Posts by bluenomad2

Just tell me where you found that movie list? I'm asking for a reason. If you claim to love Classic Westerns and have actually seen them, how could you possibly overlook Keoma http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074740/

After Leone's films, these are the best. Cult status, Nero. It's strange to me—it isn't just some random Classic Western, it’s legitimately ranked right alongside Leone's work, whether people liked it or not.

Six episodes, apparently. If they manage to bring back the top-tier writers, this season might actually kill it. They had over a decade to come up with something decent. In my view, the biggest win is getting David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson back on screen. That’s a start.

Rick Deckard, you're a fan—what's your take on the return?

briskhound2 said:They're robots. Transformers are just oversized robots. I don't see why they aren't sci-fi. There's no magic powering them, no spells being cast at enemies; everything about them follows established laws of physics, just advanced versions.

Exactly. They are robots, which makes it sci-fi. The movie even features scientists dealing with the tech. It’s just poorly executed sci-fi.

But calling 🤣Edge of Tomorrow Fantasy
is the real stretch.

The problem is you aren't explaining anything. You haven't used a single one of your own words to clarify your point. I already told you in the movie thread the difference between Fantasy and Sci-Fi. Every genre operates by its own set of rules. You haven't offered a single actual argument for why you classify Transformers or EoT as Fantasy, especially considering how much Sci-Fi is baked into those films. You're just digging your own grave at this point. You can't tell two distinct genres apart. Go research and learn.

cosmicgull, as briskhound2 wrote here.

briskhound2 said:Sci-Fi. It's like theoretical physics—anything can happen, provided you follow some internal logic, no matter how wild it sounds. Time travel or faster-than-light travel, for instance. Both are impossible by current standards, but you can establish a framework. Fantasy relies on elements completely disconnected from science; magic, sorcery, mythology. Sometimes the lines blur, like in Star Wars, but you can't call something like Lord of the Rings Sci-Fi when it lacks both concepts. Then again, you can't claim Transformers is fantasy because the whole movie screams science and fiction.

Transformers and EoT are Sci-Fi. Superhero movies are Sci-Fi too. Telekinesis and telepathy fall under fiction. What genre is that? Sci-Fi...

A lot of superhero flicks feature scientists investigating tech. Take Tony Stark (Iron Man) or Bruce Banner (Hulk)—highly intelligent guys doing actual scientific research. Whether it's weaponry or radiation, it's all science.

So, the superhero subgenre belongs to Sci-Fi and action. There's zero fantasy involved. Deal with it. You're the outlier here.

Iron Man is fantasy 🤣 absolutely top tier. Transformers and Captain America too 🤣

We're looking at two distinct genres here. Science Fiction which means Iron Man and Transformers fall under Science Fiction because they blend scientific elements (technology) with fiction.

Fantasy is mostly films like LOTR, Willow, and the like. Magic, trolls, dragons, blah blah, all that stuff. Exceptions exist, like Ivan Zhivov's work from Capar, where the film expertly blends drama with fantasy. Or Scrooge (ghosts of past, present, and future).

So, IM and Transformers have nothing to do with the fantasy genre. Star Wars, on the other hand, is a combination of both.

Drop the source here http://www.filmski.net/dossier/311/m._night_shyamalan

Arrested Development is top tier. Just like Jerry Seinfeld, The Wonder Years, or Python enthusiasts.

Lately, I’d say Office Space stands out as one of the better picks from the last two decades.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0151804/

Comparing shows to movies is a losing game. There are more movies out there, sure, but the average quality of TV series seems much lower than film. Even in today's mediocre era of cinema, I still find far more solid movies than series.

Modern sitcom humor just doesn't hold a candle to movies. There's too much garbage. If there's one thing I can't stand about comedy shows, it's the family sitcoms. They used to be rare, but now they're everywhere. Back then, we actually had gems like The Wonder Years, if anyone remembers. Fred Savage. His brother was stuck in that trash Boy Meets World.

Even a decent show like Fresh Prince is better than most modern stuff, and that's being generous. Honestly, screw today's humor. Credit to the exceptions.

