Movies vs. TV series: Which side are you on?
in Movies ·
Interesting stuff, thanks!
Home ›
darkangler11 › Posts
Posts by darkangler11
13 posts shown.
Movies vs. TV series: Which side are you on?
in Movies ·
Yeah, I get it. So, can we basically say that TV directors are just there to handle the technical side of things, while the actual creative heavy lifting belongs to the showrunners?
Edit: What I'm really trying to get at is whether the main difference between a TV director and a film director is that TV directors lack creative freedom and just direct exactly how they're told?
Edit: What I'm really trying to get at is whether the main difference between a TV director and a film director is that TV directors lack creative freedom and just direct exactly how they're told?
Movies vs. TV series: Which side are you on?
in Movies ·
Great explanation, thanks! Just one question—take a show like Better Call Saul, for instance. The cinematography is stunning, especially those wide exterior shots. It’s consistent through every single episode and season. How exactly do so many different directors manage to align their styles like that? Do the creators give them specific stylistic directions? And if they do, does that mean TV directors have way less creative freedom than film directors...
Movies vs. TV series: Which side are you on?
in Movies ·
I don't want to start a whole new thread just to ask this here. When you look up a movie on IMDb, the director, writer, and cast are right there upfront. Everything is crystal clear.
TV series are a different story. It only lists the creators—I'm not even sure if "creators" is the best term, maybe "showrunners" or "authors"? It’s only when you click > that you see the actual writers and directors, and that’s what trips me up. They almost always list a massive group of people. For instance, I randomly checked the >. That show has had 23 different directors so far. And there are 11 writers credited. It's baffling. Given that a series usually has a specific, signature style—which should be the director's job, right?—and considering how distinct the style of > is, how on earth do 23 different directors maintain that consistency without it looking disjointed? I always assumed the director was the one who provided the creative fingerprint for a film or a series. Now, seeing such a high-quality show handled by 23 different people... I don't know what to think. And > isn't an outlier; every American series I've looked at shows similar numbers. There are rare exceptions like >, but that's it.
How does the hierarchy actually work for TV? Who is truly in charge (setting producers aside)? With movies, it's simple—the director is king (again, ignoring producers). But with a series, how is it managed?
I'd love for someone who actually understands the mechanics of this to weigh in. Or at least drop a link...
TV series are a different story. It only lists the creators—I'm not even sure if "creators" is the best term, maybe "showrunners" or "authors"? It’s only when you click > that you see the actual writers and directors, and that’s what trips me up. They almost always list a massive group of people. For instance, I randomly checked the >. That show has had 23 different directors so far. And there are 11 writers credited. It's baffling. Given that a series usually has a specific, signature style—which should be the director's job, right?—and considering how distinct the style of > is, how on earth do 23 different directors maintain that consistency without it looking disjointed? I always assumed the director was the one who provided the creative fingerprint for a film or a series. Now, seeing such a high-quality show handled by 23 different people... I don't know what to think. And > isn't an outlier; every American series I've looked at shows similar numbers. There are rare exceptions like >, but that's it.
How does the hierarchy actually work for TV? Who is truly in charge (setting producers aside)? With movies, it's simple—the director is king (again, ignoring producers). But with a series, how is it managed?
I'd love for someone who actually understands the mechanics of this to weigh in. Or at least drop a link...
How is this post not getting banned immediately?
in Feedback & Suggestions ·
https://www.example.com/showpost.php?p=...1&postcount=37
Let's break this down step by step:
Regarding the moderation...
That’s a blatant insult. Actually, it's about as crude as it gets. In this context, being belittled is much worse than being exaggeratedly insulted. To put it bluntly, it would have been more tolerable if some vulgar user just called me a bitch.
Blatant lies combined with verbal abuse ("talking trash"). I never actually stated she was stupid; I simply questioned whether she truly was that dense or just pretending to be. It wasn't a statement of fact—it was a question, leaving just enough room, however small, for her to prove otherwise. I know lying isn't a bannable offense under the site rules, but let's call it what it is: trolling. Add the insults to the mix, and there's your case.
This is the only coherent thing this user has said in the entire thread. Honestly, given her history of nearly 5,000 posts, I wouldn't be surprised if her whole posting history looks like this. If users were awarded points for accuracy, I'd insist she get one for this undeniable truth.
