Posts by James Garcia50

bluenomad2 said:It’s unfortunate that when you quoted me, I saw I had actually written "James Garcia50ga". My apologies, 😁

Sure, Asians are always in the mix, but they've really dominated the scene over the last decade, especially since Korea took the lead.

There was also mention of The Raid 2: Berandal, which honestly beats the first one. A massive action film.

Maybe Elite Squad and The Raid are the only movies where the sequel actually manages to outdo the first one.

Zachary Nguyen2 said:Why not?

Where do you even live? In some small town in the Midwest?
Go ask a prison guard if they're cops.

Zachary Nguyen2 said:Yeah, watch it again.
Aren't prison guards cops?

They aren't, Zachary.

Zachary Nguyen2 said:It is.

Nah, take another look.

Cellblock 211 isn't some police procedural; it's a prison movie.

Nicholas Watson said:I mean, just look at *Zodiac*. It’s honestly tough to find another police procedural that hits quite that hard. Maybe *Serpico* comes close, but honestly, nothing else really jumps to mind immediately.

The Wire is the only show that actually matters. It’s the exception that proves the rule, isn't it?

Zachary Nguyen2 said:I remember the first two or three seasons of that show being pretty dull.

Not really.

Nicholas Watson said:You’re basically my go-to for this kind of comparison. Honestly, if you had just mentioned the Fargo film and the series together, we actually could have had a decent debate going about which one holds more water, maybe even pulled some interesting parallels out of it. But as it stands, there isn't much to talk about since the series is such an absolute train wreck.

I don't even know where to start with this one, honestly. It’s just one of those days where everything feels like a massive uphill battle, you know? I feel like I'm spinning my wheels in the sand while everyone else is cruising by on a highway. Just feeling pretty lost and looking for some direction, if anyone out there actually has any.
Alright, let's get this show on the road. 🙂 🙂

That's exactly my point—how great movies just turn into mediocre shows.

The Fargo series lost everything that made the Fargo film good. It’s watchable, sure, but...🙄

Rachel Richardson said:Two entirely different worlds.
TV series have more breathing room—they allow for deeper conversations and extended discussions over time.
A movie is much more concise 🙂

That's why I love a movie - a whole life in 90 minutes, though not everyone gets that.👍

Take one of the greatest cinematic masterpieces ever, Psycho, and compare it to the series Bates Motel, which is basically its prequel.

Sure, we finally get all the backstory on how that little psycho grew up under his overbearing mother, but... the show was clearly just stretched out for the sake of it. It's not saying it's bad, but man... I'll always take a movie that hits the mark and leaves it at that. No endless aftermath needed.

Kenneth Johnson12 said:Still waiting for someone to put together a list of about ten films so I actually have something worth watching. People keep mentioning great series in this thread, but nobody ever suggests specific movies unless they’re talking trash about them. I realize there are other threads for this, but I am specifically looking for top-tier recent films that match the quality of elite shows like GoT or Homeland. 🍿

Kenneth, I’d give you a list, but Patrick Martin already posted one. Just pick something from there, throw in Blue Ruin and a few flicks from Asia, and you're set for now.

BTW, GoT isn't even that great.

shadowangler50 said:

No.
We aren't debating whether series are watched more than movies, because nobody has provided any actual proof for that.
Broad generalizations don't hold water here; you can only judge on a case-by-case basis.

Individual opinion is all that matters, because deciding to watch a movie or a show is a choice made by you and you alone. We don't pick what to watch based on reading various forums or seeing who's right; we choose based on our own aesthetic standards.

When we're talking about art rather than politics, a consensus carries zero weight or value. You, shadowangler50, can call a film bad if you back it up with arguments. No single film or series is going to be good for everyone. Providing an argued opinion isn't an insult to the director or your interlocutor. When I evaluate a film or a series, your "others" have nothing to do with me; I don't need a consensus in art.

The topic is why people seem to prefer series over movies lately. So, we aren't discussing raw numbers—whether more people have watched one or the other (which is impossible to determine since they aren't even the same format)—but rather whether people believe series are better or higher quality than movies today.

I'm not talking about individual movies or shows where opinions vary wildly and mostly come down to taste. Even taste is relative when determining if something is "good" or "bad." You might like a film or you might not, but that doesn't mean it's objectively bad or good. Simply put, some films are crafted so well that you might still dislike them, but you can't call them bad. And vice versa.

