Posts by shadowangler50

goldendrifter19 said:I'm not sure if this counts. I remember they used to promote it constantly about ten years ago, but now it's pretty much faded from memory:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0316396/

It's a solid film. I watched it the year it came out—I was eleven at the time.
Great casting for the lead.

Everything I said stands. The details shift from movie to movie, so if I say Leone isn't a plagiarist, then that’s just how it is. It's my own damn opinion, and I don't need to cite anyone else to prove it.

Stealing is stealing. They bought the rights legally and signed the contract in ink. What else do you want?
Is it an original work or pure plagiarism? You shouldn't even be offering your own opinion on the matter.
Black is black, and white is white. You can't just decide that black is actually white and call it an opinion.
I still can't get over that whole "abuse of power" nonsense. Seriously?

I'm not twisting anything; everything is right there in the thread.
When I talk about plagiarism or theft, I’m not even talking about the legal side of things. It’s about the work itself. Doesn't the quality just plummet the moment you realize an author is leaning on someone else's ideas?

An artist might be brilliant, but that doesn't mean their work follows suit. Why should we confuse the creator with the creation?

You shouldn't tell someone they're being dense, but since we've already hit that level, I'll say it: you're being dense. Using audience ratings and critic scores as a metric doesn't suddenly make a series high quality. Does popularity actually equal substance? Not even close.
So what?
Art simply doesn't permit it. And therefore?It’s simple: things are either good, or they aren't. Why complicate it?

If you're going to be bold enough to constantly twist my words, then fine—I’ll set the record straight since your behavior clearly demands it. If you have such a problem with being quoted, maybe stop misrepresenting what I actually said in the first place.

High ratings don't automatically equate to quality. Is it really that hard to accept that audience scores and critic reviews can be completely irrelevant?
You're right that things are either good or they aren't. But how exactly am I supposed to apply your logic to decide which is which?
By your logic, there’s no way to tell if the Mona Lisa holds more artistic value than some modern "artist" who draws two circles and calls it high art. How can we even make that distinction?

I never provided a definition, nor would I ever attempt to define a film or series. Every single production has its own set of rules.

Theft is theft. For a remake, the rights were legally purchased and the contract was signed in stone.
Did you actually write this, or is it some clone of yours?
Then you turn around and claim not every theft counts as stealing.

Maybe you don't even know what you're responding to, which is entirely possible. But who cares...

We clearly agree to disagree.

To you, quality is defined by "fame"—if a series is a global hit, it must be good.
That isn't always true; plenty of highly developed works end up being total garbage.

I haven't ignored anyone. I enjoy reading everything and watching almost everything.

Here is a textbook example of how you twist my words.
If I say True Detective is a world-famous series and will face a lawsuit if it turns out to be stolen, you claim I said it was "good." I am discussing the legal component, yet you frame it as an artistic one. You fail to grasp the nuances.

And you persist in insisting that I’m talking about viewership quality, when for the hundredth time, I am stating that these series were rated as high quality by both audiences and critics, and are thus recognized as such.
I am talking about one thing, you are talking about another. Do I need to draw you a diagram?

I have no desire to define anything. Nothing is linear; everything varies from one film to the next. Whether someone decides to seek legal protection or not is entirely their own business.
Of course we are talking about art, but it happens that an artist sues another artist, much like the case involving Akira Kurosawa.

You wrote a definition of plagiarism that implies Sergio Leone isn't an artist, but just a thief.
Now, suddenly, you don't remember what you said?

I don't have a tactic, I'm not dodging anything, and nobody is catching me out. I write about movies and series based on how I experienced them; I don't rely on what the "majority" thinks.

Maybe you don't have a tactic because you simply don't know what you're writing about. That is certainly possible.

Definitions don't exist for me, and your "whether they've seen it or not" argument can only be made by someone who isn't actually a cinephile.
Your "world-renowned" criteria mean nothing to me; I don't think in those terms. Quality is the only metric, not "fame." I am not a judge, nor do I care if someone decides to sue someone else, but when I see someone using someone else's content, my opinion of them changes.

The point is, you talk way too much, and you don't need to reply to my posts (you don't even have to read them; there's an ignore option).

You fail to distinguish between art and the law, so talking to you is a waste of breath.

You have the ignore option for my posts, too.

I'm not the one posting here; you're the one throwing out baseless claims while acting like an absolute expert on everything.

