Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

'90s-Style 'Captain Marvel' Website Will Have You Nostalgic for Dial-Up (movieweb.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the reminiscing-about-RealPlayer dept.

An anonymous reader quotes MovieWeb: The official Captain Marvel website is a blast from the past... Marvel Studios is preparing its final promotional push for the project. This includes TV spots, various forms of merchandise, posters, and in this case, a perfect retro website, tailor made to take us all back to a time when the internet was a whole lot simpler.

Instead of flashy high resolution images, we are treated to pixelated versions, which perfectly reimagines the 1990s websites. There's a lot of Word art, a ticker to count how many unique views that the site gets, a guest book, and even a game that lets fans spot the Kree. Instead of the trailers coming through YouTube, they are played using the "Kree Player," which is take on the old Real Player.
MovieWeb writes that the site "also gives younger Marvel Cinematic Universe fans a chance to see what the internet looked like back in the day...."

And though the movie's slogan is "Higher, further, faster," they argue that "The only thing that could have made the Captain Marvel site even better is slow page loading, just to give it a real touch of what it was like surfing the net in the dark ages."

137 comments

  1. Not exactly 90's-style by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That many animated GIFs, at those sizes, are hard even for my old Core 2 Duo CPU with 16GB of RAM. I can't imagine a computer from the 1990's able to display that webpage.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:Not exactly 90's-style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had way more animated GIFs on my Geocities page... worked fine.

      So does this in a VM with barely any RAM or CPU allocated. Something might be up with your computer, dude.

    2. Re: Not exactly 90's-style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's been infested with skrulls

    3. Re:Not exactly 90's-style by ChromeAeonuim · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And I can't even see it without allowing scripts. I use NoScript and I see nothing, and since I don't feel like allowing whatever script is apparently necessary to display basic HTML, I'm not going to see anything either. Scripts are not needed to display basic text and images. Calling this site '90's style' is like calling a bacon falafel burger with cheese 'authentic Jewish food'.

      I hope this is an ad, because if it isn't, that means people are actually impressed by this.

    4. Re:Not exactly 90's-style by Zehsi · · Score: 1

      hold on, booting up my 386 SX 33...

    5. Re:Not exactly 90's-style by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      We were more patient then. Loading a page back in the 1990's a 1 minute wait for the page to load was considered acceptable. Also we had screens closer to 640x480 so such gif files were smaller,

      This was a 90's style page, but not for a professional site, it looks like a armature built geocities page. The professional pages back then, were actually much better made. They were mostly styled off magazines, and news print.

      Some of the biggest issues, was the lack of Anti-Aliasing text, speed of downloading,

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:Not exactly 90's-style by Spazmania · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You beat me to to. This is a stylized "retro" web site not a '90s style web site.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    7. Re:Not exactly 90's-style by kackle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Bah; I usually try to use my 6-year old Opera 12 web browser on a site first (I don't like change), and with it, the page wouldn't load at all.

    8. Re:Not exactly 90's-style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never would have had the patience to download a webpage that was about 4mb in size on a dial up connection...

    9. Re:Not exactly 90's-style by sg_oneill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Over heavy Javascript wasn't that uncommon back then, although sometimes it was vbScript (Which i rarely saw since Netscape Navigator didnt support it)..

      The major things that jump out to me.
      1) The JS was almost always inline (I still actually do this. Honestly sometimes throwing the glue script at the end just makes more sense).
      2) Div layouts. Back then Table layouts where the norm. Partly because after netscape introduced Div layers, the implementation was confusing as hell and inconsistent across versions
      3) CSS. CSS was rare as hell. Things mostly used inline attributes.
      4) Wheres the Marquee and Blink tags!!?
      5) Needs more jeffk!!!!!!111one

      The gif stuff actually was pretty common, and generally irritating as hell, and lead to some stupidly long load times. You kind of developed a habit of learning to read a page as it loaded then.

      But yeah, ,the design, rings pretty true to me. I'm getting a giggle out of it, so mission accomplished.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    10. Re:Not exactly 90's-style by grasshoppa · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      How far does your purity crusade go? Do you want it running on legitimate 90s hardware too?

      The *style* is what's important here, not the technology.

      Bunch of literal minded, wanna be autistic fucks...

