Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

I guess you might not fully see how the whole system works. It seems like other genres are really struggling specifically because of these massive superhero franchises. All the capital in Hollywood is being funneled into these big animated superhero flicks, so there just isn't much money or motivation left for anything else. I don't have an issue with them being made—I was young once too and loved them—but back then, maybe there was one every few years. Now, we get five or six a year with a combined budget hitting $3 billion, or even up to $6 billion when you count everything. Even Steven Spielberg mentioned that for "Lincoln," where Daniel Day-Lewis won his Oscar, he barely managed to get a theatrical release. It was almost a toss-up whether it would go straight to HBO. It feels like nobody wanted it in theaters because they think audiences aren't interested in history or drama unless you give Lincoln a jetpack or something. He ended up self-funding it, and it actually did pretty well, but I suppose that shows there’s just no room for risk in the business anymore. There's so little appetite for it that even legends like Spielberg or George Lucas face rejections, even with top-tier projects.

@SS
Exactly. That’s why I don't get why people like GQ are so against those films. Look, I get that some people just don't like them—no skin off my back—but these movies are constantly being scapegoated as the primary reason for the decline in cinema quality. As if the dip didn't actually start way before that, back when we were getting heavy hitters like *There Will Be Blood* and *No Country for Old Men*.

Spielberg and Lucas have brilliant ideas. 🤣

The problem is they haven't produced anything worth watching in years; frankly, they're irrelevant now. Meanwhile, younger directors with actual vision can pull off hits without breaking a sweat—just look at the youngest Oscar winner behind *La La Land*. It clearly resonated with audiences. And honestly, seeing those old fossils like Cameron whining about the Marvel era? It's obvious they're just bitter because they can't make anything meaningful anymore.

People need to realize that almost every movie is available globally now. Who's actually going to pay to see something like *Lincoln* in a theater when I can just stream it at home with zero difference in the experience? I’d much rather go to the cinema for *Infinity War* than sit through some drama I could easily download. Even if the drama is technically "better," the theater experience dictates my choice.

And I don't understand why other genres are getting lumped into this mess. There are plenty of action movies thriving despite the mountain of superhero sludge out there—actually, there are twice as many. Take The Rock, for instance; his career is built on solid action, not capes, yet nobody blames him even though those movies rake in massive checks. Plus, you've got Netflix now, which will throw money at you if your idea is good. They'll hand Scorsese $150 million for a mob flick; that kind of budget just wasn't on the table before.

What kind of small-town nonsense are we even talking about? This isn't some backwoods nothingburger or a cheap knockoff of a Hollywood thriller like those old Alan Ford comics or whatever

It’s more like Sergeant Ironside

Might as well jump in, since I’ve got a bit of skin in the game regarding movies 😁

Regarding these superheroes, here's my take on the whole thing.

Honestly? I think life is already messy enough. I don't need to sit through heavy, soul-crushing themes when I'm watching a movie that's supposed to be my escape. One glance at the news or any major outlet like CNN and you're hit with enough grim reality to last a lifetime.
I watch movies to unwind, to have some fun, and to give my brain a break from the daily grind. That's why superhero flicks, comedies, and even the mindless stuff actually work—that's exactly what they're built for. Pure entertainment.

The last thing I want is some deep drama that leaves me feeling depressed about how garbage humanity can be.🙄

I don't really get people who go out of their way to watch horror movies either. Seriously? I already struggle with getting enough sleep; why would I want more nightmares to deal with? 🤣

I guess you have to be open to everything.

I’m constantly hunting for solid adventure thrillers—the kind where you can actually relate to the characters or find yourself in a similar spot (like *A Perfect Getaway*).
I’m also down for those psychological mindfucks (*Shutter Island*), something that really stimulates the brain so you can walk away feeling satisfied.

I don't mind mindless action flicks or comedies when I just want to zone out, but sometimes you want a high-budget movie with actual depth and tension. Nowadays, most big-budget films just lean into cheap sentimentality regarding social issues just to chase an Oscar.