You lecture me on the difference between plagiarism and a remake, then play the victim. You bring up legalities in art and then immediately claim we aren't talking about law, but art. How am I supposed to have a rational debate with someone so inconsistent?

It sounds like you're describing yourself. It’ll stay that way as long as you keep writing about things you haven't even seen.

Nice tactic. When you get cornered, you just pivot to a different topic. Very clever.

You're barking up the wrong tree, Jesse Thomas7.
This is directed at those forum users who prefer endless bickering and pedantic definitions over actually sitting down to watch the show they're critiquing.

You're the one throwing around definitions—and conveniently forgetting them whenever it suits you.
Whether you've watched Red Riding Hood or not is irrelevant to whether True Detective is a rip-off.
True Detective is a massive global hit; if there were actual theft involved, there would be lawsuits. Until then, you're just shouting into the void.

wiredraven82 said:Look, I get where you're coming from, but waiting for an 8-episode chunk is way too long for me—haha. You know what my biggest pet peeve is? It’s when you’re following a series, and then life happens and you can't watch it for a while, and THEN—boom—you suddenly have to binge the whole thing all at once to catch up.🤣

But regarding the brutality—that's the Truth. Judging by that first episode, I haven't seen anything quite like this yet...

It’s been a few years since I started treating series like movie marathons. I just wait until the full season drops, blast through it in a couple of days, and then wait a whole year for the next one.
If TV shows were drugs, I’d be a total addict.🤣

Now I have this uncontrollable urge to watch the pilot. I feel hooked.

wiredraven82 said:I caught the season premiere of The Walking Dead yesterday—look, I’ll be the first to admit I’m a fan of the series, no shame there. 🙂 But man, that was absolutely depraved. The sheer sickness of some of those characters in this new episode... it was beyond the pale. Honestly, it was so visceral I actually felt physically ill.

I watch The Walking Dead too, but I can't stand waiting for weekly releases. I'd rather just binge an entire season once seven or eight episodes have dropped. Why wait around?
Based on the trailer, this season looks absolutely brutal—even more intense than the previous ones.

You're the one obsessed with sticking to definitions. I'm not.

You just throw them out there and refuse to stand by them. What kind of tactic is that? When you run out of actual arguments, you just start acting crazy. Is that really your best move?

How am I supposed to deal with this? Everyone. It reminds me of those imaginary sixty thousand people who are automatically on your side. Who actually believes that?

And what about these people? Sixty thousand? Is that all? People always start pivoting when they realize they have zero arguments left. Is that really the best you can do?

You’ve got nothing left to say. These are your final death throes.

You're wrong.
This discussion has become so utterly pointless that I have nothing left to say.

Maybe that’s easy for you to say, but for me? There are a million different ways to look at this.

More vague, murky, and half-baked answers. Is anyone actually going to provide some clarity?

Quote : shadow dancer

I honestly couldn't care less about whatever backroom deals they made. I love the original just as much as the remake.

It isn’t even a remake. It’s blatant plagiarism. How can you call it anything else under your own definition of what a remake actually is?

Quote : shadow dancer

I’m not going to explain myself. If you haven't figured it out by now, you simply don't get it.

Obviously nobody, since everyone already told you that you were wrong.

Quote : shadow dancer

You can say that again.

Think whatever you want, but clearly, nothing you touch turns to gold.

Quote : shadow dancer

No. There are endless ways to rip off someone’s work or just strip away pieces of it. Is anything actually original anymore? You have a logic problem. I don't.

No.
Theft is theft. Whether you steal the entire work or just a piece of it, it’s still stealing. Is there even a distinction?
If you knew—or should have known—that you were stealing from someone else, the method doesn't matter. Does the "how" really change the fact that it was wrong?

You're the only one making a mistake here by treating a movie like a game of tennis or football.
In art, nothing is ever crystal clear to everyone. Opinions are like manure; everybody’s got one.
To you, this film is a classic; to me, it's a remake.
You cite me, I cite you. It's even.

I am citing Akira Kurosawa's lawsuit and Sergio Leone's settlement to Akira Kurosawa of the South.
I'm not citing you; I'm citing facts.

You can wait until Judgment Day, or you can go back and actually read my posts with some understanding.

If that post about Hamlet and the play is your big explanation, then I guess I'll be waiting until Judgment Day.

I don't have anything better to do than quote you. You know what you wrote.

I know, but clearly you don't. I could easily dump your own sentences back at you, but I can't be bothered.
I don't have time to waste.

