Posts by Carl Hill53

What’s going on here? Is this some kind of Wikipedia deep dive? 😉

bluenomad2 said:The Golden Age happened once before. It’s not about personal taste—it's an objective fact. Anyone who actually worked in Television, from the writers and producers to the directors, knows this.

Rod Serling remains one of the most significant figures in the history of the medium, and rightly so. A Golden Age occurs when a wave of series introduces something truly groundbreaking. It isn't defined by popularity, but by the raw innovation and ideas never before seen on screen. We saw it back in the 50s, and the cycle repeats itself constantly. A total Twilight Zone 😁

And now, I'll inevitably have some forum user tell me there was only ever one Golden Age, and that anyone who analyzed previous eras is just a fraud or a liar.

Come on, man—if you're so sure, why don't you list them? Go ahead! Give me those "revolutionary" series from the 50s through the 70s! 🙏 (and don't even get me started on Star Trek)

James Garcia50 said:Sure, but we're talking about pro critics, not random forum users. Not that you actually have to agree with them, though..

Are you just going to keep throwing oxymorons at me like that?

bluenomad2 said:I'd agree. Season one is some of the best television ever made.

Pffft... yeah, 😵exactly.

bluenomad2

These books are all about those supposed golden ages of television—just endless analyses and theories about what influenced what.

The thing is, those books are just someone’s personal preferences and biases, and honestly, I couldn't care less about what some random critic thinks. I mean, I really don't obsess over movies and shows enough to spend my life reading deep dives into some supposedly "legendary" era of television that doesn't even matter. Why does it matter to you? 🤦

That said, I actually agree with Shadow Dancer that we are living through a brand-new golden age of TV right now. Seriously—never in history have we seen such a massive influx of high-quality shows being released all at once, especially compared to the last few years.

James Garcia50 said:It's necessary.

Trying to squeeze all that into ninety minutes or two? Only a true pro could pull that off.
And then some geniuses come along, take your movie, and turn it into a total mess of endless sequels. Is that really how it works?😳

Haha, 🙏

bluenomad2 said:So, you haven't even heard of the Twilight Zone? Fine. I'll leave it at that.

Your other points were actually solid. Later, 🙂

No, I haven't heard of that series. Should I be embarrassed? Honestly, don't mess with me—give me a break!

bluenomad2 said:I gave you an example. Look at The Twilight Zone; almost every single episode features masterclass directing. I only shared one specific episode because I consider it one of the absolute best. You should probably look into how The Twilight Zone is studied in academia—directing is discussed there quite frequently.

Acting? Yours is fine.

Quality? Even better.

You can't go around accusing people unless you actually have solid arguments and evidence to back it up. By your logic, were films directed fifty years ago worse than they are today?

I doubt Hitchcock, Bergman, or Fellini would agree with you.

You know what? You're right. To be perfectly honest, this is the first time I'm even hearing about The Twilight Zone in terms of TV series.

Acting? I can barely name a handful of truly great actors from the fifties and sixties using both hands.

The vast majority were just a bunch of Amateurs.

Quality?

bluenomad2. I won't lie to you. No. Absolutely not.

Look, bluenomad2, I’m sorry, but I just can't get behind that—series from fifty years ago and what we see today? They aren't even in the same league. It’s not even close, whether you're talking about the direction, the acting, or just the sheer level of quality.

You're flat-out lying.

bluenomad2 said:Go ahead and try. You clearly have an issue, yet I haven't insulted anyone—I'm just correcting facts. Tell me, what part of what I wrote is untrue? You constantly attack everyone for trying to explain things to you.

Believe me, 👍

Just as I believe you weren't watching TV series before the 2000s.

Hehe 😍

Yeah, I do have a problem. My problem is with the way you talk to people. Honestly, you're just irritating and exhausting.

Just like I believe you didn't watch any TV series before the turn of the millennium.

I'm not even sure I follow you.

Quote: shadow dancer

bluenomad2 said:Quote: shadow dancer

This is exactly what I was talking about on the last thread. That bolded part tells me you don't have the slightest clue how TV eras actually work.

Those golden eras started back in the '50s with the Twilight Zone, moved through the '90s with Twin Peaks, and hit a peak when The Sopranos arrived late in the decade. Each period produced shows that completely revolutionized television.

People are getting it completely wrong. They think we’re living in some unique golden age of television, but that’s a misconception. Golden ages have been popping up every few decades for over half a century now.

The internet works wonders.

bluenomad2, I am asking you—one more time—to stop addressing the rest of us on this forum like you’re some kind of omniscient deity who’s seen it all and swallowed every ounce of wisdom on the planet. Seriously, just knock it off. If you keep acting like you have all the answers and talking down to everyone else, I might actually have to step in and look into some sanctions regarding your forum identity. Enough already.

