Why is everyone into series more than movies these days?

bluenomad2 said:I disagree. Personally, I still find the 90s to be superior in terms of quality. Maybe the early 2000s could compete when we had The Sopranos, Wire, Deadwood, and The Shield, but the 90s offered incredible quality and variety.

The 90s were peak era for drama, sci-fi, and horror. Coming-of-age stories hit different back then. As for the best comedies? Don't even get me started.

It’s been declining over the last seven or eight years, though viewership stayed up because everything just scaled so much. Everyone watches series now since they're all available at your fingertips.

But back to the 90s—the comedies were top-tier, whereas nowadays they're pretty weak.

On the flip side, you've seen a total renaissance of comedy series over the last 6 or 7 years (though it sucks that this revival seems to be fading out over the last two).

There are good movies today, sure, but I really don't think there's ever been as many great drama series as there are right now. Not in terms of pure quality.

Jeremy Cruz98 said:Game of Thrones is shallow? Softcore porn? 🤦

Don't get me wrong, I love Game of Thrones. I honestly get hyped like a little kid every time a new season rolls around.

And look, this isn't even that "the books were better" snobbery thing. That's not what I'm getting at.

The real issue is the dialogue. Aside from, say, Tyrion, his old man, and maybe a couple others—it’s just incredibly thin and poorly written.

Cersei is such a one-note, repetitive character. And those Maloprsti characters? Even with great acting, they're being wasted on totally wrong storylines.

There are certain parts involving Danny that I could talk about for days...

Some bits are absolute gold, but honestly, for the most part, it feels like a high-budget version of Xene. No offense to the fans, because I'm right there with them.

Wanna do a poll?

But let's keep it anonymous so we don't get a bunch of clones messing with the results.

Richard Wilson4 said:But back to the 90s—the comedies were top-tier, whereas nowadays they're pretty weak.

On the flip side, you've seen a total renaissance of comedy series over the last 6 or 7 years (though it sucks that this revival seems to be fading out over the last two).

There are good movies today, sure, but I really don't think there's ever been as many great drama series as there are right now. Not in terms of pure quality.

Comedy series are an entirely different beast altogether...

I’ve never actually viewed them as "series" in the traditional sense; I strictly categorize them as "comedy series." And when you look at it through that lens, there isn't a soul—heaven or hell—in the entire world of television comedy that will ever come close to the level of Seinfeld or The Sopranos.😁

Richard Wilson4 said:Glad you kicked this discussion off.

One of the biggest arguments for why a series beats a movie is just having more breathing room to flesh out the characters.
And honestly, most of the time, that's spot on. That’s really the whole point here.

But once they start—pardon my French—making up Shit just for the sake of making up Shit, when shows drag on for way too many seasons (looking at you, Cottage), it totally backfires.

Take Rome, for example. That series about Rome has just the right amount of episodes, killer dialogue, great plots, and it's better than any historical movie about Julius Caesar and his crew. Literally every single one.

But doing something stupid like what the Hobbit did (I watch it as a series because stretching a thin book into three three-hour movies is just dumb), where you just drag, drag, and drag the plot along? That's nonsense. A lot of shows that started out amazing eventually hit that wall.

Luckily, Rome didn't. There's almost no historical movie out there that could be called better than it.

*Rome* is also my all-time favorite series.🙏 🙏 🙏 But honestly? Only the first season. The second was cluttered, messy, and felt rushed, which is such a shame. Originally, *Rome* was envisioned as a four-season arc that would have even featured Jesus himself🙂... man, I would have loved to see that😁 but the massive production costs just swallowed them whole.😢

Frank Thomas92 said:Absolutely nothing happens.
With soaps, you can skip from episode 50 straight to episode 350 and you still won't have missed anything of actual importance.
An episode feels like a total waste of a Sunday afternoon.

If we’re following that logic, we might as well lump shows like CSI, Law & Order, and everything else into the soap opera category... you miss ten episodes and nothing significant changes regarding the main cast...
By that same reasoning, we could just label Breaking Bad a glorified soap opera too...
Don't get me wrong, I love the show, but let's be real... we have five seasons where Walter White just becomes an increasingly more despicable person, his wife remains as irritating as she was on day one 😁, Hank and his wife are just as bad 😁, and Jesse Pinkman is essentially a lost cause...
Sure, characters (well, some of them) evolve and grow, but all of that could have been packed into four seasons—maybe even three. They didn't need five.