Ashley Bailey6 said:I guess you have to be open to everything.

I’m constantly hunting for solid adventure thrillers—the kind where you can actually relate to the characters or find yourself in a similar spot (like *A Perfect Getaway*).
I’m also down for those psychological mindfucks (*Shutter Island*), something that really stimulates the brain so you can walk away feeling satisfied.

I don't mind mindless action flicks or comedies when I just want to zone out, but sometimes you want a high-budget movie with actual depth and tension. Nowadays, most big-budget films just lean into cheap sentimentality regarding social issues just to chase an Oscar.

There are definitely movies like that out there, they just aren't as mainstream

Here's one for you...

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4062536...nm_flmg_act_17

Green Room is a total trip

And if you grab the bundle, they throw in Busanhaeng too. Honestly, watching those two back-to-back with maybe a day in between? That’s the absolute dream. What a pair of flicks 🙏

Speaking of great international cinema, we have to talk about the first two Elite Squad movies. They honestly blow just about every American action flick from the last few years out of the water... especially with that soundtrack 🙏

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0861739/

And then there's this incredible piece of Scandinavian filmmaking

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1614989/

Noah Roberts46 said:@SS
Exactly. That’s why I don't get why people like GQ are so against those films. Look, I get that some people just don't like them—no skin off my back—but these movies are constantly being scapegoated as the primary reason for the decline in cinema quality. As if the dip didn't actually start way before that, back when we were getting heavy hitters like *There Will Be Blood* and *No Country for Old Men*.

Spielberg and Lucas have brilliant ideas. 🤣

The problem is they haven't produced anything worth watching in years; frankly, they're irrelevant now. Meanwhile, younger directors with actual vision can pull off hits without breaking a sweat—just look at the youngest Oscar winner behind *La La Land*. It clearly resonated with audiences. And honestly, seeing those old fossils like Cameron whining about the Marvel era? It's obvious they're just bitter because they can't make anything meaningful anymore.

People need to realize that almost every movie is available globally now. Who's actually going to pay to see something like *Lincoln* in a theater when I can just stream it at home with zero difference in the experience? I’d much rather go to the cinema for *Infinity War* than sit through some drama I could easily download. Even if the drama is technically "better," the theater experience dictates my choice.

And I don't understand why other genres are getting lumped into this mess. There are plenty of action movies thriving despite the mountain of superhero sludge out there—actually, there are twice as many. Take The Rock, for instance; his career is built on solid action, not capes, yet nobody blames him even though those movies rake in massive checks. Plus, you've got Netflix now, which will throw money at you if your idea is good. They'll hand Scorsese $150 million for a mob flick; that kind of budget just wasn't on the table before.

You are the only true snob in this thread, quite literally. You lecture everyone else about elitism while embodying it yourself. You are a textbook example of a conformist snob who simply parrots whatever outdated rhetoric he picked up from his elders.

Let me clarify my point. I am referring to internet consensus—the kind of tired tropes like "Spielberg is only good for his first two films," "Tarantino peaked early," or "Robert De Niro has been washed for twenty years." While that last one might actually be true, my point stands. People use these clichés solely to mock others and inflate their own supposed sophistication. And Noah Roberts46, stop repeating the same nonsense you've already put in your film PDFs; you’re nothing but a fraud. This Spielberg line is older than the Bible, but back in my day during the 90s, using that phrase was a quick way to get laughed at by everyone else. We didn't dismiss it because it was factually wrong, but because it was a hallmark of pretension. If you say "Spielberg only has two good movies and they were his first," you aren't a critic—you're just a snob.

From the very beginning of this damn forum, certain people have been harping on this just to feed their own egos. It’s honestly hilarious to watch; it’s obvious Noah Roberts46 only started discovering cinema in the last year or two, and now he thinks that one specific line makes him sound incredibly cool, so he keeps repeating it. Look, I’ll admit that Spielberg’s best work might be *Jaws* or *Raiders of the Lost Ark*, but I refuse to act like some pretentious snob claiming he only ever made two good movies. No way, man. I’m perfectly fine swapping out *Duel* for *Indiana Jones* or *Close Encounters of the Third Kind* because, quite simply, they are superior films.

