Why is everyone into series more than movies these days?

shadowangler50 said:

No, you're the one getting it wrong.
Both the series and the movie are works of art.
According to you, quality doesn't matter, whether it's a rip-off doesn't matter—nothing matters as long as people watch it. Sorry, but if that's your logic, you might as well watch paint dry on a wall.

Aside from the fact that I've lost count of how many times I've pointed out that these shows have been embraced by both audiences and critics as high quality. High viewership is just another fact that confirms this. Viewership alone doesn't guarantee quality, but it isn't meaningless either. To you, popularity is absolutely negligible.

We judge the value of a work based on the creator's talent.
A plagiarist isn't a creator.
The original has value; the imitation is worthless.

As if every movie is an original; half of them are stolen. I recently read that The Matrix was accused of plagiarism, that they'd sue James Cameron. Well, everyone will become worthless if that actually proves true.
If The Matrix hadn't been made by the people who made it, if James Cameron hadn't done what he did for those films, they wouldn't be what they are. Those people created something valuable; they are talented.

Everything has been seen before, but someone calling themselves an artist must present what has been seen in an unseen way.
In art, it isn't about what but rather how.

And wasn't True Detective presented in an unseen way? It’s precisely because of how it was presented that the series is such a success.

You're just guessing because you're judging a work you haven't even watched.
Save your "legal fundamentals" for a courtroom; we're discussing art here.

I didn't watch it, and even if I had, it isn't my place (nor yours) to decide that. I'm not guessing; I'm simply saying that's an assumption you can't present as a fact.
The one who decides that is a court. You see, even the law can dictate art.

I am the one saying the authors of TD leaned heavily on a British series. However, their show has much more serious issues than just minorly lifting from another author. A good series needs more than just great actors. Not to mention the catastrophic finale and the fact that the series essentially has no ending.

What about the cinematography? What about the style?

The series is good because of the pervasive atmosphere of pessimism and nihilism; it's quite
dark, which draws people in and makes them think. The last episode isn't on par with the rest, but I don't think that's enough to ruin the whole series. The show provided something new, and it was recognized as quality by both audiences and critics.

The cinematography affects the atmosphere of the series. I don't know if it's original, but it is masterfully executed.

Critics and audiences almost never agree on anything.
Viewership doesn't add anything to the actual merit of a work.

shadowangler50 said:

No, you're the one getting it wrong.
Both the series and the movie are works of art.
According to you, quality doesn't matter, whether it's a rip-off doesn't matter—nothing matters as long as people watch it. Sorry, but if that's your logic, you might as well watch paint dry on a wall.

Aside from the fact that I've lost count of how many times I've pointed out that these shows have been embraced by both audiences and critics as high quality. High viewership is just another fact that confirms this. Viewership alone doesn't guarantee quality, but it isn't meaningless either. To you, popularity is absolutely negligible.

We judge the value of a work based on the creator's talent.
A plagiarist isn't a creator.
The original has value; the imitation is worthless.

As if every movie is an original; half of them are stolen. I recently read that The Matrix was accused of plagiarism, that they'd sue James Cameron. Well, everyone will become worthless if that actually proves true.
If The Matrix hadn't been made by the people who made it, if James Cameron hadn't done what he did for those films, they wouldn't be what they are. Those people created something valuable; they are talented.

Everything has been seen before, but someone calling themselves an artist must present what has been seen in an unseen way.
In art, it isn't about what but rather how.

And wasn't True Detective presented in an unseen way? It’s precisely because of how it was presented that the series is such a success.

You're just guessing because you're judging a work you haven't even watched.
Save your "legal fundamentals" for a courtroom; we're discussing art here.

I didn't watch it, and even if I had, it isn't my place (nor yours) to decide that. I'm not guessing; I'm simply saying that's an assumption you can't present as a fact.
The one who decides that is a court. You see, even the law can dictate art.

I am the one saying the authors of TD leaned heavily on a British series. However, their show has much more serious issues than just minorly lifting from another author. A good series needs more than just great actors. Not to mention the catastrophic finale and the fact that the series essentially has no ending.

What about the cinematography? What about the style?

The series is good because of the pervasive atmosphere of pessimism and nihilism; it's quite
dark, which draws people in and makes them think. The last episode isn't on par with the rest, but I don't think that's enough to ruin the whole series. The show provided something new, and it was recognized as quality by both audiences and critics.

The cinematography affects the atmosphere of the series. I don't know if it's original, but it is masterfully executed.