Bradley Wood43 said:If we’re following that logic, we might as well lump shows like CSI, Law & Order, and everything else into the soap opera category... you miss ten episodes and nothing significant changes regarding the main cast...
By that same reasoning, we could just label Breaking Bad a glorified soap opera too...
Don't get me wrong, I love the show, but let's be real... we have five seasons where Walter White just becomes an increasingly more despicable person, his wife remains as irritating as she was on day one 😁, Hank and his wife are just as bad 😁, and Jesse Pinkman is essentially a lost cause...
Sure, characters (well, some of them) evolve and grow, but all of that could have been packed into four seasons—maybe even three. They didn't need five.

That is exactly why I stopped after the first season. The pacing was so incredibly sluggish that I forced myself through the first season only to find I couldn't bring myself to start the second. Everyone claims the show becomes brilliant later on, but after the trauma of season one, I am still waiting for some sort of inspiration to actually experience the charm of the remaining seasons.😁

You and about 55 other people 😁 I’ve actually debated these points with...
The reality is, most people dropped off after the first season or halfway through the second...

Karen Smith9 said:Shallow trash—pure garbage 😁 is what I mean, if that's any clearer.

I get what you're trying to say.

Richard Wilson4 said:It’s the same deal with The Walking Dead. Battlestar Galactica has seasons, sure, but it sucks how they spent all that budget on killer production and effects just to mask what was basically just a soap opera drama.

Caprica was even worse, ten steps behind. They could have shown the Colony in its true light, but instead, we got this heavy melodrama set in a period that felt way too modern. It died after three episodes—thank God they canceled it.

As for Game of Thrones, I've got mixed feelings.
The characters like Tyrion Lannister, and especially his father, are top-tier. Some parts are genuinely great.

Everything else? Total garbage.

The fight scenes are actually pretty bad, specifically that SPOILER attack by the Wildmen on the Black Castle, where three villains manage to kill over 50 people combined. SPOILER

People rave about Lena Hedley, but to me, her character is just Cersei Lannister—total Shit. Her whole purpose in the plot is just whining every two episodes about how much she loves her kids and how far she'll go for them.

The rest of them are even worse and totally one-dimensional.

They want the younger guy to be some mastermind, but they constantly show him in brothels with cheap hookers. It's like the writers think a character isn't interesting unless there are naked girls on screen, even though he's supposed to be more like Frank Underwood.🙂

Personally, I found that "masked drama" to be exactly what drew me in.😁 It's precisely what sets Battlestar Galactica apart from almost every other sci-fi series, especially those set in deep space.😁 The cast is top-tier, the effects are perfectly fine, and you can tell they didn't skimp on the budget. This isn't some "kid's show," and it certainly isn't targeting the 12-to-16-year-old demographic that so many sci-fi shows and movies unfortunately cater to. It's dark, gritty, and serious.
I know plenty of people😛 expect sci-fi to be nothing but constant explosions, fifty different alien species, at least one comic relief character, and mindless action. Battlestar Galactica definitely isn't that, perhaps specifically because they leaned so heavily into the dramatic elements.

Regarding Game of Thrones, I could go on extensively, but honestly, I just don't have the energy for it right now.😁

wiredraven82 said:It just doesn’t work that way—take The Twilight Zone (the original, obviously) for example. Look, we all know how The Twilight Zone operates; every single episode stands entirely on its own. But that is exactly why your logic fails here. 😁

The same goes for The Sopranos. Like I mentioned before, the show just... flowed. It didn't latch onto one specific character and incessantly ramble about them; instead, it unfolded "on the fly," so to speak. You gradually grasp who people are and what they represent. Of course, they centered everything around Tony Soprano since he's the lead, but there was never any of that "brainwashing" nonsense.

The moment Richie Aprile got out of prison, I understood his entire deal within two minutes. 🤣
Just an example.

