Jump to content

Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

- - - - -

80s versus 90s versus 2000s: Battle of the Blockbusters

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 of 14 OFFLINE   Pete-D



  • 1,746 posts
  • Join Date: May 30 2000

Posted May 19 2009 - 11:20 AM

What do you guys think? Which decade had the best "blockbusters". I'm probably missing some so let me know ...

1980s: The Spielberg/Lucas feel-good decade

Empire Strikes Back
Indiana Jones Trilogy (Raiders)
Back To The Future
The Karate Kid
Leathal Weapon
Rain Man
Crocodile Dundee
Top Gun
Superman II
Rocky III/IV
Die Hard
Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
Beverly Hills Cop
Star Trek II
Star Trek IV

90s: The Birth of CGI, Hail King Cameron and Hanks

Jurassic Park
Terminator 2
The Matrix
Forrest Gump
Independence Day
Home Alone
The Lion King
Toy Story
Pretty Woman
Beauty & The Beast
The Sixth Sense
Men In Black
Star Wars: Episode I
Star Trek: First Contact
Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves
Batman Returns
Die Hard 2/3

2000s: Forget A Sequel, We Want A Franchise. Marvel Comics Explodes.

Lord of the Rings Trilogy
Shrek Trilogy
Pirates of the Caribbean Trilogy
Spider-Man Trilogy
The Dark Knight
Iron Man
X-Men Trilogy
Harry Potter Saga
Star Wars Episode II/III
The Incredibles
Finding Nemo
Casino Royale
My Big Fat Greek Wedding
Star Trek
The Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions

#2 of 14 ONLINE   TravisR


    Studio Mogul

  • 22,977 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted May 19 2009 - 11:22 AM

You forget The Phantom Menace on the 1990's list.

#3 of 14 OFFLINE   Pete-D



  • 1,746 posts
  • Join Date: May 30 2000

Posted May 19 2009 - 11:33 AM

My thoughts are that it's very close. The 80s had the best humor and got the writing of the "fun popcorn movie" down pat. The most personality I think. I can't believe things like Ghostbusters and Back to the Future and Raiders of the Lost Ark just jump off the screen not because of the special effects (now quite dated) but through the writing. The 90s had the most inventive introduction of special effects (Jurassic Park, T2, The Matrix) and perhaps the most "heart" (Forrest Gump, Braveheart, Titanic, etc.). Disney animation is reborn. The 2000s has the loudest blockbusters, but studios started taking the "kids movies" a little more seriously ... especially the comic book stuff (Spider-Man, The Dark Knight, X-Men 2) a genre that was badly mishandled by the studios in the 90s. CGI animation becomes all the rage.

#4 of 14 ONLINE   TravisR


    Studio Mogul

  • 22,977 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted May 19 2009 - 02:45 PM

Since I grew up in the 1980's, I have the fondest memories of those movies so I'd go with that decade. That being said, there's blockbusters that I love and hate from all three decades.

#5 of 14 OFFLINE   Chuck Mayer

Chuck Mayer

    Lead Actor

  • 8,019 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 06 2001
  • Real Name:Chuck Mayer
  • LocationNorthern Virginia

Posted May 19 2009 - 02:53 PM

I'd say the 90's were more about Disney than anything else. As others have said, I have films I love from each of the decades. Even some of the less popular films. The 90's had a lot of crap in the summers, but had some real gems as well (like Contact, which doesn't qualify, probably).
Hey buddy...did you just see a real bright light?

#6 of 14 OFFLINE   Pete-D



  • 1,746 posts
  • Join Date: May 30 2000

Posted May 19 2009 - 03:50 PM

The early 90s were huge for Disney, but it kinda had started to fizzle out already the late 90s. The 90s had some memorable stinkers too ... Batman & Robin and Godzilla, though actually I don't think Godzilla is *that* terrible, it was just very ... average. The Lost World was OK until the T-Rex got to San Diego, then that took a nose dive too. And then there was .... Jar-Jar, lol. The 90s probably had the highest highs, but the lowest lows as well.

