Posts by James Garcia50

Iowa? Please. As if anyone actually cares about what happens in the middle of nowhere. says:
What does an actor have to do with the costume department? 🤦
It’s not like they’re the ones designing and tailoring the costumes, right? 🤦

Trolba.

Off-topic.
Jean-Paul Belmondo’s got more range than Alain Delon, but let's be real—Delon is definitely better looking. Isn't he?😍
He really nailed it, even stepping out of his comfort zone in Rocco.

iowa said:What does any of this have to do with movies or acting? 🤷

Costumes don't matter for film?
Give me a break...🤦

iowa said:what kind of crappy picture is this?
the greatest actor thread already exists.

Unless this is actually about the best actor, sorry.

iowa said:To me, this whole thread is just an excuse to hunt for pirated PDFs. 🤷

Hardly.

Joseph Edwards4 said:To me, True Detective was top-tier. I honestly don't care if someone else did something similar before. Some of you seem convinced that nothing can be original anymore, but I guarantee that any thriller or drama produced today has already touched on similar themes in some previous film. How much innovation can you actually find in investigating crimes in a city? It’s the same old story. What makes this series work is the atmosphere and the acting.

I enjoyed watching it even though something strikingly similar came out before it. Honestly, I’d watch anything just for Matthew, but can you actually say the series is good? Does it even have a logical ending?
Atmosphere?
The atmosphere is basically just Matthew delivering long monologues promising everything will be cleared up by the end, only for nothing to happen.
Throughout the series, characters were dropping from a single shot, yet Matthew survives a literal slaughter like he's playing a video game.
Is it good compared to worse shows (like Bates Motel)? Sure. But is it actually good? Not really.

shadowangler50 said:

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.

Nah, you're the one getting it wrong.
Both series and movies count as works of art. Don't they?
So, according to you, quality doesn't matter, plagiarism isn't an issue—nothing matters as long as people are watching? If that's the case, you might as well just watch paint dry on a wall.

shadowangler50 said:

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.

We judge the value of a piece based on the talent of its creator. Doesn't that seem a bit reductive?
Copying isn't creating.
If it’s original, it’s worth something. If it’s a rip-off, it's worthless. Isn't that just how it works?

shadowangler50 said:

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.

We've all seen it all before. If you call yourself an artist, isn't your job to show us something we haven't already witnessed?
Art doesn't really matter. What? What's the deal? How's it going?.

So you're just guessing now because you haven't even seen the thing?
Save the "legal fundamentals" for the courtroom; we’re talking about art here.

I’m always the one pointing out how much the writers of True Detective leaned on that British series. But honestly, their show had way bigger issues than just ripping off someone else's work. A solid series needs more than just a stacked cast. Not to mention that disastrous finale and the fact that the whole thing doesn't even have a real ending.

So, what about the cinematography? What are we even doing with the camera work here?

Patrick Martin said:Look, listen up, because I'm telling you right now—James Stewart is the absolute king of style and pure acting chops ☕

Cary Grant, indeed. 🎉

That's a stretch, Victor.
And there's a cultural mindset at play here too.

shadowangler50 said:

You claimed those foreign shows are irrelevant just because they get remade in the States. You're wrong.
And that non-American films are boring to audiences? Wrong again.

Those are just your assumptions. I said they get watched sixty times more. I never said they were boring; I said they don't offer the same kind of entertainment as American productions, which is why the numbers differ.

An American series will never surpass a British one. They can only dream.

Which current British series are actually better than American ones?

We aren't splitting hairs here; we are discussing films and series, which means discussing authorship.

It isn't the same thing.
Theft is theft, but for a remake, the rights were bought legally and the deal was signed and sealed. There is a massive difference.

What, you can't prove that True Detective is a bad series, so you just label it worthless instead?
Does anyone actually care if an idea was stolen or purchased when they sit down to watch? They watch the quality of the show, not its origin story.
This is a question of art, not legalities.

So what are your conclusions, Bible? How did you land on the number 60, huh?

shadowangler50 said:

You claimed those foreign shows are irrelevant just because they get remade in the States. You're wrong.
And that non-American films are boring to audiences? Wrong again.

Those are just your assumptions. I said they get watched sixty times more. I never said they were boring; I said they don't offer the same kind of entertainment as American productions, which is why the numbers differ.

An American series will never surpass a British one. They can only dream.

Which current British series are actually better than American ones?

We aren't splitting hairs here; we are discussing films and series, which means discussing authorship.

It isn't the same thing.
Theft is theft, but for a remake, the rights were bought legally and the deal was signed and sealed. There is a massive difference.

What, you can't prove that True Detective is a bad series, so you just label it worthless instead?
Does anyone actually care if an idea was stolen or purchased when they sit down to watch? They watch the quality of the show, not its origin story.
This is a question of art, not legalities.

There’s no such thing as a "current" show or movie.
Art stands on its own, regardless of when it was filmed.

shadowangler50 said:

You claimed those foreign shows are irrelevant just because they get remade in the States. You're wrong.
And that non-American films are boring to audiences? Wrong again.

Those are just your assumptions. I said they get watched sixty times more. I never said they were boring; I said they don't offer the same kind of entertainment as American productions, which is why the numbers differ.

An American series will never surpass a British one. They can only dream.

Which current British series are actually better than American ones?

We aren't splitting hairs here; we are discussing films and series, which means discussing authorship.

It isn't the same thing.
Theft is theft, but for a remake, the rights were bought legally and the deal was signed and sealed. There is a massive difference.

What, you can't prove that True Detective is a bad series, so you just label it worthless instead?
Does anyone actually care if an idea was stolen or purchased when they sit down to watch? They watch the quality of the show, not its origin story.
This is a question of art, not legalities.

I'm not even trying; you're misreading me.
I'm not dismissing it—it dismissed itself.

There you go again with the sweeping (and wrong) generalizations.
How do you know who cares and who doesn't? Pure guesswork.
The core question of art is whether the credit goes to the artist or the thief.

shadowangler50 said:

Just like how you think any movies filmed outside the USA aren't worth a "person's" time.
No. By that logic, a plagiarism is still a plagiarism.