Even as someone who isn't exactly a Spielberg superfan, I am telling you all: please stop following the online mob. In this country, people blindly follow whatever "internet consensus" pops up, much like how they jump on bandwagon opinions regarding certain directors.

It’s the same nonsense when Noah Roberts claims "they haven't made anything good in years." This is a classic trope used by certain directors. My friend here clearly worships that overrated Scorsese guy, who built his entire career on romanticizing Italian-Americans. You could argue Scorsese hasn't produced anything worthwhile lately, but even that isn't quite right. Even if the man is a hack, any true cinephile should recognize that his films are technically well-crafted—though, of course, perception is subjective. You can't apply that logic to Spielberg. *Lincoln* is a solid film. You claim he hasn't delivered anything good in years. I’m not a huge fan of that movie myself, but what I see is stellar acting across the board, sharp Spielberg direction, and great costume design. It didn't do much for me either, but for God's sake, stop clinging to these tired internet consensuses.

And you know who says this most often? Aside from being total snobs, it's usually people who haven't actually watched many movies. They want to feel special; they want everyone to know they finally sat through a "classic," but give me a break—you've barely scratched the surface of Kurosawa or Melville. And the best part is, you can try to flip the script and call me a snob, and fine, go ahead. That's just how you deal with people like you.

Seriously, stop following these online trends. It only happens in circles like this. People recycle the exact same tired catchphrases since this forum started; only the usernames change. I never once saw those cliches coming from ruggedjackal46 or Robert Torres, who are actual cinephiles. I've enjoyed reading their takes on film since the early days. Never. But you lot, who don't know a damn thing, feel compelled to parrot these phrases. I say this as someone who isn't a Spielberg fanatic and would agree that *Raiders* is his peak, but I don't use those lines to act cool, like "Spielberg only has two good movies and they were his first." Bullshit. *Indiana Jones* remains one of the greatest adventure films ever made. That is a real blockbuster.

James Anderson5 said:I think I realized about 5 to 10 years ago that the return on investment in the film industry was hovering around only 5%. The studios probably caught on, which is why they've largely abandoned "risky" projects like smarter, original films. These superhero stories are clearly just a formula for easy cash and easy marketing. Everything else takes a backseat. It’s all about the money, and everything else is secondary. I think that’s the biggest issue with modern Western civilization today (and probably everywhere else too, though I wouldn't know)...

Maybe so. Even those old Batman flicks weren't exactly masterpieces or deep intellectual studies. In fact, quite the opposite. But what we're seeing now is a step down even from that; for most of the movies I mentioned, Predator is basically Citizen Kane by comparison...

But every once in a while, a low-budget gem comes along that actually catches you off guard. A great example would be this: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756683/

I stumbled upon this one by total chance. The budget was clearly as tight as it gets, but the movie isn't just smart—it's incredible. There isn't a single special effect, yet it stays completely intense...

James Anderson5 said:Speaking of great international cinema, we have to talk about the first two Elite Squad movies. They honestly blow just about every American action flick from the last few years out of the water... especially with that soundtrack 🙏

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0861739/

And then there's this incredible piece of Scandinavian filmmaking

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1614989/

This is the same situation. Look, this first one is just pseudo-scientific New Age garbage; nothing irritates me more than movies that pretend to be profound when they have no idea what they want to be. It’s like *Coherence*. It’s the same junk as Marvel, just in different packaging. At least Marvel doesn't hide what it is. With this Scandinavian one, you can watch whatever you want, but calling bad movies "excellent" is a mistake. What exactly makes this an "excellent" film? Listen, my standards for excellence, as they should be for anyone, are high. This is based on a novel by that hollow author Jo Nesbo. His books are full of holes, and this movie is one giant, unrealistic void. Think of it as some sort of thriller. There's no supernatural element here, no superpowers—it's a serious film trying too hard to be something it isn't. I get why these are attractive to you; I call them "void movies." Sure, it's fine as mindless entertainment, but there is zero chance that such a hollow film qualifies as excellent.