Of course the series are being filmed—and will continue to be filmed—parallel to the movie. It’s just how the production works. Also, if I’m being honest, I highly doubt you’ve even seen one percent of what’s actually been shot, yet here you are, acting like some kind of ultimate authority and trying to lecture everyone else with your endless, misplaced expertise.

Let’s face it—we are living in an era where the sheer volume of television is exploding, but honestly? It feels like we’ve reached this weird breaking point where quantity is finally, desperately trying to catch up to quality. I mean, if you look at the trajectory from just a few years ago leading right up to today, there’s this massive shift happening. We’re seeing more shows than ever before, yet that transition from "just another series" to something truly substantive is becoming such a volatile balancing act. I guess you could say we're witnessing a massive influx of content, but whether that actually translates into better storytelling remains to be seen—it's a messy, complicated evolution, for sure.

Look, would you please just stop talking trash? Seriously. P.S.—Twin Peaks is nothing but pretentious garbage.

Quote: shadow dancer

hiddenbear4 said:HBO has raised the bar incredibly high—I’d argue they’ve done it all the way up to the level of cinema itself. Take ''Boardwalk Empire'', which I’m currently working my way through.

Stylistically speaking, we're looking at pure cinematic direction here. TV shows used to feel so formulaic, sterile, and frankly monotonous, but this is a whole different beast. For instance, the way they use parallel editing—it pops up several times; you'll see Nucky Thompson holding a press conference to calm the public and announce an end to the violence, while simultaneously cutting to scenes of the D'Alessio brothers being taken out on his orders. Do I even need to mention how much that mirrors the approach in ''The Godfather''? Then there are the camera angles, the framing, the movement... I mean, just think back to that 70-minute pilot directed by Martin Scorsese. What a hurricane of an opening! If they hadn't kept the series going, that single episode would have stood alone as a masterpiece.

The cinematic inspiration is obvious, too, through symbolic nods and mentions of films from that era. In the first season, Margaret Schroeder goes to the movies to watch Chaplin's Kid with the kids; in season 3, Gina Lollobrigida describes ''Nosferatu'' to her boss Rosetti; someone brings up the comedies of Buster Keaton; Mickey Doyle talks about the ''Baghdad Thief'' in season 4; and by season 5, which is set in 1931, we've already had mentions of Lewis Milestone's ''Front Page'', along with gangster classics like ''Public Enemy'' and ''Little Caesar''. I have to say, I was actually hoping for those little touches before I started watching, and it’s been such a treat when they show up. You saw similar stuff in ''The Sopranos''.

The acting is top-tier as well, and I don't think I even need to bring up the perfectionism in the production design and costuming. In some scenes where the dialogue felt a bit slow to me, I didn't actually mind because I found myself just soaking in the interiors... studying the furniture... or checking out the clothing and hairstyles. The CGI used for the Atlantic City sets doesn't bother me, though in certain shots (mostly wide or medium shots), you can definitely tell it's digital. The characterization is also excellent. Sure, there are some clichés, but every character feels like a real person with a soul... flesh and blood people... everyone has their own weight to carry.

The content of the show, much like ''The Wire'', is uncompromising and hits you right in the gut. It's the kind of thing that wouldn't fly in Hollywood today—it just wouldn't be considered. Like ''The Wire'', the series portrays corruption and depravity at the highest levels, skillfully mapping out the web of graft connecting politicians, businessmen, and criminals. The script does tend to get a little bogged down in that classic American way (you know, the last-minute rescue trope), but overall, it's very well written.

It seems like that new "New Hollywood" generation we were all calling for has landed exactly where we least expected it—on television, which has become the ultimate sanctuary for creative freedom.

Absolutely.

goldenhound32 said:Not everyone, though most people I know.

I suspect the reason is quite simple: people have lost the capacity for sustained focus. It’s become much easier to binge three episodes of a series—each roughly 45 minutes—than it is to actually sit through a single ninety-minute movie.

I’ll be the first to admit that, personally, I find series easier to consume.

But, truth be told, I still derive far more enjoyment from movies.

To be more precise—in *good* movies. I mean, bad ones just feel like an absolute chore to sit through, and I honestly get zero enjoyment out of them. Unfortunately, there seem to be way more of those than the good stuff.

I honestly think it all boils down to the sheer amount of time spent building that connection between the audience and the characters. It’s just more intimate that way. A movie tries to achieve something similar through sequels—or at least attempts to via trilogies—but, let’s be honest, they usually fail to pull it off. Sure, a movie can deliver an impact in a much shorter, almost negligible window of time, but it just doesn't create that sense of "addiction" you get from a series. We could also probably factor the whole cultural trend aspect into this discussion, I suppose.

silvergardener6 said:We'll just have to wait and see if this role lands her another Oscar nomination.

Probably. Though, if I'm being honest, the whole movie feels like absolute garbage to me.