You can't apply this to The X-Files either. In The X-Files, it was only at the end of the seasons that the actual skeletal framework of the story would emerge—which, by the way, was excellent and definitely wasn't some soap opera drivel. That skeleton was basically the Cigarette Smoking Man and his crew against Mulder and Scully; in the meantime, Mulder and Scully were busy resolving individual paranormal cases.

Sure, okay, there were a few episodes that felt a bit like a soap opera, but truly, very rarely... maybe one per season if you're being generous.

Do you remember when they did that one episode specifically focusing on the Cigarette Smoking Man in The X-Files? The way they revealed just a sliver of who he actually was—that was masterful.

And so on... there are plenty of other series, of course, that don't fall into this "soap opera" trap that drags on for an entire season (or two), and sometimes it serves as the backbone for the whole series—like Battlestar Galactica. 🙄

Okay, look, The Sopranos and The Twilight Zone aren't soap operas, but The X-Files definitely is... I followed it closely until, I think, right before the final seasons... and then it started veering dangerously into that territory.
Mulder believes everything and always figures out that aliens, paranormal phenomena, mutants, or global conspiracies are at play, while Scully constantly tries to find a rational explanation and remains skeptical. 😬
Come on, give me a break. 👎

wiredraven82 said:Comedy series are an entirely different beast altogether...

I’ve never actually viewed them as "series" in the traditional sense; I strictly categorize them as "comedy series." And when you look at it through that lens, there isn't a soul—heaven or hell—in the entire world of television comedy that will ever come close to the level of Seinfeld or The Sopranos.😁

or Black Widow 😁 👍

Richard Wilson4 said:But back to the 90s—the comedies were top-tier, whereas nowadays they're pretty weak.

On the flip side, you've seen a total renaissance of comedy series over the last 6 or 7 years (though it sucks that this revival seems to be fading out over the last two).

There are good movies today, sure, but I really don't think there's ever been as many great drama series as there are right now. Not in terms of pure quality.

And what exactly are we talking about here? 🤦Community
I actually forced myself through three episodes and I genuinely couldn't figure out what was supposed to be funny about it 😁. Someone suggested Blue Mountain State... watched one episode and hated it. Parks and Recreation... watched an episode and didn't laugh once.
Rules of Engagement... I caught bits of it on TV when I had nothing better to do, but there is absolutely no way I'm sitting down specifically to watch that.
How I Met Your Mother... same story as Rules. I'd watch it if it happened to be on, but that's it.

Aside from those, we have decent shows like Two and a Half Men (and thank God it stars Charlie Sheen instead of that new idiot 😢) and The Big Bang Theory, which is my favorite at the moment, even though the quality has fluctuated quite a bit in the later seasons.
So, what else is out there? Give me some recommendations. 😁

shadowangler50 said:

I never provided a definition, nor would I ever attempt to define a film or series. Every single production has its own set of rules.

Theft is theft. For a remake, the rights were legally purchased and the contract was signed in stone.
Did you actually write this, or is it some clone of yours?
Then you turn around and claim not every theft counts as stealing.

Maybe you don't even know what you're responding to, which is entirely possible. But who cares...

We clearly agree to disagree.

To you, quality is defined by "fame"—if a series is a global hit, it must be good.
That isn't always true; plenty of highly developed works end up being total garbage.

I haven't ignored anyone. I enjoy reading everything and watching almost everything.

Here is a textbook example of how you twist my words.
If I say True Detective is a world-famous series and will face a lawsuit if it turns out to be stolen, you claim I said it was "good." I am discussing the legal component, yet you frame it as an artistic one. You fail to grasp the nuances.

And you persist in insisting that I’m talking about viewership quality, when for the hundredth time, I am stating that these series were rated as high quality by both audiences and critics, and are thus recognized as such.
I am talking about one thing, you are talking about another. Do I need to draw you a diagram?

Everything I said stands, but since the details shift from movie to movie, if I say Leone isn't a plagiarist, then that’s just how it is. It's my own take, and I don't need anyone else's permission to hold it.

shadowangler50 said:

I never provided a definition, nor would I ever attempt to define a film or series. Every single production has its own set of rules.

Theft is theft. For a remake, the rights were legally purchased and the contract was signed in stone.
Did you actually write this, or is it some clone of yours?
Then you turn around and claim not every theft counts as stealing.

