies, realise he's Warhol. There's an iconic scene, but it's based on an original work, like Warhol's Mona Lisa.
There's nothing wrong with Warhol. Hell, it's ok to think that Warhol is a better artist than Da Vinci, think that Warhol's Mona Lisa is a better painting than the original Mona Lisa, art is subjective after all.
But it's a mistake to think Warhol is a genius, because he painted the Mona Lisa. He didn't. That was Da Vinci. If you're going think Warhol is a genius, you should think he's a genius because he took an existing work and manipulated it in a way that is genius.
It's been a while, and he references dozens of movies, so much so that you're watching his movies and think "wait, I've seen this before" and then you're distracted by the next scene you've seen before. But off the top of my head Vanishing Point, Foxy Brown, Lady Snowblood, Bruce Lee movies, and the Dirty Dozen.
But don't watch those. I probably enjoyed Vanishing Point the most, Bruce Lee in Game of Death is also fun, but often they have a few good scenes, the ones that Tarantino copied (sometimes poorly), but the rest of the movie can be a bit meh. Instead watch Oldboy, Lady Vengeance, In the Mood for Love, Infernal Affairs, Unforgiven, and (why not) Enter the Void. Not that those are my favourite movies, but they're movies that shouldn't bore you.
This is how I’ve come to view anime. You can tell the age of an anime fan by whether they’re enamored by the latest hit series or they sigh and go “this is just a remake of [old series from the 90s/00s].” I don’t give a shit how well made a series is; if the premise is “been there done that” without an original take or twist, or a tired and worn trope gets trotted out (looking at you, every fucking series that includes a scene where a female character comments enviously on another female character’s large breasts, yes Frieren that means you), then I’m insta-jaded on the series. At a certain point you realize anime relies heavily on its perpetual fandom refresh, with new fans replacing the ones who “aged out.” For me, I knew it had gotten bad when I was struggling to enjoy Cyberpunk because I felt like I had heard all the voices before in previous series.
It occurred to me why The Wiggles have been making so much money for so long: they only need to have enough material to entertain kids for a few years, and the ages that they’re targeting are the ones who love repetition anyway! Most entertainers need to constantly improve and evolve, but kids entertainers just need to enthusiastically do the same thing over and over.
I think one of the differences (at least when I watched anime way back in the early 00s) is that anime relies on a whole different set of tropes from Western movies and cartoons, and those tropes are unfamiliar (or were, anyway) to Western audiences.
When I started watching anime, it was hugely refreshing to be caught by surprise by plot twists and dialogue, and to see characters & themes that felt totally original.
But then you watch more anime, and realize…oh, they weren’t unique, they were totally stereotypical. You just didn’t know the stereotypes they were based on.
And before long you can see plot twists a mile away, the characters are predictable, and you can describe a new series as “basically X, but with some Y and monsters instead of robots”.
It’s the false promise of that initial discovery that makes the eventual realization that much more disappointing.
Agreed, the novelty of anime was a huge draw for me as well (especially since at the time there weren’t any anime-influenced Western cartoons). There are of course still standouts in anime that were revolutionary at the time and have since aged well (such as NGE and Cowboy Bebop, both of which are now over two decades old). There are also a few series that maybe weren’t masterpieces but still feel unique, as well as a handful that are cultural behemoths in and of themselves (like Gundam). But as with all media, the more you consume the more patterns emerge until the whole medium starts to feel tired.
I enjoy Tarantino movies. It all boils down to: are they solid fun entertainment or not, and to me the answer is yes.
Someone else did it better elsewhere? Sure, and he is very forthcoming about his influences. So if you’re a fan, you’ll likely find his sources and enjoy those too. Win win.
I would love to spend a night with him, sitting together at a kitchen table, him constantly ranting about movies and giving anecdotes, me pouring more wine…
I’m not sure I get your point, but I agree with your premise. Tarantino has made some ok movies but more often than not I find them boring, with poor acting and absurdly uninteresting story lines.
The easiest route to learning about movies, is to watch a lot of movies, and reading about the movie you've just watched. Wikipedia, a more in depth review, interviews with people who made the movie (not just the actors).
Google a top 100 list. Work your way through a few of them. Eg.
Yes, he has a PhD and is a member of the British Academy of Film and Television Arts, the UK equivalent of the Academy of Motion Pictures. No, he's not a snob. Texas Chainsaw Massacre's in the top 10. So are some older classics, which are still good.