I’m not talking about the legal side or potential lawsuits—I don't care about that. I just value originality and authorship.
A plagiarist doesn't create anything worthwhile; they lack talent (if they had any, they wouldn't be stealing from the ones who do).

shadowangler50 said:

No, you're the one getting it wrong.
Both the series and the movie are works of art.
According to you, quality doesn't matter, whether it's a rip-off doesn't matter—nothing matters as long as people watch it. Sorry, but if that's your logic, you might as well watch paint dry on a wall.

Aside from the fact that I've lost count of how many times I've pointed out that these shows have been embraced by both audiences and critics as high quality. High viewership is just another fact that confirms this. Viewership alone doesn't guarantee quality, but it isn't meaningless either. To you, popularity is absolutely negligible.

We judge the value of a work based on the creator's talent.
A plagiarist isn't a creator.
The original has value; the imitation is worthless.

As if every movie is an original; half of them are stolen. I recently read that The Matrix was accused of plagiarism, that they'd sue James Cameron. Well, everyone will become worthless if that actually proves true.
If The Matrix hadn't been made by the people who made it, if James Cameron hadn't done what he did for those films, they wouldn't be what they are. Those people created something valuable; they are talented.

Everything has been seen before, but someone calling themselves an artist must present what has been seen in an unseen way.
In art, it isn't about what but rather how.

And wasn't True Detective presented in an unseen way? It’s precisely because of how it was presented that the series is such a success.

You're just guessing because you're judging a work you haven't even watched.
Save your "legal fundamentals" for a courtroom; we're discussing art here.

I didn't watch it, and even if I had, it isn't my place (nor yours) to decide that. I'm not guessing; I'm simply saying that's an assumption you can't present as a fact.
The one who decides that is a court. You see, even the law can dictate art.

I am the one saying the authors of TD leaned heavily on a British series. However, their show has much more serious issues than just minorly lifting from another author. A good series needs more than just great actors. Not to mention the catastrophic finale and the fact that the series essentially has no ending.

What about the cinematography? What about the style?

The series is good because of the pervasive atmosphere of pessimism and nihilism; it's quite
dark, which draws people in and makes them think. The last episode isn't on par with the rest, but I don't think that's enough to ruin the whole series. The show provided something new, and it was recognized as quality by both audiences and critics.

The cinematography affects the atmosphere of the series. I don't know if it's original, but it is masterfully executed.

What do you mean, it's not our place? Whose is it, then?
These series and movies were made for us; we're the ones judging their quality.

The fact is, the creators of True Detective borrowed heavily from the British series Red Riding Hood, summer of '74/'80/'83. Anyone who’s watched them can see it without needing an expert opinion or deep analysis.
The law has nothing to do with this; we're discussing art here.

shadowangler50 said:Looking at anything released in the last few years, I can't think of a single one. The only thing that comes to mind is The Intouchables. Comedies lately have been absolute garbage.

I prefer the classics like The Princess Bride, Les Visiteurs, Charlie's Angels, or even the relatively newer ones like Rush Hour 1 and 2, White Chicks, and Death AT a Funeral.
Those are the first ones that pop into my head, though there are surely others.

Are you saying White Chicks is better than Four Lions?🤔

Today's shows are just a letdown. They either aim for mindless entertainment or try way too hard to hit you with some kind of moral lesson—or some sort of shock factor, I guess (thinking of those typical American series) 🤣 Ajeto mentioned Claudius... and man, that was a hell of a series. For me, nothing quite touches the one and only New York City... though that Russian series, tih don, was also absolutely brilliant.

James Garcia50 said:Critics and audiences almost never agree on anything.
Viewership doesn't add anything to the actual merit of a work.

I’m not talking about the legal side or potential lawsuits—I don't care about that. I just value originality and authorship.
A plagiarist doesn't create anything worthwhile; they lack talent (if they had any, they wouldn't be stealing from the ones who do).

What do you mean, it's not our place? Whose is it, then?
These series and movies were made for us; we're the ones judging their quality.

The fact is, the creators of True Detective borrowed heavily from the British series Red Riding Hood, summer of '74/'80/'83. Anyone who’s watched them can see it without needing an expert opinion or deep analysis.
The law has nothing to do with this; we're discussing art here.

But what does that even have to do with the actual quality of True Detective?

By that logic, is A Fistful of Dollars just a worthless rip-off, and is Leone some amateur plagiarist?

