Posts by Richard Wilson4

I just rewatched the first movie and honestly, it’s still a total blast. My only real gripe is that it felt way too short 👍

Definitely worth a watch

copperstag95 said:This movie is hilarious. Honestly way better than Superbad and I'd definitely recommend checking it out.

I dig those two guys from New York City, but I didn't think it would actually be this good. Awesome. Either way, it's on my watchlist. 👍

James Nguyen13 said:That kind of nationalism is just high-society posturing mixed with dive-bar rhetoric. Washington, D.C. can only laugh at that sort of thing.

So, having nationalists sitting in a state legislature counts as "fancy" nationalism now?

jadeorca42 said:I mean, people aren't exactly idiots—they aren't going to fall for those cheap little shiny trinkets you use to manipulate primitive tribal groups...

Look, by the next state elections, they'll be voting for the centralists instead of the nationalists. Let me know when that happens. 🤣

But yeah, they totally messed up.

Rachel Richardson said:Ala ala, and Red Dwarf? 🙂

Look, Red Dwarf is great, but honestly? I feel like Ala Ala is just your run-of-the-mill American show, like the kind of stuff you'd see airing on RTL 2 late at night.

Zachary Nguyen2 said:I actually started watching Spaced the other day, and it's excellent.
How exactly has The Mućak aged poorly?
Especially now with everything going on in America, you can really relate to that show.

That's just how it feels to me.

But honestly, The Mućak is still better in my book. Most of those British series never really clicked for me.

The dated vibe always bugged me—if a show is from the 90s, it feels like the 80s, and if it's from the 80s, it feels like the 70s, and not in a cool way. Plus, they're usually set in the middle of nowhere with zero pop culture or tech. And let's be real, there are hardly any hot women; most of the female leads are just old ladies.

PS
Just my opinion again. If there wasn't a war going on, I'd gladly take on a thousand angry British show fans by myself.🤣

Zachary Nguyen2 said:If you're looking for comedy, just stick to British series.

It really just depends on your taste.

Modern stuff like The IT Crowd, Plebs, or Bad Education is top tier.

A lot of the older ones don't really land, especially with younger crowds.

Black Hole is pretty much the only one I'm sure everyone would vibe with, whereas a lot of them were total garbage to me.

Honestly, I'll even admit this—even The Mućak doesn't hold up for me like it used to. Time has definitely worn it down, unlike Seinfeld, which is still solid.

Kenneth Johnson12 said:What kind of crowd are you running with? 😁 Everyone around me watches them without issue and looks at me like I'm the odd one out. Generally speaking, I have an issue with movies and shows that feature slow pacing and lack major plot twists. That is precisely why I enjoy GoT, Dexter, Homeland, Shameless, etc. The plots don't drag; things are constantly happening. Everything else is tedious.

Furthermore, regarding comedy series, the modern ones are frankly terrible.
The only exception is The Big Bang Theory, which I still watch and find excellent. I also watched How I Met Your Mother through to the end, even though they completely botched the final season by focusing solely on that wedding between Barney and robin spoiler SPOILER, only for them not to end up together in the end. Regardless, the rest of the original series finale (not the one filmed later) was actually decent. Even though most people trashed it, I don't understand the backlash. Ted and Robin 🎉 SPOILER

I have attempted to find something new and interesting, but everything seems mediocre. There is a certain type of humor that clearly escapes me, 🤣 such as Seinfeld, Two and a Half Men, or Friends; those were excellent series. Today's offerings 👎

Check out some of the underrated gems—maybe Raising Ace or even Happy Endings

Bradley Wood43 said:Personally, I found that "masked drama" to be exactly what drew me in.😁 It's precisely what sets Battlestar Galactica apart from almost every other sci-fi series, especially those set in deep space.😁 The cast is top-tier, the effects are perfectly fine, and you can tell they didn't skimp on the budget. This isn't some "kid's show," and it certainly isn't targeting the 12-to-16-year-old demographic that so many sci-fi shows and movies unfortunately cater to. It's dark, gritty, and serious.
I know plenty of people😛 expect sci-fi to be nothing but constant explosions, fifty different alien species, at least one comic relief character, and mindless action. Battlestar Galactica definitely isn't that, perhaps specifically because they leaned so heavily into the dramatic elements.

Regarding Game of Thrones, I could go on extensively, but honestly, I just don't have the energy for it right now.😁

But honestly, people just straight-up love sci-fi.

Look, it’s pretty simple. People who actually dig sci-fi aren't looking for some soap opera or a heavy drama—they want real sci-fi. And the folks who live for those soap operas? They aren't going to touch sci-fi either. It just doesn't work that way.

