MovieChat Forums > Singles (1992) Discussion > 30 Years Later, Singles Is Better as a S...

30 Years Later, Singles Is Better as a Snapshot of 1990s Grunge than as a Movie


https://www.pastemagazine.com/comedy/singles-30-year-anniversary/

Originally, Nirvana was supposed to contribute a song to the Singles soundtrack, just like their then-contemporaries Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, and Smashing Pumpkins. However, Nevermind exploded, and by then the rights to any of Nirvana’s music had become prohibitively expensive. Maybe it’s just as well: the band confessed in an MTV interview that they didn’t really like “rock n’ roll movies” and that the script could have been set anywhere.

They had a point, too. Singles was re-worked from a screenplay Cameron Crowe had written before his directorial debut classic Say Anything…, itself set in the Seattle ‘burbs. The filmmaker had been a resident for years, was a fan of groups like TAD and Mother Love Bone, and was sincerely “paying tribute to a city and a feeling,” as he told Rolling Stone. Singles got accused of being an obvious cash grab when it was finally released in theaters circa 1992, but it had actually been sitting on a studio shelf for a minute. That is, until the bands in the movie began selling millions of albums and, well, singles. Warner Brothers released the film only when they were sure the soundtrack could capitalize on the commercial success of the “Seattle sound.”


https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/xhqjce/30_years_later_singles_is_better_as_a_snapshot_of/

reply

I don't feel the characters themselves were an accurate depiction of true Grunge/Alt rock fans of the period. It is more like they are spoiled yuppies who are going along with it all because that is what's happening. Those people did exist back then but in context of the film itself, they are boring to watch.

reply

I just tried to re watch this after not seeing it for ages. Asides from being a really bad film it really has nothing to do with the Grunge scene. There are the bands and one of the characters who is in a band but for the most part the characters do not fit into the grunge culture at all.

reply

I totally agree with your views

reply

I remember the soundtrack was very popular back then, but most thought the movie was just so-so. At the time it was released, Grunge was going mainstream, so the movie was trying to capitalizd on that. But for the most part, I thought the characters all seemed too old to play grunge fans. I thought Matt Dillon's character was pretty funny though.

reply

The soundtrack is awesome and the culture it is set in is what made me want to see it. They do seem a little old and well to do, they all have Yuppie type jobs and are well dressed. It makes sense in a way, as you mention Grunge was going mainstream so there would have been lots of these types of people attending gigs just wanting to be part of the happening scene.

Matt Dillion's character was funny and probably the only highlight of the film, asides from the music.

reply

You have owned this thread with your takes. I agree with everything you’re saying here.

reply

Thanks!

reply

How were they too old? Dillon and Fonda were born in 1964 and 1965. Most of the Grunge musicians, in Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, etc. were the exact same age.

reply

You've addressed the wrong person. Xanthas mentioned they seemed too old. I wasn't bothered by how they looked and figured they fit the age of what the people would have been if it were reality.

reply

Brings me back! Good times.

reply

I felt that was the case at the time of release. The soundtrack is still excellent though, and I never was a grunge guy.

reply