That’s not what I said. I said American films and series get watched more than foreign ones.
Furthermore, I stated that foreign films beat American ones, while American series beat foreign ones.

A remake is a remake, and theft is theft. Watch it and see for yourself.

We aren't debating legality here; we're talking about the quality of the show.
And if you want to be pedantic about whether it's a remake or straight-up plagiarism, the core issue remains: it isn't an original work.

You claimed those random Danish shows that got remade by US studios were unimportant. You're wrong.
And you said foreign films bore audiences? Wrong again.

An American series will never touch the quality of a British one; they can only dream.

shadowangler50 said:

Just like how you think any movies filmed outside the USA aren't worth a "person's" time.
No. By that logic, a plagiarism is still a plagiarism.

That’s not what I said. I said American films and series get watched more than foreign ones.
Furthermore, I stated that foreign films beat American ones, while American series beat foreign ones.

A remake is a remake, and theft is theft. Watch it and see for yourself.

We aren't debating legality here; we're talking about the quality of the show.
And if you want to be pedantic about whether it's a remake or straight-up plagiarism, the core issue remains: it isn't an original work.

We aren't splitting hairs here; we're talking about movies and shows, which means we're talking about authorship.

It’s not the same.
Theft is theft, but for a remake, the rights were bought legally and the deal was signed at the office. Huge difference.

Kenneth Johnson12 said:Here is a promising movie: http://www.nytimes.com/article/dark-waters

Actually, there is a specific reason I am posting this here. Near the end of the article, there is an interesting passage: It features provocative and original material (something we have seen exclusively in certain TV series over the last few years), a perfect cast, and a director who has returned after a long hiatus to be creatively wicked. You couldn't ask for more.

Since we can never seem to agree on anything, let a third party make the decision 🤣

Haven't seen it yet, but I did read the book. Honestly? I'm worried it'll be just like that "handsome" guy's username—that feeling you get when you fart and realize you actually shit yourself.

Kenneth Johnson12 said:I haven't seen The Walking Dead. Zombies aren't my thing.😁
From what I'm currently watching, it's Game of Thrones, Homeland, Shameless, Sherlock Holmes, Elementary, Criminal Minds, and The Mentalist. I plan on watching True Detective and Hannibal next. Those are the first ones that come to mind.

And Fargo is a must-watch too.

shadowangler50 said:I've only given you one adaptation.
So you're claiming an idea was stolen? That’s nothing more than your own assumption. By that logic, wouldn't every single detective movie or series be based on a stolen concept?
Even if it was stolen, does that actually make a series bad? If we're going to talk about originality, let's not forget that South Koreans remade Three Bad Men. Is that how it works?

There's still Boardwalk Empire, The Walking Dead, Fargo, True Blood, and Once Upon a Time on the list. Sure, they aren't all absolute masterpieces, but they definitely have their charms. Don't they?

Just like your take that any movie filmed outside the States isn't worth a damn to "real people."
Nah, by that logic, plagiarism is still just plagiarism.

shadowangler50 said:I've only given you one adaptation.
So you're claiming an idea was stolen? That’s nothing more than your own assumption. By that logic, wouldn't every single detective movie or series be based on a stolen concept?
Even if it was stolen, does that actually make a series bad? If we're going to talk about originality, let's not forget that South Koreans remade Three Bad Men. Is that how it works?

There's still Boardwalk Empire, The Walking Dead, Fargo, True Blood, and Once Upon a Time on the list. Sure, they aren't all absolute masterpieces, but they definitely have their charms. Don't they?

A remake is just a remake, and theft is still theft. Just look at it and see for yourself.

Kenneth Johnson12 said:Unfortunately, I have seen most of them. Some are excellent, such as The Hangover and Zombieland, which are fantastic comedies. However, others are terrible. For instance, Tucker and Dale vs. Evil is a disaster and not funny at all. Perhaps that is just my personal taste.🤷

My conclusion remains unchanged: very few high-quality American films have been released recently, whereas there is an abundance of quality series being produced constantly. It follows logically that people follow series more frequently for that reason.

Which ones are we talking about?

shadowangler50 said:Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, True Detective, Mad Men. Which one of these supposedly has a stolen idea? House of Cards is an adaptation of a British series.

So? Isn't that exactly what I've been talking about?
Another remake, another adaptation... Does anyone even remember what the original was anymore?

Stolen. It’s more than just an idea; it's way more than that—kind of like True Detective.

shadowangler50 said:It’s because there are more high-quality series out there and far fewer quality films.
I don't see any other reason.

Besides, most of their ideas are just ripped off from European series or Asian films. They can't come up with anything original on their own.

@shadow,
I think Kenneth Johnson12 mentioned that the thread should have actually been titled:

Why has most of the audience shifted toward bingeing American TV series over American films in the last few years?

Quote : shadow

shadowangler50 said:Quote : shadow

For some people—and I mean a lot of them—true entertainment means watching war and violence on screen. But let me tell you again: don't generalize. Not every American film is just "pure entertainment." Who’s actually enjoying which film? It’s pure guesswork at this point. What exactly does "a huge audience" mean to you? Are you suggesting a winner on NBC doesn't count if they don't have massive ratings? We weren't even discussing genius. You flat out claimed that non-American films are "lesser," and that people only find them valuable because Hollywood production has brainwashed them. I couldn't care less about how happy people were under Marshall's rule. I only care about films and series.

Take a look at those box office numbers. If a movie doesn't deliver actual entertainment, it's going to tank. Isn't that just common sense?
It’s common knowledge which genres draw the biggest crowds—the ones people actually turn to for entertainment. I'm not talking about every single person out there, just the majority. And let's face it, most American films are nothing more than pure entertainment.

I don't need to listen to ten million people claiming things were better under Marshall. A few hundred voices saying the same thing is more than enough to draw a conclusion.

Quote : shadow

You clearly have no clue what today's audience actually wants. When my hundreds of followers clash with your hundreds of fans of modern American film, it’ll be a fair fight.