There are just as many exceptions as there are instances of plagiarism.
I don't particularly care for Leone's films, but I respect—meaning me, not your imaginary 60,000 fans—that he didn't steal anything, he just filmed a remake.
But he violated Akira Kurosawa's copyrights and ended up in court, and rightfully so.
Whether you agree with me or not is up to you.

Plagiarism is plagiarism, and an original is an original. There is no such thing as "half-plagiarized" or "half-original."

You can respect it all you want, but if he didn't acquire the rights to make the film, it means he stole it.
If someone steals your wallet and you claim they didn't steal it, just because they didn't ask permission first, what kind of logic is that?

Ask him how he worked; I'm just an observer.

You can repeat my posts as often as you want, but to me, this is a Sergio Leone remake of Akira Kurosawa style. That’s my personal take, not some appeal to the invisible 60,000 people you love to cite.

Is it really that hard to admit you were wrong?
Sergio Leone films it, fails to buy the rights from Akira Kurosawa, doesn't sign with Akira Kurosawa, and then gets sued. Eventually, everything is settled out of court when Leone agrees to hand over 15% of the profits and $100,000.
The facts are crystal clear. Leone is a plagiarist, and A Fistful of Dollars is a plagiarism. It can't be a "remake" for you when Leone himself admitted—directly or indirectly—that it was stolen.
And don't try to drag me into this or dodge the point. You can have whatever opinion you want about whether the movie is good or bad, but it is a plagiarism, and that is a fact. You don't get to have an "opinion" on a fact.

I don't care if it's a plagiarism or not; I care about the value of the film, and A Fistful of Dollars is a classic.

A plagiarist doesn't just take an idea; they steal someone else's work.

Like Leone.
You haven't explained the difference, so I'm still waiting for an answer. And leave the legalities out of it; we are talking about art.

Yes, plagiarism is worthless (for example, that American film directed by Marković).
No, True Detective isn't that kind of plagiarism.
You clearly haven't watched Red Riding, nor do you care; all you want to do is split hairs.

I will call anything a plagiarism if it is one, and I will call something a masterpiece only if it deserves the title.

Two different authors won't plagiarize the same work in the same way, which explains why our stances differ.

Don't lecture me or tell me how I should behave.

What kinds of plagiarism are there even supposed to be?

Only if you actually knew the difference between what is a plagiarism and what is original.
To you, a plagiarism you like isn't a plagiarism, but one you dislike is.

I have nothing to twist; it's right there in the thread.
You said they aren't better, just good, but people think they're better than they are because Hollywood production glosses them over. But they are boring because they deal with themes that nobody cares about.

Just show me where I used those exact words: nobody cares.
I said they are watched far less because people generally—most people, anyway—aren't attracted to the themes they cover, since people watch primarily for entertainment and relaxation.

None of us are making official claims; we aren't in court, we're discussing art.
Everything we write is just our impression. My views on plagiarism change from film to film (or series); no two cases are ever the same.

Exactly. That’s my point. If you like it, it’s "inspiration." If you don't, suddenly it's plagiarism.
Plagiarism is plagiarism, and an original is an original. There are no exceptions.

Sergio Leone isn't some plagiarist who just "stole" ideas. He was making remakes. Is that really such a crime?
If the original author didn't sign off on it, we're looking at a legal nightmare. Lawsuits and damages are inevitable, aren't they?
Maybe Akira Kurosawa would have sued him if he had even signed his name to this. If I were in his shoes, I’d be doing the exact same thing.

I’m talking about... Art? Please. It’s nothing more than pretension wrapped in a fancy package. Is anyone actually creating anything meaningful anymore? And what about the artists? When an artist's intellectual property is under fire, that’s where the real trouble begins. What is there to say? It’s just more of the same. Is anyone actually surprised?.

How did they even make the remake if he didn't legally secure the rights to film it? How can you just go ahead without a signed agreement from Akira Kurosawa?
Did you seriously just claim that wasn't plagiarism? Do I really need to repeat myself?
If he had actually secured the rights and signed on with Akira Kurosawa, we’d be calling this a remake. But according to your logic, since he didn't, it's just plain old plagiarism?
If a woman had those parts, she’d be a man. Simple as that.

So, we're supposed to believe that justice is tied to art rather than the law? Is that really how this works?👍

Robbing banks requires having a clear vision of that stolen cash sitting right in your own pocket. Is that too much to ask?

