150 posts shown.
shadowangler50 said:Turkish shows pull in massive numbers, but does anyone actually respect them? They have the ratings, sure, but they’re never considered high art.
Both critics and audiences have reached a consensus: these shows are top-tier. Is anyone actually surprised?
Those movies are just like those Turkish soaps—high viewership, sure, but zero respect for quality. Why does everyone settle for mediocrity?
Why bother listing them? You want me to compare massive box office hits with critically acclaimed blockbusters against high-rated, binge-worthy TV series? Is there actually a point to this comparison? One is a fleeting cinematic moment, the other is a long-term obsession. Which one are you even looking for?
shadowangler50 said:First off, look at the market. Major studios decide what gets greenlit, they pull the strings, and ultimately, they hold all the power. Their only concern is recouping their investment; who cares about art or quality when there's money to be made? They chase the youth demographic, and let me tell you, movies aimed at kids aren't exactly a hallmark of high art.
Go check any online forum and see what people actually consider "good" these days. I don't know how else to put it. If the majority of people are saying one thing, shouldn't we stop and ask why?
shadowangler50 said:Smoky Barrett? Is that even a real name? Does anyone actually take this seriously? kaže:
I haven't been following this entire debate closely, but I did take a quick glance. Honestly, I'm on the same page. Movies lately have been absolute garbage. It’s especially bad when it comes to thrillers or comedies. You can still find decent dramas or sci-fi, but those first two genres? Not a chance.
On the flip side, great TV series seem to be dropping constantly. I won't even bother listing them all since you've already mentioned them here. But what on earth is going on with movies lately? Seriously, I have no idea. 🤷
Exactly, especially when it comes to comedies. This kind of humor they feed us isn't meant to make you laugh—it's designed to make you sick of everything. Why even bother?
The Hangover is easily the most successful comedy we've seen in years. Does anyone else remember actually laughing? I can't recall laughing more than twice during the entire movie.
When it comes to the movies, you can clearly see the lack of vision and talent. Why do they insist on churning out the exact same tired sequels every few years? Is anyone actually trying to be creative anymore?
And let’s not forget the sheer oversaturation of the market. When you’re drowning in content, how is anything supposed to actually surprise or impress you? Is anyone even trying anymore?
shadowangler50 said:Smoky Barrett? Is that even a real name? Does anyone actually take this seriously? kaže:
I haven't been following this entire debate closely, but I did take a quick glance. Honestly, I'm on the same page. Movies lately have been absolute garbage. It’s especially bad when it comes to thrillers or comedies. You can still find decent dramas or sci-fi, but those first two genres? Not a chance.
On the flip side, great TV series seem to be dropping constantly. I won't even bother listing them all since you've already mentioned them here. But what on earth is going on with movies lately? Seriously, I have no idea. 🤷
Exactly, especially when it comes to comedies. This kind of humor they feed us isn't meant to make you laugh—it's designed to make you sick of everything. Why even bother?
The Hangover is easily the most successful comedy we've seen in years. Does anyone else remember actually laughing? I can't recall laughing more than twice during the entire movie.
When it comes to the movies, you can clearly see the lack of vision and talent. Why do they insist on churning out the exact same tired sequels every few years? Is anyone actually trying to be creative anymore?
And let’s not forget the sheer oversaturation of the market. When you’re drowning in content, how is anything supposed to actually surprise or impress you? Is anyone even trying anymore?
Carl Hill53 said:Well, he was including me in that too, I suppose.😉
Let me lay it out for you one more time:
''@James Garcia50 NOD14 asked me something.''
Kenneth Johnson12 said:Why don't you provide a list of ten excellent films released recently? Or even just four would suffice. Since you insist on disparaging these classics, let us see if your own taste measures up. Every time I attempt to find a modern film worth watching, I am met with nothing, so I inevitably resort to starting a series instead.
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?
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?
Carl Hill53 said:Well, maybe consider this post a substitute for a pair of glasses:
HBO
HBO
HBO
HBO
AMC
HBO
Netflix
Dexter
Netflix
NetflixRegarding your posts in this thread.
My posts are actually great. Honestly, I just can't stand all the pretentious lecturing and "well, actually" nonsense—there seems to be way too much of that going around lately, I guess.
shadowangler50 said:I'm not obsessed with American shows; I'm saying television is better than movies right now. And they aren't necessarily masterpieces—they're just better because modern movies are garbage.
In that sense, maybe I am obsessed with movies, simply because they’ve become such a disaster.
When was the last time I actually watched a movie and felt the urge to see it again?
I watch everything, and yet, nothing sticks.
Carl Hill53 said:What on earth are you even talking about?
Carl Hill53 said:Are you just going to keep throwing oxymorons at me like that?
Carl Hill53 said:bluenomad2These books are all about those supposed golden ages of television—just endless analyses and theories about what influenced what.