Wow, thank you so much for all the recommendations! I sometimes feel like I don’t know how to watch certain kinds of movies (e.g., older movies, or more artsy movies). I hope reading up a bit will help me appreciate them more
Millennials are ignorant of Rodney King Riots, Desert Storm, Waco / Oklahoma City Bomber (far right domestic terrorism), Newt Gingrich’s rise of the ‘Party of No’, and other such political events of their era. Pop quiz, what is the Cranberries’s Zombie song about?
Gen Z however is keenly aware of the problems occurring around them.
I remember the politics of the 90s. It wasn’t as happy as others point out here. We really didn’t start the fire.
Columbine happened under our childhood yo. And the 1980s going Postal craze was a different brand of public mass shootings. 9/11 was the SECOND attack on the Twin towers after all.
Good. Now look at the rest of this thread downstream. Plenty of people talking about how “peaceful” the 90s were as if they didn’t live in that era.
I stand by what I said. Millennials largely were ignorant of world events before 9/11 and the overall explosion of information the internet afforded us. Meanwhile, GenZ always lived in post 9/11 world AND always had information at their fingertips.
Nerds weren’t celebrated back in the 90s. If you knew too much back then (or showed that you knew too much), people would look at you funny and bully you. Today, knowledge is more generally appreciated.
Plenty of people talking about how “peaceful” the 90s were as if they didn’t live in that era.
Well, those people are wrong. They may have felt that way, based on their own experiences and perspectives, but they can’t speak for the entire generation. None of us can.
Mate we were literal children during these events.
Much like Zoomers are young adults or teens today, look at our teenage years and young adulthood and focus on those events. No Zoomer was politically motivated at 4 years old nor was I during the Rodney King Riots.
We fucking had global protests with hundreds of millions standing up against the 1% and American wars.
We were and still are well aware of the problems around today as well.
Mate we were literal children during these events.
My literal 7 year old niece knows about both the Israel-Hamas War and the Ukrainian War.
I duno how old you were, but lets say 3 years after the Rodney King riots of 92? So lemme pick a random 1995 event. Were you aware that Israel Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated when you were 7? Something I do remember was the USS Cole bombing. Do you remember that? That happened a bit later, Wikipedia says 12 October 2000.
The issue isn’t “we were children”. The issue is that research and information was far more difficult back then. Newspapers cost money and required manual reading. (Though I was able to pickup a few Newspapers when I was waiting for a haircut or other such events). We didn’t have online forums (well, ignoring BBS and USENET)… or at least online forums weren’t popular. And internet was very expensive and slow back then. So we didn’t get information anywhere as quickly as children today get information.
Secondly, it wasn’t “cool” to be politically informed before 9/11. That was just nerd shit back then. 9/11 changed our collective mindsets and everyone became more aware of world events.
You literal 7 year old is not 5. Of those events you listed, the Troubles is the only one I was over 4 years to experience the end portion.
Okay so you were 7 during the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin and you were 12 during the bombing of the USS Cole and you were 7 during the Oklahoma City Bombing. You were 9 during the US Embassy Bombings (linked to Osama Bin Laden: en.wikipedia.org/…/1998_United_States_embassy_bom…).
We all know children today, even literal 7 year olds, are more informed than we were back then. Like seriously, we couldn’t look up information back then. Its nothing against us as a generation, its everything to do with our technological level.
And with 25-million subscribers, that’s only some ~25% of American-households with AOL back then, at its absolute peak. Internet in general was never a common thing for Americans to get until the Broadband era.
If you want to talk about the internet in the 90s, be my guest. But any Millennial who lived through that era remembers that the internet was relatively rare. Most people’s exposure was through libraries and maybe schools/university systems.
Do you not remember how bad search was before Google?
It was like being at the library and using that card index system. It was like “welp, hopefully there’s a book someone decided to tag ‘field mice’ because that’s the only way I’m gonna find information about field mice”.
I think this ties back to the original question. Gen Z is way more exposed to social media and therefore world news including propaganda at levels millennials never saw until adulthood. In the 90s you needed to watch the news or read the newspaper to know what was happening and if you missed it you would only know about it if it was broadcasted again. Nowadays we’re bombarded 24/7 with all kinds of news in the same place where you watch funny dog videos.
Yup. Its nothing about “better” or “worse”. Its about the technological differences of today’s children vs myself as a child.