Maybe you don't even know what you're responding to, which is entirely possible. But who cares...

We clearly agree to disagree.

To you, quality is defined by "fame"—if a series is a global hit, it must be good.
That isn't always true; plenty of highly developed works end up being total garbage.

I haven't ignored anyone. I enjoy reading everything and watching almost everything.

Here is a textbook example of how you twist my words.
If I say True Detective is a world-famous series and will face a lawsuit if it turns out to be stolen, you claim I said it was "good." I am discussing the legal component, yet you frame it as an artistic one. You fail to grasp the nuances.

And you persist in insisting that I’m talking about viewership quality, when for the hundredth time, I am stating that these series were rated as high quality by both audiences and critics, and are thus recognized as such.
I am talking about one thing, you are talking about another. Do I need to draw you a diagram?

I'm not twisting anything; everything's right there in the thread.
When I talk about plagiarism or theft, I’m not talking about the legal side of things. I’m talking about the sheer drop in quality that hits me whenever an author leans on someone else's work. Is there even any point?

You can't exactly tell someone they're being dense, but since we're already down in the gutter here—let's be real, leaning on critic scores and audience ratings doesn't suddenly make a show any good. Does popularity actually equal quality?
So what?
Art doesn't exist. Does it? So that's how it goes.Look, it’s pretty simple: things are either good, or they aren't. Why overcomplicate it?

wiredraven82 said:Comedy series are an entirely different beast altogether...

I’ve never actually viewed them as "series" in the traditional sense; I strictly categorize them as "comedy series." And when you look at it through that lens, there isn't a soul—heaven or hell—in the entire world of television comedy that will ever come close to the level of Seinfeld or The Sopranos.😁

Look, if Seinfeld had just made a ninety-minute comedy movie back in '89—which was about how long those things ran back then—do you really think it would have reached legendary status?

Bradley Wood43 said:And what exactly are we talking about here? 🤦Community
I actually forced myself through three episodes and I genuinely couldn't figure out what was supposed to be funny about it 😁. Someone suggested Blue Mountain State... watched one episode and hated it. Parks and Recreation... watched an episode and didn't laugh once.
Rules of Engagement... I caught bits of it on TV when I had nothing better to do, but there is absolutely no way I'm sitting down specifically to watch that.
How I Met Your Mother... same story as Rules. I'd watch it if it happened to be on, but that's it.

Aside from those, we have decent shows like Two and a Half Men (and thank God it stars Charlie Sheen instead of that new idiot 😢) and The Big Bang Theory, which is my favorite at the moment, even though the quality has fluctuated quite a bit in the later seasons.
So, what else is out there? Give me some recommendations. 😁

From the newer stuff, I think Arrested Development is great, and especially It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia if you're into that kind of politically incorrect, darker humor.

Curb Your Enthusiasm is also top-tier—maybe even on par with Seinfeld for me—though it’s a bit older than the others, so you might want to check it out if you haven't. I mean, it's Larry David, after all. 🙂

Everything I said stands. The details shift from movie to movie, so if I say Leone isn't a plagiarist, then that’s just how it is. It's my own damn opinion, and I don't need to cite anyone else to prove it.

Stealing is stealing. They bought the rights legally and signed the contract in ink. What else do you want?
Is it an original work or pure plagiarism? You shouldn't even be offering your own opinion on the matter.
Black is black, and white is white. You can't just decide that black is actually white and call it an opinion.
I still can't get over that whole "abuse of power" nonsense. Seriously?

I'm not twisting anything; everything is right there in the thread.
When I talk about plagiarism or theft, I’m not even talking about the legal side of things. It’s about the work itself. Doesn't the quality just plummet the moment you realize an author is leaning on someone else's ideas?

An artist might be brilliant, but that doesn't mean their work follows suit. Why should we confuse the creator with the creation?

You shouldn't tell someone they're being dense, but since we've already hit that level, I'll say it: you're being dense. Using audience ratings and critic scores as a metric doesn't suddenly make a series high quality. Does popularity actually equal substance? Not even close.
So what?
Art simply doesn't permit it. And therefore?It’s simple: things are either good, or they aren't. Why complicate it?

