Posts by gentlehawk95

It’s just common sense, really—you don't go looking for trouble with someone who's got nothing to lose and plenty of ways to make you regret it.

Honestly, who cares if Putin gets hit with sanctions? If he decides to just shut off the gas valves, the entire European economy would basically collapse overnight. There isn't a single sanction on this planet that he or the Russians won't be able to weather through sheer spite. If anything, we should be more worried about him turning the tables on us and cutting off our supply lines first.

Paul Thomas46 said:If I were going to watch this, it would need to move along at a much faster pace—like a campy B-movie...
Honestly, even standard feature films feel too long sometimes, let alone something dragged out through endless episodes.

Whatever. Since when does the runtime of a project have anything to do with how good it actually is? That's just nonsense. If you think that way, you clearly haven't sat through enough truly great epic films or top-tier prestige TV series to realize how wrong you are.

Joseph Edwards4 said:It’s simple: no TV series can ever match the quality of a truly great film. I don't care if you're picking from cult classics or whatever else; it doesn't matter. Sure, certain shows have their perks—if the characters are well-written, you feel a connection to them—but even a masterpiece like Breaking Bad suffers from filler episodes. Sometimes an entire season or a huge chunk of it just drags. Real movies don't deal with that. That is the fundamental difference.

The issue is that inflated ratings make people think every single series is a masterpiece. An 8.5 rating should signify a mediocre show, and once you hit the 8.0 mark, you're looking at something subpar. But because the scores on the biggest rating sites aren't comparable to movie scores, it creates this false impression that shows are superior while movies are lacking. People swallow this misinformation whole.

If you actually look at things objectively, even the best series tend to overstay their welcome. They have dull episodes, tedious seasons, or they simply fall off a cliff. Yet, the ratings don't reflect that reality. They are biased upward, whereas movie ratings are often unfairly harsh.

I've said this before: when I've been working all day and want to unwind before bed, it’s easier to commit to a single episode than a full feature. That’s the advantage. If the show is decent or even great, fine. A movie demands two good hours, whereas an episode is only 45 minutes. I hate pausing a film just to resume it later; I prefer to start something and finish it.

Well, someone's bound to be unhappy about it. I've binged a ton of series, and nothing has ever hit me quite like Good Omens. I actually watched it twice back-to-back. To me, it's better than 99% of the movies I've seen. Not for everyone, obviously—we all have our own tastes.

Morgan Brown4 said:I honestly will never get people who can binge half a season of a show in one sitting, but then they start complaining about a movie being slightly long—like, "Ugh, I can't watch this, it's three hours looooong"—or they react the same way to a limited series with a few sequels. They'll moan, "Oh man, there are ten installments!" yet they have absolutely no problem powering through a 15-season show where every season has 30 episodes 😕

It’s just as weird when you see the exact opposite. You know those people who knock out two movies a day like it's nothing, but for some reason, they struggle to commit to a series. Even though watching six episodes takes the exact same amount of time as two two-hour movies, they still find the series too much to handle 🤔

Personally, I don't have an issue with either approach. I'm perfectly fine powering through an entire season of a show in a single day, and I'll knock out two or three movies back-to-back regardless of how long they are. It seems silly to me; I just don't get why people draw such a big distinction there.

Christian Myers said:Not necessarily, though. I've sat through some series—maybe 8 to 10 episodes—that could've easily been squeezed into one solid two-hour movie. It feels like they just stretch things out just to hit a specific episode count. Personally, I'm more of a movie guy—I don't really have the patience to follow a show for months or even years. I'd rather watch a movie in one evening and know exactly how it ends. The only exceptions are those episodic shows where every episode stands on its own—then I might tune into something like Monko, Malcolm, or whatever.

"More or less"... yeah, there's the kicker right there. Honestly, I don't really care which format I'm watching; both work for me depending on my mood. But then again, I'm pretty picky about what I pick, so I try to make sure every scene in a series actually earns its keep, because at the end of the day, everything needs to serve a purpose.

mistyotter35 said:It really depends on who you ask, I suppose, but over the last decade, television series have arguably surpassed films in terms of quality.

