Roleplaying Video Games Entertainment & Media Politics & World
General Spirituality & Philosophy Worldbuilding Creative Forum
The Sports Center Science, Math, & Technology The Nostalgia Forum Sexuality
Community feedback needed: add_comment New add_comment New request

Entertainment & Media

The Death of Modern Movies

Posted 3 Weeks ago by mariomguy

I just watched this video of Anthony Mackie (Falcon) describing what he sees as the problem with Hollywood movies now. The interview is dated to London Comic Con 2017.



I agree with a lot of his points. It really meant something to see a Schwarzenegger or Stallone movie. And remakes are rarely ever as good as the original, but Hollywood has far more trepidations about making original content with the same budget as the big superhero movies. I think it's interesting how he described moviegoing as a family event - for many movies I recalled growing up, it really was. That hype is gone, now.

There are some things I disagree with - It's not necessarily a "problem" for fans to enjoy movies in their favorite franchise. Toy Story has an incredible franchise. Terminator 2, and the 3D film were really remarkable. There are a lot of great superhero shows. Some franchises are really great. The real problem seems to be a lack in spirit. Marvel movies aren't really as well made as they could be, and a lot comes down to that lack of real spirit in the final direction. They rest on the laurels of the franchise, writing and direction don't really matter.

The Lion King live action remake just looks and feels weird. Even though the words are the same, the direction lacks the same spirit, the same depths and highs. Same goes for all the live action remakes, and a lot of superhero movies as well. If everything is dark, cynical, gritty, and depression, then nothing is.

One more thing Mackie forgot to mention is there were bad movies in the past, too. A lot of old movies had weirdly slow pacing and terrible writing/acting. But classic Hollywood was all about purpose and meaning in the story. Modern Hollywood skewed the purpose and meaning, so that's harder to define, now.

It could be a combination of all these factors together that spell the end of the great cinema experience. TV shows and streaming have risen in quality quite dramatically, while movies have largely been left behind. Home theaters have improved faster than the cinema experience. Movie ticket prices are significantly higher than streaming services, to the point where a family of 4 going to see 2 Disney movies is more expensive than the same family purchasing a Disney Plus account. And Hollywood creatively has decided to reward mediocre remakes and endless sequels over producing genuinely good or original content. And the great spirit of movies has not only itself become stale, but is dying. Pixar's Soul released exclusively to streaming. Good family content in theaters is becoming something of the past. Coupled with the rise of streaming, it really seems like a death sentence for movies.

Thoughts on these trends?

There are 125 Replies


that spell the end of the great cinema experience

what do you mean by this? Just going to the theater?

to the point where a family of 4 going to see 2 Disney movies is more expensive than the same family purchasing a Disney Plus account.

Well while Disney Plus has more content for sure and is a better price when you consider said content, if the family wants to see the newest Disney movie that is currently in theaters they would have to rent it for a higher price. (I believe this was the case for Mulan and a newer disney film) To my knowledge new disney releases arent released simultaneously on Disney plus for free. (I think Mulan is now free 6 months after being released)

So when it comes to Mulan's initial release for instance it was $30 in addition to whatever you pay for Disney+ that month. (is it $8? I dont have it)

so it almost comes out the same (excluding food items)

Pixar's Soul released exclusively to streaming. Good family content in theaters is becoming something of the past.

Well uh there is a Pandemic that shut down the brick and motor industry of theaters. I think you are going to find the opposite happening once things get back to normal. People will do anything to not be at home including paying 10-12 bucks to see a movie on a giant screen.

3 Weeks ago
S.O.H.
 

That's hopelessly optimistic. How long can Disney keep pumping out sequels and remakes and lame superhero movies before people get tired of it and stop caring altogether? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

The saving grace for theaters used to be that was always the best way to experience a movie. Popcorn, snacks, drinks, comfy chairs, and a massive screen with awesome surround sound. Now that large TVs are so commonplace and the new movies coming out just aren't really that good, coupled with the fact people aren't having much extra spending money, I really don't think these changes are temporary. There will always be a crowd of people who want to capture the experience of seeing an awesome movie in theaters when they were kids, but when that whole experience goes away... people will just wait until the movie comes out for free, or lose interest.

The theater near me closed half of its theaters, so they only have 11 still operating. When I went to see Onward in theaters with friends right before the pandemic started, we were some of the only people in the theater at all. All this was put in motion before COVID, which struck the final blow. Do you think most theaters will come back?

3 Weeks ago
mariomguy
 

How long can Disney keep pumping out sequels and remakes and lame superhero movies before people get tired of it and stop caring altogether? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Im gonna level with you. Just because it is lame to "you" doesnt mean it is lame to the rest of the masses. And if this thread turns into a "mariomguys opinion is fact. every one else is stupid" like the majority of your threads do I will block you. (well no I will just leave) 3 of the last 4 super hero movies released by disney hit over a billion dollars. The vast majority of people do like them. (not that I disagree on wanting Hollywood to pursue original ideas)

The saving grace for theaters used to be that was always the best way to experience a movie. Popcorn, snacks, drinks, comfy chairs, and a massive screen with awesome surround sound. Now that large TVs are so commonplace and the new movies coming out just aren't really that good, coupled with the fact people aren't having much extra spending money, I really don't think these changes are temporary. There will always be a crowd of people who want to capture the experience of seeing an awesome movie in theaters when they were kids, but when that whole experience goes away... people will just wait until the movie comes out for free, or lose interest.

While I agree some people might never set foot in a theater again, I dont believe that will be the case with average movie goers. The reality is a movie screen will always be larger than a tv screen. There are some movies that are better enjoyed on a large movie theater screen than a tv screen. (Pacific Rim, GodZilla, any action packed block buster)

I will agree that people will wait until a movie comes out for free. But that has always been the case even before streaming. If a movie really interested me I would go watch it. If my friends want to watch a movie I would join them. If it is a movie that looks alright I would wait to watch it on TV for free years later.

The theater near me closed half of its theaters, so they only have 11 still operating. When I went to see Onward in theaters with friends right before the pandemic started, we were some of the only people in the theater at all. All this was put in motion before COVID, which struck the final blow. Do you think most theaters will come back?

I think yes. We already saw recent success with the release of the new Godzilla movie. Going to the movies gives people something to do. I would imagine a lot of people are tired of being at home. Especially after a year of it. I will also add that we have seen a resurgence in outdoor drive-ins which was an experience that was lost at one point.

I go to the movies for two reasons. To watch the next big blockbuster and have some fun to escape from the world for a few hours, and to watch a movie that looks interesting to me but may not garner a lot of attention from the masses and to escape the world for a few hours.

I personally enjoy popping into a theater with no one else in there. It feels like I am being given VIP treatment to have an empty theater to my self. (90% of the time I watch movies in the middle of the week during matinee hours/ prices)

Did you watch onward during the week? It looks like a kids movie so it would not surprise me if no one bothered seeing it during the week when kids are normally in school.

3 Weeks ago
S.O.H.
 

If everything is dark, cynical, gritty, and depression, then nothing is.


I dunno that I would ever classify anything Disney/Marvel makes as "dark, cynical, gritty, and depressing." Warner Bros. hit that a little bit for sure with the advent of Christopher Nolan exploding in the mainstream, and then Zack Snyder following, but even they made sure to put out Shazam, Aquaman, and Wonder Woman '84 which are very much *not* dark, cynical, gritty, and depressing.


I think it's interesting how he described moviegoing as a family event - for many movies I recalled growing up, it really was. That hype is gone, now.


If I may, as someone who has worked at multiple theaters for close to two decades at this point: this is very much still true. Going to the movies is still very much a family event, and remains one of the most common "date nights" as well. And in terms of pure numbers, I don't *really* know where people get the idea that "no one goes to the movies anymore."

Objectively speaking, we have not seen any discernible plummet in number of tickets sold in recent years from the past 3 or 4 decades. For example, the best year of theatrical attendance in the 1980s was 1989, with 1.262 million tickets sold. In the ten year period prior to COVID shutting theaters down, only 2 years saw ticket sales lower than 1989. Which means more people have been going to the theaters consistently year in, year out than all of the 1980s. Numbers have dipped from a late '90s boom that saw record numbers, but like, the 1995-2000 was kind of an overall outlier span. You won't see anything near those numbers in any other period, including the glorified "old days."

But also, again, as someone who is on the "front lines" and has been for almost two decades, I assure you that people are still very much going to the movies.

Pixar's Soul released exclusively to streaming.


Let's just be clear about this, though: that was only because of COVID. I guarantee that they did not want to release it to streaming exclusively. I don't think you can really downplay how much these studios like seeing the box office numbers roll in, and also even with the price, theatrical is still ultimately going to be more accessible to wider audiences. You can talk about the price of tickets and snacks at a theater, and that's certainly a concern (caused, no less, by the studios themselves). But at the end of the day, most people will be able to go out and see an individual movie with their family or for a date not, pay a one-time price, and it's an event. Not everyone is going to be able to sign up for a monthly subscription and pay a monthly fee. These studios aren't exactly eager to have a subscriber base that only signs up for one month when a movie drops, then cancel after they watch the movie. I mean, if not for a number of television programs on Disney+, I would have paid *well* over ticket price just to watch Soul. That's cost prohibitive, and I don't need to sign up for anything to just go watch a movie at a theater.

But also not for nothing, most of the "virtual cinema" stuff I've seen have not been particularly cheaper than going to the theater. Mulan and Raya and the Last Dragon cost almost $30, on top of the subscription fee. Amazon has done some home rental at the same time as theatrical releases for things. Like if you wanted to watch Promising Young Women or Minari, that's gonna cost $16, which really only discernibly cheaper if you're talking about multiple people watching and you have your own snacks.

Plus, a lot of theaters do offer discounts like matinee pricing (or child pricing) or combo deals for snacks and things of that nature. More and more theaters are offering full menus so you can eat dinner while watching a movie, and so many theaters are functioning a bit as bars, too.

I also just think Mackie here, apart from being factually wrong about people not going to movies anymore, is underselling the fact that a lot of people *do* like actually going out. According to some surveys, just over 40% of American households have a home surround sound system. (A genuinely good surround sound system is pretty cost prohibitive. Sound bars are a more affordable option, but even those are gonna run a few hundred dollars, and the affordable ones aren't known for being the best quality.)

Especially with superhero movies, people *like* going out and sharing the experience. A lot of people *like* watching movies in a room with other people and hearing the reactions. The excitement of the audience as the opening crawl of Star Wars starts. The cheers of seeing a certain character show up in a Marvel movie. For my money, at least, nothing will ever beat the experience of watching John Wick 3 in a theater full of seniors who were either grossed out or getting weirdly into it. (Never gonna forget a guy who could have been my grandpa shouting, "Shoot 'em!" in the middle of the movie.)

I love my home theater set up, and I obviously watch a *lot* of movies at home, but when it's safe to do so, you're never gonna get me to stop going out to theaters. There's still too much money for the studios, and theatrical release is still a better way to drum up hype. They all want to get that "Number 1 at the box office" because that draws turnout. And not for nothing, but they all want that award buzz. Sure, Disney isn't really banking on their big titles for anything other than technical awards, but they own subsidiary studios that will be putting out the Oscar-buzz stuff. And outside a pandemic year, ya can't really do that just releasing to streaming.


A lot of old movies had weirdly slow pacing and terrible writing/acting.


I want to just push back on this because I think it's important to recognize stylistic changes over the years. It's easy to look back at old movies and say "the acting was terrible," but the style of acting was so fundamentally different and unrecognizeable to what has become popular and ingrained in modern cinema. I don't think we should use modern style trends to pass judgment on the quality of older styles.


It could be a combination of all these factors together that spell the end of the great cinema experience.


I mean, streaming is for sure a concern, but they've also been saying cinema is doomed pretty much my entire career. The '90s bubble did burst a bit, but numbers have overall been fairly consistent year after year. But the years also matter because there definitely are years with a bunch of great films and years with a bunch of busts as the big titles. Ticket sales will fluctuate. When there are good movies that everyone is raving about, one can expect ticket sales to be a little higher that year. If the big movies get a lot of bad press, it'll be down.

The saving grace for theaters used to be that was always the best way to experience a movie.


For most people, this is still very much true. But also, I really don't think you can downplay how much "going to the movies" still very much is a social event. And we can't ignore that for many people, watching movies is a communal experience.

As for the accessibility of quality home theater equipment, I mean, sure, it's definitely available. Again, you have to be pretty willing to invest in it though. (You want something that can even compare remotely to a theatrical experience, you're gonna probably have to shell out at *least* $1600 for the TV, sound system, and blu-ray player/4k player. I'm not gonna include furniture in this either because one presumes one has a furnished living room regardless. Still, many of the theaters I've been to have had chairs *much* more comfortable than my couch at home because great quality furniture is *also* an investment.)

But there are also ways in which the theatrical experience is just fundamentally going to be different (and to my mind, superior) than the best of accessible home theater set-ups. I mean, I just shudder to think of how many people get these big fancy TVs and then watch all their movies with motion smoothing or with the wrong picture setting. And ya know, I know this probably doesn't matter to most people, but to me and a good number, nothing beats seeing a 35mm print on the big screen. And ya literally can't get that at home. (Granted, this is becoming more uncommon, sadly.)

Good family content in theaters is becoming something of the past.


I'm imagining you want to fight about the definition of "good family content," but family content in theaters is literally the biggest money maker for theaters across the board.

How long can Disney keep pumping out sequels and remakes and lame superhero movies before people get tired of it and stop caring altogether?


I mean...how long are we going to keep asking how long Disney can keep pumping these out before the bubble bursts and people get tired and stop caring altogther? It's been what, almost 15 years of people pre-maturely predicting the demise of the superhero genre and the movie franchise? And there aren't really any signs of it slowing down, to be honest. And to be honest? If the superhero trend dies down, or the sequels stop making money, they'll find a new trend. The modern franchise/superhero genre has been kind of unstoppable and has lasted much longer than most other trends, but the basic premise of one thing really taking off and being the dominant product in Hollywood isn't exactly new. Musicals, westerns, natural disaster movies: all trends that last a while before dying out. All replaced by something else.

(There's also the bigger issue of, well, Disney's quickening march to full blown monopoly.)

And the great spirit of movies has not only itself become stale, but is dying.


I kind of hate it when you change the conversation like this. If you're talking about Hollywood itself, ok fine. But when you go onto just say that cinema overall is becoming stale and dying, I want to just throw a bunch of eggs at you. These are two fundamentally different conversations to have. If you want to complain about Hollywood, fine! Honestly? I'm not too far from your opinion on the matter of the Hollywood business model. But when you expand it to encompass cinema as a whole, where you're willfully turning a blind eye on an entire section of the industry that is not only thriving, but has been growing for years and years, you're asking for a fight.


When I went to see Onward in theaters with friends right before the pandemic started, we were some of the only people in the theater at all


I mean, this is entirely anecdotal evidence, but when did you go to see it? Was it the weekend? Was it an evening show time?

And not for nothing, but you literally couldn't have seen Onward in theaters "before COVID." The CDC was saying it was going to become a pandemic by the end of February. There were already cases being reported in the US. While it would take a week between Onward's release date to the President declaring a national emergency, COVID was in the news and people were becoming more conscientious of it when Onward released. While it unlikely would be the only reason no one else would be in the theater if you saw it that first weekend, it's also unlikely that the film's attendance would have been unaffected by it. I can tell you that my theater saw a discernible dip in attendance in the couple of weeks prior to the national emergency being declared.

3 Weeks ago
Jet Presto
 

I'm honestly a bit torn on the "there are no movie stars" thing. I think when it comes to Hollywood, yeah, there's clearly a push to get people invested in the franchises themselves and not the stars, since presumably the cast will change over the years.

But literally everyone I know has a handful of actors in these things that they'll see a movie just because they're in it. "You used to go to see the Schwarzenneger movie or Stallone movie," I mean, sometimes? It's not exactly like every movie they made were hits. And not for nothing, but they were kind of exceptions to the rule even in their day. Tom Cruise continues to benefit from his deal with the devil and stands out as an exception. Or, I suppose, Tom Hanks is another who sort of got grandfathered in.

