Posts by James Garcia50

ambergull said:There's also that Neverland (2011) series on Syfy—it's got two parts acting as a prequel.
They made a whole channel out of it, but the story is actually decent and hits a level of realism that works...

Neverland isn't really what I'm looking for, even if it's passable... and honestly, I'm betting this new announcement is just going to be total garbage.

ambergull said:Isn't 100 dollars a massive budget?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0316396/

Yeah, and it’s actually a decent movie. Honestly, I hadn't even heard of it until a couple days ago.

goldendrifter19 said:Not sure if this fits the vibe, but I remember seeing ads for it everywhere about ten years ago. It’s kind of fallen off the radar lately:

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

Never heard of this one. Guess I'll go check it out, thanks!

It won't matter if Peter Pan himself is actually Black.

So, a Star Wars prequel? I guess I'll wait, though I doubt I'll see anything besides more garbage...

That’s exactly why I said it’s worth a watch 😛

Patrick Martin said:Look, from the jump, the director is flirting with that typical, overdone American teen drama aesthetic, so maybe that’s why the climax felt a little too saccharine for you.
He couldn't really escape it, though; the movie is pretty much trapped within those specific boundaries.
It feels kind of stupid to throw out everything good about the film just because it fits into those certain tropes.

Radcliffe usually goes from "I can't look at him" to "Okay, I can watch him if I just focus on the character." Honestly, his whole bad boy pivot after Harry Potter felt way too forced for me.

I’m not exactly his biggest fan either, but he actually worked for me here. Man, he really poured that raw pain onto the screen. Probably his best performance yet.

Nobody’s writing anything off, but there were plenty of missed opportunities.
With that romance subplot, he could have really played around with the character's anomaly—you know, the i-have-horns-and-everyone-must-tell-me-the-truth thing—but the director seemed to lack the guts (or the drive) to go there, choosing instead to stay in that safe revenge-for-my-lost-love lane.

Personally, I'm glad that Aja, who usually directs like he has a stick up his ass, actually showed a shred of humor this time.

Decent flick, worth a watch if you have the time. Deducting points because the clichés are pretty thick. Liam is solid though.

Not for me. I knew exactly what I was signing up for the second I put on those Horns, and honestly? I got exactly what I expected.

I was actually pleasantly surprised by how much sense Alexandre Aja made, even if his sense of humor was a bit hit-or-miss. He clearly took some inspiration from Ren Claire’s film, except this one manages to be a masterpiece and freaking hilarious at the same time. Though, in Aja's version, the sentimentality is dialed way up and the humor feels a bit forced.

Rebecca Martinez4 said:No one is actually saying this is just some genre flick if you bother to read more closely. I guess people just use the whole "genre" label as a pathetic little excuse to avoid talking about what’s actually happening on screen.

I read it, yeah.
I knew what I was getting into (and so did you), so take it or leave it. It’s not some cinematic masterpiece, but it’s worth a watch if you have the time.

It’s a genre flick, so it’s gotta follow the script: find-the-killer-of-his-beloved-and-punish-him-while-dying-in-the-process.

Too bad the neighbors weren't even remotely funny. Since our horned guy is narrating the whole thing, the story feels pretty pathetic and overly dramatic—but I guess that’s just how they do it, right?

I wasn't bored.

I only borrowed it on a whim, thinking it wouldn't be any good, but it actually turned out alright (assuming you're into that kind of story).
He gets horns, everyone is forced to tell him the truth, and he uses his new powers to hunt down a killer. I dig it.

Warner Bros. isn't half bad either

Bryan Perez75 said:Personally, I'm more into the newer stuff 😢

Look, if we're talking relatively recent (1987), you've got those two aliens—one cop and one criminal—from Hidden.
The cop is played by Kyle MacLachlan, while the crook just hops from body to body.

There's that legendary scene where, after jumping from a guy into a woman, he takes a look, gives her breasts a little pat, and goes ohoho! 🤣



To me, this guy (or one of them) is the real deal:

Gregory Jones28 said:What about that sentient ocean covering an entire planet in Solaris? Or the aliens from The Abyss? Or those mysterious beings and their monolith in 2001?Maybe the invisible ones from Forbidden Planet?There are plenty of well-crafted aliens out there.

Bold moves, no competition. 👍

shadowangler50 said:

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?

