 |
| By the 1990s, we knew a black president was inevitable |
Since the 1990s, however, not much has changed. Improved some tech maybe, expanded upon perhaps, but there's little we have now that we didn't have, at least in the most rudimentary forms, in the 90s. Yes, we have smart phones that have replaced digital cameras, video recorders, and portable televisions. But all they are is basically all those things in one cellular package. Computers are just faster and more powerful versions of what we had then. The Internet has improved, speed and access and all, but the basics are still there. We have electric cars, but they've been kicking that around since I was in school. We have billionaires flying into space, but that's just building on what already is old news.
So there's not a whole lot in terms of leaps forward. So stagnant are we that as recently as the late 1970s, I remember many of us still believing that we would have moon colonies by around the far away turn of the century. By the 1990s, we were pretty sure we wouldn't. We still aren't 30 years later. And the same goes for social and cultural trends. What has changed isn't the sort of thing we want to bring attention to, unlike 1985.
All of this came to my mind when I saw this story that the recent UN Climate Report said rising sea levels would be wiping out small islands and even island nations. Well now, that's nothing I haven't heard since the 1990s. In fact, on one level, I'll say climate change hysteria is very consistent. They've been saying the same thing over and over since the 1990s, including predictions of inevitable doom that keep being repeated, even though we just never see much of what they predict.
If you get in your hybrid DeLorean and fly back to the mid-1990s, you'll be hearing the same thing, seeing many of the same things, or at least the basis of the same things, as we hear and see today. In fact, in the late 1990s, when I moved back to Louisville and for the first time ever purchased cable television, I remember one of the big stories was the congressional hearings on Global Warming led by then Vice President Al Gore threatening, among other dire predictions, the swallowing up of small islands and even island nations by rising sea levels.
That, kiddies, is why a reboot of that fan favorite movie from the mid-80s couldn't happen. So little has changed since then and, to be frank, what has changed has not been for the better. I think in our gut of guts, we all know that is true.
With rising seas, frequent nasty weather, heat waves, and all that rot, and with Obama buying into this climate crap why isn't any of his acolytes questioning how such an intelligent, clean and articulate man could buy a million dollar property on the water's edge if it will be falling into the ocean so soon? Does it not occur to them that maybe, just maybe they are being taken for ride on the Obama/Gore train with Grata at the helm?
ReplyDeleteAre they really that ignorant? What am I missing?
The gap between the hysteria and the lives of those proclaiming the hysteria has always been one of the biggest problem with the whole Climate Change narrative. If they at least pretended they really believed their own hysteria, it might have more credibility.
DeleteWhat's happened since about 1995 is the (1) ubiquity of hand-held devices which consume people's attention, (2) the concomitant decay and demise of certain familiar practices (reading a newspaper or magazine, writing a letter and sending it through the mail, writing checks to pay your bills), and (3) the vertiginous decline of the culture (especially the political culture). The young are commonly alien and alienating in ways they weren't 25 years ago. (I gather things are working out better in your family life).
ReplyDeleteYep. That's what I notice. Many of the changes that have happened have been for the worst. The changes in Back to the Future could focus on the mundane (reruns when TV was new), the development of shopping malls where once was open fields (still feeling the joy of economic progress) and of course a jab about a young black janitor imagining being mayor and being told it would never happen. Many changes from the 1990s are things we probably don't want to think about, much less admit.
DeleteOh, and things are going smartly along for the family. If nothing else, it keeps us on our toes.
DeleteIn 1990, the most prominent Republican in California was still Ronald Reagan (even though he was not making public appearances). Today it is "Caitlyn Jenner".
ReplyDeleteIn 1955, the Soviet Union was our main adversary, and the threat of nuclear destruction was omnipresent. It was the same when Back to the Future was filmed in 1985. No more.
You seriously underestimate how much change has taken place. It's just not the kind of change that makes for a good science fiction movie, even one of the dystopian sort; it's more of a "banality of evil" dystopia.
That's my point. Not that there has been no change, but it's not the type you celebrate or use as it was used in Back to the Future. Some of the change was neutral, like music or fashion, though very noticeable. You could look at the fashions or other cultural distinctives in the 80s and see stark differences with those from the 1950s. There are many reasons for that. My sons, children of the 90s and 00s, freely admit there is little difference that leaps out at you between the cultural output of their childhood and the cultural output today. In terms of the Cold War, by 1985 even the most cynical were beginning to think Reagan might not plunge us into a nuclear holocaust. Some were even beginning to see cracks in the USSR and think we might come out of the Cold war in one piece. And that was before his meeting with Gorbachev later that year.