I am talking about movies and series in a general sense: is the audience more satisfied with one or the other? Based on the people I know, the forums, and the various US entertainment sites that cover this industry, much more attention is being poured into series.
There are far more comments on news regarding currently popular movies than there are on the latest series. And even when news breaks about older films, there are still way more comments compared to the newest ones. There is also a constant sense of dissatisfaction with current movies, whereas audiences seem largely satisfied with series.

So, I am talking about the current state of movies and series and the public's relationship with them. We aren't arguing about whether you personally prefer movies or series; your voice is just a drop in the ocean and means nothing regarding this specific question. We aren't voting or making decisions by majority rule; we are simply stating the factual situation.

As for evidence, just look at the number of series and movies that have been almost universally acclaimed by both audiences and critics over the last few years and compare that to previous eras. We've never seen this many series and so few movies in our current era.

There is no such thing as a "peak" film or a "peak" series, nor should they be used to drive anything. Some people love one thing, others love another; there is no collective yardstick when it comes to the quality of film or TV productions.

Certain films and series have had a massive impact on the evolution of cinema and on people in general. Many projects would never exist if they hadn't been inspired by ideas from those specific works. Mediocrity is never a role model, and nothing of value ever comes from it.

If a show stays relevant for years on end, it’s probably just some cheap soap opera.

High ratings don't automatically guarantee quality. However, when a series manages to win over both the critics and the general public while pulling massive numbers, that actually carries some weight.
Ratings are just one more variable that might—or might not—reflect how good a show really is.

This thread was dead on arrival. How can anyone take the title seriously when there’s zero definition for "everyone" and the OP didn't even bother to back up their own claim?

shadowangler50 said:

No.
We aren't debating whether series are watched more than movies, because nobody has provided any actual proof for that.
Broad generalizations don't hold water here; you can only judge on a case-by-case basis.

Individual opinion is all that matters, because deciding to watch a movie or a show is a choice made by you and you alone. We don't pick what to watch based on reading various forums or seeing who's right; we choose based on our own aesthetic standards.

When we're talking about art rather than politics, a consensus carries zero weight or value. You, shadowangler50, can call a film bad if you back it up with arguments. No single film or series is going to be good for everyone. Providing an argued opinion isn't an insult to the director or your interlocutor. When I evaluate a film or a series, your "others" have nothing to do with me; I don't need a consensus in art.

The topic is why people seem to prefer series over movies lately. So, we aren't discussing raw numbers—whether more people have watched one or the other (which is impossible to determine since they aren't even the same format)—but rather whether people believe series are better or higher quality than movies today.

I'm not talking about individual movies or shows where opinions vary wildly and mostly come down to taste. Even taste is relative when determining if something is "good" or "bad." You might like a film or you might not, but that doesn't mean it's objectively bad or good. Simply put, some films are crafted so well that you might still dislike them, but you can't call them bad. And vice versa.

I am talking about movies and series in a general sense: is the audience more satisfied with one or the other? Based on the people I know, the forums, and the various US entertainment sites that cover this industry, much more attention is being poured into series.
There are far more comments on news regarding currently popular movies than there are on the latest series. And even when news breaks about older films, there are still way more comments compared to the newest ones. There is also a constant sense of dissatisfaction with current movies, whereas audiences seem largely satisfied with series.

So, I am talking about the current state of movies and series and the public's relationship with them. We aren't arguing about whether you personally prefer movies or series; your voice is just a drop in the ocean and means nothing regarding this specific question. We aren't voting or making decisions by majority rule; we are simply stating the factual situation.

As for evidence, just look at the number of series and movies that have been almost universally acclaimed by both audiences and critics over the last few years and compare that to previous eras. We've never seen this many series and so few movies in our current era.

There is no such thing as a "peak" film or a "peak" series, nor should they be used to drive anything. Some people love one thing, others love another; there is no collective yardstick when it comes to the quality of film or TV productions.

Certain films and series have had a massive impact on the evolution of cinema and on people in general. Many projects would never exist if they hadn't been inspired by ideas from those specific works. Mediocrity is never a role model, and nothing of value ever comes from it.

If a show stays relevant for years on end, it’s probably just some cheap soap opera.

High ratings don't automatically guarantee quality. However, when a series manages to win over both the critics and the general public while pulling massive numbers, that actually carries some weight.
Ratings are just one more variable that might—or might not—reflect how good a show really is.

