The 30th anniversary 1984 blockbuster thread!

[Glebe]

Okay, so I just wanted to post this...

The 'Gremlins' Poster Easter Egg You Probably Never Noticed.

...but I didn't know where to put it, plus, incredibly cool as it is, it's kind of a measly thing to start a thread over... but seeing as this past weekend saw the 30th anniversary release of several big movies - including Ghostbusters, Gremlins and Temple of Doom - I thought I'd turn it into a 1984 blockbuster thread! Er, can't be bothered to post anything else at the mo, though, so it's over to you...

[Thomas]

Nineteen Eighty-Four is good. Very atmospheric.

[Blumf]

Most Popular Feature Films Released In 1984

Fucking hell, some great stuff that year (and Supergirl)

[biggytitbo]

Top Secret! Maybe the best of them all, although The Termiantor is close too. I think the second Indy film is woefully underrated too, probably my favourite of all 4.

[Bored of Canada]

Temple of Doom is not underrated. It is not good. It skates into third place purely because of Crystal Skull existing.

[biggytitbo]

Bollocks. It's mesmerisingly well directed, full of a near endless succession of great set pieces and fords even better than he was in Raiders. It's great.

[zomgmouse]

Okay, so I just wanted to post this...

The 'Gremlins' Poster Easter Egg You Probably Never Noticed.

I'll be honest, I was expecting a secret cock-and-balls.

[Steven]

Then I can recommend The Crying Game.

[Old Nehamkin]

Raiders= Proper masterpiece.
Temple of Doom= Really fun kids film.
Last Crusade= Decent if somewhat repetitive sequel to Raiders.

Crystal Skull I actually think is pretty entertaining for the first half hour or so, nuclear fridge and all. It falls apart pretty badly after that though, and the whole jungle sequence is fucking interminable and filled with so many shitty decisions (LeBouef and the monkeys, fuck oooofffff).

[Replies From View]

Temple of Doom is not underrated. It is not good. It skates into third place purely because of Crystal Skull existing.

Impossible.  It was in third place before Crystal Skull existed.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Temple of Doom is the 'fun kids' one?  Blimey.

AICN ran a recent series of article 'reappraising' it for it's 30th anniversary a few weeks back, but for me it's never needed re-appraisal.  It's ruddy magnificent and remains probably the most entertaining cinema visit of my life.

Links here:

Frank Marshall Interview and Rare Photos
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/67370

'Why Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is the Best Prequel Ever Made' by Quint
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/67383

Harry Geeks out over John Williams' Temple of Doom Score
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/67403

Posters of Doom! Rare Poster Art and Interview with Drew Struzan
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/67398

'Doctah Jones! Or, How I Stopped Worrying and Learned To Love Temple of Doom' by Moriarty
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/67415

Quint breaks down an early Temple of Doom draft and describes axed scenes/concepts
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/67431

Nordling Bravely Defends Willie Scott
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/67421

A rare look at some of production designer Elliot Scott's production paintings
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/67422

BTS of Doom! Rare Behind the Scenes Pictures!
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/67448

How Evil Indiana Jones Traumatized Papa Vineyard
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/67447

1984 Spielberg Still Liked Temple of Doom
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/67449

Writers of Doom! Quint's in-depth chat with screenwriters Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/67450

[kidsick5000]

Is anyone perplexed at the popularity of Ghostbusters?
I mean it was fun, but is it that much of a classic?
I could be alone in this but it feels like nostalgia of reality.

Surely people are tired of celebrating films every five years. I bet some desperate film magazine is pondering if it's time to do Mannequin: 30th anniversary special and getting a panel of Kim Cattrall and James Spader in

[Replies From View]

I've never really perceived that much popularity around Ghostbusters in real life, to be honest.  It has come up no more regularly than any other 80s films or TV programmes, and conversations like that generally only occur for nostalgic reasons anyway.

I think the weirder one for me was the hugely successful Blues Brothers musical that was doing the rounds in the 90s.  I thought the 1980 film was pretty good but it didn't warrant several years of knobheads drunkenly staggering around town centres in black suits and trilbies.  Ghostbusters barely registered in the same way, except for the cartoons and toys which I saw more as marketing than an obvious indication of popularity.


Studios celebrating films every five years is pretty absurd but I can see why they do it.  Plus "25th anniversary" and "30th anniversary" DVD and Blu-Ray releases are at least more comprehensible in concept than the various special/definitive/ultimate/platinum/director's edition options.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Ghostbusters sort of falls between the stools for me.  It's not really funny enough to be a comedy, not thrilling enough to be a rock 'em sock 'em romp, not scary enough to be a horror and not charming enough to warm the heart.

It's pretty quotable, I suppose, and hold up better than The Goonies.  It's fun, but even as a nipper seeing it at the cinema it didn't particularly enrapture me in a way that something like Back To The Future or Temple of Doom did.

[Replies From View]

A Nightmare on Elm Street was made in 1984, but with all its sequels and the recent remake there's probably very little left to add on its 30th anniversary.

[Ignatius_S]

Is anyone perplexed at the popularity of Ghostbusters?...

At the time or since then?

[Replies From View]

Referring to its status as a classic I assumed he meant since then.