#7 of 14 OFFLINE   David (C)

David (C)

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 220 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 26 2005

Posted May 19 2009 - 04:29 PM

The worst decade is the present. The 80s has a lot of classics and the early 90s has the best in terms of popcorn fare.

#8 of 14 OFFLINE   Todd H

Todd H

    Go Dawgs!

  • 2,077 posts
  • Join Date: May 27 1999
  • Real Name:Todd
  • LocationGeorgia

Posted May 19 2009 - 11:50 PM

80's all the way. Posted Image

#9 of 14 OFFLINE   mattCR


    Executive Producer

  • 10,218 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 05 2005
  • Real Name:Matt
  • LocationOverland Park, KS

Posted May 20 2009 - 06:44 AM

Lots of 80s blockbusters missed. 1981: On Golden Pond $118M (double that now) 1982: Tootsie $177M(!) 1983 was a HUGE year: Gremlins $154 (along with Ghostbusters, etc. that you got) (you got some in the middle) 1987's biggest hit was "3 Men and a Baby" $169M 1988: Rain Man & Coming to America 1989: Look Who's Talking $141M, Honey I Shrunk the Kids $130M.. and the dawn of the Disney Animation Era that would nail the 90s, as Little Mermaid kicks it off with $109M Return of the Jedi

Ask Me about HTPC! (Threads in HTPC / PMs always responded to)

This signature is povided by MediaBrowser 3 Trakt Plugin: Media Browser 3

#10 of 14 OFFLINE   Stephen Orr

Stephen Orr


  • 1,105 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 14 1999

Posted May 27 2009 - 02:05 AM

The Abyss (1989) Batman Begins (2005) The Bourne Trilogy (2000s) Hard for me to pick. I still watch movies from all three decades...

#11 of 14 ONLINE   Sam Favate

Sam Favate


  • 5,125 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 03 2004
  • Real Name:Sam Favate

Posted May 27 2009 - 04:21 AM

This was the summer of '84. I probably prefer the 80s films of the ones listed. While some of the current crop of blockbusters are very good, too many suffer from the "thrill ride" problem, wherein story and character are sacrificed for spectacle and nonstop action. Leave the roller coasters to the amusement parks; make a *movie*.

#12 of 14 OFFLINE   Diallo B

Diallo B


  • 1,076 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 18 2002

Posted May 27 2009 - 04:30 AM

hit the nail on the head. you really don't see that type of writing on the screen anymore. alot of opportunities are wasted because the story takes a backseat to the action or special effects. (most recently, terminator salvation) i remember when the indiana jones dvd set came out a few years ago. i pulled out one of them to show a friend a short clip. we ended up watching all of them that day. i was thinking to myself that they don't make movies like this anymore. good writing trumps stunts and effects any day. i will be happy when somone finally gets superb writing and superb sfx in the same movie at the same time.
listen with your own ears...
watch with your own eyes...
make your own decision.

#13 of 14 OFFLINE   Brian Borst

Brian Borst


  • 1,137 posts
  • Join Date: May 15 2008

Posted May 27 2009 - 08:05 AM

Hopfully James Cameron will be able to do that again, with Avatar. But I agree with you. They probably don't even make too much of an effort anymore these days, because they know it sells anyway. Nevertheless, some of the biggest blockbusters were the ones that had superb writing. The Dark Knight, or the Lord of the Rings trilogy, for example. But they do become much rarer.
Never go out with anyone who thinks Fellini is a type of cheese

My Blu-Ray/DVD Collection

#14 of 14 OFFLINE   Brent M

Brent M


  • 4,486 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 15 2001

Posted May 27 2009 - 10:01 AM

Forgot Return of the Jedi(1983).
"If you're good at something, never do it for free."

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users