Pick a side and stick to it. Are you going to be consistent or what?
A remake creator takes someone else's concept legally and refines it through their own lens. A plagiarist just steals an idea illegally and tries to pass it off as their own. Is there really any difference?
So, if we strip away copyright and their legal protections—meaning the actual rights themselves—what is even left to distinguish them?

Has anyone actually addressed the lawsuit against the creators of True Detective? Seriously?
I’m telling you, parts of this were ripped straight from an old British series. Is anyone actually surprised?
I’m not saying the series is worthless, nor am I claiming those specific parts make it so. The show suffers from a litany of issues, and a lack of originality is certainly high on that list. To avoid repeating myself, here is my take:

So, you’re claiming that plagiarism doesn't matter, yet you argue that True Detective is a fraud? Since you think elements taken from Red Riding Hood constitute plagiarism, does that mean you find True Detective completely worthless as well?

If you’re going to throw around the word "plagiarism," then have the backbone to be consistent about it. Why be so selective?
You constantly post contradictory nonsense. Am I the only one who’s noticed? Because I know for a fact I'm not.
When multiple people tell you the exact same thing, shouldn't you stop and actually listen? Why ignore the consensus?

It all started with your claim that anything filmed outside the USA is worthless and boring. You argued people only watch it because Hollywood has brainwashed them, rather than it actually being any good. Is that really how you see things?

Don't twist my words. I never said everything filmed outside the US is worthless or boring. My point was simple: foreign films are just better than American ones.
And that’s my position on the matter.
I said it myself: people are ditching American cinema because the quality has completely tanked. Why settle for mediocrity? I have my doubts.Look, I wasn't making a claim. I was simply offering a hypothesis—something that isn't a fact and isn't even relevant here. Isn't it just my own personal impression?

No.
Whether you call it art or whatever excuse they want to use, a plagiarist is just a thief. They snatch pieces of someone else's work, shove them into their own worthless content, and then have the nerve to sign it all as if they created it themselves. How is that anything but fraud?
A director remaking someone else's work is in the exact same position as a theater director. We've seen hundreds of productions of Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, or King Lear, yet every single director brings their own unique vision to the same literary source material. It’s the same principle. Even Ivo Brešan drew inspiration from Hamlet when he penned his successful stage drama and screenplay. Is anyone actually surprised by that? The Hamlet play in that tiny town outside of Blatuša? Give me a break. Who actually thought this was a good idea?Is this anything more than just some cheap remake?
There is no such thing as a "legal nature" in art. Why even bother pretending?

So, it turns out A Fistful of Dollars is nothing more than mindless filler. Is anyone actually surprised?
Sergio Leone is nothing more than a thief. He rips off pieces of other people's work just to pad out his own worthless trash like A Fistful of Dollars, then has the nerve to sign his name as if he created it all himself. How does he get away with it?
Is this really your logic? Is this truly what you think?

Did Sergio Leone actually have his own vision for Yojimbo?

You're absolutely right to point out that line. "Theft is theft, regardless of whether a remake was legally purchased." Isn't that just the plain truth? Rights? What rights? It was signed right at the top. There’s a massive difference.
You jump between art and the law whenever it suits you. Is there any consistency at all?

An author who decides to tackle a remake isn't just buying someone else's idea. They have their own vision for that existing work and want to present it through their own lens—just look at how a theater director handles a classic play.
Just because he does a remake doesn't mean it actually has to be any good. Does anyone really care? Scorsese already swept the Academy Award 2007 anyway.

A plagiarist thinks they can just take someone else's vision and claim it's their own masterpiece? How does that even work?
If it turns out The Matrix is actually a plagiarism, then by your logic, Lana and Andy Wachowski would have copied it exactly the way the original creator did. Is that really how you see it?

You couldn't be more wrong.
That’s a matter for a courtroom, not a movie forum. Here, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and the right to defend it. Even a forum user who claims that... French cinema is garbage globally because they only cast ugly people. Why bother watching? 😁

My opinion on someone's plagiarism isn't a legal matter, nor is it mere speculation.
Can you seriously not see that European films have such incredibly dull themes? Is it any wonder they fail to land? Does anyone actually like this? No one does.Well, you went ahead and wrote it anyway.
Get it? That’s your opinion, and others aren't obligated to agree with you.
We aren't in a courtroom; we're discussing art.