I couldn't find your few hundred compared to my own several hundred. What exactly am I supposed to do with that?
It’ll drop from hundreds down to just a few dozen soon enough. We're looking at a sample where one side actually outweighs the other. This is where people with actual, differing opinions gather—not just a bunch of mindless echo chambers.

Quote : shadow

I figured it out, and frankly, far too well. You didn't even allude to "my theory"; you stated it before you and I even started this debate. You began with the premise that modern American films are garbage, and since you apparently believe no films exist outside of the US, you jumped to the conclusion that movies are insignificant compared to series—American series, obviously, because in your world, nothing else exists. It's just not true.

It’s just the same old story: American movies and shows pull massive numbers while everything else gets ignored. We're talking about pure viewership here, not actual quality. Why does that even matter?

Quote : shadow

Are you kidding me? Negligible? Half of all modern American series are just uninspired remakes of shows from Europe. Why can't anyone come up with an original idea anymore? Americans are snatching up remake rights for Danish series before they even finish filming. Since the US dominates the global market and those creators are just playing in a much smaller league, isn't this just blatant industry bullying? Exactly. When it comes to movies and series, quality should always be the benchmark. If you argue that most people just love garbage, aren't we just circling back to the era of Marshall?

And honestly, watching them is sixty times better than those Danish originals. Why even bother with the source material?
Most people just want entertainment, but there’s a massive difference between quality art and total garbage. That’s exactly why audience scores and critic ratings exist. Why else would we bother?

In what way does it fail? Does it just not exist anymore? Is it basically "entertain or die"? Are we supposed to believe that global cinema is dead and only American movies remain—even if most of them are total garbage?

Quote : shadow

shadowangler50 said:Quote : shadow

For some people—and I mean a lot of them—true entertainment means watching war and violence on screen. But let me tell you again: don't generalize. Not every American film is just "pure entertainment." Who’s actually enjoying which film? It’s pure guesswork at this point. What exactly does "a huge audience" mean to you? Are you suggesting a winner on NBC doesn't count if they don't have massive ratings? We weren't even discussing genius. You flat out claimed that non-American films are "lesser," and that people only find them valuable because Hollywood production has brainwashed them. I couldn't care less about how happy people were under Marshall's rule. I only care about films and series.

Take a look at those box office numbers. If a movie doesn't deliver actual entertainment, it's going to tank. Isn't that just common sense?
It’s common knowledge which genres draw the biggest crowds—the ones people actually turn to for entertainment. I'm not talking about every single person out there, just the majority. And let's face it, most American films are nothing more than pure entertainment.

I don't need to listen to ten million people claiming things were better under Marshall. A few hundred voices saying the same thing is more than enough to draw a conclusion.

Quote : shadow

You clearly have no clue what today's audience actually wants. When my hundreds of followers clash with your hundreds of fans of modern American film, it’ll be a fair fight.

I couldn't find your few hundred compared to my own several hundred. What exactly am I supposed to do with that?
It’ll drop from hundreds down to just a few dozen soon enough. We're looking at a sample where one side actually outweighs the other. This is where people with actual, differing opinions gather—not just a bunch of mindless echo chambers.

Quote : shadow

I figured it out, and frankly, far too well. You didn't even allude to "my theory"; you stated it before you and I even started this debate. You began with the premise that modern American films are garbage, and since you apparently believe no films exist outside of the US, you jumped to the conclusion that movies are insignificant compared to series—American series, obviously, because in your world, nothing else exists. It's just not true.

It’s just the same old story: American movies and shows pull massive numbers while everything else gets ignored. We're talking about pure viewership here, not actual quality. Why does that even matter?

Quote : shadow

Are you kidding me? Negligible? Half of all modern American series are just uninspired remakes of shows from Europe. Why can't anyone come up with an original idea anymore? Americans are snatching up remake rights for Danish series before they even finish filming. Since the US dominates the global market and those creators are just playing in a much smaller league, isn't this just blatant industry bullying? Exactly. When it comes to movies and series, quality should always be the benchmark. If you argue that most people just love garbage, aren't we just circling back to the era of Marshall?

And honestly, watching them is sixty times better than those Danish originals. Why even bother with the source material?
Most people just want entertainment, but there’s a massive difference between quality art and total garbage. That’s exactly why audience scores and critic ratings exist. Why else would we bother?

I don't see your couple hundred either. You don't take my word for it, so why should I trust yours? Just drop the link, then I'll send mine over—let's see who's actually pulling up and what they're watching.

Quote : shadow

shadowangler50 said:Quote : shadow

For some people—and I mean a lot of them—true entertainment means watching war and violence on screen. But let me tell you again: don't generalize. Not every American film is just "pure entertainment." Who’s actually enjoying which film? It’s pure guesswork at this point. What exactly does "a huge audience" mean to you? Are you suggesting a winner on NBC doesn't count if they don't have massive ratings? We weren't even discussing genius. You flat out claimed that non-American films are "lesser," and that people only find them valuable because Hollywood production has brainwashed them. I couldn't care less about how happy people were under Marshall's rule. I only care about films and series.

Take a look at those box office numbers. If a movie doesn't deliver actual entertainment, it's going to tank. Isn't that just common sense?
It’s common knowledge which genres draw the biggest crowds—the ones people actually turn to for entertainment. I'm not talking about every single person out there, just the majority. And let's face it, most American films are nothing more than pure entertainment.

I don't need to listen to ten million people claiming things were better under Marshall. A few hundred voices saying the same thing is more than enough to draw a conclusion.

Quote : shadow

You clearly have no clue what today's audience actually wants. When my hundreds of followers clash with your hundreds of fans of modern American film, it’ll be a fair fight.

I couldn't find your few hundred compared to my own several hundred. What exactly am I supposed to do with that?
It’ll drop from hundreds down to just a few dozen soon enough. We're looking at a sample where one side actually outweighs the other. This is where people with actual, differing opinions gather—not just a bunch of mindless echo chambers.

Quote : shadow

I figured it out, and frankly, far too well. You didn't even allude to "my theory"; you stated it before you and I even started this debate. You began with the premise that modern American films are garbage, and since you apparently believe no films exist outside of the US, you jumped to the conclusion that movies are insignificant compared to series—American series, obviously, because in your world, nothing else exists. It's just not true.