The sample size is way too small to draw any real conclusions from this. You really think that works?
Based on a few random forums and sites, you really think you can conclude that most people are "mostly satisfied" with TV shows while hating on movies?
TV shows and movies just don't get the respect they deserve anymore. Is anyone even watching for the art anymore, or just to kill time? All at once? Just how they like it.Look, every piece of work stands on its own. Why overcomplicate things?

shadowangler50 said:

No.
We aren't debating whether series are watched more than movies, because nobody has provided any actual proof for that.
Broad generalizations don't hold water here; you can only judge on a case-by-case basis.

Individual opinion is all that matters, because deciding to watch a movie or a show is a choice made by you and you alone. We don't pick what to watch based on reading various forums or seeing who's right; we choose based on our own aesthetic standards.

When we're talking about art rather than politics, a consensus carries zero weight or value. You, shadowangler50, can call a film bad if you back it up with arguments. No single film or series is going to be good for everyone. Providing an argued opinion isn't an insult to the director or your interlocutor. When I evaluate a film or a series, your "others" have nothing to do with me; I don't need a consensus in art.

The topic is why people seem to prefer series over movies lately. So, we aren't discussing raw numbers—whether more people have watched one or the other (which is impossible to determine since they aren't even the same format)—but rather whether people believe series are better or higher quality than movies today.

I'm not talking about individual movies or shows where opinions vary wildly and mostly come down to taste. Even taste is relative when determining if something is "good" or "bad." You might like a film or you might not, but that doesn't mean it's objectively bad or good. Simply put, some films are crafted so well that you might still dislike them, but you can't call them bad. And vice versa.

I am talking about movies and series in a general sense: is the audience more satisfied with one or the other? Based on the people I know, the forums, and the various US entertainment sites that cover this industry, much more attention is being poured into series.
There are far more comments on news regarding currently popular movies than there are on the latest series. And even when news breaks about older films, there are still way more comments compared to the newest ones. There is also a constant sense of dissatisfaction with current movies, whereas audiences seem largely satisfied with series.

So, I am talking about the current state of movies and series and the public's relationship with them. We aren't arguing about whether you personally prefer movies or series; your voice is just a drop in the ocean and means nothing regarding this specific question. We aren't voting or making decisions by majority rule; we are simply stating the factual situation.

As for evidence, just look at the number of series and movies that have been almost universally acclaimed by both audiences and critics over the last few years and compare that to previous eras. We've never seen this many series and so few movies in our current era.

There is no such thing as a "peak" film or a "peak" series, nor should they be used to drive anything. Some people love one thing, others love another; there is no collective yardstick when it comes to the quality of film or TV productions.

Certain films and series have had a massive impact on the evolution of cinema and on people in general. Many projects would never exist if they hadn't been inspired by ideas from those specific works. Mediocrity is never a role model, and nothing of value ever comes from it.

If a show stays relevant for years on end, it’s probably just some cheap soap opera.

High ratings don't automatically guarantee quality. However, when a series manages to win over both the critics and the general public while pulling massive numbers, that actually carries some weight.
Ratings are just one more variable that might—or might not—reflect how good a show really is.

Your voice and those random assumptions of yours? They're just a drop in the ocean.
I’m sticking to my guns, and you’re sticking to yours—the only difference is you call it "we."

So you think because you've seen some random people on a couple of forums acting like they speak for everyone, that somehow proves a global shift? You really think those few voices represent the whole world deciding they prefer TV shows over movies now?
Basically, what you're putting out there isn't exactly "the facts."

A lot of people—maybe even you—tend to treat "Hollywood" and "cinema" as if they're the exact same thing. But does that garbage actually mean anything? Movies? Please. Most of them are just recycled garbage anyway. Why even bother? On a global scale.
Hollywood might be washed up (there’s a whole thread on that), but international cinema—from France and Denmark to Japan and South Korea—is hitting harder than ever.

shadowangler50 said:

No.
We aren't debating whether series are watched more than movies, because nobody has provided any actual proof for that.
Broad generalizations don't hold water here; you can only judge on a case-by-case basis.

Individual opinion is all that matters, because deciding to watch a movie or a show is a choice made by you and you alone. We don't pick what to watch based on reading various forums or seeing who's right; we choose based on our own aesthetic standards.

When we're talking about art rather than politics, a consensus carries zero weight or value. You, shadowangler50, can call a film bad if you back it up with arguments. No single film or series is going to be good for everyone. Providing an argued opinion isn't an insult to the director or your interlocutor. When I evaluate a film or a series, your "others" have nothing to do with me; I don't need a consensus in art.

The topic is why people seem to prefer series over movies lately. So, we aren't discussing raw numbers—whether more people have watched one or the other (which is impossible to determine since they aren't even the same format)—but rather whether people believe series are better or higher quality than movies today.