[Ignatius_S]

In that case, we then accept that its popularity at release is understandable – and this was an extremely successful film, which when the box office receipts are adjusted for inflation, is one of the biggest grossing Hollywood films of all time (according to Box Office Mojo, the 33rd most successful). It was also received well critically.

As a result, I think we would have to think of reasons why it shouldn't be popular today – unless we're saying that its success was some freak occurrence, which wasn't warranted at all and defies accepted wisdom, or something has changed and, although it's understand able why it was successful then, there's no way it could be enjoyed in anything like the same way now.

Although comedy and horror had been around for yonks, Ghostbusters offered something new as it had very novel ideas about the supernatural element (e.g. being able to capture ghosts with cool looking guns), which I feel does still works today and still has unique selling points. There hasn't been anything doing something very similar, so its status as being 'different' and offering something not usually found is maintained.

Visual effects can often date a film, but I would say this stills look decent – we wouldn't find 'ironic' humour on how bad it looks, anyway. Whilst, a notable amount of the jokes and one-liners haven't dated – and I would argue that here, it feels more contemporary than jokes in a 30 year old film would be expected to.

The cast were good and the stars are still associated with their roles, which I think is important. These not like the kind of roles that Tom Hanks took in Dragnet or Batchelor Party, which are, when remembered, viewed in a curious way and seen as out of step with their later career. In the public's mind, Murray is still Venkman – and it I believe that helps people think fondly of the film.

Ghostbusters had a wide audience. Some of the people who watched it then would have been primary school age and loved it. There will be shows and films that we like as a child, but as a teenager, twenty-something and so on, wouldn't be able to enjoy. Ghostbusters, I believe, isn't like that. One advantage the film has is that we will be able to enjoy certain bits in different ways as we age. For example, when Louis is cornered by one of the hounds and banging on the window of a posh restaurant for help, as a seven-year old, it's scary; as an adult, we can appreciate comedic element, namely, people stop eating and then continue their meals.

Although there was a second, comparatively unsuccessful film, Ghostbusters has sustained animated series, computer games and plenty of merchandise, which has helped to maintain consciousness of the movie. As has the many repeats, home media releases and, to a lesser extent, cinema re-releases (IIRC, two in the States). It's remained remembered, which is crucial to being a 'classic'.

I can understand why people may not like it, but I don't find the idea that nostalgia is the reason for the film's reputation, a compelling one.

[clingfilm portent]

.

[biggytitbo]

I think people have a lot of nostalgia for ghostbusters as it was one of those films you were allowed to watch as a kid but was scary enough and had enough rude bits to feel like you were watching a more grown up film. It's a pretty well balanced film between the comedy, the scares and the high concept I'd say. And the premise is just very well executed. Plus I had a glow in the dark slimer from a box of weetabix so I have a fondness for it.

[Mister Six]

Bollocks. It's mesmerisingly well directed, full of a near endless succession of great set pieces and fords even better than he was in Raiders. It's great.

Yep! Packed with creative action scenes and iconic shots, bursting with humour, breathtakingly pacy and an all-round delight. Second  best Indy film after Crusade.

[Morrison Lard]

Re : Ghostbusters

I enjoyed this article about Walter Peck

They set up a system that would unleash Armageddon if it lost power for even a few seconds-
that's criminally negligent to say the least, even if they're correct that there are ghosts.

[kidsick5000]

To clarify, yes I meant its popularity now. Specifically the sudden insistence that it is a classic.
Compared to a film like Raiders or Back To The Future, it's not a film that's always been championed since it came out.
And there are plenty of films that came out huge but people weren't devoted to. I'd say a modern film that would fit into that category would be Avatar.

And I'm certainly not saying it isn't funny or enjoyable. I just feels as if once the film mags/sites had exhausted the Spielberg/Lucas collections, it seemed like an easy pic and reports of its greatness have been exaggerated.

[popcorn]

I think Temple of Doom is unwatchably grim and joyless and mean-spirited.

But then I think Crystal Skull is better than Raiders. Which is probably the most controversial opinion I've got. Shakes people to the very core, that one. Leaves 'em proper knobbled. It's the ace up my sleeve.

[Blumf]

To clarify, yes I meant its popularity now. Specifically the sudden insistence that it is a classic.
Compared to a film like Raiders or Back To The Future, it's not a film that's always been championed since it came out.

Um... how'd you figure that? It's always been very popular. There's no 'sudden insistence' in it's status, it's been considered a classic since day one and never moved from that spot, there was never a period where it wasn't well received.

[Glebe]

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=41383

Yay!

Most Popular Feature Films Released In 1984

Fucking hell, some great stuff that year (and Supergirl)

BLOOMING HECK! A Nightmare on Elm Street and Spinal Tap I was aware of, forgot about The Terminator though... anyway, what a list.

Is anyone perplexed at the popularity of Ghostbusters?
I mean it was fun, but is it that much of a classic?
I could be alone in this but it feels like nostalgia of reality.

HOW RUDDY DARE YOU, kidsick!

[Lisa Jesusandmarychain]

No mention of 'Blame It On Rio' yet?

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

Further investigation uncovered evidence that the fault actually lay with The Boogie.

[Blumf]

Nobody mentioned a true classic:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086999/

[biggytitbo]

84 good - 85 better.