It’s just the same old story: American movies and shows pull massive numbers while everything else gets ignored. We're talking about pure viewership here, not actual quality. Why does that even matter?

Quote : shadow

Are you kidding me? Negligible? Half of all modern American series are just uninspired remakes of shows from Europe. Why can't anyone come up with an original idea anymore? Americans are snatching up remake rights for Danish series before they even finish filming. Since the US dominates the global market and those creators are just playing in a much smaller league, isn't this just blatant industry bullying? Exactly. When it comes to movies and series, quality should always be the benchmark. If you argue that most people just love garbage, aren't we just circling back to the era of Marshall?

And honestly, watching them is sixty times better than those Danish originals. Why even bother with the source material?
Most people just want entertainment, but there’s a massive difference between quality art and total garbage. That’s exactly why audience scores and critic ratings exist. Why else would we bother?

Where there's art, there's quality. Isn't it always that way?
Turkish series are huge over here and pull massive numbers, but they don't really fit your argument, do they?

Quote : shadow

shadowangler50 said:Quote : shadow

For some people—and I mean a lot of them—true entertainment means watching war and violence on screen. But let me tell you again: don't generalize. Not every American film is just "pure entertainment." Who’s actually enjoying which film? It’s pure guesswork at this point. What exactly does "a huge audience" mean to you? Are you suggesting a winner on NBC doesn't count if they don't have massive ratings? We weren't even discussing genius. You flat out claimed that non-American films are "lesser," and that people only find them valuable because Hollywood production has brainwashed them. I couldn't care less about how happy people were under Marshall's rule. I only care about films and series.

Take a look at those box office numbers. If a movie doesn't deliver actual entertainment, it's going to tank. Isn't that just common sense?
It’s common knowledge which genres draw the biggest crowds—the ones people actually turn to for entertainment. I'm not talking about every single person out there, just the majority. And let's face it, most American films are nothing more than pure entertainment.

I don't need to listen to ten million people claiming things were better under Marshall. A few hundred voices saying the same thing is more than enough to draw a conclusion.

Quote : shadow

You clearly have no clue what today's audience actually wants. When my hundreds of followers clash with your hundreds of fans of modern American film, it’ll be a fair fight.

I couldn't find your few hundred compared to my own several hundred. What exactly am I supposed to do with that?
It’ll drop from hundreds down to just a few dozen soon enough. We're looking at a sample where one side actually outweighs the other. This is where people with actual, differing opinions gather—not just a bunch of mindless echo chambers.

Quote : shadow

I figured it out, and frankly, far too well. You didn't even allude to "my theory"; you stated it before you and I even started this debate. You began with the premise that modern American films are garbage, and since you apparently believe no films exist outside of the US, you jumped to the conclusion that movies are insignificant compared to series—American series, obviously, because in your world, nothing else exists. It's just not true.

It’s just the same old story: American movies and shows pull massive numbers while everything else gets ignored. We're talking about pure viewership here, not actual quality. Why does that even matter?

Quote : shadow

Are you kidding me? Negligible? Half of all modern American series are just uninspired remakes of shows from Europe. Why can't anyone come up with an original idea anymore? Americans are snatching up remake rights for Danish series before they even finish filming. Since the US dominates the global market and those creators are just playing in a much smaller league, isn't this just blatant industry bullying? Exactly. When it comes to movies and series, quality should always be the benchmark. If you argue that most people just love garbage, aren't we just circling back to the era of Marshall?

And honestly, watching them is sixty times better than those Danish originals. Why even bother with the source material?
Most people just want entertainment, but there’s a massive difference between quality art and total garbage. That’s exactly why audience scores and critic ratings exist. Why else would we bother?

So what does that even prove? That there wouldn't be crowds watching if an original didn't exist? Like, would they just flock to see Romanians? Or Koreans?

Don't tell me you actually need critics to decide if a movie is worth watching or just straight-up garbage.

Quote : shadow

shadowangler50 said:Quote : shadow

You're basically making this sweeping judgment that every non-American film is boring and fails to connect with "real people," which is why they reject them. Even those who claim to enjoy international cinema only do so because Hollywood churns out such garbage that a Romanian film suddenly looks good by comparison—even when it actually isn't. Is that really how it works? Art is entirely subjective. The quality of any film or series really just comes down to the viewer's eye—and my eye, your eye, and his eye are all going to see things differently. Isn't that just how it works?

Movies are supposed to be entertainment; people watch them to unwind and relax, at least for the most part. American films are pure escapism, but since the plots are so recycled, they've become incredibly predictable and often insult the viewer's intelligence. They serve as entertainment, sure, but they fail to actually engage the audience on any meaningful level. Non-American films don't suffer from those specific flaws, yet they lack that mass appeal because their themes simply don't resonate with the general public. I'm not saying these movies are bad—I'm saying they aren't masterpieces.

And if you want me to prove it? I can't just throw a single number at you to settle this. It’s like trying to prove people were actually happier back in the Marshall era than they are now. But they were. They really were.

Let’s get one thing straight: I’m not talking about the quality of the films themselves. I am talking about current audience trends. I see this pattern clearly in a representative sample consisting of hundreds of regular moviegoers and series bingers. Why don't you provide an actual argument instead of just being contrarian?

Quote : shadow

What now? You personally called that new Hollywood film trash and insisted that TV series are better. Is that really your take?

Because they’re just trash. That isn't a matter of taste; it's a fact. If you try to excuse everything by calling it "subjective," then how are we supposed to distinguish between a good film and a bad one?
Maybe you didn't catch what I actually meant by that. I was addressing your theory that everything is just a matter of taste and can be excused that way. Well, it can't. There is a massive difference between having taste and being tasteless, and you can't pretend they're the same thing. You gain that sense through maturity and education; we all grow up learning the same fundamental values.

Quote : shadow

Spider-Man, Batman, and Hunger Games aren't exactly the pinnacle of world cinema, but I guess that's all you care about? Everything boils down to American films and US series for you, doesn't it? There are plenty of great shows outside the States, yet you stay conveniently silent about them. I already said this, and I’ll say it again: high ratings don't equate to quality. Does a massive audience actually make a movie or series any good? Not necessarily.