Well, obviously they are, especially now that Mel Brooks is getting up there in years.🤣🤣🤣🤣
All joking aside, though, a series just works better when you have more than a measly two hours to play with; you can actually let the plot breathe. I mean, how many series lately have been based on films from decades ago? Good grief, especially in the last couple of years, we've seen endless shows based on movies that came out ten years ago, and of course, the show ends up being superior simply because it has the luxury of time to stretch out the timeline and weave in much deeper subplots.

feralpilot0 said:Movies.
I’ve been steering clear of the whole TV series hyper-production craze for quite some time now.
I haven't even touched Game of Thrones.
Honestly, I just don't get the impulse to binge two entire seasons of something in a single night.

🤣🤣🤣🤣

frozenraven39 said:This is the thread where we hash out the age-old debate: movies versus TV series.

They say we're living in the golden age of television—you know, those endless arguments about how the popularity, cultural impact, and even the artistic merit of TV series have finally overtaken cinema. The idea being that movies are becoming passé while series define our zeitgeist.

Do you actually buy that?
Why do you think things shifted this way?
Forget the objective truth for a second—what’s your personal preference?

Let's see if we can dig up some answers to these questions...

(It probably makes sense to open an identical thread over on the Series subforum, though I'm not sure if we can have the exact same topic in two places—I'll just start both and let the moderators sort it out 😉 )

I’ve been consuming both for years now, diving into international films and series alike. It’s pretty cool how so many foreign series are actually adaptations of movies that came out a few years prior; they complement each other perfectly, and as long as you know how to pick them, both mediums offer incredible quality. My only real gripe with series is the agonizing wait for new seasons—you end up biting your nails for years just waiting for a second season to drop. I mean, movies have their gaps too, but with series, the anticipation feels so much more intense because there's always just so much more to look forward to.

Of course I’d love to see a movie based on The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show, but let’s be real for a second... hardly anyone actually picks up those comics anymore, especially not the younger crowd. I mean, if some studio actually had the guts to turn that concept into a film, maybe—just maybe—it could spark a little interest and get people reading again. There’s definitely a niche audience out there that would show up, sure, but what about everyone else? Nobody in Hollywood sees the profit margins in that, you know? It feels like a lost cause to me, honestly. But hey, at the end of the day, a comic is just a comic.

Frank Moore4 said:Unfortunately, there’s nothing out there besides some cartoons; there isn't a live-action movie yet, mostly because it's based on an Italian comic book that nobody in the States has ever heard of. But hey, who knows? Maybe they'll finally get around to making a movie out of it one day, much like how we're waiting on that upcoming Dylan Dog adaptation starring Brandon Routh (Superman Returns) in the lead role.

If you're looking for a movie that captures that same kind of visual energy as Alan Ford, you should probably check out that old classic American dark comedy, Marathon Runner. 😬

OH YEAH, imagine Pantelija as Number 1. Hahaha!

Chloe Allen13 said:... just a little something extra... back on May 18th, 2013—which was about seven years ago if you're doing the math—MoMA held the premiere for Alan Ford directed by Darij Harjaček.

So, anyone actually there? Did you catch it? What was the vibe like?

And if you want to talk about sheer stupidity, the way they wrapped up that movie back in '95 was such a blatant setup—a total "to be continued" moment where they basically promised someone would stumble upon the board game again. It was screaming at us that a sequel was coming, and honestly, when you're sitting there in the theater all those years ago, you actually expect them to deliver something substantial, a real continuation of a great story. But instead, after we spent two decades holding our breath and waiting, we get slapped in the face with this absolute garbage they finally put out.

Frank Richardson said:I watched the original, and honestly, I don't think these newer ones have much to do with what made the first one great.