DeleteNo, there have been plenty of changes since the 1990s, just not the type that makes for good comedy. Lamentations and weeping yes, but not comedy.
Who said anything about REAGAN starting a war? Though to be sure, just 2 years before 1985, Able Archer had brought us to the brink of war (the Soviets thought it was cover for a real attack), and but for Stanislav Petrov, we would not be having this conversation.
DeleteYour implication that by 1985, no one believed an eventual nuclear war was a serious possibility is totally wrong -- I'm tempted to say delusional. You REALLY need to make allowances for how nostalgia distorts your memory, along with the knowledge that -- so far, at least -- the only use of nuclear weapons against population centers was in 1945.
Bruce Jenner is not the 'most prominent' Republican, just the most recognizable to those who fancy supermarket tabloids and late afternoon television. The most prominent Republican is Kevin McCarthy (who is a grave disappointment in his own way). Others readily recognizable statewide or out of state would be Tom McClintock, Devin Nunes, Darrell Issa, and Dana Rohrbacher. The most consequential Republican executive in California is Jerry Dyer, the Mayor of Fresno. If retirees make your list, please note that Arnold Schwarzeneggar and Pete Wilson are still alive.
DeleteWho said anything about REAGAN starting a war? Though to be sure, just 2 years before 1985, Able Archer had brought us to the brink of war (the Soviets thought it was cover for a real attack), and but for Stanislav Petrov, we would not be having this conversation.
DeleteWhat you're calling categorically true is a disputed interpretation of the sequence of events.
"Your implication that by 1985, no one believed an eventual nuclear war was a serious possibility is totally wrong -- I'm tempted to say delusional."
DeleteNot at all. That was my senior year and I remember the discussions about how the fear of the Reagan presidency plunging us into nuclear war had not only not come to fruition, but clearly the USSR was in a hot mess spiral. We weren't 100% convinced yet, and that wouldn't come for a while. But many were beginning to conclude that Reagan's plunging us into a nuke war was obviously not in the cards, and what's more, we were beginning to think we might beat this thing without the obligatory mushroom clouds. True, it happened quicker than we imagined. And we had to see many more developments. But the glimmers of hope were accompanying our caps and gowns at least as early as 1985.
You are absolutely right Dave that by 1985 there definitely was more than a glimmer of hope that a nuke war was not in the cards for us. In the company that I worked for there were those drama queens wringing their hands at the prospect of having Reagan for president. I got in a heated argument with a guy who was so convinced of a nuke war should Reagan was elected that he never talked to me again because I didn't see eye to eye with him. By 1985 I too saw a change in attitude of those around me who had been fearful become much less so.
DeletePart of the hope was the fact that the hysterics following Reagan's election just didn't pan out. The twofold partisan hysteria that Reagan would plunge us into a next Depression, only to end it by provoking the Soviets into a thermonuclear holocaust, was serious stuff. The people saying that back then had credibility. It wasn't social media and Twitter, but actual interviews on the news with individuals wearing suits and ties and appearing to all the world like voices of concern and reason. So for us, that was horrifying to think a nuclear war was now all but inevitable. The idea that we may never see another football season seemed terrifyingly real. It all culminated of course in the made for TV anti-Regan movie The Day After. I've heard some argue that period had a profound impact on the young people at that time, and I'm not willing to argue much against that idea. But by 1985 - the 1984 election in fact - it was clear Reagan was not going to do such a thing, and that fact itself was hopeful. Add to that the imploding political situation in the USSR, and the there was a growing hunch that we were gaining the upper hand. By the time I entered college we were mostly sure we would be around to finish our degrees. It also taught me a valuable lesson about not buying into media and politically driven hysterics. But that's for another post.
DeleteIt's funny you posted this as film nerd Chris Gore literally had a video on the topic as well just a month ago. Though he was pointing out that part of why a remake wouldn't work is that they'd want to change "marty" in it and if you did that, it would cause a lot of the humor and plot to not really work any more.
ReplyDeleteThat is also true, but that is why so many remakes in general don't work. Today I don't think they care about characters, plots, drama or any such rot. It's checking the PC/Leftwing check boxes that matters. And that would all but ruin a host of movies, including Back to the Future.