It's not like you need to sit through Bergman or Vinterberg's heavy dramas, but there are plenty of genuinely good, serious Scandinavian films out there. Yeah, the *Hunter* stuff by Nesbo... 🤣 check this one out instead: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1332134/. There’s no exaggeration like in *Hunter*; it’s a serious, excellent film.

For a low-budget production, this is a masterpiece: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0419677/. Unfortunately, not many people caught this gem. There are plenty of films out there, but recommending what you suggested is like recommending Marvel movies to someone. It’s incredible how many people talk trash about Marvel and then turn around and worship that film about Jesus and bounty hunters.

Modern film culture is lacking if you think this is normal. I grew up on Hitchcock. I was raised on his work, and I state this with absolute conviction: there will likely never be a better director than the great Hitchcock. His technical skill and storytelling were unparalleled. His films aren't heavy-handed dramas, yet they are pure fantasy in how he turns simple stories into something extraordinary. Take Scorsese, for example. He’s elevated by kids who are obsessed with mobsters and gangsters. Don't get me wrong, Scorsese is a quality director, but he sold his vision to the youth, and now the youth are the only ones putting him on a pedestal. Realistically, he doesn't belong in that inner circle of the absolute greatest.

Hitchcock is everything. If you actually want to learn about cinema, watch Hitchcock. Raise your children on Hitchcock. I am being completely serious.

It’s been years since Hitchcock produced anything truly worth watching.

Take a page from the master . There simply isn't a director more technically flawless than Hitchcock. It makes you wonder why modern filmmakers can't replicate those insane, perfect shots he pulled off frame after frame. Even with today's advanced technology, we just aren't seeing it. What happened to true craft?

These online consensus crowds drive me insane, and it’s always the same crowd. People who barely possess a basic grasp of cinematic history acting like supreme elitists. You can call me a snob if you want, but my stance isn't about feeling superior; it’s born from pure frustration with pretentiousness like yours.

Take Tarantino, for example. I actually agree with the sentiment. To be precise: yes, his first two films are his best. But that isn't the point. The point is that those aren't his *only* two good movies. They are the peak, sure, but some of his later work is perfectly decent. Tarantino isn't some untouchable deity, yet you and your ilk cling to this internet consensus, parroting the same tired talking points just like people did ten years ago.

Or look at *2001: A Space Odyssey*. brightpilot6 mentioned he prefers *Interstellar* and doesn't get the hype around Kubrick's masterpiece. Everyone jumped down his throat immediately. I say this as someone who loves *Odyssey* but isn't a fan of *Interstellar*. Once again, you snobs miss the mark. This isn't how intellectual discourse works. You just hear a "smart" opinion from someone else and repeat it like a script. If someone praises Spielberg, you'll just bark back that he only had two good movies, as if you actually know anything.

And you brought up Cameron. Look, I’ll be the first to admit Cameron is a thief—and I’m not even talking about *Avatar*—but the man still delivered the original *Terminator* duo, *Aliens*, the underrated *The Abyss*, and wrote the script for the excellent *Strange Days*.https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114558/ On their own merits, those films are better than the entire Marvel and DC catalogs combined. It’s infuriating to see that there’s simply no room left in theaters for movies with that kind of grit. Not just *Terminator*, either; I’d give anything to see *Back to the Future* on the big screen again. Where are the intelligent blockbusters? They’re extinct. We’re stuck with Marvel and generic junk now.

🙏 We need a revival of this style, a tribute to that mid-to-late 90s era of filmmaking and groundbreaking tech. I remember that period vividly. Approaching the turn of the millennium, there was this specific atmosphere, a sense of mystery surrounding the new century that fueled these high-concept films and disaster epics. It felt more sincere, more organic.

