This whole thread falls apart the second you look at the title. The term "everyone" isn't even defined, and the OP hasn't provided a shred of evidence to back up their claim.
The premise is imprecise. You should have said "most people," not "everyone." There isn't a single thing in this world that everyone can agree on.
Your sample size is way too small to draw these kinds of conclusions.
You can't just browse a couple of forums and websites and decide that the general public is "mostly satisfied" with series and dissatisfied with movies.
Movies and shows aren't judged en masse; every work stands on its own merit.
Your opinion and these arbitrary conclusions are just a drop in the bucket.
I stand by my view, and you stand by yours—the difference is you keep using the word "we" to justify your own perspective.
Making baseless claims about "universal acceptance" based on a handful of forum users doesn't constitute a global conclusion that "everyone prefers" series over movies.
In short, what you're writing isn't a "fact."
What exactly do you want me to provide? If there were a global survey with a billion participants, I’d give you the results.
All I can do is offer a sample, and then we can debate whether that sample is representative. You haven't offered anything to support your claim, whereas I've at least provided something.
My voice might be a drop in the ocean, and it might not matter since this is about quantity rather than quality.
Maybe my conclusions are arbitrary or my opinion is wrong, but at least I'm basing them on something. What are you basing your opinion on when you claim most people currently prefer movies over series?
The general consensus regarding the relationship between films and series is a factual reality. If you have a better way to determine this precisely, feel free to suggest it.
Many people (maybe including you) tend to equate "Hollywood" with "film," so they see all that Hollywood trash as film in a general sense.
Hollywood might have lost its luster (there's a separate thread on that), but films from France, Denmark, Belgium, Spain, Argentina, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, and Korea are stronger than ever.
Hollywood churns out catastrophically bad movies—you watch fifteen minutes and you're already done—but those are the movies that get watched. They have the biggest budgets and, ultimately, the biggest impact on global box office success.
The rest of the world produces perfectly solid films, but they just can't pull in the massive audiences.
It isn't even a marketing issue; people simply aren't interested in the themes being explored, or the material isn't worth watching more than once.
To be honest, those are decent movies, but not masterpieces. It actually feels like people value them more than they deserve simply because Hollywood has nothing high-quality on its roster right now.
Maybe they'll become a major factor eventually, but for now, Hollywood is the main player and they set the rules.
I can talk about art all day, but without money, there is no art. Whoever provides the capital (Hollywood) dictates the art.
Audiences and critics don't always see eye to eye; when it comes to truly brilliant works, their opinions can drift as far apart as ships on the ocean.
High viewership doesn't mean a thing.
Look at an old American sitcom like *All in the Family*. It pulled massive numbers. Critics tore it apart, yet audiences celebrated it as one of the greatest shows ever. Where is the weight in those numbers? |
They don't have to agree, but what happens if they do? Surely, that carries some weight that shouldn't be ignored or dismissed as irrelevant.
I've said it at least three times now: popularity alone isn't enough to judge a movie or a series. But if you have audience approval as the first condition, critical acclaim as the second, and high viewership as a third supporting factor, then you have a rock-solid foundation.
That show isn't even a series; it's just a collection of movies. They are comedies aimed exclusively at men. There’s no deep point or hidden message to debate here. It’s purely a matter of taste—do you like crude humor or not? The public likes it, the critics don't, which means it lacks universal appeal. Both sides have a valid argument.
If you were looking for me to validate your theory using an example, you should have brought up *The Sopranos*. That show hits all three conditions. The other example only meets two, and it's missing the most important one.
But why should I bother proving its importance? What's the point? I already stated that judging any single film or series ultimately comes down to personal taste.
We aren't here to debate the quality of one specific title; we are discussing the general attitude of the public toward films and series as a whole.