So, if we have moderator commentary, trolling, crude insults, and general verbal abuse, applying the following rules:
http://www.example.com/showpost.php?p=68970563&postcount=4
we reach a logical conclusion. Her account should have been suspended for at least seven days, though realistically, it should have been three weeks. Since that didn't happen, I have to ask—why?
Let's break this down step by step:
Look, I didn't report yours. Honestly, I didn't even care that you got it. I definitely wouldn't have handed mine over for that, but my opinion doesn't count here.
Regarding the moderation...
You're such a coward.
Joined the forum and immediately started whining in the first discussion.
That’s a blatant insult. Actually, it's about as crude as it gets. In this context, being belittled is much worse than being exaggeratedly insulted. To put it bluntly, it would have been more tolerable if some vulgar user just called me a bitch.
Why are you talking trash in your own thread about how we're being taught to follow rules just to get punished?
You're getting penalized because you explicitly called me stupid, then tried to appeal it by claiming it was just "incapacity."
Blatant lies combined with verbal abuse ("talking trash"). I never actually stated she was stupid; I simply questioned whether she truly was that dense or just pretending to be. It wasn't a statement of fact—it was a question, leaving just enough room, however small, for her to prove otherwise. I know lying isn't a bannable offense under the site rules, but let's call it what it is: trolling. Add the insults to the mix, and there's your case.
So, you've learned that idiots and trolls always get away with it. They use sheer stupidity or act dumb to provoke smart people until they snap, and then the smart ones are the ones who take the hit.
This is the only coherent thing this user has said in the entire thread. Honestly, given her history of nearly 5,000 posts, I wouldn't be surprised if her whole posting history looks like this. If users were awarded points for accuracy, I'd insist she get one for this undeniable truth.
So, if we have moderator commentary, trolling, crude insults, and general verbal abuse, applying the following rules:
http://www.example.com/showpost.php?p=68970563&postcount=4
we reach a logical conclusion. Her account should have been suspended for at least seven days, though realistically, it should have been three weeks. Since that didn't happen, I have to ask—why?
Mapping out how to use euphemisms to mask blatant insults
in Banned Users Corner ·
You’re acting like a kid caught with their hand in the cookie jar. I fully admitted—and you're choosing to ignore that—that my comments could be seen as a crude insult. But that doesn't excuse the absolute disaster of how you handle your job.
Do I need to repeat myself like I'm talking to a toddler? Why hasn't her post been banned for trolling when she's blatantly lying about what I said? It was reported, and the trolling is obvious. Why didn't you just jump in with a DM and give her a warning? If you had acted then, this whole mess wouldn't even exist. You let her lie, troll, and post absolute garbage, and then you come after me... Fine. It's pretty clear you share her perspective on this subject matter. Or "think" is too strong a word, but whatever. This woman has been trolling that thread since her very first post. Either that, or there's something seriously wrong with her. But she isn't the issue; she's just doing exactly what she's allowed to do. You are the problem.
Why wasn't she banned for trolling? Or at least warned? Of course, you'll do everything in your power to dodge that question. I assume your next move is just locking this thread. I know you screwed up, you know you screwed up, and everyone reading this knows you screwed up. But you'll just parrot back how I was being rude. Yeah, I was. Because seeing that she can do whatever she wants while you sit there doing nothing, I figured I could do whatever I wanted, too. Turns out, only the submissive ones get away with that. Please, just rescind her ban... stay true to that dark song...
Do I need to repeat myself like I'm talking to a toddler? Why hasn't her post been banned for trolling when she's blatantly lying about what I said? It was reported, and the trolling is obvious. Why didn't you just jump in with a DM and give her a warning? If you had acted then, this whole mess wouldn't even exist. You let her lie, troll, and post absolute garbage, and then you come after me... Fine. It's pretty clear you share her perspective on this subject matter. Or "think" is too strong a word, but whatever. This woman has been trolling that thread since her very first post. Either that, or there's something seriously wrong with her. But she isn't the issue; she's just doing exactly what she's allowed to do. You are the problem.