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    11. Re:Not exactly 90's-style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well the style of 90s web sites didn't require JavaScript just to display. This one does or you get a big blank.

      Web developers nowadays are fucking idiots. They don't realise that text and images can be displayed without scripting.

    12. Re:Not exactly 90's-style by Barny · · Score: 1

      Like the others, I was here to say this. Using a script blocker, and all I got was a plain background. Not even a single image or warning would load without JS.

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    13. Re:Not exactly 90's-style by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      This was a 90's style page, but not for a professional site, it looks like a armature built geocities page.

      Armature is different from amateur.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    14. Re: Not exactly 90's-style by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Wheres the Marquee and Blink tags!!?

      The blink tag no longer works on any modern browser. The marquee tag may or may not depending on your browser.

    15. Re:Not exactly 90's-style by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, unless I whitelist it in Purify on my iPad... I see nothing.

      And after whitelisting it, I basically see an imitation of a GeoCities site. Whoop de doo.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    16. Re:Not exactly 90's-style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I use NoScript and I see nothing

      Same here.

      Out of morbid curiosity, I enabled scripts from the host site, marvel.com - and I still saw nothing. I then also enabled scripts from annihil.us - and I got a NoScript warning about XSS from doubleclick.com to google ad services.

      After *that*, I get something vaguely visually similar to ye olde Geocities sites.

    17. Re:Not exactly 90's-style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's pathetic how addicted today's developers have become to heavy JavaScript crap.

      Content is content, the browser shouldn't need executable logic just to show you some text and pictures!!

    18. Re: Not exactly 90's-style by tepples · · Score: 1

      Chrome's engine is called Blink, yet it doesn't support the blink element. #FalseAdvertising

      So anyway, how closely could CSS animation polyfill the blink element?

    19. Re:Not exactly 90's-style by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 5, Informative

      More GIFs? Probably. But in those days, animated GIFs were much smaller in both dimensions and filesize and only had a few frames.

      Let's check what's on that website:
      19 javascript files, for a total of 1,058,266 bytes (yes, one fucking megabyte of javascript on a 1990's-style website... are you kidding me?)
      17 GIF images, for a total of 1,149,430 bytes (more than one fucking megabyte)
      12 PNG images, for a total of 183,245 bytes (quite normal, although at the time GIF was much more popular even for non-animated images)
      6 JPEG images, for a total of 113,833 bytes (again, quite normal)
      We won't talk about the 50KB HTML and the 26KB CSS files which are required to display the old-style website on a modern browser. A real 1990's web page would probably have more HTML and less CSS.

      Total for everything: 2,795,691 bytes. That's extremely heavy, even for a 2019 website.
      I can't imagine anyone waiting to download that monstrosity in the 1990's.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    20. Re:Not exactly 90's-style by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      386 SX/33... peasant.

      Marvel at the power of my 486 DX/40!

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    21. Re: Not exactly 90's-style by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      You could do it with CSS or with JavaScript, sure. Just keep that on the DL; don't need to be giving people any ideas ...

    22. Re:Not exactly 90's-style by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean they didn't exist at the time, just that they loaded verrrrrry slowwwwwly.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    23. Re:Not exactly 90's-style by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Calling this site '90's style' is like calling a bacon falafel burger with cheese 'authentic Jewish food'.

      This is awesome! Do you mind if I use it a bit? (with changes of course, I doubt I will ever discuss this particular website with anyone)

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    24. Re:Not exactly 90's-style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All you guys are probably really fun at parties.

  2. Retarded. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Much like modern "retro-themed" video games, this "retro website" gets so many things completely wrong as to make it utterly pointless. This is a bizarre, warped misconception of "what things were like back then". Worthless.

    1. Re:Retarded. by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nothing new. If you looked at retro-80's movies like Hot Tub Time Machine you would think everybody and their mother back then went around wearing all day-glo outfits with pop-star hair. In reality, most people just wore jeans and a t-shirt, same as today. And unless you were a woman or you were in the band Poison, your hair probably wasn't poofed-up too much.

      Ironically, I remember my dad laughing at the version of the 1950's shown in Back to the Future (he was particularly amused at Biff's buddy who went around wearing paper 3D glasses for no apparent reason other than "3D movies were big back then, right?"). Now I see the same thing in the way movies portray the 1980's.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:Retarded. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

      onically, I remember my dad laughing at the version of the 1950's shown in Back to the Future (he was particularly amused at Biff's buddy who went around wearing paper 3D glasses for no apparent reason other than "3D movies were big back then, right?"). Now I see the same thing in the way movies portray the 1980's.