What's functionally different, though? If the studios want you to get invested and see their movies because you love the franchise, or because you love their actor, it's still an effort to drum up hype for their product. Unless someone wants to seriously argue that Jingle All The Way or Twins are shining examples of originality in cinema...

What I *do* think is more of a thing is the lack of director recognition. That's a bigger deal to me, personally. Disney has only recently started really letting their directors put their fingerprints on the franchises. (See: Black Panther; Guardians of the Galaxy; Thor: Ragnarok.) To a degree, they did let Joss Whedon make his Avengers movie more or less (for better or worse).

But yeah, I don't think you would get something like a Steven Spielberg in the current Hollywood business model. And that, to me, is kind of a bummer. (I think there's a reason Marvel in particular likes to pick up indie directors who are really emerging onto the scene.)

I have this problem with Hollywood, but I do want to make a clear distinction between Hollywood and Cinema. Because again, the indie scene has really boomed over the past decade or two. It's really flourishing in ways I didn't think we'd see. There's a lot more originality and quality of filmmaking there that Hollywood itself doesn't seem much interested in cultivating themselves.

But at the same time, it's not exactly like Hollywood has a *huge* history of making mostly profound and quality films. The whole thing started pretty much as a business gimmick in the first place. It's important to remember that the Citizen Kanes, the Lawrence of Arabias, the Psychos, the Jaws, and the Star Wars, were ultimately *the* cream of the crop from their day. It's not like most things in the 1960s were these David Lean epics. And lots of those movies don't actually hold up all that well today - they've just been called "some of the greatest films ever made" for like, 60 years so it's ingrained in us that they are.


(I also disagree with Mackie that something like Goonies or The Thing wouldn't get made today. But I probably would agree that it wouldn't get made today and be a big release. Again, if we're just talking about Hollywood, that's one thing. But I mean, The Thing was itself an adaptation/remake that got a small budget in its own right. It's not exactly like The Thing was a tentpole summer blockbuster for Universal...)

3 Weeks ago
Jet Presto
 

I dunno that I would ever classify anything Disney/Marvel makes as "dark, cynical, gritty, and depressing." Warner Bros. hit that a little bit for sure with the advent of Christopher Nolan exploding in the mainstream, and then Zack Snyder following, but even they made sure to put out Shazam, Aquaman, and Wonder Woman '84 which are very much *not* dark, cynical, gritty, and depressing.

Then why does it feel like that's not the case? I grew up on Teen Titans. I haven't seen that anywhere else in the superhero sphere.

Numbers have dipped from a late '90s boom that saw record numbers, but like, the 1995-2000 was kind of an overall outlier span. You won't see anything near those numbers in any other period, including the glorified "old days."

Perhaps this is very much a local issue... But even before the pandemic I was seeing the numbers decrease. The theater downtown, in the middle of a population boom, decided to close half of their theaters a few years ago (from 20 to 11) and expand to comfier seats, reducing capacity to 1/3rd, and they dedicated two screens to 3D. The last time there was a crowd was for The Incredibles 2, which kind of sucked. And the last movie I saw I could count the viewers on my hands. Not only do I not feel the hype anymore, but I feel everyone lost the hype. I still recall the hype for the original Shrek, that was otherworldly. Nothing ever matched that.

The 90s were just awesome.

It's been what, almost 15 years of people pre-maturely predicting the demise of the superhero genre and the movie franchise? And there aren't really any signs of it slowing down, to be honest. And to be honest? If the superhero trend dies down, or the sequels stop making money, they'll find a new trend.

Superhero isn't even a genre at this point, it just seems to be expected. If you're going to the theaters to see a movie, chances are it's a superhero movie. Just mass consumption superhero movies that don't take any real risks. Mediocrity is in demand. I remembered how excited I was to see Spiderman 2, now THAT was an event! Either "events" like this aren't happening anymore, or they have become so commonplace and expected they've lost all meaning. Considering I still get that same excitement to watch something like Miyazaki or classic Disney, I don't think it's the latter. It's a problem with the movies themselves.

I want to just push back on this because I think it's important to recognize stylistic changes over the years. It's easy to look back at old movies and say "the acting was terrible," but the style of acting was so fundamentally different and unrecognizeable to what has become popular and ingrained in modern cinema. I don't think we should use modern style trends to pass judgment on the quality of older styles.

It depends on the film, though. The pacing issues with old movies aren't present in Singin' In The Rain or Citizen Kane. Disney's 1991 Beauty and The Beast didn't have any pacing issues, either. Some old(ish) movies have incredible acting, like Misery, while so many just fall flat. The Ten Commandments and similar Hollywood epics are barely watchable nowadays. You have to be a film buff to really appreciate it. Sometimes movies work well and they're brilliant, there certainly are diamonds. But how often is that?
Ticket sales will fluctuate. When there are good movies that everyone is raving about, one can expect ticket sales to be a little higher that year. If the big movies get a lot of bad press, it'll be down.

So, the death knell to movies is just a myth? It will always fluctuate, and something will always bring people back?

For most people, this is still very much true. But also, I really don't think you can downplay how much "going to the movies" still very much is a social event. And we can't ignore that for many people, watching movies is a communal experience.

An experience that "can" be had at home. I watched The Joker in 4K Blu-Ray on my Sony Atmos/LG OLED setup, and I was absolutely astonished. My first thought was this is just like being in a theater. But because it was my home... I didn't even have to leave. I can bring friends over, and we can watch movies.

And ya know, I know this probably doesn't matter to most people, but to me and a good number, nothing beats seeing a 35mm print on the big screen. And ya literally can't get that at home. (Granted, this is becoming more uncommon, sadly.)

Sorry, OLED has a much better picture than a silverscreen. Very sharp, very clear, 4k resolution, theatrical sound... if you get the full setup, you're actually gaining things that cinemas can't possibly replicate. Because the sound system is physically smaller, sound is sharper and more clear. Action movies are great in theaters because the speakers make it sound bigger, but I don't think good action movies are as frequent as they used to be. That market seems to be gobbled up by Disney. Christopher Nolan was grandfathered in. And James Cameron... well, that all depends on when Avatar 2 gets released.

(There's also the bigger issue of, well, Disney's quickening march to full blown monopoly.)

THAT'S something to talk about. Not only are they monopoly, but they're not really taking advantage of their power. They can get Beyonce to agree to a voiceover, and they choose to pump out remakes. They can get rights to localize Studio Ghibli films in America, but they won't do much to promote it, in fact that was the one thing they sold off. UGH.

I kind of hate it when you change the conversation like this. If you're talking about Hollywood itself, ok fine. But when you go onto just say that cinema overall is becoming stale and dying, I want to just throw a bunch of eggs at you. These are two fundamentally different conversations to have. If you want to complain about Hollywood, fine! Honestly? I'm not too far from your opinion on the matter of the Hollywood business model. But when you expand it to encompass cinema as a whole, where you're willfully turning a blind eye on an entire section of the industry that is not only thriving, but has been growing for years and years, you're asking for a fight.

I'm not talking about movies as a medium, I'm talking about Hollywood! As a result of everything together, it just feels like the collective hype is dead, you know what I mean? Remember The Dark Knight? THAT was hype. Incredible hype. Remember How to Train Your Dragon? The first one? HYPE. Anything from the Disney Renaissance was incredible hype, and their spirit lives on. But I'm not seeing that now. There is something lost nowadays, the filmmakers inspired by Steven Spielburg haven't gone on to create their E.Ts or Indiana Jones. That kind of filmmaking for the enjoyment and celebration of films doesn't feel complete anymore. I still feel the spirit of older movies, but over time those films are going to lose their spark, and something equivalent needs to fill the void. And Hollywood can't produce another Spirited Away, not just because they don't have the will to do so, but also because they don't have the style or talent.

The Joker was exciting. It felt like a Martin Scorsese all the way through. Though a darker example, I want that great movie-making spirit to go on... but I'm just not seeing that now.

3 Weeks ago
mariomguy
 

Regarding movie stars I believe Morgan Freeman, Jennifer Lawerence and Scarlette Johansen would be the equivalent to the movie stars of the last generation. JL being thrown into just about everything for a while there.


Then why does it feel like that's not the case? I grew up on Teen Titans. I haven't seen that anywhere else in the superhero sphere.

Have you seen Shazam or the 2 recent spiderman films? I think those come the closest to what I remember of Teen Titans.

Also Teen Titans got pretty dark and depressing with Ravens background and one of the characters being groomed/ implied to be raped by slade. (unless I am confusing the show and comics)

Superhero isn't even a genre at this point, it just seems to be expected. If you're going to the theaters to see a movie, chances are it's a superhero movie. Just mass consumption superhero movies that don't take any real risks. Mediocrity is in demand. I remembered how excited I was to see Spiderman 2, now THAT was an event! Either "events" like this aren't happening anymore, or they have become so commonplace and expected they've lost all meaning. Considering I still get that same excitement to watch something like Miyazaki or classic Disney, I don't think it's the latter. It's a problem with the movies themselves.


I disagree. The last two "Events" were Infinity War and End Game respectively.

An experience that "can" be had at home. I watched The Joker in 4K Blu-Ray on my Sony Atmos/LG OLED setup, and I was absolutely astonished. My first thought was this is just like being in a theater. But because it was my home... I didn't even have to leave. I can bring friends over, and we can watch movies.

no one I know has anything close to that. So again it comes down to dishing out money to try and emulate the theater experience vs just going to the theater. While I do have the money, I dont have the space or time to dedicate to a set up like that nor do I want to spend time at home any more than I need to.

Sorry, OLED has a much better picture than a silverscreen. Very sharp, very clear, 4k resolution, theatrical sound... if you get the full setup, you're actually gaining things that cinemas can't possibly replicate. Because the sound system is physically smaller, sound is sharper and more clear. Action movies are great in theaters because the speakers make it sound bigger, but I don't think good action movies are as frequent as they used to be. That market seems to be gobbled up by Disney. Christopher Nolan was grandfathered in. And James Cameron... well, that all depends on when Avatar 2 gets released.

Im not going to comment on the quality of OLED vs the Silverscreen but again it is all about investment. I dont watch enough movies to invest in something like that and no reason to upgrade now. (Realistically I watch the majority of my content on my laptop)

As for the action movies it is going to depend on the person there have been some pretty great ones in recent years that are not disney: John Wick, The Accountant, Fast and the Furious movies (granted I consider these to be action/adventure/ straight up fantasy at this point)

Remember The Dark Knight?

The last two avengers movies generated the same amount of hype imo. Even Black Panther had similar levels of Hype.

The Joker was exciting. It felt like a Martin Scorsese all the way through. Though a darker example, I want that great movie-making spirit to go on... but I'm just not seeing that now.


I saw the Joker in Spanish, and while I understood the structure even in Spanish, I thought it was mostly alright. I do plan to make a list of movies that I missed and will prob include the English version.

3 Weeks ago
S.O.H.
 

Have you seen Shazam or the 2 recent spiderman films? I think those come the closest to what I remember of Teen Titans.

I probably should... Captain Marvel was never my favorite. A kid who literally turns into Superman wearing a ring? It's kind of a dorky concept and character in Justice League... but if it's done well, yeah, that can be awesome. Last Spiderman movie I saw was into the Spiderverse.

Also Teen Titans got pretty dark and depressing with Ravens background and one of the characters being groomed/ implied to be raped by slade. (unless I am confusing the show and comics)

The show couldn't do or say anything sexually, but abuse (verbal, etc.) was implied from Trigon to Raven and Slade to Tara.

I disagree. The last two "Events" were Infinity War and End Game respectively.

And the crossovers were just barely better than the rest of the movies. It was a crossover, not a solid show. Maybe a huge event for fans, but not for everyone.

Im not going to comment on the quality of OLED vs the Silverscreen but again it is all about investment. I dont watch enough movies to invest in something like that and no reason to upgrade now. (Realistically I watch the majority of my content on my laptop)

If you watch TV at home and you have the money, an OLED is 3-4x the cost of a standard LCD. But the benefit is lower lag and an intensely clean, sharp, and perfect picture. The brightest white can sit right next to the darkest black. Sci-fi and animation looks unbelievably crisp. Colors are vibrant and beautiful. It's simply the greatest picture ever. I watch TV/movies/play games every day, so I made the investment for myself. But it's not necessary to spend that kind of money just to have a nice picture. Even the lowest of the low end from Samsung will get you a decent image.

As for a sound system, you're missing out if you don't have one. Even a crappy picture is more than made up with a good system. Soundbars really suck, but at least they have a subwoofer, so if you're really strapped for cash just get that. But when you do get a sound system, you can start at $500 for the system, speakers, and wire, and continue to upgrade with more speakers as you get more money. A fully decked out home theater can cost $3,000, but you don't have to throw everything down all at once. The equipment lasts a long time and it is modular, so if one speaker or one part goes bad, you just have to replace the individual part. And again, you don't need OLED nowadays for a decent picture. Got the sound system first, kind of one piece at a time, and then opened a Best Buy card to pay off the TV with 0% interest over 2 years. If it's something you want, there are ways to get it without spending a fortune. And once you have it, IT MAKES YOUR LIFE SO MUCH BETTER.

As for the action movies it is going to depend on the person there have been some pretty great ones in recent years that are not disney: John Wick, The Accountant, Fast and the Furious movies (granted I consider these to be action/adventure/ straight up fantasy at this point)

Haven't seen a fun action movie in a long while. Last good one I can think of is Casino Royale. I've seen Skyfall, but that wasn't as strong.

The last two avengers movies generated the same amount of hype imo. Even Black Panther had similar levels of Hype.

...Yeah, but it didn't live up. Disappointment drives the hype down.

I saw the Joker in Spanish, and while I understood the structure even in Spanish, I thought it was mostly alright. I do plan to make a list of movies that I missed and will prob include the English version.

IT WAS AMAZING... well, I thought so. Definitely watch some Scorsese like Goodfellas and Casino before seeing Joker. It was the first live action 4K movie I saw on my fully decked out system, and seeing it at home really felt like I was watching on like a personal cinema. The details in his face, the expressions throughout the movie, the sound... it was all just so glorious.

Maybe I am expecting the best from every movie, which is unrealistic. But I have this problem of imagining how good a film can be, and then constantly being disappointed.

3 Weeks ago
mariomguy
 

If you watch TV at home and you have the money, an OLED is 3-4x the cost of a standard LCD. But the benefit is lower lag and an intensely clean, sharp, and perfect picture. The brightest white can sit right next to the darkest black. Sci-fi and animation looks unbelievably crisp. Colors are vibrant and beautiful. It's simply the greatest picture ever. I watch TV/movies/play games every day, so I made the investment for myself. But it's not necessary to spend that kind of money just to have a nice picture. Even the lowest of the low end from Samsung will get you a decent image.

But when you do get a sound system, you can start at $500 for the system, speakers, and wire, and continue to upgrade with more speakers as you get more money. A fully decked out home theater can cost $3,000, but you don't have to throw everything down all at once. The equipment lasts a long time and it is modular, so if one speaker or one part goes bad, you just have to replace the individual part. And again, you don't need OLED nowadays for a decent picture. Got the sound system first, kind of one piece at a time, and then opened a Best Buy card to pay off the TV with 0% interest over 2 years. If it's something you want, there are ways to get it without spending a fortune. And once you have it, IT MAKES YOUR LIFE SO MUCH BETTER.

if you have the money

IF YOU HAVE THE MONEY

Here is the thing mariomguy. I have the money. I have the money for a lot of things. So much money I can dish out for a top of the line TV/ sound system/ a scalped PS5 a dam good chair and still have plenty left over to throw into my savings. But the average person does not. And lets be honest here the average person goes to see a movie a handful of times a year. All of that is an investment that is not needed for the average joe.