Here’s a memory for yall who are too young to remember how dumb we were in the 90s. On 9/11, bullies were blaming China (and me, being a slanty-eye Asian) for bringing down the Twin Towers. I think people don’t grasp how unfathomably ignorant pre-Internet and pre-9/11 people were. Such a mistake wouldn’t happen today.
Nothing against those bullies. Everyone was that dumb back then.
9/11 was a big wakeup moment. Society collectively decided that paying attention to world events was important, and we got smarter. Technology improved as well, so it became easier to look up news events after that. But deep down within our collective psyche was a turning point in foreign-policy mindset. I’m seeing that Gen Z today is far more anxious and worried about world events (both good, and bad, associated with that). The 90s “peaceful” era of my youth was an illusion, it was created by my (and my peer’s) collective ignorance about the world.
I look at my ignorant Youth vs what GenZ grows up with today, I see pros/cons with both. I think knowing more about the world is a better thing overall though.
I’m also a millennial and all my friends are millennials.
Outside of my history-buff friends, most of my friends (despite being Engineers, Doctors, PH.Ds and other well-educated positions) are very ignorant of the 90s era of politics. All of us have had our awakening starting with 9/11 or so. In fact, the only reason why I know these things is because I explicitly went back and studied the politics of my childhood. Its not a thing I knew back then.
Most of my elders who were young adults and adults in the 90s don’t know what that song is about either.
Typical Gen Z will know “This is America” references the Charleston church shooting. As well as adults.
You know why? Because today, we have the internet, and everyone is far more knowledgable and can pick up on references. Back in the 90s, “Zombie is about The Troubles” was obscure, and hell… just knowing what “The Troubles” were was kind of obscure with a lot of people completely ignorant to the events.
Today, we have things called cellphones, Wikipedia and Google. The level of obscurity and references in our modern media landscape is far more subtle because everyone and everything is smarter. Have you ever use the Dewey Decimal System, card catalog, and microfiche to look up information? Shit was hard to do research back then.
The best we had in the 90s was Encarta, ya know, that CD-ROM Microsoft sent with some computers?
My library was on Dewey Decimal / Card Catalog for a good chunk of my childhood. If I was looking up information, it was like that. The computers were some weird old DOS-like prompt screen that almost no one knew how to use. No fucking internet. My Dad happened to be able to get Microsoft Encarta and that was the first time I ever was able to look up information in any manner similar to today, but as a CD-ROM it was only about historical / cultural old stuff, not about recent events.
No, I’m a millennial I used the Internet.
And secondly, bullshit. Wikipedia wasn’t invented yet… and if it had been invented, it wasn’t respected until the 2010s+ (unable to be used to write our school reports off of). So what website were you even using back then if you happened to magically have access to the Internet?
We were playing Neopets, maybe using GameFAQs or spreading memes on SomethingAwful. But looking up information? What is this, 2010s+ ?? No one trusted the internet yet for information.
Wikipedia started in '01. I was absolutely using it before '02/'03 for schoolwork. Just because you didn't know about it or how to cite things doesn't mean that applies to everyone.
You're very combative that anyone could've had a different experience than you. Internet in the 90's was not abnormal. Usenet/IRC/AIM/other various messengers were all big then even if it was the latter end.
Rage Against the Machine was huge in the 90s, just because you sang along not noticing the lyrics doesn't mean everyone else did either.
Wikipedia started in '01. I was absolutely using it before '02/'03 for schoolwork. Just because you didn’t know about it or how to cite things doesn’t mean that applies to everyone.
100% bullshit. You’re forgetting that I’ve actually lived in this era. No teacher was accepting of Wikipedia citations until the later 00s. There was no trust on Wikipedia’s articles until much later. You didn’t cite Wikipedia because your Teachers would penalize you for doing so. (and this culture was true well throughout all the 00s). Citations on the other hand, were just a Microsoft Word / .doc plugin so it wasn’t that big a deal.
Furthermore: there were competing online wikis and webpages. I don’t even think Wikipedia was the breakout wiki at that age, but instead the C2 Wiki.
I know every event you listed, including the implied first attack on the twin towers. I was born in 93. I used to read forums and remember chat rooms during the early modern internet.
Your experience was simply not like mine, did you download the old doom shareware wads? They were hosted by id, online, before I was even able to use a computer. Diablo? Downloadable updates! Anyone remember that?
