Research, Anyone?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

The Guardian today reprints a Washington Monthly article by Courtney Rubin talking about the revival of loads of '80s culture, by a Generation X that now finds itself in positions of power in film studios. The '80s revivals and remakes he talks about include Scooby Doo (started in 1969!), the Hulk (first on TV in 1978), Charlie's Angels (1976-81), Starsky & Hutch (1975-80), Hogan's Heroes (1965-70, ferchrissake!) and I Dream Of Jeannie (1965-70 again!). The only real '80s shows that get a mention are He-Man and Miami Vice. How much less accurate can you get?

Ironically I find his last paragraph, despite a lack of ludicrous factual errors, even less tolerable - he suggests that all of the preceding is an ironic celebration of crap from Gen X childhoods, and that we should revive the best instead. His TV and film suggestions are Platoon and Moonlighting, but much worse are his music recommendations. Apparently the best of the '80s omits entirely hip hop and house and techno and much else. The three acts worth remembering, it seems, are the Replacements, REM and U2.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Saturday, 7 December 2002 17:16 (twenty-two years ago)

It figures that the only one of those three bands worth reviving never gets played on the radio ever.

― Nate Patrin (Nate Patrin), Saturday, 7 December 2002 17:44 (twenty-two years ago)

what about the Orths?

― Mike Hanle y (mike), Saturday, 7 December 2002 19:17 (twenty-two years ago)

I feel no urge to read that article; yet I can say with certainty that it perfectly encapsulates the Washington Monthly sensibility.

― j.lu (j.lu), Saturday, 7 December 2002 20:14 (twenty-two years ago)

beware journalists playing amateur sociologists -- the results are almost always embarrassing. i call it the "douglas copeland doctrine."

and is all this revival stuff -- Josie and the Pussycats, Scooby-Doo, et. al. -- really evidence of "Gen. X in control of movie companies" (what movie company -- or any other company -- is being run by thirtysomethings these days?) or just creative laziness on the part of those running the movie companies? i tend toward the latter explanation myself.

― Tad (llamasfur), Saturday, 7 December 2002 20:45 (twenty-two years ago)

there's one exception to my theory i will acknowledge -- gen x'ers working for advertising. this is partly because of peculiarities of that industry (at least in the USA) -- it tends to favor younger people (because they're perceived as "fresher" and "closer to the street," as it were). and partly antecdotal -- a number of college friends/acquaintances who did creative sorts-of-things and/or took creative sorts-of-classes (i.e., college radio DJ's, english or graphic design majors) ended up going to work for NYC ad agencies after they graduated.

― Tad (llamasfur), Saturday, 7 December 2002 20:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Working for a NYC ad agency is my biggest secret dream.

― Sean (Sean), Sunday, 8 December 2002 00:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Why did I just say that?

― Sean (Sean), Sunday, 8 December 2002 01:08 (twenty-two years ago)

I was going to say, Sean. Aim higher.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 8 December 2002 03:26 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.