I won't even get started on John Carpenter, David Cronenberg, Brian De Palma, the Coen Brothers, or the huge list of others who weren't afraid to make a really solid remake...

A Fistful of Dollars wasn't a remake, it was straight-up plagiarism. 😁

Daniel Ramirez3 said:But what does that even have to do with the actual quality of True Detective?

By that logic, is A Fistful of Dollars just a worthless rip-off, and is Leone some amateur plagiarist?

I won't even get started on John Carpenter, David Cronenberg, Brian De Palma, the Coen Brothers, or the huge list of others who weren't afraid to make a really solid remake...

Look, we aren't talking about that. True Detective isn't a remake... and honestly, the Coen Brothers' remakes? It’d be better if they just didn't exist. 🤦

James Garcia50 said:Look, we aren't talking about that. True Detective isn't a remake... and honestly, the Coen Brothers' remakes? It’d be better if they just didn't exist. 🤦

Since Leone didn't actually have the rights to remake Yojimbo—and I think Kurosawa even sued him over it—it's basically straight-up plagiarism. So, I guess I'm wondering, does that make Leone a worthless director?

Daniel Ramirez3 said:Since Leone didn't actually have the rights to remake Yojimbo—and I think Kurosawa even sued him over it—it's basically straight-up plagiarism. So, I guess I'm wondering, does that make Leone a worthless director?

As far as I'm concerned, Leone made a remake, regardless of the legal mess.
There's a massive difference between petty theft and creating your own take on someone else's story (I get that from an author's perspective he shouldn't have done it and probably faced the music, but that's beside the point).

I find series much more appealing because they offer shorter segments; if a show fails to capture my interest, I haven't wasted as much time as I would on a movie, yet if it succeeds, the enjoyment lasts much longer.

I face several issues with cinema. Watching a film alone can be tedious due to the length; I prefer viewing them in a theater or with company. Modern filmmaking has largely become quite poor. It is difficult to recall even a handful of titles that aren't built on tired tropes. Most productions simply repeat old patterns, and 90% of the movies I have watched feature incredibly weak and cliché endings. I view this as a massive failure within the American film industry, which is why the entire concept of cinema has become somewhat distasteful to me over the last decade. I avoid older films because the visual quality is frustrating and it is difficult to discern which ones are actually worth watching. Newer releases, however, come with more reviews, making it easier to gauge the quality beforehand. Furthermore, the tendency for almost every film lately to exceed two hours is incredibly irritating.
I am far more likely to be disappointed by a movie than by a series, so my vote goes to series!

Bad picture quality in old movies?
I have no idea what kind of old films you're watching.

You can really see the difference in the color grading and special effects compared to what we see today.

James Garcia50 said:As far as I'm concerned, Leone made a remake, regardless of the legal mess.
There's a massive difference between petty theft and creating your own take on someone else's story (I get that from an author's perspective he shouldn't have done it and probably faced the music, but that's beside the point).

I guess you're saying it isn't technically a remake if they didn't officially buy the rights. You really gotta pick a side there!

James Garcia50 said: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.

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.

I guess what really makes people say Leone is just a plagiarist and that A Fistful of Dollars isn't actually worth much.

James Garcia50 said: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.

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.

Daniel Ramirez3 said:I guess you're saying it isn't technically a remake if they didn't officially buy the rights. You really gotta pick a side there!

I guess what really makes people say Leone is just a plagiarist and that A Fistful of Dollars isn't actually worth much.

I didn't say that. I'm not talking about legalities; I'm just pointing out the difference between straight-up stealing and making your own spin on a classic movie.
Like I said before, the legal status doesn't interest me.

Daniel Ramirez3 said:I guess you're saying it isn't technically a remake if they didn't officially buy the rights. You really gotta pick a side there!

I guess what really makes people say Leone is just a plagiarist and that A Fistful of Dollars isn't actually worth much.

Maybe that leads you there, but not me.
A plagiarist isn't a creator, and Leone isn't a plagiarist.
No remake is plagiarism; sure, maybe it's unnecessary or trash, but it's not plagiarism.

James Garcia50 said:I didn't say that. I'm not talking about legalities; I'm just pointing out the difference between straight-up stealing and making your own spin on a classic movie.
Like I said before, the legal status doesn't interest me.

Maybe that leads you there, but not me.
A plagiarist isn't a creator, and Leone isn't a plagiarist.
No remake is plagiarism; sure, maybe it's unnecessary or trash, but it's not plagiarism.