      They didn't make their movie to show people what the 50s was like, they made their movie to pretend to be in the 50s, hence they had to conform to what the viewers thought the 50s looked like.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  3. You had me at bzztbrrpbsssssshhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I never did remember to put M0 into my dial string.

  4. Looked expecting black man white woman pairing by io333 · · Score: 0

    Was not disappointed.

  5. No it isn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It has external scripts, where's the embedded shitty js of the 90s?

    1. Re:No it isn't by tsa · · Score: 1

      Dial-up always sucked so no, whatever the website I don't get nostalgic for dial-up. That's one of the things that are fine where they are: in the past.

      --

      -- Cheers!

  6. Unconvincing by roskakori · · Score: 5, Insightful

    uBlock rejects 14 data collecting nasties. Didn't have those in the mid nineties.

    1. Re:Unconvincing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ublock and browser addons for stopping ads, trackers and scripts are as good as dead https://www.bleepingcomputer.c...

    2. Re:Unconvincing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But we had web counters!

    3. Re:Unconvincing by zzyzyx · · Score: 2

      Despite widespread belief, using Chrome is not the only way to browse the Internet.

  7. It's missing one by ChoGGi · · Score: 5, Funny

    Where's the under construction sign?

    1. Re: It's missing one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not under construction. You have to use the menus right. Back then there were severe restrictions on bandwidth web development was not for the faint of heart. The main body of the home page has the instructions in the background image. Learn to squeeze a mouse button.

    2. Re: It's missing one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nothing goes over your head does it? Your reflexes are too fast I see. You would catch it.

  8. So fast by iTrawl · · Score: 1

    That site is so fast, it loads before I even click the mouse button. And no "subscribe to our spamletter" or "please fill out a survery when you're done" popups in the middle of scrolling, "please let us pollute your notification centre" permission requests, or other such modern things.

    --
    "Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
    1. Re:So fast by Barny · · Score: 2

      I know! It loaded instantly for me. Shame that it absolutely requires scripting to do anything, but the blank page loaded instantly!

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    2. Re:So fast by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      Well, now I *KNOW* it's not a 90's web page. I would have had to wait 5 minutes to see a blank page over dial-up!

  9. Not bad by godrik · · Score: 2

    The style looks about right! The guest book was a nice touch. Though I don't remember guestbook needing "sign in", they usually just let you post whatever, sometime required manual moderation.

    But, that's a lot of javascript for the 90's. And that "one page" format is very modern. All these things would have been on different pages.

    Where is the "webring" banner?

    1. Re:Not bad by Barny · · Score: 1

      They're doing fake-retro, not actual retro. The thing doesn't even load a single piece of text without scripting.

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    2. Re:Not bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the "Best Viewed with Internet Explorer" banner...

    3. Re:Not bad by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      The webring banner was really what I was hoping for as well, along with a list of meaningless site awards.

      It is kind of amusing to see how similar the Marvel page looks to an old cheesy website, and then look at the actual html underneath that looks absolutely nothing like an older page.

  10. Requires Javascript by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Requires Javascript without any sort of backup to a non-script version, which is certainly not what a 90s web page would have done (mostly). Further, the page clocks in at 8.8MB. That means at 5KB/s (which btw, is incredibly generous since that didn't come out and be generally available until the late of the 90s), it'd take 30 minutes to fully load. Aka, utter shit I'd avoid.

    So, I guess if the point was the "nostalgia" of movie studios who don't get the internet, then they really nailed it.

  11. Re:im GAYpk and im gay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hohohohoho https://news.slashdot.org/comm... you got nullified.

  12. Imagine being that web designer... by Leslie43 · · Score: 2

    and having to list that on your body of work.

    Or the guy who had to justify paying for that.

    1. Re:Imagine being that web designer... by Lanthanide · · Score: 2

      Why would you 'have to list [it] on your body of work"?

      You know that a portfolio is a catalogue of content that you're proud to show off, right, and it's entirely up to you what goes into the portfolio?