So, I guess Noah Roberts46 thinks Spielberg and Lucas aren't important. It’s pretty interesting to think the people who basically invented modern cinema don't matter. I probably shouldn't say more since it feels a bit pointless, but maybe just stick to watching something like "Rampage" with The Rock or the "Avengers" movies if you want to just switch your brain off and take a break from everything else going on.

He's only saying that because it sounds trendy and he picked it up from someone else.

I've shared my thoughts on Spielberg, but I haven't touched on Lucas. Honestly, I like him even less, but you make a fair point—Noah Roberts46 and his crowd don't realize the sheer scale of his impact on Hollywood. Early Lucas was a master at the helm. To me, Star Wars isn't even his peak; it’s more like American street art. And you just don't see films with that kind of raw, gritty soul anymore. Where did they go? That magic is extinct today.

In my opinion, 2001: A Space Odyssey stands far above Interstellar.

I was being nuanced above. Personally, I find Odyssey superior to Interstellar, though it isn't my pick for Kubrick’s finest. That honor belongs to Dr. Strangelove, primarily because of Peter Sellers—undoubtedly Chaplin’s greatest comedic peer in the 20th century. Where are actors of that caliber today? He wasn't just a star; he was a titan. Look beyond the Pink Panther series or Dr. Strangelove at films like The Party or Being There. The man was a pure force of nature. An absolute legend.

In any form of art, debating whether something is "good" or "bad" feels somewhat misplaced, especially when you focus on technical polish—those tiny details that usually only get noticed by industry professionals or the hardcore geeks of a specific niche.

The discussions actually worth having are those centered on *why* something resonates with one person more than another. In that sense, art serves as an excellent medium for getting to know other people, and perhaps even discovering something about ourselves.

What strikes me as truly bizarre, though, is that anyone would be shocked by this relentless Marvel-style franchise invasion of our cinemas, rather than being shocked by the sheer scale of the invasion itself. Have we all just been living under a bell jar for the last twenty years? It isn't just movies or music; about 90% of global media is engineered specifically to trigger that "cool" nerve in the most powerful consumer demographic: teenagers. And yet, here is Jessica Gonzalez, who normally views everything through the lens of efficiency and profit, acting surprised. Let’s be real: the industry will continue to push psychological dramas because that’s what sells to the moody kids in the suburbs, whether they're in the States, Germany, or anywhere else.

I used to genuinely love those early superhero flicks; I lived for every new release, but this era of hyper-production has worn the whole concept thin. Honestly, I couldn't care less anymore, and I've skipped a huge chunk of the recent stuff.

I think you might have misread my point. I’m not surprised at all that Hollywood produces movies like they're on an assembly line—that part makes total sense to me because their business model isn't really about art. It’s more of an industry where film is just a vehicle to push products, kind of like how Coca-Cola pushes soda or Apple uses the App Store to move software. The business side of things seems pretty clear to me. What I don't quite get is why the masses follow these things so fanatically and argue about them as if they possess actual artistic value. I guess I just find it strange that people seem genuinely happy to head to the theater ten times a year to see essentially the same product over and over. Honestly, maybe it's fine that Hollywood scammers play people like that, since I suppose those who fall for it aren't doing much better. But when I see people on this forum—folks I know are way older than ten years old—treating these films like masterpieces, it makes me wonder if there are actually any adults left around me or if everyone is just a kid.

Well, damn. There’s a certain kind of art in it, and you have to accept that some people actually find it good. I’ll say it again: if you could just grasp why someone finds this appealing, you might actually learn something about them.

For me, the real issue is how they’ve been leaning so heavily on legends like King Arthur or—as I see they're prepping it now—Robin Hood. It’s all these Matrix-style gothic hybrids mixed with steampunk action, wrapped in set pieces and special effects straight out of Lord of the Rings. To the newer generations, these flashy reimaginings will be their version of King Arthur or Robin Hood, replacing the old-school folk ballads we grew up listening to. But what can you really do? Every era has its own flavor.