Richard Wilson4 said:Everyone’s agreeing on sitcoms, but that's not the point. The question isn't about whether we're in some "golden age of sitcoms," it's whether they actually beat out the comedies from that same era.😉

Which comedies are actually better than 30 Rock during that stretch?

I'm talking even compared to The Big Bang Theory or How I Met Your Mother.

So, yeah, even those light, commercialized sitcoms—are there five comedies out there that genuinely top them?

Sure, but you have to understand that those shows aren't anything special to me. I don't care for shows that just throw jokes at the wall. 30 Rock is better written than those two I can't stand, but it's still nothing groundbreaking. Even though it isn't strictly a comedy, I find Louie funnier than all three of those combined. I prefer intelligent humor mixed with a decent dose of drama.

Bottom line: Louie was an excellent series during that period.

Now, regarding movies. Last year's What We Do in the Shadows was hilarious. With the American version of The Intouchables, I was laughing constantly, yet it had plenty of dramatic weight.

I also enjoy Alan Partridge. To me, The Trip and Alpha Papa are top-tier comedies. Since you aren't a fan of Brit humor, you probably won't dig this style.😁

As for American films, last year's The Grand Budapest Hotel was outstanding. It blends comedy and drama, but the drama doesn't overwhelm because of the absurd situations. Wes Anderson isn't for everyone, but I appreciate his style.

Chef was good too.

Generally, I prefer a mix of comedy and drama about 90% of the time; pure comedies only appeal to me about 10% of the time. M*A*S*H did a great job blending the two, especially in the later seasons.

That's why I dislike comedies that just try too hard to be funny by tossing out one-liners. It doesn't work for me. Have you seen M*A*S*H? The characters were caricatures throwing out jokes, but when the dramatic moments hit, it was the most emotional show I've ever watched. That's why their jokes actually landed.

Rebecca Peterson3 said:Honestly, I am counting down the days until the next season. Even the basic premise hooked me—that character who is physically free but mentally shackled... there’s just something about that slow, deliberate pacing that really works for me.
It possesses everything a truly great series should have, though I suppose in an era where standards have plummeted so low that people mistake absolute garbage for prestige television, it’s a different story entirely.

I can barely stand to watch Game of Thrones, and as for Breaking Bad, I actually tapped out after the second season; it was decent enough, but I just couldn't find the motivation to keep going.
The Fall is also incredibly, incredibly solid... Scully is mature, sharp, and doesn't take anyone's nonsense. Highly recommended.

I haven't started The Fall yet, but all I hear is praise. Scully and The X Files are top tier! At least those first six seasons are masterpieces of modern television.

Rebecca Peterson3 said:Honestly, I am counting down the days until the next season. Even the basic premise hooked me—that character who is physically free but mentally shackled... there’s just something about that slow, deliberate pacing that really works for me.
It possesses everything a truly great series should have, though I suppose in an era where standards have plummeted so low that people mistake absolute garbage for prestige television, it’s a different story entirely.

I can barely stand to watch Game of Thrones, and as for Breaking Bad, I actually tapped out after the second season; it was decent enough, but I just couldn't find the motivation to keep going.
The Fall is also incredibly, incredibly solid... Scully is mature, sharp, and doesn't take anyone's nonsense. Highly recommended.

I agree that watching a series is a bigger thrill, but only if it actually holds up. You need consistency. The Wire is the gold standard. The Sopranos too, and even Homicide—even if season seven was a mess, I could watch the debates between Bayliss and Pembleton for days. No show today can replicate that.

It’s excellent, honestly. I love the characters they built, the storytelling, the depth, and the fact that it's a drama while still feeling completely unique. Right now, it's my top pick. Personally, I think Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad are overrated; Breaking Bad was great until season 4, then it started leaning way too hard into comic relief.

They're trash shows, just popular because people love following the crowd. Sendler's films are probably better.

Comic book movies and shows will always be the most popular.