Everything I said stands, but since the details shift from movie to movie, if I say Leone isn't a plagiarist, then that’s just how it is. It's my own take, and I don't need anyone else's permission to hold it.

shadowangler50 said:

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'm not twisting anything; everything's right there in the thread.
When I talk about plagiarism or theft, I’m not talking about the legal side of things. I’m talking about the sheer drop in quality that hits me whenever an author leans on someone else's work. Is there even any point?

You can't exactly tell someone they're being dense, but since we're already down in the gutter here—let's be real, leaning on critic scores and audience ratings doesn't suddenly make a show any good. Does popularity actually equal quality?
So what?
Art doesn't exist. Does it? So that's how it goes.Look, it’s pretty simple: things are either good, or they aren't. Why overcomplicate it?

shadowangler50 said:

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 never claimed to have some grand definition, nor would I ever try to define what makes a movie or a show "work." Every single project plays by its own rules, doesn't it?

shadowangler50 said:

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.

Maybe you don't even know what you're talking about, and honestly? That's fine. Who actually cares?

shadowangler50 said:

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.

So you think quality is just a popularity contest? Like if a show isn't a global phenomenon, it's automatically trash?
It’s not always the case—half the time, a hyped-up project just turns out to be total shit. Why does everyone fall for the hype?

I don't bother with ignore lists. Why would I? I like to read everything and watch just about everything.

shadowangler50 said:

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.

I’m not interested in labeling anything. Life isn't linear, and nothing is consistent from one movie to the next. Whether someone decides to chase a lawsuit or not? That’s their business.
Sure, we’re talking about art here, but sometimes an artist ends up suing another artist—kind of like that whole mess involving Akira Kurosawa.

shadowangler50 said:

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.

I don't have a strategy, I don't sugarcoat things, and frankly, I don't care if anyone catches my drift. I just write about movies and shows based on how they actually hit me. Why bother following the crowd?

shadowangler50 said:

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.

I don't do definitions. And that whole "watched it or didn't" argument? That's just something people say when they aren't actually real film buffs.
I don't care how "world-famous" something is; that's not how I look at things. Quality is the only metric that actually matters to me, not some hype machine. I’m not here to play judge or worry about who’s suing whom, but when I see someone ripping off someone else's work, my respect for them just hits zero. Is anyone even surprised anymore?

It matters that you're actually talking. Too much.Look, you don't even have to reply to my posts—you can just hit ignore if you want. Why bother?

shadowangler50 said:

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?

I’m not dropping anything; you're the one talking in circles while acting like an expert on everything.

shadowangler50 said:

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?

Maybe because it reminds you of yourself. It'll stay that way as long as you're just shouting into the void.

Jesse Thomas7 said:@James Garcia50

The main thing is you guys always have a crowd, even when you're flying solo. 🙂

I mean, there’s always someone ready to jump in and start an argument. You’ve got one guy who hates TV shows so much he’d probably rather take a bullet than waste precious minutes on them when there are actual cinematic masterpieces out there worth studying. Then there’s the other, who’s watched so much junk in his life that he thinks he’s an expert on basically every single show ever made. Then we have the third, a die-hard hater of > who refuses to respect anything that isn't some hyper-original masterpiece—you know, the kind of stuff birthed from the mind of a director who actually earns the title of "artist." The fourth one? He’s fine with unoriginality, as long as it’s labeled a "remake" instead of a blatant rip-off. And then the fifth guy thinks "copying" someone else's work without permission isn't plagiarism unless the creator actually catches you and sues you—at which point you just grab a six-pack of Budweiser and call it a misunderstanding.

Anyway, glad you guys are having such a blast. With this group around, you’re never truly alone. 🎉

You're barking up the wrong tree, Jesse.
That goes to the forum dwellers who'd rather bicker and lecture everyone on definitions than actually sit down and watch the show they're obsessively nitpicking.

Jesse Thomas7 said:As for me, I'm pretty damn sure there are more of them. Honestly, I just can't seem to get on the same page with anyone about certain things. 😬

Yeah, there's more of us. Between me and shadowangler50, we're practically an entire army. 🤣

Quote : shadow dancer

shadowangler50 said: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 one obsessed with sticking to the dictionary; I guess I’ll just keep doing my own thing.

Quote : shadow dancer

shadowangler50 said: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?

What am I even doing with this? Everyone? Reminds me of those imaginary sixty thousand people who are automatically on your side.

Quote : shadow dancer

shadowangler50 said: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've got nothing left to say. These are just the final death rattles.

Quote : shadow dancer

shadowangler50 said: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?

Maybe for you, sure. For me? There are a million different ways to look at it.