Ryan Hall4 said:You are the only true snob in this thread, quite literally. You lecture everyone else about elitism while embodying it yourself. You are a textbook example of a conformist snob who simply parrots whatever outdated rhetoric he picked up from his elders.

Let me clarify my point. I am referring to internet consensus—the kind of tired tropes like "Spielberg is only good for his first two films," "Tarantino peaked early," or "Robert De Niro has been washed for twenty years." While that last one might actually be true, my point stands. People use these clichés solely to mock others and inflate their own supposed sophistication. And Noah Roberts46, stop repeating the same nonsense you've already put in your film PDFs; you’re nothing but a fraud. This Spielberg line is older than the Bible, but back in my day during the 90s, using that phrase was a quick way to get laughed at by everyone else. We didn't dismiss it because it was factually wrong, but because it was a hallmark of pretension. If you say "Spielberg only has two good movies and they were his first," you aren't a critic—you're just a snob.

From the very beginning of this damn forum, certain people have been harping on this just to feed their own egos. It’s honestly hilarious to watch; it’s obvious Noah Roberts46 only started discovering cinema in the last year or two, and now he thinks that one specific line makes him sound incredibly cool, so he keeps repeating it. Look, I’ll admit that Spielberg’s best work might be *Jaws* or *Raiders of the Lost Ark*, but I refuse to act like some pretentious snob claiming he only ever made two good movies. No way, man. I’m perfectly fine swapping out *Duel* for *Indiana Jones* or *Close Encounters of the Third Kind* because, quite simply, they are superior films.

Even as someone who isn't exactly a Spielberg superfan, I am telling you all: please stop following the online mob. In this country, people blindly follow whatever "internet consensus" pops up, much like how they jump on bandwagon opinions regarding certain directors.

It’s the same nonsense when Noah Roberts claims "they haven't made anything good in years." This is a classic trope used by certain directors. My friend here clearly worships that overrated Scorsese guy, who built his entire career on romanticizing Italian-Americans. You could argue Scorsese hasn't produced anything worthwhile lately, but even that isn't quite right. Even if the man is a hack, any true cinephile should recognize that his films are technically well-crafted—though, of course, perception is subjective. You can't apply that logic to Spielberg. *Lincoln* is a solid film. You claim he hasn't delivered anything good in years. I’m not a huge fan of that movie myself, but what I see is stellar acting across the board, sharp Spielberg direction, and great costume design. It didn't do much for me either, but for God's sake, stop clinging to these tired internet consensuses.

And you know who says this most often? Aside from being total snobs, it's usually people who haven't actually watched many movies. They want to feel special; they want everyone to know they finally sat through a "classic," but give me a break—you've barely scratched the surface of Kurosawa or Melville. And the best part is, you can try to flip the script and call me a snob, and fine, go ahead. That's just how you deal with people like you.

Seriously, stop following these online trends. It only happens in circles like this. People recycle the exact same tired catchphrases since this forum started; only the usernames change. I never once saw those cliches coming from ruggedjackal46 or Robert Torres, who are actual cinephiles. I've enjoyed reading their takes on film since the early days. Never. But you lot, who don't know a damn thing, feel compelled to parrot these phrases. I say this as someone who isn't a Spielberg fanatic and would agree that *Raiders* is his peak, but I don't use those lines to act cool, like "Spielberg only has two good movies and they were his first." Bullshit. *Indiana Jones* remains one of the greatest adventure films ever made. That is a real blockbuster.