I watch shows from France, Denmark, Finland, or whatever other foreign country, but they just can't compete with American series. Foreign productions are completely negligible compared to what we have here in the States. Honestly, the only thing that even comes close in terms of viewership is a soap opera.
We aren't discussing quality here. We are talking about audience reception as defined by the ratings.

Quote : shadow

I’m not dictating anything. I am simply responding to your opinion with my own. Is that really such a difficult concept to grasp? Do we really want to turn this entire forum into a place where every single post is cluttered with some useless catchphrase? This is just my opinion.?

Sure, go ahead and throw in a cliché when you can't back up your point. There’s a massive difference between objective reality and whatever version of it you've decided to invent in your head.

Beauty is subjective, yet you’ve gone ahead and labeled every non-American film as tedious and boring tonight according to "people". I ask you again—which people, and how on earth do you know what they think?

What, you want me to list their full names and addresses? Try using Google for once, see how people actually live, and find some actual opinions.
This isn't CSI; I shouldn't have to hunt down bulletproof evidence.

For some people—and I mean a lot of them—the only way they know how to have fun is through violence or war movies. But again, I'm not making a blanket statement; not every American film is just mindless entertainment.
Who's actually enjoying which movie? Honestly, it's all just guesswork at this point.
What does "big numbers" even mean to you? Are you saying a Cannes winner doesn't need a massive audience to count?

I wasn't even talking about them being geniuses. You just claimed that non-American films are "less valuable" and that people only think they're good because Hollywood production has brainwashed them.

Quote : shadow

shadowangler50 said:Quote : shadow

You're basically making this sweeping judgment that every non-American film is boring and fails to connect with "real people," which is why they reject them. Even those who claim to enjoy international cinema only do so because Hollywood churns out such garbage that a Romanian film suddenly looks good by comparison—even when it actually isn't. Is that really how it works? Art is entirely subjective. The quality of any film or series really just comes down to the viewer's eye—and my eye, your eye, and his eye are all going to see things differently. Isn't that just how it works?

Movies are supposed to be entertainment; people watch them to unwind and relax, at least for the most part. American films are pure escapism, but since the plots are so recycled, they've become incredibly predictable and often insult the viewer's intelligence. They serve as entertainment, sure, but they fail to actually engage the audience on any meaningful level. Non-American films don't suffer from those specific flaws, yet they lack that mass appeal because their themes simply don't resonate with the general public. I'm not saying these movies are bad—I'm saying they aren't masterpieces.

And if you want me to prove it? I can't just throw a single number at you to settle this. It’s like trying to prove people were actually happier back in the Marshall era than they are now. But they were. They really were.

Let’s get one thing straight: I’m not talking about the quality of the films themselves. I am talking about current audience trends. I see this pattern clearly in a representative sample consisting of hundreds of regular moviegoers and series bingers. Why don't you provide an actual argument instead of just being contrarian?

Quote : shadow

What now? You personally called that new Hollywood film trash and insisted that TV series are better. Is that really your take?

Because they’re just trash. That isn't a matter of taste; it's a fact. If you try to excuse everything by calling it "subjective," then how are we supposed to distinguish between a good film and a bad one?
Maybe you didn't catch what I actually meant by that. I was addressing your theory that everything is just a matter of taste and can be excused that way. Well, it can't. There is a massive difference between having taste and being tasteless, and you can't pretend they're the same thing. You gain that sense through maturity and education; we all grow up learning the same fundamental values.

Quote : shadow

Spider-Man, Batman, and Hunger Games aren't exactly the pinnacle of world cinema, but I guess that's all you care about? Everything boils down to American films and US series for you, doesn't it? There are plenty of great shows outside the States, yet you stay conveniently silent about them. I already said this, and I’ll say it again: high ratings don't equate to quality. Does a massive audience actually make a movie or series any good? Not necessarily.

I watch shows from France, Denmark, Finland, or whatever other foreign country, but they just can't compete with American series. Foreign productions are completely negligible compared to what we have here in the States. Honestly, the only thing that even comes close in terms of viewership is a soap opera.
We aren't discussing quality here. We are talking about audience reception as defined by the ratings.

Quote : shadow

I’m not dictating anything. I am simply responding to your opinion with my own. Is that really such a difficult concept to grasp? Do we really want to turn this entire forum into a place where every single post is cluttered with some useless catchphrase? This is just my opinion.?

Sure, go ahead and throw in a cliché when you can't back up your point. There’s a massive difference between objective reality and whatever version of it you've decided to invent in your head.

Beauty is subjective, yet you’ve gone ahead and labeled every non-American film as tedious and boring tonight according to "people". I ask you again—which people, and how on earth do you know what they think?

What, you want me to list their full names and addresses? Try using Google for once, see how people actually live, and find some actual opinions.
This isn't CSI; I shouldn't have to hunt down bulletproof evidence.

I couldn't care less about how happy people were under Marshall's rule; I'm just here for the movies and shows.

You don't have a clue what today's audience actually wants. Your hundreds of followers will go head-to-head with my hundreds of fans of modern American and Korean cinema, and honestly? It'll be a dead heat.

Quote : shadow

shadowangler50 said:Quote : shadow

You're basically making this sweeping judgment that every non-American film is boring and fails to connect with "real people," which is why they reject them. Even those who claim to enjoy international cinema only do so because Hollywood churns out such garbage that a Romanian film suddenly looks good by comparison—even when it actually isn't. Is that really how it works? Art is entirely subjective. The quality of any film or series really just comes down to the viewer's eye—and my eye, your eye, and his eye are all going to see things differently. Isn't that just how it works?

Movies are supposed to be entertainment; people watch them to unwind and relax, at least for the most part. American films are pure escapism, but since the plots are so recycled, they've become incredibly predictable and often insult the viewer's intelligence. They serve as entertainment, sure, but they fail to actually engage the audience on any meaningful level. Non-American films don't suffer from those specific flaws, yet they lack that mass appeal because their themes simply don't resonate with the general public. I'm not saying these movies are bad—I'm saying they aren't masterpieces.