M*A*S*H, Cheers, and Seinfeld are easily my top picks for American TV. Honestly, nothing being produced lately even comes close to that level. Everything feels way too forced now. I also think the older British comedies are fantastic—better than anything coming out of the US or the UK these days when it comes to humor.

I gave Raising Hope a shot, along with The Middle, but neither really clicked for me. I truly don't get what people see in shows like that, but hey. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

As far as comedies go, I think Louie is excellent. It leans more toward dramedy, but the writing is incredibly smart.

Richard Wilson4 said:Compared to comedies from the last few years? 😉

We just don't get comedies this good anymore, not like the more recent stuff like Raising Hope or 30 Rock.

And with Raising Hope, it wasn't about big-name actors or some massive budget. It was all about the characters and the writing—stuff you just don't find in a 90-minute comedy bit these days.

,

Forgive me, but those are either bad or just Solid. Today's American humor feels like it's at an elementary school level. I'm not praising British humor either. I'm not one of those people who claims British is better while spitting on American stuff. Both have their highs and lows. 30Rock has its moments, but in the end, it isn't anything special. Everything else mentioned is below average. Community was good.

When I watch the older sitcoms, they absolutely kill these new ones because the writing is better and the acting feels more natural.

The guy above lists Boardwalk Empire and then throws in Arrow, Constantine, and Prison Break as examples of quality series. Give me a break. Arrow and Constantine are comic book shows. I get that they'll be the most popular things today, but they aren't shows that can compete with the best films out there. Boardwalk can. Not the fifth season, though, but fine.

To be fair, Mad Men is an incredible TV series. Along with Rectify, it’s easily one of the best things on television right now. Sadly, Rectify rarely gets the credit it deserves.

Modern sitcoms are a disaster. Even the few that are actually good? They're terrible.

frozenraven39 said:Here’s my take on the questions that were asked.

One of the main reasons we’re seeing this massive obsession with TV series lately—this total cultural fixation—is actually pretty obvious and frankly quite prosaic. It all comes down to technology. Nowadays, the primary way we consume video content is through downloading or streaming, which usually ends up being played back on a home television. By its very definition, a TV series is designed for that specific type of consumption. A movie? That’s meant for the cinema. When the film format was first established, televisions didn't even exist. Sure, plenty of people watch stuff on laptops, tablets, or phones, but a film just can't reach its full potential on an interface like that. Is it any wonder the small screen has taken over?

I’m firmly on the film side of this debate—no holding back. TV series just don't offer the same level of artistic freedom that movies do; they’re shackled to the rules of their own format, constantly forced to manipulate the viewer into coming back for more. Personally, I have zero interest in shows that lack a cohesive, pre-planned narrative—those types where scripts are cobbled together episode by episode because, let's face it, the commercial interests are calling all the shots. It’s always the same tired tricks used to juice the ratings, and a series only ends when the studio decides they've squeezed every last drop of profit out of it. There’s simply no room in television for true directorial virtuosity—for playing with visual language, camera movement, lighting, color palettes, or the interplay between interior and exterior settings. Instead, most series end up looking exactly the same.

Most of the TV series I find myself gravitating toward are either sitcoms or mini-series—older formats, really—though I tend to view mini-series more like extended TV movies that just happen to stretch out a bit longer. There are a few multi-episode series that stand out as genuine exceptions, though; shows like The Wire that I honestly consider just as good as the best films out there.

Maybe the golden age of cinema is behind us—I don't know—but I still find myself leaning toward movies over TV series every single time. Even when I'm watching at home, nothing—and I mean absolutely nothing, regardless of how much we've upgraded to 4K or high-def—can actually compete with that feeling of sitting in a dark theater. There’s just no substitute for the big screen, is there?

Excellent post. I agree. This "golden age" everyone loves to mention is a total myth. There were several golden ages before this one. People don't mention them because they either don't know about them or grew up on modern series and never watched anything else. I call them weekend watchers.

The last five or six television seasons have been significantly weaker than the era spanning from when The Sopranos started to when they ended. And don't even get me started on the period between 1990, when Twin Peaks began, and 1998. That was a terrible stretch for quality.