This is the same situation. Look, this first one is just pseudo-scientific New Age garbage; nothing irritates me more than movies that pretend to be profound when they have no idea what they want to be. It’s like *Coherence*. It’s the same junk as Marvel, just in different packaging. At least Marvel doesn't hide what it is. With this Scandinavian one, you can watch whatever you want, but calling bad movies "excellent" is a mistake. What exactly makes this an "excellent" film? Listen, my standards for excellence, as they should be for anyone, are high. This is based on a novel by that hollow author Jo Nesbo. His books are full of holes, and this movie is one giant, unrealistic void. Think of it as some sort of thriller. There's no supernatural element here, no superpowers—it's a serious film trying too hard to be something it isn't. I get why these are attractive to you; I call them "void movies." Sure, it's fine as mindless entertainment, but there is zero chance that such a hollow film qualifies as excellent.

It's not like you need to sit through Bergman or Vinterberg's heavy dramas, but there are plenty of genuinely good, serious Scandinavian films out there. Yeah, the *Hunter* stuff by Nesbo... 🤣 check this one out instead: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1332134/. There’s no exaggeration like in *Hunter*; it’s a serious, excellent film.

For a low-budget production, this is a masterpiece: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0419677/. Unfortunately, not many people caught this gem. There are plenty of films out there, but recommending what you suggested is like recommending Marvel movies to someone. It’s incredible how many people talk trash about Marvel and then turn around and worship that film about Jesus and bounty hunters.

Modern film culture is lacking if you think this is normal. I grew up on Hitchcock. I was raised on his work, and I state this with absolute conviction: there will likely never be a better director than the great Hitchcock. His technical skill and storytelling were unparalleled. His films aren't heavy-handed dramas, yet they are pure fantasy in how he turns simple stories into something extraordinary. Take Scorsese, for example. He’s elevated by kids who are obsessed with mobsters and gangsters. Don't get me wrong, Scorsese is a quality director, but he sold his vision to the youth, and now the youth are the only ones putting him on a pedestal. Realistically, he doesn't belong in that inner circle of the absolute greatest.

Hitchcock is everything. If you actually want to learn about cinema, watch Hitchcock. Raise your children on Hitchcock. I am being completely serious.

Hey Remam. 🙂

Your whole argument falls apart because I never said Spielberg only made two good movies. On the contrary, I actually like Spielberg; I've seen most of his work. Some people find him too sentimental, but that doesn't bother me at all. In my view, most of his films were solid or even great up until the turn of the century. I love *Indiana Jones*—those are hands down some of the best adventure movies ever made. I don't even need to waste breath on *Raiders* or *Jurassic Park*. *E.T.* and *Close Encounters* are favorites of mine, as are some of his more overlooked gems like *Empire of the Sun* and *The Color Purple*. I have no idea where you got such nonsense from; maybe you're just venting some frustration and felt the need to make a new profile just to blow off steam. What exactly is "snobbish" about saying Spielberg and Lucas's ideas aren't relevant today? Or saying that people trash modern blockbusters more than they used to because those guys used to be the ones running the show? Back in the day, someone probably trashed them too, and people would jump to their defense then. How many times did people claim Spielberg destroyed the movie industry? I certainly don't agree with that.

And again with the Scorsese stuff—your go-to move is to attack him just because he's a director I respect, purely to bait a reaction that you never successfully provoke. 🤣

Look, most people probably think his prime is over, and I'm fine with that. Just because he still makes good movies for me personally doesn't mean I'm right.

Hopefully, you can manage to reply from this new profile.

Jessica Gonzalez said:So, I guess Noah Roberts46 thinks Spielberg and Lucas aren't important. It’s pretty interesting to think the people who basically invented modern cinema don't matter. I probably shouldn't say more since it feels a bit pointless, but maybe just stick to watching something like "Rampage" with The Rock or the "Avengers" movies if you want to just switch your brain off and take a break from everything else going on.

It's hard to read your logic when you're saying "today."

By the way, Remam, you aren't a snob; you're just an idiot who puts words in other people's mouths. That's what you are. Half of what you wrote, I never even said regarding Tarantino or Spielberg. You're just a standard troll who clearly has nothing better to do with his life than troll using a thousand different accounts on a forum. Though, I'll give you this: you're clearly smart and probably know way more about film than I do—it's not hard to admit that. It's just a shame that this is how you spend your time.