The thing is, those books are just someone’s personal preferences and biases, and honestly, I couldn't care less about what some random critic thinks. I mean, I really don't obsess over movies and shows enough to spend my life reading deep dives into some supposedly "legendary" era of television that doesn't even matter. Why does it matter to you? 🤦
That said, I actually agree with Shadow Dancer that we are living through a brand-new golden age of TV right now. Seriously—never in history have we seen such a massive influx of high-quality shows being released all at once, especially compared to the last few years.
shadowangler50 said:Then who's to blame for your bottom-of-the-barrel standards?
jademarlin29 said:Twin Peaks is such a drag—honestly, it’s only iconic because of that killer intro music.
Look, TV shows are just way easier to market, end of story. When you're making a movie, the director doesn't really have room to play around with all those wild tangents or subplots. You’ve gotta explain what happened, how it went down, and why—all within two hours—otherwise, you’re gonna lose the audience fast. Movies have a hard deadline. I guess series are more popular just because the hype builds better; you can feed the fire every single week, whereas with a hit movie, you basically wait until it's finished before you even start promoting it.
The Twilight Zone is probably seventy times better than the stuff people binge nowadays. Or maybe not? Whatever, I’m not watching it. Devil's Printer or The Obsolete Man are plenty good enough "short films" for me, and I'll stick to that illusion. I don't really have the stomach to watch some guy cooking meth in a garage just to take the cash and then deal with the feds breathing down his neck—it's a great premise, sure, but I'm just not ready for it.
Carl Hill53 said:No, I haven't heard of that series. Should I be embarrassed? Honestly, don't mess with me—give me a break!
Betty Ross6 said:TV shows might actually have the edge since they can really dig into the relationships and character dynamics. They’ve got all that extra time to sit with an emotion or let a pivotal moment breathe without rushing into a cliché, which is always such a struggle for movies. Makes making a truly great film a much bigger mountain to climb...
shadowangler50 said:Why are TV series dominating movies right now?
The answer is simple: they're just better.
And why are they better? Because they actually bother with a plot. Movies have become nothing more than a bloated mess of CGI and recycled storylines that we've all seen a thousand times before. Honestly, the only people finding that stuff engaging are kids under 15 who haven't seen enough cinema to know any better.
Sure, every once in a while a film comes along that feels like a breath of fresh air compared to today's Hollywood standards, but those are rare exceptions that only prove the rule.
Then you have international films from outside the US that focus on storytelling, but they run into a reality problem. Why do people watch movies and shows in the first place? For entertainment. Most people aren't looking to sit through a heavy drama about domestic violence or environmental crises; they deal with enough of that in real life. They want to unwind and escape reality, not dive deeper into it.
Series have rightfully seized the throne from movies. It’s no wonder everyone calls this the golden age of television.
Carl Hill53 said:To be more precise—in *good* movies. I mean, bad ones just feel like an absolute chore to sit through, and I honestly get zero enjoyment out of them. Unfortunately, there seem to be way more of those than the good stuff.
Carl Hill53 said:Quote: shadow dancer
bluenomad2, I am asking you—one more time—to stop addressing the rest of us on this forum like you’re some kind of omniscient deity who’s seen it all and swallowed every ounce of wisdom on the planet. Seriously, just knock it off. If you keep acting like you have all the answers and talking down to everyone else, I might actually have to step in and look into some sanctions regarding your forum identity. Enough already.
Of course the series are being filmed—and will continue to be filmed—parallel to the movie. It’s just how the production works. Also, if I’m being honest, I highly doubt you’ve even seen one percent of what’s actually been shot, yet here you are, acting like some kind of ultimate authority and trying to lecture everyone else with your endless, misplaced expertise.
Let’s face it—we are living in an era where the sheer volume of television is exploding, but honestly? It feels like we’ve reached this weird breaking point where quantity is finally, desperately trying to catch up to quality. I mean, if you look at the trajectory from just a few years ago leading right up to today, there’s this massive shift happening. We’re seeing more shows than ever before, yet that transition from "just another series" to something truly substantive is becoming such a volatile balancing act. I guess you could say we're witnessing a massive influx of content, but whether that actually translates into better storytelling remains to be seen—it's a messy, complicated evolution, for sure.
Look, would you please just stop talking trash? Seriously. P.S.—Twin Peaks is nothing but pretentious garbage.
Quote: shadow dancer
Absolutely.
Dennis Flores63 said:I think the color grading adds this layer of melancholy to the setting. I actually liked it—was surprised the pacing wasn't as sluggish as I feared. As for the Oscar Wilde awards, they didn't deserve them. No one performance really stood out enough to merit it.
nimblemarlin6 said:Before we all had the chance to sit on our couches and perform high-def forensic audits on movie scenes, it was pretty obvious to everyone on the planet that the guy had been hit by an arrow—it just wasn't immediately visible, which added those few extra beats of suspense.
I mean, who actually cares what an arrow strike looks like when you run it through ultra-slow motion and subject it to some intense digital frame-by-frame analysis?
Movies are meant to be watched in one go, without treating every single frame like a crime scene from a CSI episode—if you just watch them like a normal person would, it’s perfectly clear what’s happening in the scene.