Wait a second, Shadow Dancer is saying it doesn't matter if it's a remake or plagiarism, and then you're telling them it *does* matter because they legally bought the rights and signed everything, so there's a massive distinction.Those were your exact words.
But now you're saying the rights aren't important and that it's just a remake to you. 👏

If you don't care about the legal side of things, why did you even bring it up in the first place???

Carl Cox3 said:You can really see the difference in the color grading and special effects compared to what we see today.

Back in the day, people actually had to get out of the house and hit the theater to catch a movie since nobody had a TV sitting in their living room.

Lately, I've mostly just been sticking to comedy series here and there, or maybe some Alfred Hitchcock stuff like Hitchcock Presents. I guess those newer, serious dramas just aren't really my thing—they all seem kind of unwatchable to me.

Daniel Ramirez3 said:Wait a second, Shadow Dancer is saying it doesn't matter if it's a remake or plagiarism, and then you're telling them it *does* matter because they legally bought the rights and signed everything, so there's a massive distinction.Those were your exact words.
But now you're saying the rights aren't important and that it's just a remake to you. 👏

If you don't care about the legal side of things, why did you even bring it up in the first place???

I don't see what part of this is confusing.

Like I said before, I couldn't care less about the legal standing of someone making a remake of a famous movie without getting the author's blessing.

Let them sue each other all they want; what matters to us viewers is knowing that what X. X filmed is actually a remake of the original film by author Y. Y.
That's different from a plagiarist who steals half of someone else's work and puts their own name on it (which didn't happen with Leone).

Directed by Sergio Leone
Produced by Arrigo Colombo
Giorgio papa
Screenplay by Victor Andrés Catena
Jamie Comas Gil
Sergio Leone
Story by A. Bonzzoni
Victor Andrés Catena
Sergio Leone
Based on Yojimbo
by Akira Kurosawa
Ryuzo Kikushima (uncredited)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Fistful_of_Dollars

The film Has been identified as an unofficial remake of The Akira Kurosaw film Yojimbo, which led to a successful lawsuit by Toho.

Kurosaw insisted that Leon Had made "a fine movie, but it was MY movie."[25] Leone ignored the lawsuit at first, but they eventually settled out of court. He reportedly paid 15% of the worldwide receipts of a Fistful of Dollars and over $100,000.

It was a total rip-off.

Zachary Nguyen2 said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Fistful_of_Dollars

The film Has been identified as an unofficial remake of The Akira Kurosaw film Yojimbo, which led to a successful lawsuit by Toho.

Kurosaw insisted that Leon Had made "a fine movie, but it was MY movie."[25] Leone ignored the lawsuit at first, but they eventually settled out of court. He reportedly paid 15% of the worldwide receipts of a Fistful of Dollars and over $100,000.

It was a total rip-off.

That’s a legal headache involving both of them.
Even as a creator, I wouldn't touch it, but for the audience, the movie is just a remake of a kurosawin film—no smoke and mirrors, just some rights being pushed too far.

James Garcia50 said:I don't see what part of this is confusing.

Like I said before, I couldn't care less about the legal standing of someone making a remake of a famous movie without getting the author's blessing.

Let them sue each other all they want; what matters to us viewers is knowing that what X. X filmed is actually a remake of the original film by author Y. Y.
That's different from a plagiarist who steals half of someone else's work and puts their own name on it (which didn't happen with Leone).

Directed by Sergio Leone
Produced by Arrigo Colombo
Giorgio papa
Screenplay by Victor Andrés Catena
Jamie Comas Gil
Sergio Leone
Story by A. Bonzzoni
Victor Andrés Catena
Sergio Leone
Based on Yojimbo
by Akira Kurosawa
Ryuzo Kikushima (uncredited)

In Fistful of Dollars Leon and the screenwriters signed the film as their own,and nowhere are Kurosawa and Kikush mentioned. Nowhere!
By your logic, that would be theft in the case of True Detective, but in Fistful of Dollars, it's just a remake, I guess.🤦

Anyway, Leone is one of my favorite directors, and I honestly don't have an issue with him taking someone else's idea and making it his own—it doesn't diminish his talent at all.
And I don't really get why that would take away from True Detective
which is such a great series.

For example, Alien was heavily inspired by the movie IT! The Terror Beyond Space (1958), but nobody thinks that makes the movie any less good.
Or even The Magnificent Seven; we know which movie it was based on, but since Kurosawa & co aren't in the credits, nobody claims the movie is garbage.

But hey, feel free to keep using those double standards.👍