I'm not talking about individual movies or shows where opinions vary wildly and mostly come down to taste. Even taste is relative when determining if something is "good" or "bad." You might like a film or you might not, but that doesn't mean it's objectively bad or good. Simply put, some films are crafted so well that you might still dislike them, but you can't call them bad. And vice versa.

I am talking about movies and series in a general sense: is the audience more satisfied with one or the other? Based on the people I know, the forums, and the various US entertainment sites that cover this industry, much more attention is being poured into series.
There are far more comments on news regarding currently popular movies than there are on the latest series. And even when news breaks about older films, there are still way more comments compared to the newest ones. There is also a constant sense of dissatisfaction with current movies, whereas audiences seem largely satisfied with series.

So, I am talking about the current state of movies and series and the public's relationship with them. We aren't arguing about whether you personally prefer movies or series; your voice is just a drop in the ocean and means nothing regarding this specific question. We aren't voting or making decisions by majority rule; we are simply stating the factual situation.

As for evidence, just look at the number of series and movies that have been almost universally acclaimed by both audiences and critics over the last few years and compare that to previous eras. We've never seen this many series and so few movies in our current era.

There is no such thing as a "peak" film or a "peak" series, nor should they be used to drive anything. Some people love one thing, others love another; there is no collective yardstick when it comes to the quality of film or TV productions.

Certain films and series have had a massive impact on the evolution of cinema and on people in general. Many projects would never exist if they hadn't been inspired by ideas from those specific works. Mediocrity is never a role model, and nothing of value ever comes from it.

If a show stays relevant for years on end, it’s probably just some cheap soap opera.

High ratings don't automatically guarantee quality. However, when a series manages to win over both the critics and the general public while pulling massive numbers, that actually carries some weight.
Ratings are just one more variable that might—or might not—reflect how good a show really is.

Nobody is disputing that.

shadowangler50 said:

No.
We aren't debating whether series are watched more than movies, because nobody has provided any actual proof for that.
Broad generalizations don't hold water here; you can only judge on a case-by-case basis.

Individual opinion is all that matters, because deciding to watch a movie or a show is a choice made by you and you alone. We don't pick what to watch based on reading various forums or seeing who's right; we choose based on our own aesthetic standards.

When we're talking about art rather than politics, a consensus carries zero weight or value. You, shadowangler50, can call a film bad if you back it up with arguments. No single film or series is going to be good for everyone. Providing an argued opinion isn't an insult to the director or your interlocutor. When I evaluate a film or a series, your "others" have nothing to do with me; I don't need a consensus in art.

The topic is why people seem to prefer series over movies lately. So, we aren't discussing raw numbers—whether more people have watched one or the other (which is impossible to determine since they aren't even the same format)—but rather whether people believe series are better or higher quality than movies today.

I'm not talking about individual movies or shows where opinions vary wildly and mostly come down to taste. Even taste is relative when determining if something is "good" or "bad." You might like a film or you might not, but that doesn't mean it's objectively bad or good. Simply put, some films are crafted so well that you might still dislike them, but you can't call them bad. And vice versa.

I am talking about movies and series in a general sense: is the audience more satisfied with one or the other? Based on the people I know, the forums, and the various US entertainment sites that cover this industry, much more attention is being poured into series.
There are far more comments on news regarding currently popular movies than there are on the latest series. And even when news breaks about older films, there are still way more comments compared to the newest ones. There is also a constant sense of dissatisfaction with current movies, whereas audiences seem largely satisfied with series.

So, I am talking about the current state of movies and series and the public's relationship with them. We aren't arguing about whether you personally prefer movies or series; your voice is just a drop in the ocean and means nothing regarding this specific question. We aren't voting or making decisions by majority rule; we are simply stating the factual situation.

As for evidence, just look at the number of series and movies that have been almost universally acclaimed by both audiences and critics over the last few years and compare that to previous eras. We've never seen this many series and so few movies in our current era.

There is no such thing as a "peak" film or a "peak" series, nor should they be used to drive anything. Some people love one thing, others love another; there is no collective yardstick when it comes to the quality of film or TV productions.

Certain films and series have had a massive impact on the evolution of cinema and on people in general. Many projects would never exist if they hadn't been inspired by ideas from those specific works. Mediocrity is never a role model, and nothing of value ever comes from it.

If a show stays relevant for years on end, it’s probably just some cheap soap opera.