DeleteI still remember feeling dread and a bit of shock after watching "Red Dawn" for the first time. The threat of nuclear antihalation was literally present each day of our lives.
ReplyDeletePeople may bring up Steve Jobs, but all he did was make a better phone. He didn't invent anything earth-shattering. Elon Musk comes close, but until we build moon or Mars colonies, things have pretty much stayed the same or deteriorated.
Yep, though I always noted that Red Dawn had the nukes used tactically, not in widespread global destruction. But I tell my boys that even the late 1970s, we thought by 2000 there would be some level of moon settlements and flying cars and similar would be old hat by then. By the late 80s, we somehow could tell things were slowing. Since the 90s, with very few exceptions, they seem to have stagnated.
DeleteI thought about a Back to the Future reboot a few years ago. Partially it would be interesting to make the "present" of the original the "past" of the new one, but more so because the joke about Reagan being president could be perfectly updated to Donald Trump's presidency, and how often does that happen? (You need someone to become president who was famous 30 years ago, but for reasons outside of politics and who would seem absurd as a politician.)
ReplyDeleteI came to the conclusion that it might work as a movie with the past in 1987 and the present in 2017. In practice it wouldn't if it were actually made, because it would be an ultrawoke movie pretending that the 80's were the height of racism. But there is enough of a cultural shift between those years that you could point out some differences, even if they are not as extreme as the 50's to the 80's.
But the differences between the 80's and now are really just the differences between the 80's and the turn of the millennium. There certainly was a lot of change from the 80's through the 90's and into the early 00's, such as the end of the cold war, the war on terror, the widespread use of the internet, smart phones and social media. If you were to look at a video of people in various situations in 1987 and compare to people in similar situations in 1997 or 2007 and you'd be able to instantly tell the difference.
But since 2007 practically nothing has changed. So a 30 year gap could point out differences in society, but only because of what happened in the first half of that gap.
Of course it would be worse to do it now. Now we would be going back to 1991, meaning that we can't even tie into the cold war for a change of perspective. By the time the hypothetical movie would actually be made it would probably be 2025 or so meaning that the "past" would be 1995, and you'd have to entirely base the differences around people not using twitter on their phones.
In 2007, we interviewed for a salaried position in my office a young man who could have had the position but thought he had a better offer back home in Indiana. His selling point was that he was familiar with Facebook and MySpace, something very odd and novel to us. I think the first smart phones were marketed that year.
DeleteThat was a good post you linked to. I think the 90s was that dividing line when the old was finally giving way to what we have now. 1996 seems as good a year as any to begin looking at what laid the foundation for the last couple decades. I may reference that in future posts.
DeleteBTW, I think Seinfeld went out in 1998. I remember because Frank Sinatra died at that same moment, and the coverage immediately switched from Seinfeld to two days of solid 24/7 coverage fo Sinatra. Something that might deserve to be in the list, for more than one reason.
2007 has long been discussed in certain parts of the net as the "year the internet died" due to a variety of factors, but the biggest being that it was the year that smartphones became common (they existed before then but not really in the modern form, and particularly the first iPhone came out in 2007.) Another factor is social media: Twitter's userbase exploded in 2007, as did Facebook's (Facebook had been around since 2003, but was originally limited to students. It became available to anyone in late 2006, leading to it hitting the mainstream in 2007.)
DeleteMore recently 2007 has also been described as "gaming ground zero." It's been noted by JD Cowan and others (such as in the article I linked) that much of culture, such as mainstream movies and music, hit a roadblock around 1997 and have been mired in mediocrity since then. But notably computer games produced tons of classics in the late 90's and early 00's, with these being some of the most innovative years of the industry. However in 2007 we saw the rise of "cinematic" AAA games, with cookie cutter designs and uninspired presentation. At the same time many independent studios closed for good, and on the console side of the equation no console released since 2007 has been as innovative or experimental as those routinely released before that year.
Basically around 1997 most of our culture stagnated but some pockets, such as video games and the internet, managed to squeak by. But the outliers got hit in 2007.
This article is very, very, relevant for the conversation of why things seem to be the same since the late 90's and especially since the 00's.
ReplyDeletehttps://wastelandandsky.blogspot.com/2020/12/cultural-ground-zero.html
Rudolph,
DeleteThat was a great post. Epic.
Unless the culture returns back to God, we are on this death spiral for the next decade or so.