  13. old lady punching by TheRealQuestor · · Score: 3

    not sure why but it's kind of satisfying to keep punching the old lady [kree] that keeps poping up all over the page. And the little Stan Lee at the very bottom of the page is kind of sad but a nice little tribute none the less.

    1. Re:old lady punching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, Stan Lee popping up in unexpected places was always sad.

  14. Missing ('cuz it's no more) by jddj · · Score: 1

    An essential tag for a retro site, though you could poorly simulate it with a GIF.

    1. Re: Missing ('cuz it's no more) by jddj · · Score: 1

      Heh ... Missing less-than BLINK greater-than. Damn filters!

  15. No blink tag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    90s my ass. Page me when the website can render in Netscape Navigator.

  16. No we did not make websites like that in the 1990s by Solandri · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For the Millennials among you, no that's not what websites looked like in the 1990s. At least not the functional ones. That Marvel site uses just about every cliched bad web site feature that was offered on GeoCities. That was a site where you could make your own web page without buying a domain, paying for hosting, or knowing how to code HTML Sort of a predecessor to Facebook and MySpace. It was designed to be easy to use, meaning that the clueless masses flocked to it and generated horrific websites which were gaudy, tasteless, and difficult to navigate. (Thankfully they've spared you blinking text, and a background which didn't scroll with the page leaving you confused if you were actually scrolling.)

    Try Philip Greenspun's website for an inkling of what a functional site looked like in the 1990s. He was the original creator of photo.net, and his home site still uses the old layout and HTML coding used for the original photo.net. This was before drop-down menus, multiple column support, client-side scripting, in-line video, and (thankfully) in-line audio. Most people were on dialup so if you didn't want people to immediately leave your site, you used a small low-res version of any pictures which linked to a high-res version. You might notice the pages load a helluva lot faster than any modern site.

  17. So close.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Won't load with javascript disabled. Not authentic 90s.

  18. Doesn't work with NoScript by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, not so 90s is it?

  19. /.ed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't seem to get it to load? That would be pretty '90's!

  20. I had almost forgotten the blink tag existed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks a lot, Marvel. Now I'll have to wait another decade to almost forget again.

  21. Nice try, but not 90's by Ecuador · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Eh, apart from the fact that it uses js, clicking on links scrolls you "down" to a different background and doesn't leave any "back" navigation. Definitely not 90's style behavior, web designers nowadays don't know how to make something basic & old school even if they tried...

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:Nice try, but not 90's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do if they never learned anything new. Just keeping up the old sites and never changing them.

  22. Frames by Jfetjunky · · Score: 1

    It better have frames!

  23. Re: Missing ('cuz it's no more) by alvinrod · · Score: 1

    Don't you know that if you BLINK you'll miss it?

  24. Is the comment about slowness a joke? by shess · · Score: 1

    Just throw in 5 copies of jscript and 30 trackers, that'll slow it right down. You know, like every other modern site.

    I pine for the days when the slowness was because of _my_ end of the connection. At least that had a straight-forward fix.

    1. Re:Is the comment about slowness a joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, you could tell the browser to draw the page before downloading images, which was a huge help.

  25. I didn't ask for your opinion, retard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like everything else about you, your software is ineffective shit. You threatened to spam Slashdot on February 9 in retaliation against whipslash. You didn't do shit because you're absolutely incapable of doing anything that isn't half-assed or completely ineffective. Even your "Cyberian Tiger" spambot is incapable of actually carrying out its supposed functionality. Fuck off.

  26. words by Falos · · Score: 1

    I'm sure the masses will be delighted to quip about this left and right. Hell, this submission is an example. Gotta tell everyone about that new fauxretro that's mostly comic sans, primary colors, and synthetic ugly.

    Oh wait, if that's original and novel then SBAHJ is a screaming display of creative brilliance that would drown out Ragnarok.

  27. Re:No we did not make websites like that in the 19 by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    Early Myspace pages were WAY worse than anything ever put on Geocities. Most Geocities pages weren't that bad.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  28. Ugh! by imperious_rex · · Score: 2

    Back in the 90s, many amateur web sites (I'm looking at YOU GeoCities) really were garish and suffered from their creators' poor sense of design and taste. But sites by professional web design studios looked pretty good (just more primitive JavaScript and almost no CSS at the time) despite severely optimizing their pages for 56K dial-up speeds, and were far better looking than this gaudy Captain Marvel parody of 90s web design sensibility. No 90s pro web designer in their right mind would have abused animated GIFs and fonts (Comic Sans??? WTF?) like this. Using just strictly HTML 3.0 and a sprinkle of basic JavaScript for mouse rollover effects, any web designer could make a tasteful Captain Marvel home page that would be well under 500K in total size.