That’s exactly my point. This recent stuff isn't really Jumanji; they should have just picked a completely different title instead of trying to piggyback on the legacy and essentially diluting the only real Jumanji from '95.

hollowsailor19 said:As far as I'm concerned, there is only one true, original Jumanji from back in '95.

Anything else is just a cheap attempt to cash in on a timeless classic, and honestly, it feels like a crime against cinema. For those of us who grew up in the 90s, Jumanji was everything—our absolute go-to movie. It sat right up there with the likes of Home Alone or Dumb & Dumber in our hearts.

But what really sticks with me, the thing that keeps me up at night, is all those unanswered, unsettling questions left hanging since the mid-nineties. Like, what actually *is* Jumanji? Where did it come from in the first place? How many people have played it before? Is death a real possibility inside the game? Did Kirsten Dunst’s character actually die during the chaos? If everyone ends up dead, who's left to finish the board? Does that hunter, Van Pelt, even realize he's just a piece of the game? And why is it that the adults can't hear the jungle sounds while the kids are literally fighting for their lives? Can you even destroy the game once it starts? It goes on forever...

And obviously, you can't talk about it without mentioning the legend, Robin Williams. Plus, the rest of that original cast just had such perfect chemistry.

It seems like we're all pretty much on the same page here—they've gone and ruined the magic for us... but this is a real take right here, man, seriously, you hit the nail on the head. It's all just incredibly sad when you think about it; I don't even have the heart to watch the third one, though unfortunately, I did sit through the second. Let them have their fun, I guess, those spoiled brats.

Joshua Kern said:If they ever actually made a live-action movie about Alan Ford, here’s my absolute dream cast:
1. Ryan Reynolds as Alan Ford
2. Robert De Niro as Bob Rok-Majkl Imperoli
3. Brad Dourif as Number One
4. Sir Oliver & Neil Morrison (like Tony from Seinfeld)
5. Arnold Schwarzenegger as Grunf😁
6. Kelso Grammer as the Fat Boss (like Fryer from Fryer)
7. 7. Jeremiah-Christopher Lloyd
8. 8. Superhik-Rex Line (Travis from Mountaineer)

Now, Alan Ford is a total bullseye, but the rest of them? I don't know... and Grunf? Honestly, he just doesn't fit the vibe for me, neither mentally nor physically—I'm picturing someone more like Steve Martin.

How hard did the first movie hit you, and how much of a slog was that fifteen-year wait for a sequel?

Does anyone else get genuinely annoyed—and honestly, I think this was the single worst creative decision they could have made—by the fact that they ditched the actual board game concept? And when I say game, I mean a real tabletop experience, not some mindless video game nonsense like those old Sega or Mega Drive titles... To me, the whole movie lost its soul by pivoting to this cheap PlayStation-style gimmick. Am I just shouting into the void here, or does anyone actually think this was a brilliant move? I’m dying to know what logic someone could use to justify this change. Does anyone else feel like the movie was basically gutted by this shift, and that they should have just stuck to the classic dice-rolling tension?
The entire essence of the story has always been centered on that dice-rolling game that gave the movie its name, Jumanji, rather than having some WWE superstars chasing antelopes through a safari...
One of my absolute favorite movies has been completely ruined... what do you guys think?

How does one even get to that point? Is there actually an endgame waiting at the end of all this?
Thanks.

Aladdin 2019 is alright, I guess—it hits the marks, the acting is solid enough, and the whole thing is put together quite nicely... plus, Jasmine's tiger was absolutely killer!
My main gripe, though, is that they really missed the mark with Jafar; he should have been played by someone older and more menacing, but instead, they just threw some young kid at the role who lacked any real presence, which isn't what Jafar is about at all. And then there's the whole Genie situation... why make the Genie Black? Look, I'll give Will Smith his due, he did a fine job and it’s definitely not a total disaster, but for some reason, the whole idea of a Black Genie just doesn't sit right with me...