Why wasn't she banned for trolling? Or at least warned? Of course, you'll do everything in your power to dodge that question. I assume your next move is just locking this thread. I know you screwed up, you know you screwed up, and everyone reading this knows you screwed up. But you'll just parrot back how I was being rude. Yeah, I was. Because seeing that she can do whatever she wants while you sit there doing nothing, I figured I could do whatever I wanted, too. Turns out, only the submissive ones get away with that. Please, just rescind her ban... stay true to that dark song...
Mapping out how to use euphemisms to mask blatant insults
in Banned Users Corner ·
It is completely unclear how things operate here. Even I can admit, looking at my own post in isolation, that it was indeed a gross insult:
No, when you look at the context and the total idiocy she was spewing, my banned post was a perfectly logical, expected, and reasonable sequence of events. I'd even go as far as calling it fair. Moderator Steven Newman50 completely ignored my first report regarding her post. After I wrote this:
To that, the provocateur openly trolls and lies, or simply doesn't get it (I suspect the latter, which supports my claim that I wasn't wrong in a single word of my banned post):
Honestly, it is staggering and terrible that there was no reaction here. Not necessarily a ban, but at least someone should have stepped into the conversation and given the woman a verbal warning not to do this. You neither banned her nor warned her, and then follows, quite predictably, my post where I wonder if she is truly that stupid or just acting like it. If you had warned her, that post would never have happened, nor would this final one. But you didn't. So, you're turning a blind eye to someone who is obviously provoking, probably because she's been here for 10 years and has 5,000 posts, while you penalize me. It's rotten and pathetic...
I don't get it. If someone becomes blatantly stupid in a discussion—and we aren't talking about tastes or different opinions here, but specifically a lack of intelligence—why is it a problem to tell that person they are being stupid? Fine, call me stupid first if I actually come across as stupid in some post or debate. I won't even report it; I'll just agree. Is there anyone who hasn't looked foolish at least once in their life? I'm not claiming she is stupid in general, but in this discussion, she certainly wasn't the smartest forum user in the world. But she isn't the one at fault; you are, because you failed to react in time despite her post being duly reported. You can't claim you didn't see the post, especially since my next post was sent to the ban corner even though it was never reported. Conclusion: the moderator was clearly following the thread, took a (completely wrong) side, and reacted with extreme bias. Don't pull these cheap stunts with your bans to pretend you're being objective, because you are doing the exact opposite.
Hey guys, don't bother, this girl is stupider than the absolute dumbest jerk you can imagine. The moderators let her run wild and troll this thread which she clearly isn't up to. She calls me a coward and goes unpunished, while I get hit with the strictest ban when I rightfully ask if she's actually this dim or just playing dumb. Just a side note—I reported her controversial posts and they stayed untouched. Mine got flagged, hers didn't. One can only assume what kind of favors she's pulling with the mods to make the outcome look like this.
But getting back to the point, she doesn't understand and never will. The rest of you have been very constructive, so carry on.
No, when you look at the context and the total idiocy she was spewing, my banned post was a perfectly logical, expected, and reasonable sequence of events. I'd even go as far as calling it fair. Moderator Steven Newman50 completely ignored my first report regarding her post. After I wrote this:
But what really needs work is stopping the spread of fake news (especially if it incites hate or prejudice), which would mean fixing existing algorithms. And of course, legal regulations that would most strictly punish the authors of such fake news. It's not just fake news; selectively reported stories are just as dangerous.
To that, the provocateur openly trolls and lies, or simply doesn't get it (I suspect the latter, which supports my claim that I wasn't wrong in a single word of my banned post):
darkangler11: Arrest, seize, and punish the evil algorithm! This wonderful man is being wronged!
There. Go ahead and keep blaming the algorithm for this situation, which should be legally regulated.
I am telling you, the fault lies with the human.
Honestly, it is staggering and terrible that there was no reaction here. Not necessarily a ban, but at least someone should have stepped into the conversation and given the woman a verbal warning not to do this. You neither banned her nor warned her, and then follows, quite predictably, my post where I wonder if she is truly that stupid or just acting like it. If you had warned her, that post would never have happened, nor would this final one. But you didn't. So, you're turning a blind eye to someone who is obviously provoking, probably because she's been here for 10 years and has 5,000 posts, while you penalize me. It's rotten and pathetic...