Ummm… no. I loaded it through a floppy found in the mail through a system called shareware. (Where people would leave floppy disks in people’s mailboxes, and we didn’t know what viruses were so we just plugged them into our computers).
Did you actually exist in the 90s? That was floppy era of shareware, you’d spread games like Doom by mail and/or by copying the floppy and giving it to a friend. That’s why it was called SHAREware, you shared it with friends. In some cases, computer stores would combine a bunch of shareware games into CD-ROMs (650MBs!!! So much space!!) and you’d get a lot of shareware all at once.
Oh my goodness, it’s almost like what I said had nothing to do woth floppy disks or even discrediting their use.
According to the US census, 18 percent of housholds had internet use at home. Yahoo was around in 1995, usenet usage started dropping, and school systems started getting schoolwide internet access.
Your memory is vapid and you are clearly misremembering large swaths of important facts.
Looks like 22% had internet at home, but over 54% had a computer.
How do you think the majority of computer users played Castle of the Winds, Jazz Jackrabbit, Doom, or other shareware games? Hint: it wasn’t the internet because most computer users didn’t have internet.
1993, the previous census figures are even worse as that’s before AOL
Btw, downloads weren’t a thing even for those who had internet. Back then, you paid per minute hour of internet usage.
My family connected to the internet to download (POP3) out email and then disconnected. Because my Mom would then want to use the phone to call her friends. Unless you had two phone lines like a rich person, extended multi-hour download sessions at 33kbps (or slower) was just not a thing.
That’s 14MB per hour, if you don’t remember how slow 90s internet was.
The college students with T1 connections were the source of shareware / disks by the later 90s (like 97, 98 etc. Etc). But home users weren’t doing online downloads yet, too expensive and too slow.
In a letter sent to the service’s members Oct. 28, AOL Chairman Steve Case touted a new pricing plan that offers unlimited access to the service’s proprietary content as well as to the Internet for $19.95 a month.
[Snip]
Until the new unlimited plan was unveiled, all users paid $9.95 a month for 5 hours of usage and $2.95 for each additional hour.
This is what I remembered. My dad always told me to watch the Internet usage, because it cost money for each hour. These were 5-hours / month plans back then. That being said, 1996 is a year before Diablo, meaning the “unlimited” plans came in soon afterwards. But “unlimited” didn’t really work out in our favor because my mom and grandma who lived with us always wanted to use the phone.
And we were the only kids of the neighborhood who had internet. People came over to our house to surf the net.
First of all, I think this is you being an older millennial, my formative millennial memories, especially politically, mostly happened in the 2000s.
I think what you don’t even realize your comment shows is that most of these events, while they seem like paradigm-shifting events when put into historical context and tied together with the decade of history they were surrounded by don’t actually have a significant impact on the individual.
I was aware as a millennial growing up of many events like these that happened in my life. followed the news in and out. But now I couldn’t even tell you much if any of the significant details of any of them.
I noticed you didn’t include 9/11 as a forgotten event, an event that was truly significant in a way. Much in the same way, I’m sure most of gen z will be aware of those same types of events when they get older but will only really remember COVID, maybe something about Trump too.
Go look at this “90s was full of hope” crap that the rest of this thread is full of.
There were the Troubles in Ireland/Britain, there was Osama Bin Laden (1993 Bombing, 1998 Embassy Bombings). The was far-right nationalism. There was Columbine. There was Rodney King race riots. There was Desert Storm 1.0. There was Ruby Ridge and Waco. Etc. etc.
I dare say that today is possibly more peaceful than back then. We just are more informed about various disasters today than we used to be. All this “Era of Peace” crap the rest of this thread is talking about is pissing me off. It wasn’t like that in the 90s at all.
I’m bringing up the Troubles because 90s-era Troubles got pretty bad, up to the Good Friday Agreement in the very late 90s. The world was always on fire, and any 90s kid talking about “The Peaceful 90s” has extremely selective memory.
I’m among the first millennials. I grew up without a computer. While we had that single, ancient Apple II in school for the Oregon trail, it was just as a “treat” and never in any serious educational use. Didn’t even have a computer lab till high school, and all they really taught us was word processing/typing. I was lucky we had some extra off site courses available that taught some IT, CAD, HTML, and programming. But that was by the end of the 90s, 1998-99.
But yeah, point I’m making is while computers were around, not everyone really knew about them. I think there were a good number of middle class millennials who got to grow up with access to a computer at home. My family was too broke to lay down 2 grand on a computer that my parents had no understanding what it was useful for.