High ratings don't automatically guarantee quality. However, when a series manages to win over both the critics and the general public while pulling massive numbers, that actually carries some weight.
Ratings are just one more variable that might—or might not—reflect how good a show really is.

Critics and audiences don't always see eye to eye; when it comes to the truly great stuff, their opinions are often worlds apart.

Massive ratings don't mean anything.
Look at some old sitcom like *All in the Family*. It had huge numbers, sure, but critics tore it apart while the public treated it like gospel. Where's the "weight" in that?

I’d much rather get lost in a book than binge a show, but I’ll admit there were maybe 6 or 7 series over the last decade or so that actually hit the mark for me.
Think along the lines of HBO classics like

Carl Hill53 said:I mean, seriously—what exactly am I supposed to say to your little claim that you "just can't stop watching" after a single episode? What do you want from me? Should I just nod along to such utter nonsense? If that’s your standard, then fine—just admit you're only judging the quality of the show based on your own limited perspective.

I don't want anything from you.
I'm not taking your advice.
Everything I said stands.

rowdytinker3 said:I honestly don't get the hype surrounding that show. People won't shut up about it, but I still can't wrap my head around why everyone thinks it's such a masterpiece. 🤷
It was fine, I guess, but it definitely didn't blow my mind or anything.
I actually thought Rectify was great, though.
I watch a ton of TV—pretty much everything out there. If I had to pick some favorites from the newer stuff, I'd go with Breaking Bad, Southland, Mad Men, and Justified. Then you've got the all-time classics like the Sopranos and The Wire, and honestly, the most underrated show ever is The Shield.

It’s not a masterpiece, but it’s an interesting watch. It's short, though it drags a bit in places and gets pretty dull toward the end.

Carl Hill53 said:If you say so, I guess I'll take your word for it. What kind of woman are you even...

while

incredibly irritating.

When you've got nothing left to say about the actual topic, you just start picking apart how someone else talks.

Carl Hill53 said:James Garcia50, you can honestly stop watching a series after the first episode—or whenever you feel like it—but if it's a movie, you *really* ought to sit through the whole thing before you even think about judging it.

Sure you can, but why would you? Almost every series nails the pilot just to see if they can actually stick the landing or if they're headed for a crash. A movie is just what it is—no second chances, no post-mortem.

TV shows are just too much work. You actually have to pay attention and remember who did what in the last episode or season, right? Plus, half the time they totally blow the second season after nailing the first. A 90-minute movie is the sweet spot—if one sucks, you just move on to the next one. 👍

shadowangler50 said:We are discussing why series are more watched or, more accurately, more accepted than movies today. Individually, you can't compare a single series to a single film, but generally speaking, one can conclude which medium provides higher quality content.
You talk about argumentation, yet you haven't provided a single actual argument other than your general opinion that series aren't better than movies right now. Some users have cited specific series, but you haven't cited a single film.
An individual's opinion might be irrelevant, but the consensus of a large group of people forms a perspective that actually carries weight regarding the subject at hand. If a huge number of people share an opinion, that opinion holds significance. Otherwise, I could just call The Godfather a bad movie and justify it by saying I personally hated it. Suddenly, I’d be right and everyone else would be wrong.
The problem with movies is that we haven't seen a true masterpiece shake up cinema in over a decade. There have been good films, sure, but nothing legendary. In contrast, we've seen an unprecedented surge in top-tier series.
If everything is available to us, we choose what to watch, and logically, you pick what is better. It's possible for something to be overrated and not deserve its popularity, but that mostly applies to movies because people watch them regardless of whether they like them since they are short. With series, people keep watching only if they actually enjoy them. If a massive audience watches the same series for five years straight—especially given today's endless supply of options—then that series is undeniably high quality.

No.
The discussion is whether shows *are* more watched than movies, and so far, nobody has provided any actual proof.
Broad generalizations don't work here; you have to look at individual works.

An individual's opinion is the only thing that matters because deciding what to watch is entirely your call. We don't pick movies or shows based on scrolling through forums to see who won an argument; we choose them based on our own aesthetic tastes.