And if you want me to prove it? I can't just throw a single number at you to settle this. It’s like trying to prove people were actually happier back in the Marshall era than they are now. But they were. They really were.

Let’s get one thing straight: I’m not talking about the quality of the films themselves. I am talking about current audience trends. I see this pattern clearly in a representative sample consisting of hundreds of regular moviegoers and series bingers. Why don't you provide an actual argument instead of just being contrarian?

Quote : shadow

What now? You personally called that new Hollywood film trash and insisted that TV series are better. Is that really your take?

Because they’re just trash. That isn't a matter of taste; it's a fact. If you try to excuse everything by calling it "subjective," then how are we supposed to distinguish between a good film and a bad one?
Maybe you didn't catch what I actually meant by that. I was addressing your theory that everything is just a matter of taste and can be excused that way. Well, it can't. There is a massive difference between having taste and being tasteless, and you can't pretend they're the same thing. You gain that sense through maturity and education; we all grow up learning the same fundamental values.

Quote : shadow

Spider-Man, Batman, and Hunger Games aren't exactly the pinnacle of world cinema, but I guess that's all you care about? Everything boils down to American films and US series for you, doesn't it? There are plenty of great shows outside the States, yet you stay conveniently silent about them. I already said this, and I’ll say it again: high ratings don't equate to quality. Does a massive audience actually make a movie or series any good? Not necessarily.

I watch shows from France, Denmark, Finland, or whatever other foreign country, but they just can't compete with American series. Foreign productions are completely negligible compared to what we have here in the States. Honestly, the only thing that even comes close in terms of viewership is a soap opera.
We aren't discussing quality here. We are talking about audience reception as defined by the ratings.

Quote : shadow

I’m not dictating anything. I am simply responding to your opinion with my own. Is that really such a difficult concept to grasp? Do we really want to turn this entire forum into a place where every single post is cluttered with some useless catchphrase? This is just my opinion.?

Sure, go ahead and throw in a cliché when you can't back up your point. There’s a massive difference between objective reality and whatever version of it you've decided to invent in your head.

Beauty is subjective, yet you’ve gone ahead and labeled every non-American film as tedious and boring tonight according to "people". I ask you again—which people, and how on earth do you know what they think?

What, you want me to list their full names and addresses? Try using Google for once, see how people actually live, and find some actual opinions.
This isn't CSI; I shouldn't have to hunt down bulletproof evidence.

I figured it out. A little too well, actually.
You weren't even hinting at "my theory"; you had already laid that out before you and I even started talking. You basically walked in assuming modern American movies are total garbage, and since you think nothing else exists outside of US productions, you jumped straight to the conclusion that films are secondary to TV shows—as if there aren't any other options out there. It doesn't work like that.

shadowangler50 said:Quote : shadow

You're basically making this sweeping judgment that every non-American film is boring and fails to connect with "real people," which is why they reject them. Even those who claim to enjoy international cinema only do so because Hollywood churns out such garbage that a Romanian film suddenly looks good by comparison—even when it actually isn't. Is that really how it works? Art is entirely subjective. The quality of any film or series really just comes down to the viewer's eye—and my eye, your eye, and his eye are all going to see things differently. Isn't that just how it works?

Movies are supposed to be entertainment; people watch them to unwind and relax, at least for the most part. American films are pure escapism, but since the plots are so recycled, they've become incredibly predictable and often insult the viewer's intelligence. They serve as entertainment, sure, but they fail to actually engage the audience on any meaningful level. Non-American films don't suffer from those specific flaws, yet they lack that mass appeal because their themes simply don't resonate with the general public. I'm not saying these movies are bad—I'm saying they aren't masterpieces.

And if you want me to prove it? I can't just throw a single number at you to settle this. It’s like trying to prove people were actually happier back in the Marshall era than they are now. But they were. They really were.

Let’s get one thing straight: I’m not talking about the quality of the films themselves. I am talking about current audience trends. I see this pattern clearly in a representative sample consisting of hundreds of regular moviegoers and series bingers. Why don't you provide an actual argument instead of just being contrarian?

Quote : shadow

What now? You personally called that new Hollywood film trash and insisted that TV series are better. Is that really your take?

Because they’re just trash. That isn't a matter of taste; it's a fact. If you try to excuse everything by calling it "subjective," then how are we supposed to distinguish between a good film and a bad one?
Maybe you didn't catch what I actually meant by that. I was addressing your theory that everything is just a matter of taste and can be excused that way. Well, it can't. There is a massive difference between having taste and being tasteless, and you can't pretend they're the same thing. You gain that sense through maturity and education; we all grow up learning the same fundamental values.

Quote : shadow

Spider-Man, Batman, and Hunger Games aren't exactly the pinnacle of world cinema, but I guess that's all you care about? Everything boils down to American films and US series for you, doesn't it? There are plenty of great shows outside the States, yet you stay conveniently silent about them. I already said this, and I’ll say it again: high ratings don't equate to quality. Does a massive audience actually make a movie or series any good? Not necessarily.

I watch shows from France, Denmark, Finland, or whatever other foreign country, but they just can't compete with American series. Foreign productions are completely negligible compared to what we have here in the States. Honestly, the only thing that even comes close in terms of viewership is a soap opera.
We aren't discussing quality here. We are talking about audience reception as defined by the ratings.

Quote : shadow

I’m not dictating anything. I am simply responding to your opinion with my own. Is that really such a difficult concept to grasp? Do we really want to turn this entire forum into a place where every single post is cluttered with some useless catchphrase? This is just my opinion.?

Sure, go ahead and throw in a cliché when you can't back up your point. There’s a massive difference between objective reality and whatever version of it you've decided to invent in your head.

Beauty is subjective, yet you’ve gone ahead and labeled every non-American film as tedious and boring tonight according to "people". I ask you again—which people, and how on earth do you know what they think?

What, you want me to list their full names and addresses? Try using Google for once, see how people actually live, and find some actual opinions.
This isn't CSI; I shouldn't have to hunt down bulletproof evidence.

