Why is everyone into series more than movies these days?

James Garcia50 said:Dexter is trash; only four shows on your list actually hit.

Everyone thinks their own posts are gold, but that isn't always the case.
If you think someone's being a know-it-all, just keep it to yourself or send them a DM instead of cluttering the thread.

Which four?

bluenomad2 said:There was a golden age before too. The internet just makes everything feel like a massive trend.

They haven't overtaken anything, and they never will.

You don't understand what a golden age actually implies. For you, it's only a golden age because they're more 🤣

Do some actual research on the golden age of television http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Television

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/22/how_...den_age_of_tv/

Read this as well: Hill Street Blues, Twin Peaks, The X-Files, ER...

You didn't offer facts, just your opinion. I gave you the facts. There are books written about previous golden ages of television—various analyses and influences. That's a fact. What you're claiming is basically a fabrication with zero foundation.

What you wrote is perfectly clear. If it's a golden age, then you assume series are automatically better than movies, which is why I pointed out that there were golden ages before, meaning series were already better back then.

Of course they aren't. Movies will always be better.

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?

He just doesn't get it. Honestly...

I bet those shows from the fifties had way higher viewership than anything today. So, go ahead—name a single show from the fifties that you actually watched which offered anything more substantial than what we have hitting our screens nowadays.

He can't name them because they don't exist—or at least, he clearly doesn't know them (unless you count The Twilight Zone).

...how can you possibly know what kind of lasting impact the shows currently airing will end up having?

Exactly. That's the whole point.

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?

Sure you can, but high ratings don't equal quality. Soap operas get huge numbers too, doesn't mean they're good.

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?

Movies aren't going to fail, and series will always have their niche audience.
Your issue is that you're cherry-picking a bunch of garbage movies to make your point.
Besides, Game of Thrones is just exhausting trash.

James Garcia50 said:Dexter is trash; only four shows on your list actually hit.

Everyone thinks their own posts are gold, but that isn't always the case.
If you think someone's being a know-it-all, just keep it to yourself or send them a DM instead of cluttering the thread.

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.

@James Garcia50 NOD14 was asking you 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.

First off, I'm not here to attack people just because they have different tastes.

So why are you using "we"?

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?

James Garcia50 said:First off, I'm not here to attack people just because they have different tastes.

So why are you using "we"?

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.''

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?

Like what?

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?

With series, though, no matter how many you binge, you can never get enough—they always find a way to surprise and blow you away.

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.''

Meant? Smoki is a woman 😂

What did NOD ask me?

James Garcia50 said:Sure you can, but high ratings don't equal quality. Soap operas get huge numbers too, doesn't mean they're good.

Movies aren't going to fail, and series will always have their niche audience.
Your issue is that you're cherry-picking a bunch of garbage movies to make your point.
Besides, Game of Thrones is just exhausting trash.

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?

William Hall93 said:I’m making a bit of a generalization here, but most of my friends in their 20s and 30s seem to live exclusively for series, rarely ever touching a movie.

When they actually do sit down for a movie, it’s always some recent blockbuster, strictly in English, a Hollywood production, and it absolutely has to have over 100,000 votes on IMDb. Heaven forbid they watch some French or Korean film that only has a few thousand votes...

It’s the exact same story with series—it’s either Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, and the top 50 shows sorted by popularity, or nothing at all.

What’s the deal here: is it just pure trend-following, a total lack of will to actually dig deeper, or just mindlessly swallowing whatever content is the most popular?

Or perhaps it's just a matter of perception. You "watch" a movie, but you "follow" a series.
It feels natural that people talk about series more often—they provide a recurring rhythm, where the plot pauses on some cliffhanger that needs resolving in the next episode—whereas a movie is usually a self-contained unit.
Of course, both high-quality films and series have their own merits, but I don't think they should be compared in quite this way.

I might be overgeneralizing here—but looking at my circle of friends in their 20s and 30s, most of them seem to live exclusively for series, rarely ever sitting down for a movie.

Then again, it's a completely different conversation when you consider that most people just watch whatever is handed to them on a silver platter anyway.

Carl Hill53 said:Well, maybe consider this post a substitute for a pair of glasses:

HBO
HBO
HBO
HBO
AMC
HBO
Netflix
Dexter
Netflix
Netflix

Regarding 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.

I’d throw in Mad Men too, and definitely The Wire—easily the best show ever made.

P.S. Homeland, season one.

James Garcia50 said:Like what?

With series, though, no matter how many you binge, you can never get enough—they always find a way to surprise and blow you away.

Meant? Smoki is a woman 😂

What did NOD ask me?

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: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?

I don't care about comparisons like that.
Checking box office numbers before a movie doesn't change my mind if the lead actor is a jerk. And I don't read reviews either.
My take on movies and shows is mine alone, based strictly on what I watch.

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?

It’s the exact same story with TV series—pandering to kids and the lowest common denominator of an uneducated mass.

James Garcia50 said:I don't care about comparisons like that.
Checking box office numbers before a movie doesn't change my mind if the lead actor is a jerk. And I don't read reviews either.
My take on movies and shows is mine alone, based strictly on what I watch.

It’s the exact same story with TV series—pandering to kids and the lowest common denominator of an uneducated mass.

Exactly this.

Unfortunately, most people just rate things based on hype, popularity, or whatever is trending. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's actually good. By that logic, The Vampire Diaries is high art. 🤣

Looking at this thread, you can see how many people just follow whatever is new and trendy. They have zero credibility.

shadowangler50, look, it’s just the truth of the matter. I mean, if I’m being generous—and I usually am—we barely get maybe ten decent movies a year on a global scale that are actually worth sitting down for.

Since we’re already talking about series, I have to mention this one mini-series I find myself revisiting every few years—mind you, I’ve always been a massive fan of Dumas. It is quite simply a perfect adaptation!

The Count of Monte Cristo

And honestly, if you draw a parallel to the movie The Count of Monte Cristo, you realize the film is absolutely nothing compared to the series. I was actually genuinely shocked to see it holding such a high rating 😲

But... yeah, the series is incomparably better.

Everyone’s out here bragging about hype instead of actual quality.
Everyone keeps bringing up Game of Thrones, yet not a single soul mentions Rectify, which is hands down the best series from the last decade.

James Garcia50 said:Everyone’s out here bragging about hype instead of actual quality.
Everyone keeps bringing up Game of Thrones, yet not a single soul mentions Rectify, which is hands down the best series from the last decade.

James Garcia50, please. You're being way too extreme here.

Who even says ( 🤦 ) that everyone prefers binge-watching series now?