No lawsuit has even been filed against the creators of True Detective, yet you’re already claiming it's a total rip-off and therefore worthless. How can you be so sure?
My opinion on this matter carries zero weight. Why even bother?
And nobody even agreed with you.
Until a court actually rules that it's plagiarism, it isn't. Why should we jump to conclusions before then?

We didn't even start this debate based on my supposed claim that Scandinavian shows are worthless—which I never actually said. No, we started it because of your argument that Americans can't produce a decent series to save their lives. Are you seriously suggesting they just steal every good idea from European shows and Korean films?

@smoky barrett

Since you mentioned looking for some newer comedies, you might want to check out The Ugly Truth or Confessions of a Shopaholic if you haven't seen them yet.
I watched both with some women, and they were hits, especially since they're rom-coms—though The Ugly Truth is a bit more raw than your typical fluff.

Zachary Nguyen2 said:Are you saying White Chicks is better than Four Lions?🤔

Yes, I actually prefer White Chicks over Four Lions. Is Four Lions even funny? Not to me.

And just to be clear, I wasn't counting the animated movies on your list. I agree with those.

Critics and audiences are never on the same page. Why should they be?
Viewership doesn't equate to quality. Why should we care?

Hold on a second. How can you possibly claim that critics and audiences have never been in agreement?
Take Breaking Bad, for instance. It’s sitting at a massive 9.6/10 on IMDb with over 500,000 votes—a level of engagement most shows can only dream of. Even the critics are calling it one of the greatest series ever made. How could anyone argue otherwise?
I won't even bother bringing up other movies or series right now.

I'm not interested in the legal side of things or whether someone ends up in court. That's not my concern. What I care about is the integrity of the work and the importance of authorship. Why does that matter so little to people?
A plagiarist produces nothing of value. They lack actual talent—because if they actually had any, why would they need to steal from those who do?

You need to learn how to distinguish art from the law. They are two separate domains, even if they overlap because art relies on legal protections to exist. I assume you’re at least familiar with the concept of copyright and intellectual property.
Copyright laws exist to protect creators, sure, but they don't get to decide what actually qualifies as art. Who decides that? The people. Art is defined by the audience it’s intended for. So, while legal frameworks might dictate the formal rules, they have zero control over the substance. And at the end of the day, art is all about the substance.

Secondly, we need to draw a clear line between blatant plagiarism and a legitimate remake.
Legally speaking, plagiarism is an illegal act—it’s something done through unauthorized means. A remake, on the other hand, is perfectly legal. It’s done by the book. Why is there even a debate?
From an artistic standpoint, isn't a plagiarist just a remake artist? They take someone else's concept and reshape it to fit their own vision.
So, the distinction between plagiarism and a remake is strictly a legal one. Is it really that complicated?

You claimed earlier that you value originality above all else. You said a plagiarist creates nothing of substance because they lack the talent to do anything but steal from others. Is that not so?
So, according to your logic, the creator of a remake lacks any shred of originality? You’re essentially claiming they have zero talent because they’re just buying someone else's idea instead of creating something of actual value. Is that really how you see it?
The only real difference here is that one person actually pays for their work, while the other just steals someone else's idea.
Do you honestly believe originality can be bought? Can money somehow compensate for a total lack of creative soul?

Daniel Ramirez3 hit the nail on the head. He actually explained what this is all about.
And if you could explain to me, what exactly constitutes an abuse of power?

What exactly do you mean by that? Is it not mine or yours? Then whose is it?
These shows and movies are made for us. We're the ones who decide if they actually hold any water.

The fact is, the creators really blew it. Is anyone actually going to talk about True Detective? Or are we just pretending that first season wasn't a masterpiece? It was used to prop up that British series. Why even bother? Red Riding, summer of '74, '80, and '83.So, anyone who watched them without being some supposed expert or overanalyzing every single frame can see it. Is it really that complicated?
Justice has absolutely nothing to do with this. We are here to discuss art, not morality.

.

It isn't our job to play judge and jury on whether something counts as plagiarism; that’s a legal matter. That decision rests solely with the courts once the copyright holders for Red Riding file a lawsuit.
You can't just throw legal issues into a story and hide behind "artistic license" to justify it. Is that really how we're doing things now?
Anyone can see that the creators of True Detective clearly drew inspiration from Red Riding. That’s just your own speculation; you have no way of knowing how others perceive it. And yet, you keep acting like theorizing is some irrelevant distraction?