I dont watch enough movies where all of that is warranted. I get by just fine with my laptop and 40 inch samsung when ever I want to stream something on the television.

...Yeah, but it didn't live up. Disappointment drives the hype down.

That is subjective. Because the recent Avengers movies did live up to the hype for me. Ill give you black panther because I thought it was largely okay.

Maybe I am expecting the best from every movie, which is unrealistic. But I have this problem of imagining how good a film can be, and then constantly being disappointed.

I do my best to go in with no expectations. That has worked generally well.

3 Weeks ago
S.O.H.
 

I dont watch enough movies where all of that is warranted. I get by just fine with my laptop and 40 inch samsung when ever I want to stream something on the television.

After all that, what do you want me to say? Earbuds sound better than your TV speakers. If you are seriously strapped for cash, a soundbar should at least provide better bass with a subwoofer. Pretty much anything is better than just straight up low-end TV speakers. But human speech is so important, and until you get a proper sound system, you simply won't get the right power or direction in midrange for speech. Putting a speaker on the back of a flatscreen is not going to get a desirable sound whatsoever.

Here's what I factor in: each time I go to the movies, that's a minimum $30 so I can have a ticket, popcorn, and a drink, plus a decent meal nearby. If I see 2-3 movies a year, that's $60-$90 a year. And I have trouble hearing anything properly from the TV, so better sound for me is not optional, it's a requirement, or else I can't enjoy it. I made the sound system over time, it took a year to complete the setup. And the TV was also charged on 0% over 2 years. I haven't paid cable in 8 years, I'm 100% on streaming services and internet only. So altogether I've saved enough money cutting cable and restaurants to do more than just afford all this. Not gonna lie, it helps that I have a job that pays well, most people definitely do not. But if you can buy a PS5, you can spend $200 on a decent soundbar. Or if you're living with people who don't want to hear what's on TV, a pair of decent headphones with low latency.
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/sony-2-1-channel-320w-soundbar-system-with-wireless-subwoofer-black/6336505.p?skuId=6336505&ref=212&loc=1&extStoreId=1141&ref=212&loc=DWA&ds_rl=1260402&gclid=Cj0KCQjwgtWDBhDZARIsADEKwgNePXgqAzhNV4wvmQdFUahJ6ry9J27jTWbGCm9PieSQZdX0lfxrr24aAudhEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds
That is subjective. Because the recent Avengers movies did live up to the hype for me. Ill give you black panther because I thought it was largely okay.

I actually really liked Black Panther... but I didn't want to see it again afterwards. Thor Ragnarok was nice... but I didn't really want to see it again. Superhero movies are supposed to be fun and engaging, it's more like we're being dragged through the story, and the reward at the end isn't as satisfying or worth the hassle. Good at keeping my attention, not so good at inspiring me.

I do my best to go in with no expectations. That has worked generally well.

Wow. No, I can't do that. I imagine that's what we're supposed to do... but I almost always keep expecting something better. It's just obvious to me so many directors don't care about really controlling the story and only point cameras aimlessly and all the random footage gets stitched together in the editing booth in an attempt to make a cohesive story. Good movies need thought and care to pack a punch, scenes need reasons for existing, but so many directors replace actual story punches with explosions or endlessly long meaningless scenes. They just don't get it.

The horse head scene in The Godfather - Quite possibly the greatest cinematic scene of all time. You can't do it with a book. You can't do it with dialogue. Pictures alone will never do it justice. It can only be done in film. That is what film is capable of, but it's the kind of thing we almost never get.

3 Weeks ago
mariomguy
 

I'm honestly a bit torn on the "there are no movie stars" thing. I think when it comes to Hollywood, yeah, there's clearly a push to get people invested in the franchises themselves and not the stars, since presumably the cast will change over the years.

Exactly. If playing devil's advocate for a bit, I think Mackie is mentioning how stars often perform specific types of roles, so going to see a movie for that star, you'd usually know what to expect. That still kind of exists with Tony Stark, you'll get certain types. He's right there is something different, but I don't think that's it.

What I *do* think is more of a thing is the lack of director recognition. That's a bigger deal to me, personally. Disney has only recently started really letting their directors put their fingerprints on the franchises. (See: Black Panther; Guardians of the Galaxy; Thor: Ragnarok.) To a degree, they did let Joss Whedon make his Avengers movie more or less (for better or worse).

You had me with recognition... then lost me with the examples. Ragnarok was still a "Marvel movie." They're all "Marvel movies." They all subscribe to the Marvel mindsuck algorithm to get you to pay attention and not really care for or remember a thing afterwards. Directors used to really have a lot more say on the final aspects of the film, that is more or less going away, especially with the way Marvel movies were handled.

But yeah, I don't think you would get something like a Steven Spielberg in the current Hollywood business model. And that, to me, is kind of a bummer. (I think there's a reason Marvel in particular likes to pick up indie directors who are really emerging onto the scene.)

If you look at Pixar movies, you will notice a certain slant and preferred style between the directors. Brad Bird is more playful and energetic (The Incredibles, Ratatouille), Andrew Stanton is more emotionally fluid (Finding Nemo, Wall-E), and Pete Doctor has intricate machinery and plots foiled by sympathetic moments (Monster's Inc, Up, Inside Out, Soul). But because "Pixar" is more collaborative, the essence of Pixar still carries through between one director and the next, so the individual directors don't stand out TOO much. But you'll still find scenes that are absolutely set a certain way because of what one director preferred over others. I think Pete Doctor said he always tries to recreate the scene of all the doors in the factory of Monster's Inc, and you can see that in Inside Out with the long term and forgotten memories. Or Brad Bird's chase scenes, both Dash's chase scene in The Incredibles and the chase for Gusteau's will in Ratatouille.

Indie movies lack the budget and polish. Diamonds are expensive. I recall Boyhood was interesting... And I do see indie films on Youtube that are interesting, but they still do things in a certain way to make them interesting without the need for a big budget or the best lighting or cameras. There are certain styles and things that they can't do because they don't have the budget. It's like comparing Fortnite (specifically the Spy season, chapter 2, season 2) to PUBG. Fortnite is actually a refined game made by a well-known studio, and it (was) a tightly wound pristine swiss watch. PUBG was kitbashed together by a small, inexperienced team, literally based off mods of other games. The presentation is nowhere near as clean.

But at the same time, it's not exactly like Hollywood has a *huge* history of making mostly profound and quality films. The whole thing started pretty much as a business gimmick in the first place. It's important to remember that the Citizen Kanes, the Lawrence of Arabias, the Psychos, the Jaws, and the Star Wars, were ultimately *the* cream of the crop from their day. It's not like most things in the 1960s were these David Lean epics. And lots of those movies don't actually hold up all that well today - they've just been called "some of the greatest films ever made" for like, 60 years so it's ingrained in us that they are.

Watch Citizen Kane today and tell me it does not deserve that title. Watch Singin' in The Rain and tell me it is not the greatest musical you've ever seen. Some films do still hold up today. Some are remembered so much for their impact at the time, but don't really hold up (I'm scared to name names, but can I say The Ten Commandments is kind of really boring to watch?). And yeah, many do fall by the wayside and are forgotten.

So, when I'm talking about how amazing TV comedy was in the 1950's, I'm not talking about the Beverly Hillbillies. I'm talking about I Love Lucy. When I say movies in the 90s were better, I'm not talking about Billy Madison. I'm talking about Liar Liar.

3 Weeks ago
mariomguy
 

After all that, what do you want me to say

you dont have to say anything? Just acknowledge that what works for you doesnt work for everyone else? Are you incapable of that or something?

But if you can buy a PS5, you can spend $200 on a decent soundbar.

again why would I do that when I pointed out that I am doing just fine with my current setup? :

"I dont watch enough movies where all of that is warranted. I get by just fine with my laptop and 40 inch samsung when ever I want to stream something on the television." -S.O.H.

You also have to understand that while you and I can dish out plenty of money to invest in a set up like that, we are both in different chapters of our lives. I would imagine you are just fine where you are, which is great for you. But, A set up like that wont work for me because I want to spend the next few years of my life abroad/ traveling. So hopping in and out of theaters + laptop is also much more convenient for me vs having to lug around all those items abroad/ having to pay additional money to store them somewhere.

not so good at inspiring me.

Did the Dark Knight inspire you?

3 Weeks ago
S.O.H.
 

you dont have to say anything? Just acknowledge that what works for you doesnt work for everyone else? Are you incapable of that or something?

Yes. You're saying the crappy TV speakers, which are too thin and underpowered to drive and face the wall, work good enough for you when that's physically impossible. Even my mother shut up about how expensive the sound system was the instant I played her favorite music on it. You literally can't understand what people are saying through crappy speakers and bad positioning. Unfortunately, that's the definition of flatscreen speakers. As soon as you get off of that you will be getting something much better. Like the ability to understand what people are saying. But I implore everyone, before buying anything else, try and make an attempt for a decent sound system. $1,000 will get you a brand new 5.1 Sony setup. $1,270 for Atmos. And you don't have to spend that kind of money all at once. You can start with the base system and a couple good speakers for decent stereo sound, then keep adding speakers over time. You're saying you don't need it, but until you get it you won't realize just how much you've been missing. It makes you want to rewatch and replay everything you've ever done.

You also have to understand that while you and I can dish out plenty of money to invest in a set up like that, we are both in different chapters of our lives. I would imagine you are just fine where you are, which is great for you. But, A set up like that wont work for me because I want to spend the next few years of my life abroad/ traveling. So hopping in and out of theaters + laptop is also much more convenient for me vs having to lug around all those items abroad/ having to pay additional money to store them somewhere.

OK. You can spend $150 on decent headphones, like the ATX-M50X. Or for good earbuds, the Skullcandy Indy ANC. Or hell, a couple solid Bluetooth speakers that can sync up will be more than enough for a traveling station. Or stationary PC speakers, like the Logitech THX Z625. You don't need to go highest of the high end just to enjoy really nice good quality sound. People often neglect this and it drives me nuts. Just a little bit of money towards audio goes a very long way.

Did the Dark Knight inspire you?

No... but it was at least more inspiring/inspired than a lot of superhero movies I'm seeing today.

3 Weeks ago
mariomguy
 

Yes. You're saying the crappy TV speakers, which are too thin and underpowered to drive and face the wall, work good enough for you when that's physically impossible. Even my mother shut up about how expensive the sound system was the instant I played her favorite music on it. You literally can't understand what people are saying through crappy speakers and bad positioning. Unfortunately, that's the definition of flatscreen speakers. As soon as you get off of that you will be getting something much better. Like the ability to understand what people are saying. But I implore everyone, before buying anything else, try and make an attempt for a decent sound system. $1,000 will get you a brand new 5.1 Sony setup. $1,270 for Atmos. And you don't have to spend that kind of money all at once. You can start with the base system and a couple good speakers for decent stereo sound, then keep adding speakers over time. You're saying you don't need it, but until you get it you won't realize just how much you've been missing. It makes you want to rewatch and replay everything you've ever done.

Are you hard of hearing? Have you tried hearing aids? If you have trouble hearing what they are saying you should go to the doctor because I understand what they are saying just fine.

And you don't have to spend that kind of money all at once

I dont have to spend that type of money at all because my current set up works well for me. (I would imagine it works well enough for the majority of Americans) If you have trouble hearing see a doctor.

OK. You can spend $150 on decent headphones, like the ATX-M50X. Or for good earbuds, the Skullcandy Indy ANC. Or hell, a couple solid Bluetooth speakers that can sync up will be more than enough for a traveling station. Or stationary PC speakers, like the Logitech THX Z625. You don't need to go highest of the high end just to enjoy really nice good quality sound. People often neglect this and it drives me nuts. Just a little bit of money towards audio goes a very long way.

I can spend $150 but there is no point to that as my current headphones/ear phones do the job just fine.

3 Weeks ago
S.O.H.
 

Are you hard of hearing? Have you tried hearing aids? If you have trouble hearing what they are saying you should go to the doctor because I understand what they are saying just fine.

Yes, I do. But it's still a problem. The hearing aids can't magically fill in what's not there. You need sound across all frequencies to actually pick up and understand human speech. Flatscreen speakers are very tinny because without the right magnets or the right amount of power driving them, and with the walls distorting the sound, everything comes out fuzzy and almost metallic. Just talk with someone in your living room, and compare that to a news broadcast. The sound from your TV is never going to be natural. Over time you might get used to it, and learn to identify speech patterns and live around it, your brain will fill in the blanks itself. But you're going to mess up words without realizing it.

TV speakers are NEVER appropriate for anyone, full stop. Seriously, some cheap earbuds are better than TV speakers. Anything you do, absolutely anything you do is going to be superior.

I dont have to spend that type of money at all because my current set up works well for me. (I would imagine it works well enough for the majority of Americans) If you have trouble hearing see a doctor.

And I bet people who say they hate steak have only ever eaten well done rubber. Not only are you missing out, but you can't even comprehend what you're missing.

I can spend $150 but there is no point to that as my current headphones/ear phones do the job just fine.

What models are they? Price? I've listened to free crappy earbuds, normal cheap buds, and Skullcandy Indy ANC, which I'd consider midrange. I've listened to garbage headphones, cheap headsets, studio monitors, gaming headsets, and audiophile Sennheisers (not mine). I can tell you what you're missing and if you got your money's worth. Best bang for the buck in headphones usually comes around $100-$170. Anything cheaper and you're cutting out essentials. Anything more expensive, and you have to dump serious money for incremental improvements. And there are ways to drive better sound out of cheaper sets. Good sound makes a huge difference, trust me.

3 Weeks ago
mariomguy
 

TV speakers are NEVER appropriate for anyone, full stop.

never had issues with them. If you are hard of hearing than that is a you problem not a problem for the rest of us.

And I bet people who say they hate steak have only ever eaten well done rubber. Not only are you missing out, but you can't even comprehend what you're missing.

unless you are eating Kobe Steak you have no idea what you are missing. The average American prob can’t even afford a decent steak.

What models are they? Price?

Gen 2 dr. Dre headphone beats (I don’t use these as often they were a gift)

Gen 2 air pods ($90)

wired IPhone earphones (free)

3 Weeks ago
S.O.H.
 

Then why does it feel like that's not the case? I grew up on Teen Titans. I haven't seen that anywhere else in the superhero sphere.


I mean, it doesn't? There are certain directors that clearly skew that way (Snyder; Nolan). But like, I can't say that outside of them and the early '10s when Warner Bros was banking on them to establish their universe and there was also the rise of the YA franchise attempts that it's ever felt like the Hollywood landscape has skewed more "dark, gritty, and depressing." But I mean, outside of maybe 3 or 4 of them, I think words just don't have meaning if we're going to act like most Marvel movies are that...

Also, can you stop moving the goal posts here? You're jumping around with what you're complaining about now. What appears on television isn't really applicable to your complaints about Hollywood. But not for nothing, I'd argue that most Disney movies of the past decade are a lot more tonally similar to Teen Titans.

Perhaps this is very much a local issue... But even before the pandemic I was seeing the numbers decrease.


Ok, so why are you using what you see locally to make grand statements about the state of cinema and Hollywood as a whole? Numbers might drop for individual theaters, sure. Just like some Dick's Sporting Goods sales might drop if a Walmart opens up nearby.

Theater chain wars are a different subject matter to arguments over quality of movies being released.

The 90s were just awesome.


Not really. But there was an economic boom in the '90s overall that contributed in part to a momentary increase in movie-going. But to act like the '90s also somehow was this gigantic boom in overall quality - the likes of which we'd never seen and haven't seen since - is purely nostalgia-driven. You have to gloss over a *looooot* of bad movies from the '90s to act like the great stuff from the decade were *that* much better and that much more numerous than we've seen in the past couple decades. Have you seen the list of highest grossing movies of the '90s? We really going to pretend like Armageddon, The Lost World, the Sixth Sense, Forrest Gump, or Independence Day are genuinely great films? (This isn't to say they're bad, but I mean, really? They're all time great films? And not for nothing, it too contains primarily sequels, franchises, or genre films.)