  29. WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Miss my dial-up, WTF are you smoking

  30. For the real '90s, check out the Space Jam site! by ToTheStars · · Score: 5, Informative

    Others have remarked on the use of Javascript, YouTube videos, and other technology that didn't exist or wasn't widely used until after then '90s, but the original Space Jam movie website is still up in its 1996 glory: https://www.warnerbros.com/arc...

  31. Be that as it may..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...it is still funny.

    It made me laugh. Did it make you laugh too? Or are you only capable of negativity?

    1. Re:Be that as it may..... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Dude, I'm so negative that I'm positive.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  32. Re:No we did not make websites like that in the 19 by Joosy · · Score: 1

    For the Millennials among you, no that's not what websites looked like in the 1990s.

    There were plenty that looked just like this. As soon as the page came up I laughed in recognition.

    Try Philip Greenspun's website [greenspun.com] for an inkling of what a functional site looked like in the 1990s.

    Yes, there were plenty of single-guy-hobbyist sites that looked like that. But websites promoting a movie or music or was trying to be hip ... any site that was pulling out all the stops ... would not have looked anything like Philip Greenspun's website.

    --
    I'm sick and tired of these hip, "ironic" sigs. This is an actual, honest-to-goodness no-nonsense sig!
  33. Reality Carnival by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    This is why I like Clifford Pickover's Reality Carnival website.

  34. Re:No we did not make websites like that in the 19 by sunking2 · · Score: 0

    You must be the hit of all the parties.

  35. Visit counter!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love that visit counter!

    I remember implementing them in the days before JavaScript using CGI to deliver images based on an incrementing integer stored in a text file. Happy days!!

  36. Re: EAT YOUR WORDS retard you project you are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop stalking me with your unidentifiable anonymous posts, retard. I didn't ask for your spam, and it's 100% unwelcome.

    I reaffirm that your software is pure shit. Steven Black's work is so much better. Fuck off.

  37. Goatse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just needs a goatse link hidden in text the same colour as the background.

  38. Nerds gonna nerdrage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're talking movies. So that means, Marvel or not, we're talking Hollywood.

    "Muh YooToob! Muh Javerscritpz! Muh linkz!"

    Do you guys really think Hollywood is going to get anything historical even remotely correct? The fact that the site is, in fact, a website, means it's a rarely achieved feat of historical accuracy for Hollywood.

  39. Nostalgic for Dial-Up by grimr · · Score: 1

    Nostalgic for Dial-Up during the BBS days? Yup!

    Nostalgic for Dial-Up for Internet access? Hell no!

  40. I miss the 40s Captain Marvel by shoor · · Score: 1

    I'm barely old enough to remember the original version of Captain Marvel, with Billy Batson who would say "Shazam!" and turn in to Captain Marvel. As an adult I did eventually read one of the stories in the Smithsonian Book of Comic-Book Comics, and thought it was the best story in the collection. It was "Captain Marvel Battles The Plot Against The Universe" from Captain Marvel Adventures No 100, September 1949. Also, there was a movie serial made of Captain Marvel that is considered among the best movie serials ever made.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventures_of_Captain_Marvel/

    --
    In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
    1. Re:I miss the 40s Captain Marvel by Kargan · · Score: 1

      Oh don't worry, that's coming out this year, too:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      Palaces, barricades, threats, meet promises
    2. Re:I miss the 40s Captain Marvel by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      I got that series on disc. One of the things I really like was that CM was joyous in his dispatching, like watching the bad guy he tossed off the building land and laughing.

    3. Re:I miss the 40s Captain Marvel by shoor · · Score: 1

      The guy who played Captain Marvel in that serial, stage name Tom Tyler, was an amateur weightlifter before the movies. According to the wikipedia, he could do a right hand clean and jerk of 213 pounds. Pretty impressive. I would never have guessed it from the way he looks in his movies, as I'm so used to the modern body builder types.

      --
      In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
  41. 1990s yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't work in Dillo. Fake shit.