Battlestar Galactica was actually pretty solid, but man, Caprica? Not even close. 🤦

wiredraven82 said:Comedy series are an entirely different beast altogether...

I’ve never actually viewed them as "series" in the traditional sense; I strictly categorize them as "comedy series." And when you look at it through that lens, there isn't a soul—heaven or hell—in the entire world of television comedy that will ever come close to the level of Seinfeld or The Sopranos.😁

Look, if Seinfeld had just made a ninety-minute comedy movie back in '89—which was about how long those things ran back then—do you really think it would have reached legendary status?

Wanna do a poll?

But let's keep it anonymous so we don't get a bunch of clones messing with the results.

Jeremy Cruz98 said:Game of Thrones is shallow? Softcore porn? 🤦

Don't get me wrong, I love Game of Thrones. I honestly get hyped like a little kid every time a new season rolls around.

And look, this isn't even that "the books were better" snobbery thing. That's not what I'm getting at.

The real issue is the dialogue. Aside from, say, Tyrion, his old man, and maybe a couple others—it’s just incredibly thin and poorly written.

Cersei is such a one-note, repetitive character. And those Maloprsti characters? Even with great acting, they're being wasted on totally wrong storylines.

There are certain parts involving Danny that I could talk about for days...

Some bits are absolute gold, but honestly, for the most part, it feels like a high-budget version of Xene. No offense to the fans, because I'm right there with them.

bluenomad2 said:I disagree. Personally, I still find the 90s to be superior in terms of quality. Maybe the early 2000s could compete when we had The Sopranos, Wire, Deadwood, and The Shield, but the 90s offered incredible quality and variety.

The 90s were peak era for drama, sci-fi, and horror. Coming-of-age stories hit different back then. As for the best comedies? Don't even get me started.

It’s been declining over the last seven or eight years, though viewership stayed up because everything just scaled so much. Everyone watches series now since they're all available at your fingertips.

But back to the 90s—the comedies were top-tier, whereas nowadays they're pretty weak.

On the flip side, you've seen a total renaissance of comedy series over the last 6 or 7 years (though it sucks that this revival seems to be fading out over the last two).

There are good movies today, sure, but I really don't think there's ever been as many great drama series as there are right now. Not in terms of pure quality.

wiredraven82 said:

Bradley Wood43 As follows:
I see the debate over soap operas has officially kicked off around here... so let's actually define what makes a series a "soap opera." And no—I’m not talking about those mindless, endless daytime dramas meant for bored retirees or people looking to zone out while doing chores. We're talking about something with actual substance.

Listen, just because you throw in a few flashes of insight regarding a specific individual doesn't make a series a masterpiece—it certainly doesn't turn it into some high-brow soap opera. I get what you're driving at—you think that by centering an episode around one of the main characters to "showcase" their psyche or add a layer of depth—as if that sudden peek behind the curtain is some revolutionary storytelling move—that you've suddenly elevated the material. It’s a common misconception. Diving deep into a character's motivations isn't a shortcut to quality; it's just basic character development, and when it's done poorly, it feels forced and hollow.

But seriously—if that kind of behavior becomes the standard for an individual... man, just... non, god damn, stop. 😁 It’s happening almost non-stop lately—and I’m not just talking about that one specific character. It eventually bleeds into the rest of the cast, too. They start centering entire episodes around these central premises or debates that, quite frankly, my friends and I wouldn't have even given a second thought to back when we were teenagers.

To be clear—when I used the term "soapmaker," I wasn't actually referring to someone who manufactures legitimate bars of soap. 😁 Look, you already know how this goes... 🙂

Take *Battlestar Galactica*, for example—you had Baltar, and honestly, I lost count of how many episodes were dedicated solely to him. It was all centered around his specific personality traits. Look, I’ll be the first to admit it: the guy is a complete mess, a total wreck, yet somehow he’s a genius. I don't necessarily care for his character—honestly, just move the plot along already—but eventually, the show branched out to the rest of the cast. Still, there were seasons where it felt like nearly every single episode was just an endless loop of character studies—just constant, nonstop deep dives into their psyches and those tedious, soap-opera style conversations happening on the ship.

I honestly think I must have been heatstroked while I was watching Battlestar Galactica—specifically that sequence where they hit the Pegasus, right before some damn hurricane finally tore through their precious little Parlor inside the ship.