A lot of millennials learned more IT skills due to user unfriendly operating systems, whereas a lot of GenZ don’t have as much exposure to that, due to phones being way more capable and having OS’s being more user friendly and locked down.
Millennials remember when video games weren’t pay to win.
So do millennials. There were a lot of really popular arcade beat ‘em ups in the 90’s. People claiming to be millennials who deny that are lying about one thing or another.
The digital landscape is so different. I teach undergraduates and it’s hit or miss whether they understand what a file path is. But honestly, I’m not sure it will be relevant in the same way for much longer. I grew up installing games from CD and establishing a specific file path and folder for install and if I did it wrong it wouldn’t work. With GUI’s becoming more simple and intuitive, combined with advances in machine learning and algorithmic design, I have no problem imagining a future where all file structures are transparent to the user.
Imagine an AI llm combined with an OS file search. Like “two years ago I was playing Skyrim and I installed a lot of mods, and I think one of them turned all the dragons into Kirby. Where was the installer for that mod?”
And then your computer is like “I gotcha bro, here’s the installer right here.”
That’d be pretty cool. But then again it’d probably also go “I’ll go ahead and install it for you. And hey, while I’m at it I know you’re gonna love this ad tracking program that paid M$ a few million dollars for your info, so Imma install that too. If you’d rather not install it, feel free to find your files and run the installer yourself”
Feel free to build your own computer from sand and charcoal. You’re totally free to do things your own way so long as you don’t use our platform, and don’t forget We Own Everything Already ™. You’re welcome to start your own village on another planet somewhere and take all the sand you need. But you can’t use our rockets to get there.
That’s funny I’d call that opaque not transparent.
I certainly don’t like that there are browsers that hide the full URL. That’s a key part of safe browsing in my opinion: watching the domain name and the parameters. Like, if the link doesn’t point to a domain you trust be careful with it you know? But you can’t know that if it’s not showing link targets or if the URL is obfuscated
We also remember when most video games involved having a finite number of lives and having to start over completely if you lost them all.
Some games are like this today, but not many. Back in the day it was the basic assumption of every video game. Based off arcade games. And it seemed so natural.
And finite lives was bad. Like super Mario world on the snes. The only penalty for running out of lives was that you start at the beginning of the level and not at the checkpoint.
Arcade games or handheld or video games didn’t have any storage. Even on old home computers if you’d want to program in a save feature, you’d need to instruct the user to change to a fresh cassette for save. Then back to the game tape for reloading the game. And rewind and find the save on top of that to load.
It took a long time before floppies became ubiquitous, even longer for hard disks.
Millennials remember when video games weren’t pay to win.
You mean like arcade beat ‘em ups that are near impossible to complete on one credit? Or Gauntlet, where you literally got more health just from inserting coins?
You speak with such authority, and yet, I know you are not a millennial. A millennial would know that arcades were white-hot in the 90’s. Have you ever heard of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? Turtles in Time? The Simpsons? X-Men? All those Neo Geo games? There was also this game called…um, street something…streets of fighting? Street Kombat? Mortal Fighter? Street Fighter? I think they made a second one of those, too. Shoot, where did that come out originally? It’s escaping me right now. It’ll come to me eventually.
Edit: I’m re-reading your post; and you contradict yourself. You say people born in the early 80’s are millennials, but if you were a kid in the 80’s that makes you gen x? Do you not know how math works? Someone born in the early 80’s would be a kid during the 80’s.
Anyway, the more I think about it, the more “arcade games weren’t popular in the 90’s” seems like one of the top 5 dumbest takes I have ever read on the internet.
Have you ever heard of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? Turtles in Time? The Simpsons? X-Men? All those Neo Geo games? There was also this game called…um, street something…streets of fighting? Street Kombat? Mortal Fighter? Street Fighter?
Yes and most if not all of those landed on console too. Your point?
I’m not saying that arcades are unsuccessful in the 90s. I’m saying for millennials, the notion of video games had shifted from primarily arcade to primarily console due to the console boom in the 90s, thus supporting OP’s point that Millenials should remember a time when games are not pay-to-win.
You say people born in the early 80’s are millennials, but if you were a kid in the 80’s that makes you gen x? Do you not know how math works? Someone born in the early 80’s would be a kid during the 80’s.