When it comes to art—not politics—consensus holds zero weight or value. You can call a movie bad, godfather, as long as you actually back up your reasoning. No movie or show is going to be good for everyone. Having an argued opinion isn't an insult to the creator or the person you're talking to. When I'm judging a show, your "everyone else" doesn't apply to me; I don't need a consensus for art.

shadowangler50 said:We are discussing why series are more watched or, more accurately, more accepted than movies today. Individually, you can't compare a single series to a single film, but generally speaking, one can conclude which medium provides higher quality content.
You talk about argumentation, yet you haven't provided a single actual argument other than your general opinion that series aren't better than movies right now. Some users have cited specific series, but you haven't cited a single film.
An individual's opinion might be irrelevant, but the consensus of a large group of people forms a perspective that actually carries weight regarding the subject at hand. If a huge number of people share an opinion, that opinion holds significance. Otherwise, I could just call The Godfather a bad movie and justify it by saying I personally hated it. Suddenly, I’d be right and everyone else would be wrong.
The problem with movies is that we haven't seen a true masterpiece shake up cinema in over a decade. There have been good films, sure, but nothing legendary. In contrast, we've seen an unprecedented surge in top-tier series.
If everything is available to us, we choose what to watch, and logically, you pick what is better. It's possible for something to be overrated and not deserve its popularity, but that mostly applies to movies because people watch them regardless of whether they like them since they are short. With series, people keep watching only if they actually enjoy them. If a massive audience watches the same series for five years straight—especially given today's endless supply of options—then that series is undeniably high quality.

There's no such thing as a masterpiece movie or a masterpiece series, and they don't need to "move the needle." Some people like one thing, others like something else; there's no universal metric for quality in film or TV.

If a ton of people follow the same show for years, it probably just means it's a soap opera.

Carl Hill53 said:Please, you aren't even talking about the content—you're just talking about me. It's transparently obvious. And honestly? I can see everyone else starting to see right through you, too.

The Congressional majority, sure.

Carl Hill53 said:Why are you even trolling?

You're the only one trolling here; I'm just talking about how movies compare to their TV shows.

Kyle Vaughn8 said:Realism and being "realistic" aren't even the same thing—I wasn't talking about the style, just whether the characters actually feel like real people.
Do you even read what anyone else writes, or are you just stuck in your own head? 🤷

But hey, we don't all need "believable" characters, right?

If you want to be bold, take it to my DMs instead of ruining the thread.

shadowangler50 said:I was just using that to show how poorly they adapt classics these days, compared to how much better they were handled twenty years ago.
Besides, a limited series would definitely be superior to a single movie.

There have been three or four movies based on Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina, and none of them hit the mark.
I think there was an American series made too, but I wouldn't bet on it being any good.
The thing is, Tolstoy—just like Stephen King—doesn't play well when you try to move his work to a different medium.
You can film it, but it’ll never feel right (if you don't believe me, just look at Under the Dome).

shadowangler50 said:Anyone can claim their opinion is unique, but that doesn't make it right. What's the point of this discussion if everyone just sticks to their own subjective views? Without a standard, how would we ever distinguish a great film from a mediocre one?

Name a few modern movies you think outshine today's series and see how many people actually agree with you.
But name some classics—films that actually shaped cinema, things most people have seen and that left a lasting legacy. Series and movies that only a handful of people ever watch don't leave any mark on the industry or the culture.

You're wrong, shadow.
The whole point of a debate is having a stance that's at least somewhat backed by logic.

That bolded part is total nonsense. You can't compare a movie to a series any more than you can compare a heart to a kidney. And honestly? I don't care if people agree with me; I'm not running for Congress, I'm just a film buff.

With the internet, almost everything is available to us now. We all have the chance to watch them; it's just a matter of choice. Popularity isn't quality—I mean, plenty of people saw Titanic, but that doesn't automatically make it a masterpiece.

Kenneth Johnson12 said:Someone else already mentioned it on the first page of this thread, I think, because I actually went to Google it just now to see if it was worth my time. Now that you've brought it up, I think I will give it a watch. 👍

For the record, I am female, and when I wrote "ME," I was referring to a fellow forum member. As for YOUR movies, I meant recent films released within the last few years that you personally enjoyed.

Here is a solid list from IMDb for anyone looking for a great new series: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls050327477/

Post a link to some good or great recent movies, or at least list them. 😉

Rectify, check it out. Two seasons are out and it's great—you'll love it.

Gotta go scrape together a list once I find my notepad.

Kyle Vaughn8 said:TV shows today offer everything a movie does—plus they have that massive edge where they actually capture real life, character psychology, and how people interact way more authentically since you get to live with them over a much longer stretch.

Think of series as the modern novels, while movies are more like short stories.

Not everyone wants dry realism...

shadowangler50 said:I watched that series a few years back, and it’s a fantastic adaptation of the book. The movie? Nothing special.
Just look at the latest Anna Karenina film; it's a prime example of how catastrophically they handle these stories nowadays.

Would a series based on a Tolstoy novel even be worth remembering?