Superhero isn't even a genre at this point, it just seems to be expected. If you're going to the theaters to see a movie, chances are it's a superhero movie.


If people are only going to the movies a few times a year, perhaps. But I mean, there are usually what, 4 maybe 5 superhero movies a year (likely going to decrease now that Disney owns Fox)? So if you go more than a couple times a year, odds are some of the movies you are going to aren't going to be superhero franchises.


Either "events" like this aren't happening anymore, or they have become so commonplace and expected they've lost all meaning.


Ok, well, now you're doing that thing where you're saying "Well *I* don't care, therefore it's not an event anymore!" But like, what are you even talking about? The hype for End Game was huge. Black Panther was literally a cultural moment. You really going to sit there and pretend like Black Panther was less of an event than Spider-Man 2 was? Gimme a break.

Considering I still get that same excitement to watch something like Miyazaki or classic Disney, I don't think it's the latter. It's a problem with the movies themselves.


me me me me me me me...

But not for nothing, you do understand you're not the only person who exists, right? *Clearly* a lot of people still get that excited to watch the next Marvel movie. I don't personally get super stoked for all of them, but I'm more excited for the next Thor movie than I've been for most Hollywood movies in a while.

The Ten Commandments and similar Hollywood epics are barely watchable nowadays.


This is literally you using modern standards to pass judgment on older films that were using older trends and styles. And there definitely are pacing issues with Singin' in the Rain. It's just a good enough movie in almost every department that those pacing issues don't really matter. That's another movie though that if we're judging it by today's standards, the acting is pretty bad by comparison. (And highlights why we shouldn't just say something is bad because it's older and using different styles.)


So, the death knell to movies is just a myth? It will always fluctuate, and something will always bring people back?


Not saying it's a "myth" per se. Just because something isn't reeeeally a problem now doesn't mean it will never be a problem. But what I am saying is people have been saying this for decades. And ticket sales remain strong overall with tons of people still preferring to go out to the movies at least a few times a year rather than only watching things at home.

But I mean, you're using all this opinion simply because you don't personally like much of what's coming out to prematurely declare the industry and artform dead. I've pointed out that the numbers don't actually back that argument. It's fine to say you care less and less about what Hollywood is producing. But you're factually, objectively, provably wrong when you use that to then make sweeping statements about "no one goes to the movies" or "no one cares anymore" or these things aren't events anymore.

An experience that "can" be had at home.


Watching movies can be an experience you have at home. But you can't have the experience of going out to the movies. You're never going to have the experience of sitting in a theater and hearing audience reactions around you at home. You're never going to experience a big blockbuster on a 30 foot screen at home. Most people are not going to experience top notch 5.1 (or 7.1) surround sound at home. And I mean, yeah, I got a cheap sound bar for 5.1 surround, and it's better than my TV speakers no doubt. But you're deluding yourself if you think that's going to be anywhere near as good as theatrical surround. And, ya know, not for nothing, but nothing beats theater popcorn. I've eaten a *lot* of popcorn in my life, and nothing I've ever had from the grocery store matches what I've had at movie theaters.

But you're also missing my point. A lot of people like going out to the theater because they like going out. My point is that a lot of people don't *only* go to a theater because that's the only way to watch a movie when they release. A lot of people - not you, obviously - but a lot of people *like to go out.* By definition, you can't have that experience at home. I hope I don't have to elaborate on why that is the case...

Sorry, OLED has a much better picture than a silverscreen.


Strong disagreement here, but this is primarily a preference thing. A television screen does not work the same way as a projector lighting the screen with a xenon bulb. I obviously enjoy watching movies at home, clearly. And my TV looks pretty great! But it also looks noticeably different than a projected image. I've seen Lawrence of Arabia 4k on a TV, and I've seen Lawrence of Arabia 4k on a big screen. If you make me pick which I would prefer to watch it on, I'm going to take the theater ever single time.

And again, as someone who likes the aesthetic of 35mm prints, you *literally* can't get that any other way than on a silver screen. There are still people who like the look of that (especially for films that were shot on 35mm), and you can't get that anywhere else. There will *always* be a market for films on a big screen.

Also that OLED? GTFO of here with your thousand dollar television. You really think *that* is more accessible than a movie theater? God. It's almost impressive how often you manage to work in your classism in all these threads.

but I don't think good action movies are as frequent as they used to be.


This I can agree with completely. I *hate* the way they stage and frame action movies these days. There are obviously some exceptions - John Wick; Mad Max: Fury Road among a few others - but my god. The Bourne Identity almost single handedly destroyed the Hollywood action movie.

They can get rights to localize Studio Ghibli films in America, but they won't do much to promote it, in fact that was the one thing they sold off. UGH.


This is good, actually! GKids has done a substantially better job at acquiring and distributing international animated films than Disney ever even cared to pretend to do. I'll take GKids having the rights over Disney *any* day. Disney is obviously the bigger name, but if John Lasseter didn't care for the movie, they'd only ever promote it to DVD at best. GKids gets theatrical runs not just for the Miyazaki films, but a whole slew of international animated films, including Tom Moore's work. If you're going to complain about Disney being a monopoly, you should be able to acknowledge that we *don't* want Disney to own everything. We *especially* don't want Disney to be the arbiter of what international animated films get distribution, because they won't push things that they don't think they can sell. GKids is more mission oriented, and much more diverse than Disney ever could pretend to be.

As a result of everything together, it just feels like the collective hype is dead, you know what I mean? Remember The Dark Knight? THAT was hype. Incredible hype. Remember How to Train Your Dragon? The first one? HYPE.


This is, and I can't stress this enough, ONLY because YOU don't personally care. Do I remember the hype around the Dark Knight? Yeah, sure. Was it more hype than for Black Panther? Not really (at least, not because of the movie - there was a lot because of Ledger's untimely death). Do I remember the hype for How to Train Your Dragon? I guess? I mean, it was a kids' movie that got like Happy Meal deals like every other kids' movie. Am I supposed to think the hype for How To Train Your Dragon was discernibly greater than the hype for Coco?

But I'm not seeing that now.


Yeah no shit. Because you don't care and you are stuck in the '90s.

And Hollywood can't produce another Spirited Away,


Not for nothing, but Hollywood *didn't* produce Spirited Away in the first place. You understand that, right?

The Joker was exciting. It felt like a Martin Scorsese all the way through.


See, we've argued about this a little before in the past, but this was almost exactly why I *didn't* like Joker that much. It's fine, and I appreciate that they let Todd Phillips make mostly the movie he wanted to make. But it felt soooo derivative of Scorsese that I was wondering why I didn't just spend my time watching Scorsese instead.

I'm also not sure that this is a great example to make your case. How can you complain about the lack of originality in Hollywood and then sight a movie that is *incredibly* derivative of older movies? There's not an original idea present in Joker. It's not a bastion of originality in it. (That doesn't make it good or bad. But like, you're praising it like the best movie to come from Hollywood in years when it brings literally nothing new to the table cinematically.)

3 Weeks ago
Jet Presto
 

unless you are eating Kobe Steak you have no idea what you are missing. The average American prob can’t even afford a decent steak.

A 1 lb steak costs $10. Salt and pepper on the barbeque, cooked to medium, paired with some sweet potatoes and butter, and cooked vegetables of choice with olive oil, garlic, and parseley, and you've got a gourmet meal at home with heaping portions for a far lower price than what a crappy meal would cost at a restaurant.

Everyone should be able to enjoy a good properly-prepared steak not just once, but several times a year.

Gen 2 dr. Dre headphone beats (I don’t use these as often they were a gift)

Dr. Dre Beats headphones, especially the early gens, were known for heavily distorting the sound and were quite bass heavy. If you like listening to bass-heavy hip hop exclusively, OK... but you can get much clearer, more neutral sound out of a $70 pair of ATH-M30X (what I use), though I hear people swear by the $150 50x. Or if you really like hip hop and bluetooth, RadioShack's NCredible headphones (even 1st gens) are pretty good. Sounds great for hip hop, but also useful for a wider range of music. When I worked there, we used to let people try them on and advertised them as sounding better than Beats.

Gen 2 air pods ($90)

...Airpods, as well as all Apple products across the board, are known for being dramatically overpriced. The feature set works great within Apple's ecosystem, but the same price can get you much better sound quality. I haven't heard them myself, but it seems they are a step up from standard earbuds, but a step below everything else. You'll get clearer vocals and stronger sound from most Airpod alternatives, and I recently purchased the Skullcandy Indy ANC. The sound is good overall, but the bass is very prominent. They are quite feature heavy, with options for personal sound (excellent quality), noise cancelling (pretty good, not the best), or ambient mode (so-so). For the same price you're getting more than the Airpods, but they won't be as easy to use.

wired IPhone earphones (free)

These are really freakin' cheap. I got the iPod Nanos and Touch back in the day, the included headphones were absolutely bottom of the barrel. Can't make out voices, tinny sound, bass is nonexistent. It's actually hard to find something worse. Best cheap wired buds I can recommend are the old Samsung Galaxy wired headphones. For $10 you can actually get some nice sound, a microphone, inline controls, better fit/comfort in your ears, all in a quality style befitting Apple.

3 Weeks ago
mariomguy
 

Dr. Dre Beats headphones, especially the early gens, were known for heavily distorting the sound and were quite bass heavy. If you like listening to bass-heavy hip hop exclusively, OK... but you can get much clearer, more neutral sound out of a $70 pair of ATH-M30X (what I use), though I hear people swear by the $150 50x. Or if you really like hip hop and bluetooth, RadioShack's NCredible headphones (even 1st gens) are pretty good. Sounds great for hip hop, but also useful for a wider range of music. When I worked there, we used to let people try them on and advertised them as sounding better than Beats.

I could get that but the ones I have work just fine. Granted I dont use them as I am not a fan of that over the head design.

...Airpods, as well as all Apple products across the board, are known for being dramatically overpriced. The feature set works great within Apple's ecosystem, but the same price can get you much better sound quality. I haven't heard them myself, but it seems they are a step up from standard earbuds, but a step below everything else. You'll get clearer vocals and stronger sound from most Airpod alternatives, and I recently purchased the Skullcandy Indy ANC. The sound is good overall, but the bass is very prominent. They are quite feature heavy, with options for personal sound (excellent quality), noise cancelling (pretty good, not the best), or ambient mode (so-so). For the same price you're getting more than the Airpods, but they won't be as easy to use.

The feature set works great within Apple's ecosystem

Yes that is the point. I am using these exclusively for the apple eco system and nothing else. So why should I upgrade to anything else that wont work as well with the ecosystem? I have tried other similarly priced blue tooth earphones. They just dont compare at all imo.

These are really freakin' cheap. I got the iPod Nanos and Touch back in the day, the included headphones were absolutely bottom of the barrel. Can't make out voices, tinny sound, bass is nonexistent. It's actually hard to find something worse. Best cheap wired buds I can recommend are the old Samsung Galaxy wired headphones. For $10 you can actually get some nice sound, a microphone, inline controls, better fit/comfort in your ears, all in a quality style befitting Apple.

you do realize that there have been improvements since the iPod nano and launch Touch era right? Not only do these no longer use the standard audio jack, but they include a microphone, inline controls, and fit just fine in my ears. Sound wise they are better than anything Ive used in the past $10-$30 wise.

Again I have no need to upgrade as everything I have works just fine. I am not hearing impaired so I am not missing out on anything.

Everyone should be able to enjoy a good properly-prepared steak not just once, but several times a year.

Just because they should doesnt mean they can. Everyone who needs insulin should be able to afford it. Doesnt mean they can.

3 Weeks ago
S.O.H.
 

...Yeah, but it didn't live up. Disappointment drives the hype down.


For YOU. The film *clearly* resonated with *a ton* of people.

A fully decked out home theater can cost $3,000, but you don't have to throw everything down all at once.


You're such a classist elitist that I don't expect you to understand this, but...you understand that a *lot* of people will not really be able to afford this, or even a cheaper surround sound system. And might not even have the room for gigantic televisions and speakers spread out, right? And that cinemas offer a convenient one-time cost of admission to experience all that without having to take out new credit cards or "invest." If you're talking about home theaters as an investment, that should tell you all you need to know about why cinemas will continue to survive for a while.

I actually really liked Black Panther... but I didn't want to see it again afterwards. Thor Ragnarok was nice... but I didn't really want to see it again. Superhero movies are supposed to be fun and engaging, it's more like we're being dragged through the story,


I know that this is a long shot and you'll never admit it, but can you acknowledge just once in your life that everything you're saying right now is 10000% subjective?

As for superhero movies, I don't agree at all that they're *supposed* to inspire us. They're character pieces primarily. The plot of the movie matters less than the characters themselves. The best superhero movies have solid character arcs, not compelling central stories in and of themselves. (Though they're not mutually exclusive - I'll go on record as apparently the only one here who thought Black Panther was a very compelling story with an interesting and inspiring character arc. The action falls apart at the end, but the story didn't.)


I think Mackie is mentioning how stars often perform specific types of roles, so going to see a movie for that star, you'd usually know what to expect.


I don't think that's what Mackie is saying at all. But also, if that's what we want, then that's actively just as bad. I don't want to pigeon-hole actors into one genre of film any more than I want to pigeon-hole them into playing the same superhero for 20 years. (And I mean, you also never *really* know what to expect when a particular movie star is in a film. Unless we genuinely want to argue that every Arnold movie is good, or every Tom Cruise movie is good, or that every Tom Hanks movie is good.)

You had me with recognition... then lost me with the examples. Ragnarok was still a "Marvel movie." They're all "Marvel movies."


Well yeah, because you have to actually know a thing or two about film. Ragnarok was not just like every other Marvel movie. It had Taika Waititi's fingerprints all over it. Like yes, it still "fits the brand," but it had a very different structure and feel than, say, James Gunn's Guardians or Ryan Coogler's Black Panther. Ragnarok didn't even feel like either of the previous Thor movies. Because they let Waititi inject some of his filmmaking philosophy to the mix. Which resulted in a movie that felt a lot looser, with actors appearing a lot more free.

I mean, yeah, I don't expect any director for Marvel to make something *completely* their vision because it still needs to fit the brand, but like, Ragnarok was funnier, looser, and deeper than pretty much most Marvel movies explicitly *because* Waititi was involved and got a lot of say. I mean whose idea do you think it was to make it inspired by Flash Gordon?

But because "Pixar" is more collaborative, the essence of Pixar still carries through between one director and the next, so the individual directors don't stand out TOO much. But you'll still find scenes that are absolutely set a certain way because of what one director preferred over others.


I would argue that of late, Marvel movies have become a lot easier to tell who is directing which movie than Pixar, to be honest.

Indie movies lack the budget and polish.


Indie movies have an incredible amount of polish. Don't mistake fancy graphics on limited budgets with "polish." Don't talk about movies like they're video games. I've seen movies with $500,000 budgets that have every bit the "polish" of a movie with a $50 million budget. Because film is a medium in which "polish" means well-considered and not "pretty graphics."

The presentation is nowhere near as clean.


You're conflating what makes a good game with what makes a good movie. What exactly makes something like Parasite or Moonlight or Minari not "polished"?

Watch Citizen Kane today and tell me it does not deserve that title.


How did you write two paragraphs in response and not only ignore my point, but also just wind up literally saying virtually nothing that counters it?

My point was *not* that Citizen Kane or Singin' in the Rain don't deserve to be considered some of the best American movies ever made (they are among them!) It's that you have to remember that they are not themselves emblematic of the overall quality of *most other movies.*

You listen to an album and there's one song you really like on it, that is really great, and you play it a whole bunch. You talk to everyone else about it. And it is a great song! Now, does that tell me anything about the quality of the whole album?

So, when I'm talking about how amazing TV comedy was in the 1950's, I'm not talking about the Beverly Hillbillies. I'm talking about I Love Lucy. When I say movies in the 90s were better, I'm not talking about Billy Madison. I'm talking about Liar Liar.