Oh, really? Invisible?
Half of the modern hits on US TV are just remakes of European series.
Americans are out there buying the rights to Danish shows before they've even finished filming—so how are those creators "minor" while Americans are "dominant"?

And yeah, when we talk movies or shows, we’re always talking quality. Because if you try to argue that most people just love garbage, we end up right back at the Žikin dynasty.

Kenneth Johnson12 said:Quote : shadow

I just finished watching The Cabin in the Woods. It was poor, truly poor. Coherence and The One I Love were already on my watchlist, and I intend to watch them along with the others. I appreciate the suggestions and hope they prove to be excellent. However, judging by The Cabin in the Woods, I have my doubts. We shall see. 🍿

Quote : shadow

Within the last five years, at most.
To add to my previous point: I am looking for top-tier comedies and thrillers. While there have been some solid dramas and sci-fi films lately, those genres simply don't interest me personally. If you could suggest something within the requested genres—specifically psychological thrillers—that would be appreciated. 😍 For instance, I consider the following to be top-tier films within their respective genres: Identity (2003), Shutter Island, Seven, Exam, Bridesmaids, and Crazy, Stupid, Love.

Hmm, if Identity is your idea of perfection, you’ll probably dig Stoker (2013) too.

Quote : shadow

shadowangler50 said:Quote : shadow

I never said people... Most people? Hardly. Is anyone actually in control here? They actually think movies are better than TV series? Really? It simply doesn't exist. What's the general consensus?In art, there is no such thing as a generalization. Why should there be?

You constantly claim that films are superior to series, and you present it as an absolute fact rather than just your own opinion. Is it really necessary to be so arrogant?
Everyone has some excuse ready, claiming it’s "art" or just a matter of taste. Is that really all there is to it?

Quote : shadow

They don't have them. How can garbage actually impact the success of global cinema? Garbage is garbage, no matter how many people watch it.

Make up your mind. Is it actually garbage, or is it just a matter of taste that it's garbage?
Most people flock to these movies. Since when did popularity become a metric for quality? How can you be so sure they’re actually trash?

Quote : shadow

shadowangler50, This isn't even about movies or TV shows anymore; it’s a fundamental clash of worldviews. Europe, Asia, and South America aren't just some "rest of the world." They aren't just sources for what you call "perfectly decent" films that you've unilaterally dismissed as boring and uninteresting to audiences. Which audiences exactly? That "studio," shadowangler50, produces absolute masterpieces, but let’s be real—not every film is meant for everyone. And people aren't just some mindless, brainless mass controlled by a central headquarters in Hollywood like you seem to think they are. So, you've basically written off global cinema just because it doesn't match the Hollywood standard, all while bowing down to Hollywood as if they're the sole arbiters of what counts as art? Are you serious? Thankfully for us cinephiles, nobody gets to dictate what true art is.

Who are you to decide if the first few seasons of The Wire are boring? Who are you to claim it's the greatest show ever made, or that Game of Thrones is just some exhausting piece of trash? You’re lecturing me on taste and artistic opinion, yet you clearly don't respect them yourself.

Maybe the audience obsessed with Hollywood movies is smarter. Maybe those Hollywood films are geniuses and Korean cinema is just trash. But how do you actually prove that?
As you claim, that's what constitutes art. Art is defined by beauty, and beauty is entirely a matter of taste. De gustibus non est disputandum.

We’re just spinning our wheels here. Why are we wasting so much time on this circular debate?

So you're basically saying you judge every non-American film as boring and unrelatable, which is why "regular people" can't stand them? And even the ones who do like them only do so because Hollywood pumps out such garbage that a random movie from Romania suddenly looks like a masterpiece by comparison. Is that really how it works?

Art is all about taste. The quality of any movie or show really just boils down to the eye of the beholder, and my eye isn't exactly the same as yours, is it?

Quote : shadow

shadowangler50 said:Quote : shadow

I never said people... Most people? Hardly. Is anyone actually in control here? They actually think movies are better than TV series? Really? It simply doesn't exist. What's the general consensus?In art, there is no such thing as a generalization. Why should there be?

You constantly claim that films are superior to series, and you present it as an absolute fact rather than just your own opinion. Is it really necessary to be so arrogant?
Everyone has some excuse ready, claiming it’s "art" or just a matter of taste. Is that really all there is to it?

Quote : shadow

They don't have them. How can garbage actually impact the success of global cinema? Garbage is garbage, no matter how many people watch it.

Make up your mind. Is it actually garbage, or is it just a matter of taste that it's garbage?
Most people flock to these movies. Since when did popularity become a metric for quality? How can you be so sure they’re actually trash?

Quote : shadow

shadowangler50, This isn't even about movies or TV shows anymore; it’s a fundamental clash of worldviews. Europe, Asia, and South America aren't just some "rest of the world." They aren't just sources for what you call "perfectly decent" films that you've unilaterally dismissed as boring and uninteresting to audiences. Which audiences exactly? That "studio," shadowangler50, produces absolute masterpieces, but let’s be real—not every film is meant for everyone. And people aren't just some mindless, brainless mass controlled by a central headquarters in Hollywood like you seem to think they are. So, you've basically written off global cinema just because it doesn't match the Hollywood standard, all while bowing down to Hollywood as if they're the sole arbiters of what counts as art? Are you serious? Thankfully for us cinephiles, nobody gets to dictate what true art is.

Who are you to decide if the first few seasons of The Wire are boring? Who are you to claim it's the greatest show ever made, or that Game of Thrones is just some exhausting piece of trash? You’re lecturing me on taste and artistic opinion, yet you clearly don't respect them yourself.

Maybe the audience obsessed with Hollywood movies is smarter. Maybe those Hollywood films are geniuses and Korean cinema is just trash. But how do you actually prove that?
As you claim, that's what constitutes art. Art is defined by beauty, and beauty is entirely a matter of taste. De gustibus non est disputandum.

We’re just spinning our wheels here. Why are we wasting so much time on this circular debate?