If you're going to be bold enough to constantly twist my words, then fine—I’ll set the record straight since your behavior clearly demands it. If you have such a problem with being quoted, maybe stop misrepresenting what I actually said in the first place.

High ratings don't automatically equate to quality. Is it really that hard to accept that audience scores and critic reviews can be completely irrelevant?
You're right that things are either good or they aren't. But how exactly am I supposed to apply your logic to decide which is which?
By your logic, there’s no way to tell if the Mona Lisa holds more artistic value than some modern "artist" who draws two circles and calls it high art. How can we even make that distinction?

Bradley Wood43 said:Personally, I found that "masked drama" to be exactly what drew me in.😁 It's precisely what sets Battlestar Galactica apart from almost every other sci-fi series, especially those set in deep space.😁 The cast is top-tier, the effects are perfectly fine, and you can tell they didn't skimp on the budget. This isn't some "kid's show," and it certainly isn't targeting the 12-to-16-year-old demographic that so many sci-fi shows and movies unfortunately cater to. It's dark, gritty, and serious.
I know plenty of people😛 expect sci-fi to be nothing but constant explosions, fifty different alien species, at least one comic relief character, and mindless action. Battlestar Galactica definitely isn't that, perhaps specifically because they leaned so heavily into the dramatic elements.

Regarding Game of Thrones, I could go on extensively, but honestly, I just don't have the energy for it right now.😁

But honestly, people just straight-up love sci-fi.

Look, it’s pretty simple. People who actually dig sci-fi aren't looking for some soap opera or a heavy drama—they want real sci-fi. And the folks who live for those soap operas? They aren't going to touch sci-fi either. It just doesn't work that way.

Battlestar Galactica was actually pretty solid, but man, Caprica? Not even close. 🤦

Bradley Wood43 said:You and about 55 other people 😁 I’ve actually debated these points with...
The reality is, most people dropped off after the first season or halfway through the second...

What kind of crowd are you running with? 😁 Everyone around me watches them without issue and looks at me like I'm the odd one out. Generally speaking, I have an issue with movies and shows that feature slow pacing and lack major plot twists. That is precisely why I enjoy GoT, Dexter, Homeland, Shameless, etc. The plots don't drag; things are constantly happening. Everything else is tedious.

Furthermore, regarding comedy series, the modern ones are frankly terrible.
The only exception is The Big Bang Theory, which I still watch and find excellent. I also watched How I Met Your Mother through to the end, even though they completely botched the final season by focusing solely on that wedding between Barney and robin spoiler SPOILER, only for them not to end up together in the end. Regardless, the rest of the original series finale (not the one filmed later) was actually decent. Even though most people trashed it, I don't understand the backlash. Ted and Robin 🎉 SPOILER

I have attempted to find something new and interesting, but everything seems mediocre. There is a certain type of humor that clearly escapes me, 🤣 such as Seinfeld, Two and a Half Men, or Friends; those were excellent series. Today's offerings 👎

Kenneth Johnson12 said:What kind of crowd are you running with? 😁 Everyone around me watches them without issue and looks at me like I'm the odd one out. Generally speaking, I have an issue with movies and shows that feature slow pacing and lack major plot twists. That is precisely why I enjoy GoT, Dexter, Homeland, Shameless, etc. The plots don't drag; things are constantly happening. Everything else is tedious.

Furthermore, regarding comedy series, the modern ones are frankly terrible.
The only exception is The Big Bang Theory, which I still watch and find excellent. I also watched How I Met Your Mother through to the end, even though they completely botched the final season by focusing solely on that wedding between Barney and robin spoiler SPOILER, only for them not to end up together in the end. Regardless, the rest of the original series finale (not the one filmed later) was actually decent. Even though most people trashed it, I don't understand the backlash. Ted and Robin 🎉 SPOILER

I have attempted to find something new and interesting, but everything seems mediocre. There is a certain type of humor that clearly escapes me, 🤣 such as Seinfeld, Two and a Half Men, or Friends; those were excellent series. Today's offerings 👎

Check out some of the underrated gems—maybe Raising Ace or even Happy Endings