To repeat, since you didn't seem to take it in: you have to gloss over a looooooot of crap and only look at the good to make these kinds of statements. (And if Liar Liar is your example of movies being better in the '90s, well, I mean...that's actually pretty informative, to be honest.)

$1,000 will get you a brand new 5.1 Sony setup.


I mean, if you're looking to get rid of $1,000 that you just have lying around, I hope that you can take pity on a poor, wretched soul like me and donate to a great cause of improving my home entertainment system. I know I'm just a dumb working class person struggling to make ends meet because of all that personal responsibility (and medical insurance costs), but gee, mister, I ain't never seen $1,000 at one time before! Golly, why, if I didn't have these darned heating bills from a cold winter, I could see what it's like on the upper deck!

3 Weeks ago
Jet Presto
 

never had issues with them. If you are hard of hearing than that is a you problem not a problem for the rest of us.


Gonna go over his head.

3 Weeks ago
Jet Presto
 

If you are hard of hearing then get hearing aides.

3 Weeks ago
Q
 

I could get that but the ones I have work just fine. Granted I dont use them as I am not a fan of that over the head design.

Some over-ears are genuinely comfortable. Dr. Dre's Beats are notoriously... NOT. They have a stiff metal bar and tough earpads, and they're extremely uncomfortable to wear even for one minute. But Audio Technica's are lightweight, I forget I'm wearing them even after hours of use. A lot of the things you think are problems are more problems with the Beats design. Of all headphones in existence... Beats are probably the worst value.

I have a $50 behringer USB sound mixer plugged into $70 headphones, and they sound great. British EQ over studio monitors? Every time I try to look for something better to get rid of the mixer, it's always WAY more expensive, or they have lag issues, or something else completely turns me off. Some reviewers said same headphones for double the price do sound better, but not that much. Good headphones don't need to be expensive to sound good. I just wish people did the research beforehand so they know what they're getting. I also wish that research was easier :(

Yes that is the point. I am using these exclusively for the apple eco system and nothing else. So why should I upgrade to anything else that wont work as well with the ecosystem? I have tried other similarly priced blue tooth earphones. They just dont compare at all imo.

Skullcandy's Indy ANC just released a few weeks ago. You take a hearing test, and they automatically set an EQ unique to your hearing. If your computer fans make annoying noise, you can turn on noise cancelling. Or with ambient mode you can let more sound come in, say, to hear your name called at a doctor's office. It feels like you're not wearing earbuds at all and the music is just coming in from the room... though from personal experience, you don't want ambient mode around PC fans. Skullcandy also has this unique head-rattling sensation for bass, making the bass feel way stronger and more prominent than it really is. I was shocked at the sound I was getting from these tiny earbuds. Airpods can't do this, any of it. In fact, most earbuds/headphones in general really don't. So if you want earbuds that feel like they can do anything, try the Indy ANC.

Where Apple may integrate the earbuds directly in your UI, you might need to open the Skullcandy app to see charge levels and control features. This is a really, REALLY minor drawback compared to what you're getting. Most reviewers ditched their airpods for this because they were absolutely shocked by the quality and value. Just letting you know there are much, MUCH better options for the same price or even cheaper. I got my Skullcandies for $130. The $200 price tag of airpods are simply not justified.

you do realize that there have been improvements since the iPod nano and launch Touch era right? Not only do these no longer use the standard audio jack, but they include a microphone, inline controls, and fit just fine in my ears. Sound wise they are better than anything Ive used in the past $10-$30 wise.

I hope so. Because seriously, I only wore one pair of earbuds in my life that was worse than the Apple ones, and it was a bulk order of crappy earbuds with our company logo we were giving away for free at an event. For a lot of people, the improved sets might be more than enough.

Gonna go over his head.

Yeah, seems so.

3 Weeks ago
mariomguy
 

If you are hard of hearing then get hearing aides.

Don't you love it when people chime in on a conversation they know absolutely nothing about?

3 Weeks ago
mariomguy
 

Don't you love it when people chime in on a conversation they know absolutely nothing about?


lol @ the layers of Irony right here.

3 Weeks ago
Q
 

ITT: mariomguy dons the '90s rose-tints and is shocked when told his take is indeed hot.

Film, like music, is in good health; if you avoid the stagnant pool where the low-hanging fruit has dropped, and certainly the main-est of streams in the form of English-speaking Hollywood (five questionably executed metaphors in nearly half as many sentences, wew lad). I'm not going to cross-examine you simply because "i dont like thing" though.

Using Marvel (or indeed anything Disney) as a barometer for the vibrancy of all film is a rather parochial way of viewing things, to say the least.

Best decision on my part with regard to film was to buy a lifetime membership to the Prince Charles Cinema in London, an (admittedly very visible) independent theatre. I can't pretend there isn't an expense to visiting (the discount helps), but the cinema should be a night out and a privilege. Supporting an independent institution that is clearly passionate about the films it shows remains the more wholesome act over frequenting the anonymous chain - I'm a sucker for the optics, Brits love an underdog etc., etc. In the end, I can't watch 35mm at home, and the bookings are always filled to the rafters when I've gone, so clearly something's working.

3 Weeks ago
Arch
 

For YOU. The film *clearly* resonated with *a ton* of people.

Hm. By that logic baggy pants are fashionable because they were incredibly popular at one point.

You're such a classist elitist that I don't expect you to understand this, but...you understand that a *lot* of people will not really be able to afford this, or even a cheaper surround sound system.

People can't afford a $200 surround sound system? Really? Considering people in this thread shelled out $200 for airpods and God knows how much, over $1,000 for an iPhone, I find that very hard to believe. A phone costs more than a fully decked out high-end 5.1 surround sound system (if Sony can be considered high end... it is VERY VERY VERY good). Cable costs more than that over 6-12 months.

I know that this is a long shot and you'll never admit it, but can you acknowledge just once in your life that everything you're saying right now is 10000% subjective?

You don't feel like modern shows are very good at captivating our attention, but with few really memorable scenes or setpieces in the story? I remember the fight with Spiderman and Doctor Octopus, but I can't remember a single Marvel fight besides Yondu's arrow taking down an entire crew in Guardians 2. There's gotta be something more than just "opinionated subjective nonsense" to this. I remembered a lot of fights and moments from Avatar the Last Airbender a lot better than any Marvel movie.

I don't think that's what Mackie is saying at all. But also, if that's what we want, then that's actively just as bad. I don't want to pigeon-hole actors into one genre of film any more than I want to pigeon-hole them into playing the same superhero for 20 years.

Yeah. Pigeon-holing isn't always good. Perhaps it's more of the hive-mind mentality that removes a lot of the individualistic personality that comes through film, like, say, from a Wes Anderson film. You know how Charlie Sheen acts, you know how Martin Sheen acts... I don't have much to add, here. I don't really think that's a problem.

Well yeah, because you have to actually know a thing or two about film. Ragnarok was not just like every other Marvel movie. It had Taika Waititi's fingerprints all over it. Like yes, it still "fits the brand," but it had a very different structure and feel than, say, James Gunn's Guardians or Ryan Coogler's Black Panther. Ragnarok didn't even feel like either of the previous Thor movies. Because they let Waititi inject some of his filmmaking philosophy to the mix. Which resulted in a movie that felt a lot looser, with actors appearing a lot more free.

For me, a lot more free would be improv. But you'll never see improv in a Marvel movie. There are bloopers that sometimes do make it in, but most of the time the film feels like stiff cardboard. Ragnarok is bendy cardboard. But it's still cardboard. It still tastes like "eh."

Indie movies have an incredible amount of polish. Don't mistake fancy graphics on limited budgets with "polish." Don't talk about movies like they're video games. I've seen movies with $500,000 budgets that have every bit the "polish" of a movie with a $50 million budget. Because film is a medium in which "polish" means well-considered and not "pretty graphics."

You can have polished cinematography, editing, writing, and acting for basically free. But without a good budget you're not going to get the best lighting, the best effects, the best sets... the story will be more constrained to what an indie filmmaker can actually accomplish. No dramatic helicopter shots, no on-location shooting, no fancy sets, no dramatic stunts or chase scenes, etc. Indie has a certain style based around limitations, and horror plays very well into it. So perhaps "polish" isn't the right word... there is a certain kind of "polish" that you do get with a bigger budget that indies simply can't achieve with lighting and locations. But more than that, indie epic is not a genre and never will be.

To repeat, since you didn't seem to take it in: you have to gloss over a looooooot of crap and only look at the good to make these kinds of statements. (And if Liar Liar is your example of movies being better in the '90s, well, I mean...that's actually pretty informative, to be honest.)

I was trying to think comparatively, stuck with comedy for some reason. I can't compare an Adam Sandler comedy to Beauty and The Beast. But to Jim Carrey in his heyday, maybe, yeah. Haven't seen When Harry Met Sally, but that seems to be a much better comedy than what we're used to seeing today.

Point is, yes, in every time frame in every genre 90% of everything is crap. Walk into a video store, 90% of everything is crap. This is a given. When people say Disney was so good in the 90s, they're not pointing to their direct-to-dvd sequels as examples. They're pointing to the renaissance films. Not even all the renaissance films, only the best of the best.

I mean, if you're looking to get rid of $1,000 that you just have lying around, I hope that you can take pity on a poor, wretched soul like me and donate to a great cause of improving my home entertainment system. I know I'm just a dumb working class person struggling to make ends meet because of all that personal responsibility (and medical insurance costs), but gee, mister, I ain't never seen $1,000 at one time before! Golly, why, if I didn't have these darned heating bills from a cold winter, I could see what it's like on the upper deck!

I don't get why you're acting like this. If you value decent sound, and you have the money to pay for it, why not? Anything sounds better than TV speakers. There are all-in-one surround sound kits for a few hundred that aren't that bad. But if you really do have a goal of owning a fully decked $1,000 system, where high end audio begins and you really start enjoying the benefits of professional-quality audio at home, there are ways to go about getting that without breaking the bank. Meanwhile, 16 million people purchased an iPhone X in its first quarter. Best selling phone cost more than the first workstation I purchased. How am I a snob for spending less money on a home theater system than most people spend on their smart phone or cable bill? I recuperated the costs by abandoning cable and keeping my phone for many years. I just make the effort to reject owning and dealing with low quality garbage. The end result is my stuff lasts longer and I'm enjoying it more.

If people can spend $500 on a game console and $500 on a TV, $1,000 on a cell phone, and $1,800 a year on cable, surely they can spend $200-$300 so doesn't sound awful. Or God forbid you spend $1,000 to really enjoy your life. If enjoying good music for far less than what most people in America spend on entertainment makes me a snob, then the definition of snob needs to change, not my definition of what is good.

3 Weeks ago
mariomguy
 

Using Marvel (or indeed anything Disney) as a barometer for the vibrancy of all film is a rather parochial way of viewing things, to say the least.

Marvel is the largest and most popular film series of all time. They released movies that break the box office in billions. Chances are a small theater will dedicate 2 or 3 of their 10 screens to the latest Marvel, which leaves less room for anyone else during that time. You can't ignore all this and say "well, indie movies are good, it's not a problem." The culture of the time in cinema is not going to be remembered as "Moonlight," it's going to be remembered as "Endgame."

Best decision on my part with regard to film was to buy a lifetime membership to the Prince Charles Cinema in London, an (admittedly very visible) independent theatre. I can't pretend there isn't an expense to visiting (the discount helps), but the cinema should be a night out and a privilege. Supporting an independent institution that is clearly passionate about the films it shows remains the more wholesome act over frequenting the anonymous chain - I'm a sucker for the optics, Brits love an underdog etc., etc. In the end, I can't watch 35mm at home, and the bookings are always filled to the rafters when I've gone, so clearly something's working.

...Not everyone does that, though. And I can't seriously pretend every indie film is good, either. What really gets me is Disney was famous for producing some of the most groundbreaking films ever, and now that they have all the money and power in the world, they're just playing it safe. Remakes, Marvel, paint-by-the-numbers. Underneath the crazy effects they played it very safe for a very long time with Marvel before even attempting to do something different. Not incredible, just different. It's not a good movie that everyone loves, it's just good enough for "mass consumption." A lot of movies nowadays are designed like that. This is specifically what I'm upset about. And if this is all crowds want, then I guess movie theaters will keep taking their money. But how sad is that?

Scorsese made his version of a superhero movie with Joker. It's more real, more vital, and more intense than anything I've ever seen or felt from Marvel or DC films ever. He quit the project before it released because he really didn't want to be responsible for what comes next: the movie where his fantastic character finally becomes the Joker and faces off Batman. We got to experience the rise of this great character during the buildup. There's nowhere left to go but down. Personally I'd like to see a Batman in that universe, and to close the "trilogy" I'd like to see a Batman Vs. Joker in that universe. It won't be as good...

3 Weeks ago
mariomguy
 

Hm. By that logic baggy pants are fashionable because they were incredibly popular at one point.

This has to be an all time great mariom quote. I truly cannot wrap my head around the way his mind works.

3 Weeks ago
The Bandit
 

People can't afford a $200 surround sound system? Really?

I stopped reading before posting because I didn't think the rest of his reply couldn't measure up to that first sentence, but the VERY NEXT SENTENCE is also pure gold. Jesus CHRIST dude.

3 Weeks ago
The Bandit
 

Best decision on my part with regard to film was to buy a lifetime membership to the Prince Charles Cinema in London


Dang, that sounds dope. I see Edgar Wright posting on his social media a lot about a bunch of theaters. Or, sorry, "theatres." Sounds like y'all have a bunch of great ones over there. I hope a lot of them make it. We recently lost the Pacific and ArcLight theaters in California, which suuuucks, but surprisingly most of the small theaters in my area are holding on. By the skin of their teeth (pandemic, not Hollywood).

3 Weeks ago
Jet Presto
 

Rather than these knee-jerk reactions, I'd really like to hear an explanation how people can afford a smartphone, cable, internet, TV, computers, games, consoles, electricity, and streaming subscriptions, but not decent sound. I'm definitely not the only one who complains about TV sound.

3 Weeks ago
mariomguy
 

I don't believe you. Why would you want anyone to explain anything to you? You're just going to ignore or deliberately misunderstand whatever anyone tells you anyway.

3 Weeks ago
The Bandit
 

You don't believe people can afford entertainment?

3 Weeks ago
mariomguy
 

Some over-ears are genuinely comfortable. Dr. Dre's Beats are notoriously... NOT. They have a stiff metal bar and tough earpads, and they're extremely uncomfortable to wear even for one minute. But Audio Technica's are lightweight, I forget I'm wearing them even after hours of use. A lot of the things you think are problems are more problems with the Beats design. Of all headphones in existence... Beats are probably the worst value.


I am 100% that the beats I have dont have a metal bar. They are fine comfort wise but I have extremely curly hair so I dont like things touching it.

So if you want earbuds that feel like they can do anything, try the Indy ANC.

anything but work well with the apple eco system that is important to me.

Where Apple may integrate the earbuds directly in your UI, you might need to open the Skullcandy app to see charge levels and control features. This is a really, REALLY minor drawback compared to what you're getting. Most reviewers ditched their airpods for this because they were absolutely shocked by the quality and value. Just letting you know there are much, MUCH better options for the same price or even cheaper. I got my Skullcandies for $130. The $200 price tag of airpods are simply not justified.

One my airpods were $90. two why would I pay an additional $130 for a product that cannot carry out the needs that I find important and is thus inferior in that regard?


Don't you love it when people chime in on a conversation they know absolutely nothing about?

actually we all know about this. we have been making fun of your "JUST WEAR GLASSES" comment from the BOTW thread.


People can't afford a $200 surround sound system? Really? Considering people in this thread shelled out $200 for airpods and God knows how much, over $1,000 for an iPhone, I find that very hard to believe. A phone costs more than a fully decked out high-end 5.1 surround sound system (if Sony can be considered high end... it is VERY VERY VERY good). Cable costs more than that over 6-12 months.