I don't get it. If someone becomes blatantly stupid in a discussion—and we aren't talking about tastes or different opinions here, but specifically a lack of intelligence—why is it a problem to tell that person they are being stupid? Fine, call me stupid first if I actually come across as stupid in some post or debate. I won't even report it; I'll just agree. Is there anyone who hasn't looked foolish at least once in their life? I'm not claiming she is stupid in general, but in this discussion, she certainly wasn't the smartest forum user in the world. But she isn't the one at fault; you are, because you failed to react in time despite her post being duly reported. You can't claim you didn't see the post, especially since my next post was sent to the ban corner even though it was never reported. Conclusion: the moderator was clearly following the thread, took a (completely wrong) side, and reacted with extreme bias. Don't pull these cheap stunts with your bans to pretend you're being objective, because you are doing the exact opposite.
Top horror scene
in Movies ·
Ethan Martin said:Man, I’ve seen this movie a few times and it still gives me the chills. It's just such a strange flick... the atmosphere and certain moments really get under your skin. Give it another shot.
I didn't want to reply until I watched it again today. Yeah, it definitely has a creepy atmosphere, but something is still missing for me to call it an all-time great. Still, it's far from bad—it's actually pretty good.
Top horror scene
in Movies ·
Ethan Martin said:You know, there’s this one movie with this incredibly weird, unsettling atmosphere. It isn't exactly mainstream, but man, it gave me the creeps... and I mean seriously...
The Mothman Prophecies (2002)...
If you haven't seen it... highly recommended. For me personally... it's just... strangely good. Gave me chills... real skin-crawling chills😁.
I watched it right when it came out. Honestly, I wasn't that into it back then. But you've planted a seed... might give it another look.
Top horror scene
in Movies ·
Ethan Martin said:You might have come across my lists before; I put them together a long time ago. Just wanted to brag about some of my old rankings from a few years back, haha:
TOP 55 HORROR MOVIES OF ALL TIME
These lists always seem to get the most traction. They’ve been huge—each one pulling in somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000 views:
TOP 40 Adventure-Archaeology Movies of All Time
TOP 100 Sci-Fi Movies of All Time
TOP 20 horror Movies (2007-2017)
🙂
Your Top 55 horror list is solid. I agree with about 90% of it. Our Top 10 would look almost identical...👍
Top horror scene
in Movies ·
Christian Myers said:Maybe it's because The Omen and The Exorcist share similar themes, and most people usually pick The Exorcist when deciding between those two. They probably think it's redundant to have all 10 movies hitting the same tropes. Personally, though, I’d take The Omen over The Exorcist any day.
I wouldn't go that far. Even on these lists, you often see a top 10 consisting of films with similar themes.
https://www.thrillist.com/entertainm...or-movies-ever
In this one, The Omen sits at number 32.
And I honestly don't get this Rotten Tomatoes garbage. Is their criteria for these top lists just user ratings? Because there's no way to explain this absolute disaster of a list:
https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com...s-of-all-time/
The Omen is down at 137, while mediocre junk—or at best, just "okay" movies like A Quiet Place, The Invisible Man, The Lighthouse, and things like that—are sitting in the top 20. 🤦 And get this: Us (2019) is at number one. 🤦
Top horror scene
in Movies ·
Christian Myers said:If I had to pick one standout moment from The Omen, it’s that scene where the nanny throws herself through the window...
Oh yeah, absolutely... I completely forgot about that. There’s that one moment where little Damien just looks at someone and instantly knows if they're an ally—like when he locks eyes with that Rottweiler in the woods and the dog stares right back. Those scenes always give me the chills, especially with that creepy music playing in the background...
Absolutely incredible Film, at least within the horror genre. I was on edge for 80% of the runtime... I could probably watch this 100 times and never get bored.
Ethan Martin said:2. The Omen 1976 — That cemetery scene in Italy...
I love this Film. This particular scene is especially unsettling... even if you don't believe in Satan, you can almost "smell" his presence here. Finding that creature in a grave when they were expecting something else entirely was deeply disturbing. And that music accompanying it... just haunting...
Uuuuuu, exactly! It’s an absolute nightmare of a Film. Honestly, I have no clue why it doesn't rank much higher on those top 20 horror Movies lists you find all over the internet. I think I’ve only ever seen one such list where The Omen actually made the top 10...