There’s this specific trope in television—let's call it the "Soap Opera Element"—where a show decides to just spin its wheels and stay stuck in one place. It becomes incredibly frustrating when the core concept itself is supposed to be about constant evolution or survival—take *The Walking Dead*, for instance. If you’ve followed that series, you know exactly the stretch I’m talking about. Honestly, there was a point where I almost walked away from *The Walking Dead* entirely because I just couldn't stomach it anymore. For an entire fucking season, it felt like the actual zombies had vanished from the face of the earth. Instead of any meaningful progression, we were forced to sit through endless, repetitive filler centered entirely around the characters' "personalities" and their petty little social hierarchies. It was just people posturing and circling each other for an entire season without any real momentum. It’s exhausting. 🤣

And what’s truly infuriating about the whole mess—what really grates on my nerves—is that we aren't even being fooled. We all know exactly why they’re pulling this stunt. It’s nothing more than a transparent attempt to hit a specific episode count for the season or satisfy some arbitrary production quota, but frankly, I’m not buying it. It's lazy, and I refuse to pretend otherwise.

Look, I’m not suggesting that a series shouldn't have an occasional "monster of the week" episode here or there—I mean, even Star Trek: The Next Generation did that from time to time to keep things moving. But when that formula starts eating up half a season, or worse, becomes the entire skeletal structure of the show—just look at Battlestar Galactica—then we have a serious problem. 🙄Look, at the end of the day—and that’s just my take on things—that kind of stuff isn't for me. I'm not out here looking for a consensus or begging anyone to see things from my perspective. That's just how I feel. 🙂

It’s the same deal with The Walking Dead. Battlestar Galactica has seasons, sure, but it sucks how they spent all that budget on killer production and effects just to mask what was basically just a soap opera drama.

Caprica was even worse, ten steps behind. They could have shown the Colony in its true light, but instead, we got this heavy melodrama set in a period that felt way too modern. It died after three episodes—thank God they canceled it.

As for Game of Thrones, I've got mixed feelings.
The characters like Tyrion Lannister, and especially his father, are top-tier. Some parts are genuinely great.

Everything else? Total garbage.

The fight scenes are actually pretty bad, specifically that SPOILER attack by the Wildmen on the Black Castle, where three villains manage to kill over 50 people combined. SPOILER

People rave about Lena Hedley, but to me, her character is just Cersei Lannister—total Shit. Her whole purpose in the plot is just whining every two episodes about how much she loves her kids and how far she'll go for them.

The rest of them are even worse and totally one-dimensional.

They want the younger guy to be some mastermind, but they constantly show him in brothels with cheap hookers. It's like the writers think a character isn't interesting unless there are naked girls on screen, even though he's supposed to be more like Frank Underwood.🙂

Larry Moore83 said:This is just a blatant lie—honestly, I’m starting to think everyone just prefers binge-watching series these days. 🙂

True, though I'm more of a series guy myself. Still, I bet way more people gravitate toward movies—especially folks who don't have the attention span for long shows.

Bradley Wood43 said:I see we’ve started a debate about soap operas... so let's actually define what makes a show a "soap." I'm obviously not talking about those endless Mexican or Turkish daytime dramas designed for bored retirees...

Glad you kicked this discussion off.

One of the biggest arguments for why a series beats a movie is just having more breathing room to flesh out the characters.
And honestly, most of the time, that's spot on. That’s really the whole point here.

But once they start—pardon my French—making up Shit just for the sake of making up Shit, when shows drag on for way too many seasons (looking at you, Cottage), it totally backfires.

Take Rome, for example. That series about Rome has just the right amount of episodes, killer dialogue, great plots, and it's better than any historical movie about Julius Caesar and his crew. Literally every single one.

But doing something stupid like what the Hobbit did (I watch it as a series because stretching a thin book into three three-hour movies is just dumb), where you just drag, drag, and drag the plot along? That's nonsense. A lot of shows that started out amazing eventually hit that wall.

Luckily, Rome didn't. There's almost no historical movie out there that could be called better than it.

Carl Hill53 said:Now that I've finally sat down to watch it, I have to say—what an absolutely stellar start to season 5 of The Walking Dead. 🙏

Then I’ll probably spend the next five episodes wondering why I even bother watching this garbage.

Let's be real here. When we talk about actual masterpieces, we're talking about The Sopranos, Oz, or Boardwalk Empire. Not The Walking Dead, which is just a total scam and a cheap little drama, and definitely not Game of Thrones, which is nothing more than shallow, soft porn.

It’s an interesting point, though. You could probably draw some parallels between the '90s and especially the '80s, but let's be real—TV production quality today is just on a whole different level.

I’m more into dramedies than straight-up comedies, mostly because I actually end up caring about the characters.

And honestly, I'll take a drama series over a movie any day since the character arcs have way more room to breathe.

It’s pretty funny to me how the OP uses the term "Nationalism" like it's some big bad thing—basically treating it like "Chauvinism"—even though chauvinism is really just one specific subset of nationalism.