Full stop. Why are you putting words in my mouth? I am going to ask you this once. Are you Autistic or on the spectrum? There is nothing wrong if you are, but I have to know if I am going to interact with you on the site moving forward. Because I clearly outlined that I paid $90 for airpods. And I did not specify which model Iphone I have or use. The one I have is a new Iphone iteration yes but It does not cost anywhere near $1000.

And uh an Iphone is going to get far more use/ mileage than a surround sound system. And last I checked You can get some seriously good deals depending on providers/ an Iphone for free depending on said deals.

A phone is a every day item that is needed to survive in society at this point. We can argue all day whether it is financially sound for some one to plop money for one outright, BUT the reality is when it comes to Iphones, flag ship phones in general, there are payment programs, various deals you can take advantage of which bring down costs, Apple has a variety of Iphones ranging from 400 to 1000 depending on the need of the user. From my experience an Iphone will last you longer than your generic android phone. (especially when it comes to updates)

based on my experience you are better off buying an entry level Iphone than buying a entry level generic android phone. The former will be supported for years the latter will be supported maybe for a year or two and start slowing down to the point where it becomes unusable. (forcing you to buy another phone)

but I can't remember a single Marvel fight

that sounds like a you problem. I can remember several scenes from Marvel movies shoot some of them arent even fight scenes. I am literally moving to D.C. for a month for I can reenact the "On your Left" scene from The Winter Soldier every day that I am there.


Best selling phone cost more than the first workstation I purchased. How am I a snob for spending less money on a home theater system than most people spend on their smart phone or cable bill?

Again there are multiple ways to pay for a phone vs putting down $1000 up front. A lot of people trade in their phones to bring down the costs of a new phone. A lot of people buying Iphones have an existing Iphone to trade in. While there are some people who may buy a new phone up front, realistically I dont imagine that being the case for each Iphone purchase. To my knowledge you cant do that with a sound bar/ speakers.

And uh how much is your cable bill? Because we dont pay anywhere near $200 for cable lmao.

3 Weeks ago
S.O.H.
 

I've never owned surround-sound for these reasons:

  • Don't really use TVs much at all -- did back when I had current-gen consoles. These days gaming is PC or portable.

  • Those systems are definitely space-prohibitive -- setting them up is complex and involves either trailing wires or taping wires up on the ceiling.

  • 3 Weeks ago
    Riven
     

    My best friend IRL uses his TV constantly (for his PS4) and has never owned surround sound -- for him it's a general lack of utility, like his TV is loud enough, he doesn't have a good enough reason to shell out an extra 200$ (and a bunch of work) for surround sound.

    3 Weeks ago
    Riven
     

    Rather than these knee-jerk reactions, I'd really like to hear an explanation how people can afford a smartphone, cable, internet, TV, computers, games, consoles, electricity, and streaming subscriptions, but not decent sound. I'm definitely not the only one who complains about TV sound.

    People dont like wasting money on things they dont need? If the TV sound bothered me I would buy a sound bar/speaker set up. But guess what? It doesnt bother me. It hasnt bothered me for the last 27 years of my life with each TV I have owned. From CRT to LCDs. It is fine FOR ME.

    People dont have to dish out $200 for a sound bar just because you have hearing issues.

    some of the things you listed are a necessity in todays modern world others are a luxury. Computers, electricity, phone: Necessity.

    TV, games, consoles, subscriptions: luxury.

    We can argue whether a phone or computer is a luxury or necessity but it would be a pointless argument because I need a working phone/ computer to make ends meat.

    3 Weeks ago
    S.O.H.
     

    Here you go, 700-watt all-in-one surround sound system for $180, on sale for $160. The quality might not be the best, but hey, it's a lot better than TV speakers, and it's cheaper than most soundbars. Even if you don't plug in the rear speakers and just keep it as 3.1, it's still going to be better than the TV for sure.

    Who can't afford this?
    https://www.monoprice.com/product?p_id=10565&gclid=Cj0KCQjwpdqDBhCSARIsAEUJ0hNHNm8F8zIgkdRZj_ChubiHwCL9oDdvPixReYvCdxIgs4aF2tbqNEAaAq0jEALw_wcB

    3 Weeks ago
    mariomguy
     
    3 Weeks ago
    S.O.H.
     

    I'd really like to hear an explanation how people can afford a smartphone, cable, internet, TV, computers, games, consoles, electricity, and streaming subscriptions, but not decent sound.


    Lol after paying for all of those things, including rent, health insurance, car insurance and food how could people NOT have an extra $200 laying around to just spend on a sound system? Dang financially irresponsible idiots if you ask me!

    3 Weeks ago
    Q
     

    Rather than these knee-jerk reactions, I'd really like to hear an explanation how people can afford a smartphone, cable, internet, TV, computers, games, consoles, electricity, and streaming subscriptions, but not decent sound. I'm definitely not the only one who complains about TV sound.



    I mean, if you can afford all of those things and you have breathing room, yeah, sure. A $200 soundbar probably isn't out of your price range. But if you have to save for years to be able to drop $600 on a PS5? Or you've saved for years for your $1500 TV? That doesn't mean money is no issue to you, my dude.

    If you wanna give me money to improve my sound system, I'll gladly take it! But I'm not inclined to think you even have the capacity to fathom what it's like to not just have a ton of disposable income at any given time.

    3 Weeks ago
    Jet Presto
     

    Don't really use TVs much at all -- did back when I had current-gen consoles. These days gaming is PC or portable.

    I definitely take advantage of my system to listen to music, movies, shows, and play games. I can browse Youtube on my chromebook, cast to the TV (it kind of links the TV to open the Youtube app and go to the right video), control it from the chromebook, and listen through the system. I imagine this kind of thing would be possible from a laptop, too.

    Once you get a system, you will find more ways to use it. Play music for a party, have an awesome game night (like, video games), etc.

    Those systems are definitely space-prohibitive -- setting them up is complex and involves either trailing wires or taping wires up on the ceiling.

    That's not necessary. Most people buy stands for the rear speakers and run the wires along the wall, or under the couch. You can buy covers from Lowes or Home Depot that stick on the wall and hide wires. Also, the ceiling is not recommended at all for rear speakers. You want things to sound like they're coming behind you, not above. Ceiling speakers are used specifically for Dolby Atmos... most people definitely won't even touch that.

    My best friend IRL uses his TV constantly (for his PS4) and has never owned surround sound -- for him it's a general lack of utility, like his TV is loud enough, he doesn't have a good enough reason to shell out an extra 200$ (and a bunch of work) for surround sound.

    I challenge everyone who has a copy of Mario Kart Double Dash, seriously, to play it with their TV speakers, and try it with surround sound and good bass. Holy crap you feel like you're actually riding on a go-kart! It's a whole world of difference. Breath of the Wild with surround sound? Yeah, it's pretty sweet. Netflix's Our Planet? Stunning.

    Nowadays TVs do have virtual surround sound to improve the location using funky transforms, but it's just trying to make up for the fact that it's not the real thing. No television ever will have good bass, you'll be very lucky if it has decent midrange or highs. And because those speakers are behind, not in front, even if they do sound good it wouldn't matter. Sure, you can drive your car with a donut tire, but do you really want to? Anything is better.

    3 Weeks ago
    mariomguy
     

    Lol after paying for all of those things, including rent, health insurance, car insurance and food how could people NOT have an extra $200 laying around to just spend on a sound system? Dang financially irresponsible idiots if you ask me!

    The problem is you kind of need a TV, but you don't need speakers to hear it. Out of the box, you get something serviceable. And the masses get so used to "serviceable," they believe it's OK. It's OK to barely understand what people are saying, because, context clues, your brain will fill in, whatever, it's not necessary. It's OK to not feel the sound of explosions because, well, that's a thing you get at the movie theaters, not at home, and it doesn't add much, you don't need it. The tinny, whiny sound of TV speakers is OK because, well, because that's what came with the TV, and you can't change it without adding another box, and who cares about good sound. Come to think of it, I bet if CRTs were still being sold $100 cheaper than an LCD, you'd still see people dealing with CRTs just because it's cheaper. I know someone who still has incandescent lights all over his house. F'ing why?!

    People will slash their experience and deal with design flaws and make excuses their whole life to save $200, or $500, or $1,000 because that feels so much more frugal than doing the right thing in the long term to save $2,000 and actually spending that money to fix these issues and improve their life. Quality products used to be the norm before I was born, but nowadays you have to go out of your way to find them. Cheap stuff doesn't last and isn't good. I wish people here experienced their favorite game, movie whatever on a proper home theater system, at least something worth $500 and up. This is something that is going to live with me for decades, and I am loving every bit of it. Obviously helps that I have the money, but I still took advantage of paying over time so I don't have to feel the sting all at once. It's an option. You don't have to take it, but if you don't, you are missing out on everything you watch and play.
    https://www.bestbuy.com/site/yamaha-725w-4k-ultra-hd-5-1-channel-home-theater-system-with-bluetooth-black/6352589.p?skuId=6352589

    3 Weeks ago
    mariomguy
     

    The problem is you kind of need a TV


    You most definitely do not.

    3 Weeks ago
    Riven
     

    You most definitely do not.


    I agree. I bought a Switch because I didnt want to use a TV. Having a monitor + gaming rig also helps. (for those who dont have tvs)

    3 Weeks ago
    S.O.H.
     

    I mean, if you can afford all of those things and you have breathing room, yeah, sure. A $200 soundbar probably isn't out of your price range. But if you have to save for years to be able to drop $600 on a PS5? Or you've saved for years for your $1500 TV? That doesn't mean money is no issue to you, my dude.

    See, people who spend $1,500 on a TV and nothing on sound aren't really getting a $1,500 experience. I'd recommend those people get a $1,000 surround sound system and a $500 TV. Sure, the picture won't be as good, but it will be pretty darn good, and investing in that sound gets you an amazing experience that you were completely oblivious to before. With a proper sound system, you're going to want to go back and replay those games you beat and left behind, those movies you watched once and never again, because it gives you an experience you just didn't have your first time through.

    Seriously, go dig out Mario Kart: Double Dash, that version specifically, on the Gamecube. And play it on a good sound system with bass. The sound of the engine is the heart and soul of that game. They spent so much time on getting it to play right from your moves and sound good, and it is the loudest most persistent engine purr of any console Mario Kart ever... but few people have the kind of sound system to really appreciate it. So all that work went completely unnoticed, and Nintendo went in a different direction for the rest of the series, focusing more on the soundtrack, coin effects, and character voices. The engine purr was like, 3-4x louder in Double Dash. If you turn your system loud enough, it feels like you're actually riding on a go-kart. You tell me people will waste $1,500, and even with that kind of money, they still can't feel like they're actually riding on a go-kart from games made 16 years ago? But if they just spend $200-500 they actually can, and they choose not to? That doesn't sound right.

    Sound is the part of the experience most people choose to ignore and leave behind. But how ironic is it that most of the greatest films, games, TV shows, etc. also have the greatest score, sound mixing, and sound effects? If you missed that, then we didn't watch the same movie, or played the same game, or saw the same TV show. Even if we did, our experiences were completely different. You've never felt the roar of an engine in Mario Kart. But I have. And it's freaking AWESOME!

    3 Weeks ago
    mariomguy
     

    SOH is the only one to directly answer mariom's question, and yet he's the only one ignored, which just confirms what I said- he's not interested in having things explained to him. Christ, his response to me is proof of what I said.

    But here's another answer that you don't want:

    Cheap stuff doesn't last and isn't good.

    You're absolutely right that cheap shit doesn't last, but what you are very obviously too privileged to understand is that it is not a choice for most people. For some reason you think most people just have hundreds of dollars or more in the bank ready to spend on shit. *Millions* of people in the US live paycheck to paycheck. The people who are just outside that range are not buying the cheapest TVs because they want to save a few bucks. It's because that cheap TV is a luxury for them.

    The fact that you think people "need" a TV is an embarrassment.

    I really recommend you do some research into the causes of poverty. It's fucking expensive being poor.

    3 Weeks ago
    The Bandit
     

    See, people who spend $1,500 on a TV and nothing on sound aren't really getting a $1,500 experience.


    Do you just pull random numbers out of your ass?

    3 Weeks ago
    Q
     

    The Bandit - You think I don't know what it's like to be poor? When my mother divorced my father and raised me as a single parent, we had a TV. When she threw out her back and lost the ability to work and I had to support her, we had to buy a TV because she was stuck home and had nothing else to do. When I lost that job and we had to go to food banks to save every scrap we could, I still had to make choices like what kind of cell phone to buy. I wasn't going to save $50 and give up a smartphone for a flip phone. The cost just wasn't worth it.

    Then, when I got a good full time steady job and made some real steady money, I decided to spend it on what creates the most impact. My first goal wasn't the TV or sound, it was lighting. If our home looks dark and dank nothing else in it is going to lift us up. So I probably spent a good $200 on high quality CRI LED lights throughout the house. It was my greatest purchase ever. Then I spent for a sound system, because that was something we had and lost, and definitely wanted back again. Then I spent on some home improvement projects I won't bore you with. Then finally, after all that, I upgraded the TV. Went from the lowest end Samsung 55" in 2015 to the highest end LG OLED 65" because I made it. I didn't make it on my own, I had a lot of support from government programs and my mother and all the teachers and professors that gave me the tools to finally get there. I didn't make it without support from the friends who helped me, even through tough times. But I made it. And I'm sorry if I hope that one day you can make it too and spend 500 fucking dollars so you can finally hear what things are supposed to fucking sound like.

    Holy hell dude. You don't know a single thing about me, and you don't need to know.

    3 Weeks ago
    mariomguy
     

    SOH is the only one to directly answer mariom's question

    I only answered because I’m a masochist. I knew he wasn’t going to bother replying. It is mariomguy after all.


    legend has it that once mariomguy finishes punishing us for our sins 85 will return followed by knuckles 3.0. Time moves forward, empires rise and fall. The loop is eternal. As is tradition.

    3 Weeks ago
    S.O.H.
     

    Mariomguy: I too know what it is like to be poor

    Also mariomguy: why can’t poor people stop being poor and buy all this awesome stuff?

    3 Weeks ago
    S.O.H.
     

    I don't even think you need to even get into poverty conversation, although that's certainly part of it. Like I'm not living in poverty at this point, but if I wanted to drop $1000 on a TV and let's go lower and say $700 on a surround sound system, I literally can't afford that without opening a new line of credit. Which is *definitely* not something I am looking to do right now. So either I have to save up over the course of several years (which is pretty much how long it would take me to afford that set up), or I hurt my credit score and pay for it later when I need better credit for home improvement loans.

    (Also, I kinda can't stand people who ever use smartphones as an example of people having money. Do y'all just not pay for your own cell phones? Smart phones usually come cheap with a contract. I don't understand why people don't understand how buying a cell plan works... But that's another conversation.)


    I'll also be the weirdo who likes movies and say: I also don't think you *need* to have the *absolute best* technological experience to enjoy a movie. Shit, dude, I probably watched Ghostbusters on VHS so much, the tape got warped. Ghostbusters is not a "better movie" if you watch it in 4k than if you watch it on VHS. If the movie is truly good, you absolutely don't need "best quality" to enjoy it and see it as a good movie. But I guess I'm just a weirdo poor who likes movies.

    3 Weeks ago
    Jet Presto
     

    If we wanna talk about movies again: if I have one particularly big complaint about Marvel movies is that I do genuinely hate the way they frame the fights. Honestly, I know I said it before, but I blame the Bourne Identity for making every action movie outside the Wachowski films rely on shaky cam, quick cuts, and close up shots to hide the fact their actors don't actually know how to fight.

    I don't have a lot of good things to say about Zack Snyder overall, but when I watched the Snydercut, I did really appreciate the way he frames the action. Don't love the slow motion (sooooooo much; convinced the movie would be 3 hours instead of 4 if it just ran at regular speed the whole way through), but at least he stages it all so you can actually see it and follow it clearly.