You? I personally called that new Hollywood flick trash and insisted that TV series are just better. Is anyone actually surprised?

Quote : shadow

shadowangler50 said:Obviously, there were successful periods in the past referred to as golden ages. I never said series weren't successful before now. My point is that this is the absolute peak of all golden ages. We've never seen this many high-quality series packed into just a few years.

I have no idea what you think defines a successful or "golden" period. Success is built on viewership and popularity. Why do they film pilot episodes then? Why don't they just film a full season and skip the single episode test? Because everything revolves around ratings and popularity. It always has been, and it always will be.
I'm sure series from the fifties had higher viewership than what we see now. Go ahead, name those fifties series you've watched that actually meant something more than the shows airing today. I can easily list ten current shows that have massive audiences.
And why would anyone write books about this golden age while it's still happening? How could you possibly know what kind of impact current shows will leave? This mindset that "old is always better than new" isn't always grounded in reality.
More quality series lead to greater popularity, and greater popularity makes something more successful—more "golden." And if movies fail and the audience shifts even further toward series, that golden glow only gets brighter.

Movies have never been worse compared to series until this period. Now, series are definitively better.
Are you seriously suggesting that The Avengers, Spider-Man, Batman, Twilight, or The Hunger Games are better than Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, True Detective, or The Wire?

Look, Spider-Man, Batman, and Hunger Games aren't exactly the pinnacle of global cinema, but for you, everything just boils down to American movies and shows. There are great series outside the US too, but you'd never know it, right?

I already said it, and I’ll say it again: high ratings don't actually mean a movie or series is any good. Does popularity even equate to quality anymore?

Quote : shadow

shadowangler50 said:Quote : shadow

I never said people... Most people? Hardly. Is anyone actually in control here? They actually think movies are better than TV series? Really? It simply doesn't exist. What's the general consensus?In art, there is no such thing as a generalization. Why should there be?

You constantly claim that films are superior to series, and you present it as an absolute fact rather than just your own opinion. Is it really necessary to be so arrogant?
Everyone has some excuse ready, claiming it’s "art" or just a matter of taste. Is that really all there is to it?

Quote : shadow

They don't have them. How can garbage actually impact the success of global cinema? Garbage is garbage, no matter how many people watch it.

Make up your mind. Is it actually garbage, or is it just a matter of taste that it's garbage?
Most people flock to these movies. Since when did popularity become a metric for quality? How can you be so sure they’re actually trash?

Quote : shadow

shadowangler50, This isn't even about movies or TV shows anymore; it’s a fundamental clash of worldviews. Europe, Asia, and South America aren't just some "rest of the world." They aren't just sources for what you call "perfectly decent" films that you've unilaterally dismissed as boring and uninteresting to audiences. Which audiences exactly? That "studio," shadowangler50, produces absolute masterpieces, but let’s be real—not every film is meant for everyone. And people aren't just some mindless, brainless mass controlled by a central headquarters in Hollywood like you seem to think they are. So, you've basically written off global cinema just because it doesn't match the Hollywood standard, all while bowing down to Hollywood as if they're the sole arbiters of what counts as art? Are you serious? Thankfully for us cinephiles, nobody gets to dictate what true art is.

Who are you to decide if the first few seasons of The Wire are boring? Who are you to claim it's the greatest show ever made, or that Game of Thrones is just some exhausting piece of trash? You’re lecturing me on taste and artistic opinion, yet you clearly don't respect them yourself.

Maybe the audience obsessed with Hollywood movies is smarter. Maybe those Hollywood films are geniuses and Korean cinema is just trash. But how do you actually prove that?
As you claim, that's what constitutes art. Art is defined by beauty, and beauty is entirely a matter of taste. De gustibus non est disputandum.

We’re just spinning our wheels here. Why are we wasting so much time on this circular debate?

I’m not dictating anything; I’m just giving my take on what someone else said.
Do you seriously want everyone on this film forum to tack on a this-is-just-my-opinion disclaimer to every single post?

Beauty is subjective, yet tonight you decided to unilaterally label every non-American film as tedious and boring based on what "people" think. Let me ask you again—which people, and how exactly do you know what they're thinking?

Kenneth Johnson12 said:I am familiar with all these films; I have seen some, and I fail to see how any of them qualify as masterpieces.

Are these supposed to be children's movies? I am asking seriously.

Patrick's list is desperate. Of everything listed, Blue Ruin is the only one that seems to have any potential. Fine, at least you provided one title. Perhaps I will get lucky with another one, who knows. Though I doubt it.

It is.

Newer American films.

Masterpieces are subjective, smoky. It's all in the eye of the beholder, right?

Besides, like I told shadow earlier, this isn't a debate about American movies vs. American series, it's about movies vs. series, regardless of where they were produced.

Fine, you want recent American films that I consider top-tier.

Blue Ridge, Her, Enemy, Under the Skin, Coherence, The One I Love, Inside Llewyn Davis, Nebraska, The Cabin in the Woods...

shadowangler50 said:

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.

I never actually said people... Most people? Not really. They really think movies are better than series? Is that what they're telling themselves now?
Doesn't exist. What's the general consensus?In art, you can't just generalize everything. Why even try?

shadowangler50 said:

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.

They don't.
How can garbage actually impact the success of global cinema? Trash is trash, no matter how many people watch it.

shadowangler50 said:

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.

shadowangler50,
We aren't even talking about movies or TV shows anymore; this is just a clash of worldviews. America, Asia, and South America aren't some "rest of the world," nor is that "rest of the world" just churning out "pretty decent" films that you've unilaterally dismissed as boring and uninteresting. Which people exactly are we talking about?

That "studio," shadowangler50, churns out absolute masterpieces, but let's be real—not every flick is for everyone. And people aren't just some mindless, monolithic blob controlled by a single brain trust in Hollywood like you seem to think.

So, you basically wrote off the entire global film industry just because it doesn't stack up to your favorite shows, all while using Hollywood as your only benchmark. You're basically bowing down to Hollywood like they're the ultimate gatekeepers of what "real art" even is. Is that really how we're measuring creativity now?

Luckily for us film buffs, nobody gets to decide what counts as art.