  42. A 90's Web Site by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    using CSS... unbelievable.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  43. Under construction gif by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is missing

  44. Re:No we did not make websites like that in the 19 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You forgot to call him a nazi faggot, Ivan.

  45. Where's the Under Construction sign? by ayesnymous · · Score: 1

    Also, where's the blink tag?

  46. Re: No we did not make websites like that in the 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go touch a pig

  47. Nothing like the 1990s by Casandro · · Score: 1

    It even requires JavaScript to load. In the 1990s that would have mean that nobody saw your page. Today it increasingly means that people won't see your pages as virtually everybody who is able to uses NoScript or some other form of disabling Javascript.

  48. Re:No we did not make websites like that in the 19 by qubezz · · Score: 2

    Key obsolete features were abused early on, defining the 90's web. A web page divided into frames. Server-side image maps. CGI-BIN. Tables with the 3D borders. The ubiquitous single banner at the top of the page.

    The biggest differentiator when you go back to handwritten HTML pages from before the dotcom bubble popped - ones you would have seen using Mosaic on Windows 3.11 even - they were formatted for 640x480 screens and are relatively tiny today.

    https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/...

  49. Shameless plug - this is a 90's site by bb_matt · · Score: 2

    So, one of my first websites survives on the quake wiki & whilst it wasn't exactly popular, the code and the graphics reflects what sites were like back then.

    https://www.quakewiki.net/arch...

    This marvel site is just a poor reflection of the reality, as the code behind it, the reliance on javascript, the sheer weight of all the assets, is totally out of place with the era.

  50. Re:No we did not make websites like that in the 19 by thegarbz · · Score: 2

    For something more relevant, here's a movie site still up from 1996: https://www.spacejam.com/archi...

  51. They were doing so well... by dromgodis · · Score: 1

    ... but then they blew it right back to 2019 on the very last row of the page:

    "This film is not yet rated Filmratings.com MPAA Terms of Use Privacy Policy Your California Privacy Rights Children's Online Privacy Policy License Agreement Interest-Based Ads Marvel Insider Term"

  52. Scroll to the end for an easter egg. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Scroll to the end for an easter egg. Nice touch!

  53. Re:EAT YOUR WORDS retard you project you are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you still alive?? I can't believe /. STILL hasn't found a way to ban your stupid fucking ass.

    APK
    GO the fuck AWAY!

    APK
    GO the fuck AWAY!

    APK
    GO the fuck AWAY!

    APK
    GO the fuck AWAY!

    APK
    GO the fuck AWAY!

    APK
    GO THE FUCK AWAY!!!

  54. Hillarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought it was hilarious. Biggest anachronism I saw was "sick word art". Sick meant diseased back then :)

  55. Re:No we did not make websites like that in the 19 by maiden_taiwan · · Score: 1

    Frankly, I wish more web sites still looked & worked like Greenspun's. They load instantly, and you can use ctrl-F to find & hit links of interest very quickly.

  56. That's right - I'm UNSTOPPABLE & invincible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's right - I'm UNSTOPPABLE & invincible: Get used to it!

    * :)

    APK

    P.S.=> I don't take your "orders" either so just give up, lol... apk

  57. Link to a fragment by tepples · · Score: 1

    clicking on links scrolls you "down" to a different background

    Links to a fragment of the same document (e.g. <a href="#section name">link text</a> ) have been around since the 1990s.

    1. Re: Link to a fragment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it doesn't have a fancy scroll animation tho.

  58. What about OS/2 Webexplorer !!! by martiniturbide · · Score: 1

    It does not run on it.

  59. Looks horrible. by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

    That's all. Looks like crap. Nostalgic for capri pants as well?

  60. table oblig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    view-source:https://www.marvel.com/captainmarvel

    no table tag?
    fail.

  61. It didn't even load! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It didn't even load! I use NoScript and you need Javascript and CSS for this
    website. That's not a blast from the past!

    Shameless plug.

  62. Javascript? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And yet I still had to tell my NoScript plugin to allow javascript before the page would display...

  63. Re:No we did not make websites like that in the 19 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Frankly, I wish more web sites still looked & worked like Greenspun's.

    Worked, yes. Looked, no!

    I can understand being resistant to JS, but Greenspun appears to have never discovered CSS. It can be very lightweight and make a page look 1000x better with minimal effort. I was very glad when it became standard.