What are you on about? These generations are defined by date ranges and not something I made up. So yes, it is entirely possible that the oldest of the old Millennials might be arcade crawling at age 8 or 9 in the 80s, but a whole bunch more of them are still in diapers or not even born yet. Make sense?
Yes and most if not all of those landed on console too. Your point?
What’s your point? If a game came out on console, it doesn’t matter that it was ever an arcade game?
I’m saying for millennials, the notion of video games had shifted from primarily arcade to primarily console due to the console boom in the 90s
Speaking as millennial in the 90’s, this is untrue. I, and most of my millennial friends played games on consoles, in arcades, and even on PC! If a game came out in arcades, and later came to consoles, it is still an arcade game. It doesn’t suddenly not become an arcade game because it’s been released elsewhere.
Also, do you seriously not know about Street Fighter 2? This is the biggest takeaway that you are not a millennial. The 90’s had a HUGE arcade boom with fighting games. Arcades were filled with fighting games, and the most popular games would have multiple units and still have long lines of people waiting to play. This was a huge part of gaming in the 90’s as millennials. There’s a reason why people wanted to play Street Fighter 2 so much when it came out on SNES: it was already extremely popular in arcades! At this point I feel like you are deliberately trying to troll, and like the idiot I am, I’m just taking the bait.
thus supporting OP’s point that Millenials should remember a time when games are not pay-to-win.
Again, I am a millennial who played beat ‘em ups in arcades a lot. They were very popular Those games are straight up pay to win. Yes they came out on consoles too, but a) those versions weren’t as good, therefore b) the arcade versions were still more popular
These generations are defined by date ranges and not something I made up.
Whoops! My bad. Millennials started in 1981 and I was born in 1980. Guess I was never a millennial after all except the years keep changing and I’ve seen start dates of 1980, 1979, and 1978 as well. It’s hard to keep track when the date keeps changing.
So yes, it is entirely possible that the oldest of the old Millennials might be arcade crawling at age 8 or 9 in the 80s
Ok, now I gotta ask; are you an alien? Because most human children begin walking within the first 2 years. 8 or 9 year olds usually don’t need to crawl
but a whole bunch more of them are still in diapers or not even born yet.
Hmm, it’s almost like the experiences of everyone with a generation aren’t all exactly the same.
What’s your point? If a game came out on console, it doesn’t matter that it was ever an arcade game?
Dude I literally told you my point in the next paragraph lol.
Whoops! My bad. Millennials started in 1981 and I was born in 1980. Guess I was never a millennial after all except the years keep changing and I’ve seen start dates of 1980, 1979, and 1978 as well. It’s hard to keep track when the date keeps changing.
Yeah let’s make it all about you! So offended, so sad. Look, I’m not really interested in indulging you because this debate is a big nothingburger. I’ve made my case and other people can weight in. But feel free to continue blowing all the hot air you like.
E.T. is decent at best. I wanted to watch it as a young kid, but wasn't allowed. By the time I finally watched it, I found it fell short of my expectations and I found it quite dull. Super 8 was also a middling film, but I thought it was slightly better than E.T.
Christopher Nolan hasn't made a truly good movie since The Prestige. Everything since then has been too long, too convoluted, and/or too loud (or in the case of Oppenheimer, not loud enough).
I could hate on the Dark Knight all day. The month it came out, my brother put it best, “It’s two movies. A good, short, Joker movie and a bad, long, Batman movie.”
When you watch this film and only the Joker scenes, its 10x better.
While I haven’t watched enough of his movies to have a overall opinion of them. As the only movie of a certan trilogy that I found good came out before The Prestige and the second which I VERY unpopulary don’t like came out after. I can somewhat agree with you.
Really? I found it to be extremely mid. It took at least an hour for the film to not feel like a trailer montage and find proper pacing. The writing didn’t feel organic at all, and felt like actors reading historical quotes from a page at each other. Also, when Florence Pugh’s character started riding Oppenheimer’s dick while he said his famous Bhagavad Gita line, I burst out laughing in the theater and had a really hard time taking the rest of the movie seriously.
I think this movie will be forgotten in 3 years, if not sooner.
Let the 20th century’s middle children have their joke. Comon, it was a little goof and you come in guns blazing. Relax, save your energy for fighting something that matters.
Now if you’ll excuse me I’ll be over here rubbing IcyHot and cannabis lotion on my joints as I quietly await an early death
asklemmy
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.