No, you're the one getting it wrong.
Both the series and the movie are works of art.
According to you, quality doesn't matter, whether it's a rip-off doesn't matter—nothing matters as long as people watch it. Sorry, but if that's your logic, you might as well watch paint dry on a wall.

Aside from the fact that I've lost count of how many times I've pointed out that these shows have been embraced by both audiences and critics as high quality. High viewership is just another fact that confirms this. Viewership alone doesn't guarantee quality, but it isn't meaningless either. To you, popularity is absolutely negligible.

We judge the value of a work based on the creator's talent.
A plagiarist isn't a creator.
The original has value; the imitation is worthless.

As if every movie is an original; half of them are stolen. I recently read that The Matrix was accused of plagiarism, that they'd sue James Cameron. Well, everyone will become worthless if that actually proves true.
If The Matrix hadn't been made by the people who made it, if James Cameron hadn't done what he did for those films, they wouldn't be what they are. Those people created something valuable; they are talented.

Everything has been seen before, but someone calling themselves an artist must present what has been seen in an unseen way.
In art, it isn't about what but rather how.

And wasn't True Detective presented in an unseen way? It’s precisely because of how it was presented that the series is such a success.

You're just guessing because you're judging a work you haven't even watched.
Save your "legal fundamentals" for a courtroom; we're discussing art here.

I didn't watch it, and even if I had, it isn't my place (nor yours) to decide that. I'm not guessing; I'm simply saying that's an assumption you can't present as a fact.
The one who decides that is a court. You see, even the law can dictate art.

I am the one saying the authors of TD leaned heavily on a British series. However, their show has much more serious issues than just minorly lifting from another author. A good series needs more than just great actors. Not to mention the catastrophic finale and the fact that the series essentially has no ending.

What about the cinematography? What about the style?

The series is good because of the pervasive atmosphere of pessimism and nihilism; it's quite
dark, which draws people in and makes them think. The last episode isn't on par with the rest, but I don't think that's enough to ruin the whole series. The show provided something new, and it was recognized as quality by both audiences and critics.

The cinematography affects the atmosphere of the series. I don't know if it's original, but it is masterfully executed.

So what’s your logic, Bible? How did you land on the number 60, huh?

I only said 60 because I was tired of repeating that they're watched far more often. Maybe those remakes aren't as popular because they lack quality, but American shows are globally much more widely viewed.

There's no such thing as "current" series or "current" films.
A series is a work of art; when it was filmed doesn't matter.

What are you even talking about? You seem to have missed the point entirely. The topic is the current state of television, not the inherent characteristics of works of art.

I'm not even trying, you're misreading me.
I'm not presenting it; I'm just stating who I am.

There you go again with those global (and inaccurate) conclusions.
How could you possibly know who cares and who doesn't? It's pure guesswork.
That is the fundamental question of art: does the artist sign the series, or does a thief?

That only proves the creator is a thief and a fraud, not that the show itself is bad. What, are we judging the value of a work based on the creator's morality? Would Twin Peaks suddenly become a worse show if it turned out its creator stole the idea?
Anyone judging a work this way clearly doesn't understand what art is. Art is what is beautiful. Watch the movie Incognito; it deals with exactly this.
True Detective isn't high quality and popular just because of the concept—there are a million detective shows out there, and we've seen it all before. It's popular because of the top-tier acting, the atmosphere, and the cinematography.
Besides, your entire premise falls apart since it hasn't been proven that True Detective is a plagiarism. One of the basic tenets of our legal system is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
So, you're actually the one doing the speculating here.

Zachary Nguyen2 said:You didn't laugh more than three times?
Then tell me, what actually counts as a good comedy to you?
Don't tell me it's The Big Bang Theory.🤣

Looking at anything released in the last few years, I can't think of a single one. The only thing that comes to mind is The Intouchables. Comedies lately have been absolute garbage.

I prefer the classics like The Princess Bride, Les Visiteurs, Charlie's Angels, or even the relatively newer ones like Rush Hour 1 and 2, White Chicks, and Death AT a Funeral.
Those are the first ones that pop into my head, though there are surely others.

Zachary Nguyen2 said:I don't know about you. 😁
I'm definitely not the only one who found Walking Dead boring and just gave up on it this season—honestly, I've lost track of which season they're even on now.

It's your call. Just like I have mine. It wouldn't be any good if we all thought exactly the same thing, would it?

I'll leave the rest of this discussion for tomorrow.