    What's the point of serving millions of requests per second if nobody is visiting your site because it looks like ass?

  64. not loading on Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not loading on Firefox for me.

  65. No. No it won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope.

  66. Re: No we did not make websites like that in the 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How did the website look like ass? It was properly formatted and laid out using the best practices of the time.

    Person from 2019 critiques site from 1990 and calls it ass.

  67. lies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the page won't even load without allowing javascript from three different domains

  68. it needed a moose call by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    The site needed to play a wav file with a modem moose call before it loaded.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  69. Sorry... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    I've had fiber to the house for years. Nothing has me nostalgic for dial-up.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  70. Not very accurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not very accurate, non of the links send you to the goatse website...

  71. It's blank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's totally blank. I've got scripts enabled for marvel.com, but it doesn't load!

  72. Re: No we did not make websites like that in the 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > How did the website look like ass?

    Please tell me you don't do web design...

  73. Hosts files block more than that = unaffected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Via APK Hosts File Engine 2.0++ 64-bit for Linux/BSD h t t p : / / a p k . i t - m a t e . c o . u k / A P K H o s t s F i l e E n g i n e F o r L i n u x . z i p

    Yields more security/speed/reliability/anonymity vs. any 1 solution (99% of threats use hostnames vs. IP address most firewalls use) more efficiently/FASTER + NATIVELY 4 less!

    Vs. "Bolt on 'MoAr' illogic-logic" slowing u hosts speed u up 2 ways: Adblocks + Hardcode fav. sites u spend most time @ vs. competition w/ security bugs (DNS/AntiVir) + overheads slowing u (messagepass 'souled-out' to advertisers easily detected & blocked addons + firewall filtering drivers) & their complexity leads to exploit!

    * ONLY 1 of its kind in GUI 4 Linux (soon 4 MacOS)!

    APK

    P.S.=> Protects vs. scripts/trackers (kernelmode faster vs. usermode slower NoScript vs. 3rd party script)/ads/DNS request tracking + redirect poisoned or downed DNS/botnets/malware download/malcript/email malicious payload

  74. EAT YOUR WORDS retard you project you are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hosts efficacy recently vs. threats & results in https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://linux.slashdot.org/com... https://news.slashdot.org/comm... https://apple.slashdot.org/com... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://search.slashdot.org/co... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... https://apple.slashdot.org/com... https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... https://it.slashdot.org/commen... https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... https://science.slashdot.org/c...

    * That's only recently while I've been on Linux (July 2018) & 100's of times vs. MANY other botnets/malwares etc. in the past circa 2006-early 2018 while I was on Windows: CONCRETE VERIFIABLE UNDENIABLE REALITY (see those links as proof). ... & that's ONLY what /. reported on (there were TONS more)

    APK

    P.S.=> "It's working: Neville... it's working!" - "I AM LEGEND" + HOSTNAME USE IS DOWN IN MALWARE https://unit42.paloaltonetwork... (my ACT OF FAITH is JUSTIFIED by fact)... apk

  75. No, I stop the BIGGEST SPAMMERS (advertisers) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, I stop the BIGGEST SPAMMERS (advertisers) who infect/track/slow you as well as malware/botnets/scripts doing it too!

    * Did you surf here in Lynx? NO?? You prove my point GUI (my work) is preferred by most users vs. scripts by others.

    (Thank you)

    APK

    P.S.=> You LOSE... apk

  76. Re:No, I stop the BIGGEST SPAMMERS (advertisers) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > No, I stop the BIGGEST SPAMMERS (advertisers)

    Can you stop your fucking self?

  77. Re:No, I stop the BIGGEST SPAMMERS (advertisers) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't stop apk. That's a certainty. I'm sure it makes apk laugh! Newsflash for you: It makes everyone laugh at you but your type's used to that in life.

  78. Re:No, I stop the BIGGEST SPAMMERS (advertisers) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK's picture is in the dictionary under the phrase "cure is worse than the disease"

  79. Re: No we did not make websites like that in the 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you ever picked up a book at the bookstore that looked interesting, only to find it has a cover with just plain text set in Times on a flat colored background?

    Then you open it up and see it's basically photocopies of pages typed on plain paper in Courier? With a few austere graphs pasted in?