    3 Weeks ago
    Jet Presto
     

    But I guess I'm just a weirdo poor who likes movies.


    you too can aspire to make a living wage if you work hard and apply for government assistance!

    3 Weeks ago
    S.O.H.
     

    If our home looks dark and dank nothing else in it is going to lift us up. So I probably spent a good $200 on high quality CRI LED lights throughout the house. It was my greatest purchase ever.


    I would have just bought some lamps from Walmart.....

    3 Weeks ago
    Q
     

    Also, what the heck do you need surround sound for if you watch a lot of old movies? I've seen surround sound systems that actually make old movies sound *worse* because it tries to force surround sound where there isn't any.

    3 Weeks ago
    Jet Presto
     

    I don't even think you need to even get into poverty conversation, although that's certainly part of it. Like I'm not living in poverty at this point, but if I wanted to drop $1000 on a TV and let's go lower and say $700 on a surround sound system, I literally can't afford that without opening a new line of credit.

    You can get a very good setup with a $500 TV and $500 sound system. Obviously get the TV first and the system later. If you go the route of a modular receiver, it's more expensive, but you can do it over time. Good speakers cost $75-$200 each, but you only need a receiver and two speakers to start enjoy the benefits ($430 for receiver and two bookshelf speakers). Then add a subwoofer ($630), and a center channel ($780). Then finally the back two speakers ($930 total). If you opt for more expensive tower speakers for the front, that comes to $1,180 for a high-end system with proper speakers.

    Also, I kinda can't stand people who ever use smartphones as an example of people having money. Do y'all just not pay for your own cell phones? Smart phones usually come cheap with a contract.

    Depends on the phone. You still pay the cost of the phone over time, usually $30-$45 extra per month. Cricket phones are cheaper: $50-$200 one-time purchase. The main carriers are going to be more expensive. A low end Galaxy A52, for instance, costs $600. Meanwhile, the sound systems I'm recommending cost way less. You don't need to go the full-blown modular receiver route just to experience good sound. You can get a really good step up for just $160-$200, and a very good all-in-one package for $500. Prices tend to skyrocket after that. But because I've lived around good systems growing up, I really do enjoy having that big sound at home, so I splurged for it when I was able to. I just wish I had gotten something else sooner.

    I'll also be the weirdo who likes movies and say: I also don't think you *need* to have the *absolute best* technological experience to enjoy a movie. Shit, dude, I probably watched Ghostbusters on VHS so much, the tape got warped. Ghostbusters is not a "better movie" if you watch it in 4k than if you watch it on VHS. If the movie is truly good, you absolutely don't need "best quality" to enjoy it and see it as a good movie. But I guess I'm just a weirdo poor who likes movies.

    I remembered watching Disney tapes on VHS in the 90s. The thing is, that's not the movie. That's a cheap imitation of the movie. It's garbage quality, and it's far from what the directors intended. You're not getting the right picture, the right details, the right sound...

    I will say not every director takes full advantage technically. Some films like Misery still carry through without such a clear picture or sound because the story just doesn't come across that way. But when a director DOES take advantage to get you a colorful, sharp, crisp, clean presentation, creates an immersive atmosphere through sound, and really makes this experience worthy, then you will absolutely lose something when you don't have the ability to experience it. Toy Story 3 had a stereoscopic artist manipulate the stereo cameras to take advantage of 3D as best as possible throughout the entire film. That added way more depth to the incinerator scene, and many others. But you know how some movies make their transition to 3D? Copy and paste a few tracks in the compositor. Yeah, effects that were composited in will just be rendered flat and set back into space, so you're not actually looking at real mountains in depth, you're looking at a matte painting that was just set further behind. It actually makes everything look fake. The reason 3D didn't catch on, aside from the obvious expense factor, is because most studios just don't film their movies with 3D cameras. But some directors like James Cameron absolutely swear by the technology and use it to full effect. From the director's end, having this technology helps to tell their vision with greater scope. For the viewer, it's all about capacity. If you don't have a sound system, you can't experience it as intended. You're only experiencing a cheap imitation.

    If we wanna talk about movies again: if I have one particularly big complaint about Marvel movies is that I do genuinely hate the way they frame the fights. Honestly, I know I said it before, but I blame the Bourne Identity for making every action movie outside the Wachowski films rely on shaky cam, quick cuts, and close up shots to hide the fact their actors don't actually know how to fight.

    YES! I really miss the Jackie-Chan-styled fights. He really knew how to film and choreograph a fight. Clear, visible, every action matters. I'm finding better fight scenes in saturday morning cartoons than Marvel movies, geez.

    I don't have a lot of good things to say about Zack Snyder overall, but when I watched the Snydercut, I did really appreciate the way he frames the action. Don't love the slow motion (sooooooo much; convinced the movie would be 3 hours instead of 4 if it just ran at regular speed the whole way through), but at least he stages it all so you can actually see it and follow it clearly.

    Sorry, I've been spoiled. The action in Powerpuff Girls, Teen Titans, Avatar/The Legend of Korra, and of course the king of fight scenes Jackie Chan, are all far superior to absolutely everything I've ever seen come out of Hollywood. When Zack Snyder does his slo-mos, my brain checks out. And when everyone starts shaking the camera and doing weird things and I can't see anything, I check out because there's nothing to follow.







    Um... sorry, but, there is a pretty clear loser here.

    3 Weeks ago
    mariomguy
     

    I would have just bought some lamps from Walmart.....

    Do that and you get a sickly blue color, or something sterile and off. The "sterile" lighting that's so famous in hospitals is characterized by low CRI lights that are incapable of reproducing color. It turns skin pale, it makes food look expired, it reduces the vibrancy and color in your home.

    This is something else that most people don't care about. They hardly care about the color of the bulb itself, let alone the faithfulness of the color it can reproduce. High CRI light bulbs get you more vibrant, realistic colors that you just won't get from a "lamp from Walmart." Everything looks beautiful in high CRI. It costs more, but it's worth it. My mom said this home was the best one she's ever lived in, and it was because of these very smart high-impact decisions that get looked over far too often.

    3 Weeks ago
    mariomguy
     

    Also, what the heck do you need surround sound for if you watch a lot of old movies? I've seen surround sound systems that actually make old movies sound *worse* because it tries to force surround sound where there isn't any.

    Kind of responded to this already... it's about capacity. If the director created an atmosphere in the sound that was meant to be experienced in a theater, you need the proper equipment to experience it. Aliens isn't the same without a good sound system. Same for Wall-e and Casino Royale. TV speakers are a cheap imitation of what you should be hearing.

    3 Weeks ago
    mariomguy
     

    If you opt for more expensive tower speakers for the front, that comes to $1,180 for a high-end system with proper speakers.

    he would have to open a new line of credit is his point jfc.........

    Depends on the phone. You still pay the cost of the phone over time, usually $30-$45 extra per month. Cricket phones are cheaper: $50-$200 one-time purchase. The main carriers are going to be more expensive. A low end Galaxy A52, for instance, costs $600. Meanwhile, the sound systems I'm recommending cost way less. You don't need to go the full-blown modular receiver route just to experience good sound. You can get a really good step up for just $160-$200, and a very good all-in-one package for $500. Prices tend to skyrocket after that. But because I've lived around good systems growing up, I really do enjoy having that big sound at home, so I splurged for it when I was able to. I just wish I had gotten something else sooner.


    OMFG I literally explained this above. It is easier for a person to dish out 30-45 bucks a month to pay for the flagship smartphone than it is for them to drop 600 for it. You are also ignoring the fact that people are able to trade in their current phones to bring down the price.

    You are also ignoring that those cheaper phones from cricket are utter rubbish and will end up costing you more money each time you have to replace them due to slow downs/ wear and tear vs a moderately price flag ship phone. I would know since I grew up poor and was doing just that. My second gen Iphone SE blows every generic metropcs/ cricket/ boost mobile android phone I have ever had out of the water.

    Had I gotten a lower tier iPhone I would have saved a lot more money vs switching up generic rubbish android phones every couple of years.

    I remembered watching Disney tapes on VHS in the 90s. The thing is, that's not the movie. That's a cheap imitation of the movie. It's garbage quality, and it's far from what the directors intended. You're not getting the right picture, the right details, the right sound...



    3 Weeks ago
    S.O.H.
     

    OMFG I literally explained this above. It is easier for a person to dish out 30-45 bucks a month to pay for the flagship smartphone than it is for them to drop 600 for it. You are also ignoring the fact that people are able to trade in their current phones to bring down the price.

    1 - Trade in is lower the longer you actually keep a phone. My Galaxy S7 is now worth a whopping $15.
    2 - Then buy the receiver and add speakers as you get more money, if that's easier. Or get the $160 all-in-one system if that's all you can afford.

    You are also ignoring that those cheaper phones from cricket are utter rubbish and will end up costing you more money each time you have to replace them due to slow downs/ wear and tear vs a moderately price flag ship phone.

    Not true. I had a Galaxy Grand Prime with Cricket for years before I could afford my mother and I a couple lines on Sprint. It received updates and ran very fast. Of course, for Cricket, that was the best phone they had. But you're more likely to run out the battery on any phone before anything else becomes an issue.

    Had I gotten a lower tier iPhone I would have saved a lot more money vs switching up generic rubbish android phones every couple of years.

    Um, what makes you think iPhones last longer than Androids of the same price?

    3 Weeks ago
    mariomguy
     

    1 - Trade in is lower the longer you actually keep a phone. My Galaxy S7 is now worth a whopping $15.


    Moral of the story is dont buy Android.

    Trade in values for used apple products:

    iPhone 11 Pro Max Up to $515
    iPhone 11 Pro Up to $465
    iPhone 11 Up to $380
    iPhone XS Max Up to $340
    iPhone XS Up to $270
    iPhone XR Up to $220
    iPhone X Up to $220
    iPhone 8 Plus Up to $180
    iPhone 8 Up to $120
    iPhone 7 Plus Up to $130
    iPhone 7 Up to $90
    iPhone 6s Plus Up to $75
    iPhone 6s Up to $50
    iPhone 6 Plus Up to $55
    iPhone 6 Up to $35
    iPhone SE (2nd generation) Up to $200
    iPhone SE (1st generation) Up to $25

    iPhone 7/plus released in the same year as your galaxy. Look at that trade in value.


    Not true. I had a Galaxy Grand Prime with Cricket for years before I could afford my mother and I a couple lines on Sprint. It received updates and ran very fast. Of course, for Cricket, that was the best phone they had. But you're more likely to run out the battery on any phone before anything else becomes an issue.

    Very true I have had a variety of generic Galaxy/ LG/ and Moto G phones. Each one slowing down or crapping out within 2 years. Forcing me to upgrade

    Um, what makes you think iPhones last longer than Androids of the same price?

    Updates alone? It is common knowledge that android products get 2-3 years of support at best. With one or two exceptions.
    https://www.phonearena.com/news/samsung-3-years-android-updates-note-20-10-fold-2-s20-s10_id126421 https://www.cnet.com/how-to/think-twice-before-buying-used-refurbished-old-android-phone-might-be-unsafe/#:~:text=Most%20phones%20are%20only%20supported%20for%20two%20to%20three%20years.&text=First%2C%20you%20should%20make%20sure,fully%20factory%2Dreset%20the%20phone.


    an Iphone 6s released in 2015/ first gen iPhone SE released in 2016 are both still running the newest IOS. Both are 6 and 5 year old smart phones respectively.

    The same cant be said for the Galaxy s6/edge released in 2015. The galaxy s7 is an exception as it did recieve a security patch but another flagship phone OnePlus 3T came out in 2016 and stopped receiving updates in 2019.

    Again Iphones are not only supported longer/ but retain their value better than their android counterparts.

    3 Weeks ago
    S.O.H.
     

    Moral of the story is dont buy Android.

    I can't find a phone with better specs without spending $500. Moral of the story is buy Android, and if you can replace the battery from a reputable dealer, do that!

    Very true I have had a variety of generic Galaxy/ LG/ and Moto G phones. Each one slowing down or crapping out within 2 years. Forcing me to upgrade

    Never happened to me. Battery lasted a long time. Still going strong at 3 years before I upgraded to a better deal so I could take advantage of service discounts for multiple lines. My current phone battery is still going strong after 5 years.

    Updates alone? It is common knowledge that android products get 2-3 years of support at best. With one or two exceptions.

    These are OS updates. As in, the entire OS gets wiped clean with an update for new core features and file support. You don't always need the latest OS. Android 12 was the last "big" update, and guess what it brought us? A new UI. The last actually important update was 11, that brought chat bubbles, a screen recorder, and a notification history. The update before that brought support for new video codecs and HDR, and the ability to update core OS components without needing to redownload the entire OS, better biometrics, MIDI controller, and more. As time goes on, the updates get less and less substantial, because everything else was already addressed in a previous update.

    Again Iphones are not only supported longer/ but retain their value better than their android counterparts.

    Apple limits speed on older devices. They claim it's to save the battery. But their batteries don't last as long.

    3 Weeks ago
    mariomguy
     

    Ok, I think we've lost the plot a little here.

    The more I think about this thread, the more I realize that the central premise is reliant on like, how we feel about 10 movies a year. The big studios are clearly interested in establishing franchises and building hype around the brand (capitalism, baby!), but they don't *only* make those. Even like, Pixar continues to churn out great films, even if they tend to be a little inconsistent. At the same time, it's not like these are the *only* movies coming out every year. Combine all the Marvel movies and Warner Bros/Fox superhero movies each year, plus the Disney Woke Capitalism films or kids' movie sequels, you're talking about like, 10 films a year at most.

    And I'm really not sure how anyone can make sweeping judgments about the state of Hollywood quality overall based on that.

    And not for nothing, but I mean, part of the problem is that the franchises have been massively popular. You can get some great original stuff like Pacific Rim or The Kid Who Would Be King or Stuber, and they just don't really kill it at the box office.

    But not for nothing, if we're going to complain about the superhero movies, we should also remember that Hollywood also gave us the best adaptation of Little Women, The LEGO Movie, Into the Spiderverse, Knives Out, Hustlers, Arrival, Booksmart, Paddington 2, A Quiet Place, Baby Driver, The Nice Guys, Creed, Get Out, Free Fire, Blade Runner 2049, 10 Cloverfield Lane, Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping, Kubo and the Two Strings, Magnificent Seven, Real Steel, Mad Max: Fury Road, Magic Mike, The Martian, Her, Dredd, Edge of Tomorrow, John Wick, Big Hero 6, and a bunch more. And that's not even getting into these studios' Oscar-fare.

    So I dunno, maybe if you don't like superhero movies, just don't go to them. There are like, 5 or 6 superhero movies a year. There are 52 weeks with new releases every single week. No one's making you go to see a superhero movie. When Hollywood studios ever do stop producing other things, too, then we can talk. But for now, I fail to see where Hollywood is bad, even if I do agree that they spend more focus than I'd personally prefer on making franchises.

    3 Weeks ago
    Jet Presto
     

    The more I think about this thread, the more I realize that the central premise is reliant on like, how we feel about 10 movies a year.

    Yeah... Most people don't watch a lot of movies every year. New ones, anyways. Old ones on streaming services are kind of fair game.

    The big studios are clearly interested in establishing franchises and building hype around the brand (capitalism, baby!), but they don't *only* make those.

    Yeah, true.

    The big studios are clearly interested in establishing franchises and building hype around the brand (capitalism, baby!), but they don't *only* make those.

    I disagree. We already admit the majority of movies are garbage, but why concern ourselves with the garbage? Movies that are advertised to the public and generated for a mass audience, movies that are summer blockbusters and bombshells, movies that grab our attention, the movies we think in our minds when we say "let's go to the movies" are what we should judge if we want to compare timeframes. Jaws, Jurassic Park, E.T, Indiana Jones... People love those films. They represent the best of cinema from big Hollywood. You don't find a lot of that sense of wonder and awe nowadays. By and large, movies are mostly dark, gritty, and cynical. From what I've seen, even if it's "upbeat" it still has to be "on brand." God forbid you have actual creativity and wanderlust, no, you can't stray too far from what's socially and culturally accepted as the norm. Nevermind The Muppet Show was one of the most popular TV shows in the world, with an estimated 235 million viewers PER WEEK. No. According to Hollywood, big budget movies should be made for angsty teenagers who only appreciate cynicism and violence, or whoever the hell watches terrible romantic comedies. Actual creativity is always, ALWAYS reserved for children. Outside of Disney/Pixar animated features, the great family movie is gone.