I think the decline of the last five or six seasons is due to the high bar set during the era when The Sopranos finished. There are still great series out there, but in my opinion, the amount of overrated shows in this recent period is massive.

Noah Roberts46 said:I agree, but I'd take this mess over that any day. 😁
Clearly just a matter of taste. 🤷

I don't know what they're watching either; I'm just stating my opinion. You rarely see films shot like Birdman. It's an excellent movie—you don't often see someone mock themselves like that. It takes guts. 👍

Agreed. Anything other than Birdman would be a shock. Technically, Birdman is masterfully directed. Oscars for directing are usually hit because direction is one of the few things you can judge somewhat objectively. That’s why Cuaron won for Gravity last year. He earned it.

So Inarritu should take the directing Oscar. Boyhood is good, but it's overrated and nowhere near the best film of the year. Respect for the 12 years, but in terms of direction, it's much weaker than Birdman.

Noah Roberts46 said:1. The Academy is notorious for lacking self-deprecating humor = Birdman stands no chance.
2. Birdman is a great film, interestingly shot and intriguing in its satire, but it feels niche—almost like an inside joke between actors, theater, film, and critics. The direction is good, but not exactly monumental.
3. Boyhood, on the other hand, is a project of immense significance. The result is a solid, coherent film about growing up and the passage of time. It took courage and intelligence to pick specific details from certain eras and weave them into a story, predicting people would remember them years later (Britney, Harry Potter, even the Obama campaign). You have to tie all that to an essentially autobiographical core story. I wanted the film to sweep me away and be the best I've ever seen. It wasn't. But it's still an excellent film, likely the best this year.

Point number one: that's just your opinion. Stop playing film critic; you'd be more objective if you didn't just follow the critics.

Everything Smith puts out is garbage. Just another sellout that people unfortunately fall for.

Yeah, right. You "Stephen Hawking" types 🤣

What kind of user are you? We were talking about the movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2980516/

I wrote "Stephen Hawking isn't worth much, so why would the movie be?" But yeah, I was actually talking about the user 👏

silvergardener6 caught on immediately, but now you're all rambling about some phantom user with the handle Hawking 🤣

I'm going to go see if a user like that even exists.

The issue is that users like silvergardener6 never look at both sides of an argument, so they never acknowledge their own insults or labeling, even when everyone tells them to stop. As far as I'm concerned, let him keep going. At least he's interesting.

Found him. Here is the user with that nickname http://www.reddit.com/user/56837

127 posts, last active back in 2008.🤣

northernpilot2 said:Is Hawking actually a user here, or did I miss something?

If he’s referring to a specific user named Hawking, then I must have missed something, because calling him worthless would definitely be an insult.

As far as I know, Hawking isn't a user on this site. That's just the magic of the internet—belittling famous people. It's even easier when they're outsiders. Sure, the posts were deleted, but I felt fine about it. My stance on Hawking remains unchanged.

northernpilot2 said:This thread wasn't opened over some insult toward Hawking. It was opened because you insulted me directly to my face. His supposed insult doesn't justify my question in chat, "What kind of comment is that?!" You just deleted the posts like you always do, and bluenomad2 still won't realize that according to the rules, you shouldn't be hurling direct insults at other users.

Fine, your decision stands—as far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed.

What insult, man?

Calling a quasi-scientist an insult? You can try selling that one to grandmas at the farmer's market. I still see you that way based on your posts on the movie #2 subforum and elsewhere. This isn't an insult; it's a suggestion that you stop generalizing, labeling, and attacking people like you constantly do on the movie #2 board. Right now, you're obsessed with the Interstellar topic. Even your last post is full of labels and attempts to dismiss other users just because they don't agree with you. Go ahead and belittle actual people like I do—it's much more effective when they're outsiders.

And since you're constantly bragging about "scientific facts" that are 99% wrong, I think we all know what's really going on here.

Now you're playing the victim. I didn't expect anything less.