    So I dunno, maybe if you don't like superhero movies, just don't go to them. There are like, 5 or 6 superhero movies a year. There are 52 weeks with new releases every single week. No one's making you go to see a superhero movie.

    Here's the issue: look at the budgets of the big superhero movies. Look at the budgets of every other movie. Look at how great the stories were in the cartoons. Look at the stories in the Marvel (and DC) movies. Now look at the fight scenes. Look at the characters. Look at the portrayals. Now tell me, do you really think nothing's wrong with this picture? The superhero movie is a bombastic teenage cynical fantasy universe, it's not a nice family affair, there were better stories elsewhere. Don't tell me Ragnarok is the solution, Batman: The Animated Series, Justice League, and Teen Titans figured it out better than anyone. Your average episode of Teen Titans was far more entertaining than The Avengers for a far lower budget. Disney has the capacity to make better movies and they just don't. It's not like they don't know how. It's not like they can't figure it out. They spend hundreds of millions making these movies mediocre, and audiences eat it up because that's the big blockbuster hit movie that season. It just boggles me to no end.

    3 Weeks ago
    mariomguy
     

    I can't find a phone with better specs without spending $500. Moral of the story is buy Android, and if you can replace the battery from a reputable dealer, do that!


    uh my iPhone SE 128GB Gen 2 is $450 out the door.

    The A13 chip alone should knock out the Galaxy S7.

    Never happened to me. Battery lasted a long time. Still going strong at 3 years before I upgraded to a better deal so I could take advantage of service discounts for multiple lines. My current phone battery is still going strong after 5 years.

    One I am literally telling you otherwise. And two you complained about how people were able to buy better/expensive phones but you literally did what most people do and upgraded/ sought a better deal to bring down the sticker price. Wowzers.

    These are OS updates. As in, the entire OS gets wiped clean with an update for new core features and file support. You don't always need the latest OS. Android 12 was the last "big" update, and guess what it brought us? A new UI. The last actually important update was 11, that brought chat bubbles, a screen recorder, and a notification history. The update before that brought support for new video codecs and HDR, and the ability to update core OS components without needing to redownload the entire OS, better biometrics, MIDI controller, and more. As time goes on, the updates get less and less substantial, because everything else was already addressed in a previous update.

    and in addition to OS updates android products dont normally get any type of support after 3 years. Which is my point.

    Apple limits speed on older devices. They claim it's to save the battery. But their batteries don't last as long.

    from my experience my battery life was worse on android than it has been on iPhone. I have heard questionable things about the battery life so Ill give you that but after being an android user for the majority of my adult life I would recommend an iPhone over any android product every day of the week.

    3 Weeks ago
    S.O.H.
     

    Here's the issue: look at the budgets of the big superhero movies. Look at the budgets of every other movie. Look at how great the stories were in the cartoons. Look at the stories in the Marvel (and DC) movies. Now look at the fight scenes. Look at the characters. Look at the portrayals. Now tell me, do you really think nothing's wrong with this picture? The superhero movie is a bombastic teenage cynical fantasy universe, it's not a nice family affair, there were better stories elsewhere. Don't tell me Ragnarok is the solution, Batman: The Animated Series, Justice League, and Teen Titans figured it out better than anyone. Your average episode of Teen Titans was far more entertaining than The Avengers for a far lower budget. Disney has the capacity to make better movies and they just don't. It's not like they don't know how. It's not like they can't figure it out. They spend hundreds of millions making these movies mediocre, and audiences eat it up because that's the big blockbuster hit movie that season. It just boggles me to no end.

    never forget:

    Guardians of the Galaxy would have been better if they had gotten pizza afterward!-mariomguy many years ago

    3 Weeks ago
    S.O.H.
     

    The A13 chip alone should knock out the Galaxy S7.

    I mean, you're comparing a 2019 chip to a 2016 chip. But the answer is still no. The A13 lightning chip has 2 cores at 2.65 Ghz and 4 cores at lower clocks while Samsung's Exynos 8890 Octa has 2 cores at 2.6 Ghz, 4 cores at 2.3 Ghz under load, and 4 more energy-efficient cores at 1.8 Ghz. While the Samsung chip is a much, much better architecture, the Apple chip has a smaller process node size, so it should be more energy efficient. But we're comparing a leap of 3 generations, and Samsung's chip is more powerful and flexible. If we compare phones on the same generation, Samsung is always leaps and bounds ahead.

    One I am literally telling you otherwise.

    Telling lies, maybe.

    And two you complained about how people were able to buy better/expensive phones but you literally did what most people do and upgraded/ sought a better deal to bring down the sticker price.

    I worked literally in the same store that sold phones to people. There was never a deal this good, ever. Then it happened at the same time I got accepted to a better job, so I threw down.

    and in addition to OS updates android products dont normally get any type of support after 3 years. Which is my point.

    False. They continue to receive security updates for years. I continue to receive updates on my S7. What you're talking about is OS updates. Even with codec support from an OS, without hardware acceleration running videos on CPU will bog down your device anyways, so unless there's a really nifty OS feature you like the updates are completely pointless. Chat bubbles are cool... sort of. I can click the bubble on the screen to open Facebook Message immediately, instead of having to scroll for it. When someone chats it notifies me right on the screen. I can choose to cancel or ignore it, move it out of the way, or open up. But this was the biggest feature update from OS 11. Most people wouldn't care if the OS stayed the same all that time, because the previous Android OS updates were already pretty badass.

    from my experience my battery life was worse on android than it has been on iPhone. I have heard questionable things about the battery life so Ill give you that but after being an android user for the majority of my adult life I would recommend an iPhone over any android product every day of the week.

    It depends largely on the device, and a lot of other factors. If you nerf your phone to iPhone levels of power, then actually Samsung has a larger battery. And they do have a battery saving feature to extend battery life doing just that: lower resolution, lower CPU usage, etc. etc. The difference is with Samsung it's an option, with iPhone it's mandatory. What Android phones did you use? If they were garbage tier, then of course Apple will seem better. But straight comparisons show otherwise.

    3 Weeks ago
    mariomguy
     

    If we compare phones on the same generation, Samsung is always leaps and bounds ahead.

    this isnt true.

    The A14 chip outperforms the Snapdragon 888 in all benchmarks. (with the exception of AnTuTu) The same can be said for Exynos 2100 the A14 chip still blows them out of the water. Unless there is another chip I am not aware of.

    I worked literally in the same store that sold phones to people. There was never a deal this good, ever. Then it happened at the same time I got accepted to a better job, so I threw down.

    And yet I posted trade credit for apple products up above that go towards the purchase of a new iPhone. Those sales exist my dude.


    because the previous Android OS updates were already pretty badass.

    I dont need it to be "badass" I need it to be useable. and from my own experience that was not the case with lack of updates.

    They continue to receive security updates for years. I continue to receive updates on my S7

    I literally said that was the exception. I literally said it got a security update recently oh my fucking god. I went out of my way to point this out jfc.

    The difference is with Samsung it's an option, with iPhone it's mandatory. What Android phones did you use?

    in the last 4-5 years? A galaxy s7. Some iteration of Moto G and a LGQ+. A range from flag ship/ entry/ lower mid tier.

    I was an android die hard too but uh if I had invested in a Iphone in 2016 chances are I would be using the same iphone today with the newest OS or trading it in for a make and model of what I already have.

    3 Weeks ago
    S.O.H.
     

    Do that and you get a sickly blue color, or something sterile and off. The "sterile" lighting that's so famous in hospitals is characterized by low CRI lights that are incapable of reproducing color.


    High CRI light bulbs get you more vibrant, realistic colors that you just won't get from a "lamp from Walmart."


    These need to be added to the list of Mariomguy quotes.

    3 Weeks ago
    Q
     

    Here's the issue: look at the budgets of the big superhero movies. Look at the budgets of every other movie


    My dude, this has *always* been how the industry works. Studios have a small number of big tentpole movies for the year and pour a lot of money into them because that's gonna be a big money maker, and then almost all other movie has substantially smaller budgets. You're literally just describing how Hollywood has *always* worked.


    The superhero movie is a bombastic teenage cynical fantasy universe, it's not a nice family affair,


    There is literally no shortage of kid-friendly films that come out every single year. If you're looking for something that can be accessible for younger audiences including like, 6 year olds, just open your eyes and you'll see more family-friendly films every single year than you see Marvel movies *every* *year.* You're using your biased "gut feeling" to make declarative statements that, as someone who has worked in the industry for almost two decades, I can assure you it is still very much a family thing. Just because *you* don't go to the movies anymore with your family doesn't mean other people don't. Why do you think Christmas is such a huge movie weekend?

    Let me ask: how often did you wind up going to the movies as a family when you were a kid? Couple times a month? Few times a year? Once a week?

    You're also just making up definitions of words at this point. Again, if you're going to seriously sit here and argue that Marvel movies are "cynical," then words just don't have meaning, or probably more accurate, you just don't really understand the definition.


    Don't tell me Ragnarok is the solution, Batman: The Animated Series, Justice League, and Teen Titans figured it out better than anyone.


    "Guys, movies sure have gotten bad. Why can't movies targeting teenagers and adults be just like television shows targeting younger audiences?" is not quite the argument you seem to think it is. Also, this doesn't exactly make you sound like you're not just in arrested development and unable to get past your own nostalgia.

    But not for nothing, Thor: Ragnarok changed up a lot from the Marvel formula in several ways. Honestly? I can tell Ragnaraok is a Taika Waititi film from story and aesthetic choices than I can tell Joker is a Todd Phillips film. So I'm really not sure where you get off acting like Joker is somehow above these criticisms you're leveling at these movies that clearly *lots* of other people like. Joker found a way to be even more cynical and depressing than the Zack Snyder superhero films.

    and audiences eat it up because that's the big blockbuster hit movie that season. It just boggles me to no end.


    I mean, have you considered the possibility that what YOU think about these movies isn't how EVERYONE ELSE feels about them? I know, I know, this requires a basic understanding that you're not the only person in the world, which is so hard a mind frame to get into, but I mean, maybe - JUST MAYBE - audiences "eat it up" because, and I know this is sooo hard to believe - a lot of people...*gasp* LIKE them?

    (And again, what you're now complaining about is literally just how the industry has always worked. They always pour a lot more money into whatever films they want to be their big tentpole movies for the year, the big blockbusters. And then those are the most popular movies. You're complaining about how the industry has always worked on that front. Not for nothing, but there are a lot of superhero films that straight up bombed because they weren't good movies, so it's not like all you have to do is adapt a comic book character to film and pour a bunch of money into it and it'll sell.)

    But also, again: you're talking about like, 10 movies a year out *at most.* Out of so many more.

    (I also think you keep referring to a flash in the pan for Disney. You keep talking about it like Disney has only ever put out great films. When you keep referencing the Disney Renaissance, you're ultimately talking about a pretty brief era in the overall history of the company. Unless you're so far gone, you're really going to try to tell me that something like Moana or Raya and the Last Dragon is discernibly worse than something like Emperor's New Groove or Anastasia or Oliver and Company.)


    Now look at the fight scenes. Look at the characters. Look at the portrayals. Now tell me, do you really think nothing's wrong with this picture?


    Not really. The characters are pretty enjoyable to watch and the portrayals are often great or interesting. The action is bad, but that has less to do with Marvel and more to do with Paul Greengrass, really. But bad action in 3 blockbusters a year doesn't really give me any insight at all about the overall quality of Hollywood films.

    Thing is, if you could ever get off your elitist high horse and stop using your personal feeling based on just your gut as if it's this definitive evidence of something, we actually would agree on a few things. I don't like the crossover stuff, and I find the emphasis on "The Brand" and "universe building" to be more like a sporting event than an older kind of cinematic one. But it's also just different. No one was rushing to theaters to see Independence Day because it was a movie that was going to stay with them forever and change their lives. They went because people like spectacle and like movies that are mostly a good time. That's not discernibly different from what Marvel does a couple times a year: spectacle that is mostly a good time. I'm not currently being robbed of my Baby Drivers or Fury Roads or Arrivals, so it's not like these ultimately small number of movies per year are denying me the "mid-tier" budget movies. Those are still the majority of films that get made and released. (And not for nothing, but those wouldn't have been big hits even 30-40 years ago either.) I agree the action in Marvel has been pretty bad, as a fan of action movies. And I agree that it'd be nice to get more Pacific Rims or Edge of Tomorrows in the "blockbuster" mix.

    But the thing is, I like movies, so I don't *only* watch blockbusters. And it's not exactly like blockbusters are where you ever turn to for some deep, profound cinematic experience. Steven Spielberg is an overall great director, but it's not exactly like Jurassic Park, Jaws, ET, or Indiana Jones are deep, life-changing, thought-provoking movies. They're great films! But they're primarily spectacle; a good time on this two hour adventure. And that's what I want. And on the most part, I do get that from a lot of superhero movies. Not all of them, but many of them. (Especially Thor: Ragnarok, which you are downplaying pretty dramatically just to make your larger point.)

    3 Weeks ago
    Jet Presto
     

    Also, what the hell is a "realistic color"? If you really want to go with "realistic" color, you'll just observe color as your human eye naturally takes it in. Arguably, if you're buying special lights to "maximize" the color, it's not "realistic color." It's just different.

    (Also just gonna make note of the fact that a lot of people experience some form of color blindness, so "realistic color" is not going to be high on most people's priority lists.)

    3 Weeks ago
    Jet Presto
     

    These need to be added to the list of Mariomguy quotes.




    Stop being ignorant.

    My dude, this has *always* been how the industry works. Studios have a small number of big tentpole movies for the year and pour a lot of money into them because that's gonna be a big money maker, and then almost all other movie has substantially smaller budgets. You're literally just describing how Hollywood has *always* worked.

    This is the problem I want to discuss. The big movies, the ones with the biggest budgets, are very mediocre. This didn't use to be the case.

    There is literally no shortage of kid-friendly films that come out every single year. If you're looking for something that can be accessible for younger audiences including like, 6 year olds, just open your eyes and you'll see more family-friendly films every single year than you see Marvel movies *every* *year.*

    Yeah, how many of those are animated vs. live action? Herein lies the problem. Animation is directed at kids. Live action has been made cynical. There is no in-between, there is rarely ever any vice-versa.

    You're also just making up definitions of words at this point. Again, if you're going to seriously sit here and argue that Marvel movies are "cynical," then words just don't have meaning, or probably more accurate, you just don't really understand the definition.

    Well they're not idyllic. You know the "Marvel voice," you know the "Marvel style," you know the "Marvel way." You've seen it, you've felt it, you've heard it, you even said Ragnarok wasn't fully the director's vision because it has to be "on brand" with the "Marvel style." That style is shit. Everyone is permanently repressed, everyone has the life sucked out of them, everything is "realistic," everything is boring. Highs don't hit quite so high, and by contrast lows don't hit so low. It all feels neutral throughout.

    It's not my fault you can't even comprehend the concepts. All I know is Powerpuff girls, Justice League, Teen Titans, and the Sam Remi Spiderman movies were all far more interesting than the present Marvel movies.

    "Guys, movies sure have gotten bad. Why can't movies targeting teenagers and adults be just like television shows targeting younger audiences?" is not quite the argument you seem to think it is. Also, this doesn't exactly make you sound like you're not just in arrested development and unable to get past your own nostalgia.

    I didn't watch Justice League until a couple years ago in 2019. I've seen Iron Man in theaters back when it came out in 2008. Avengers in 2010. Nostalgia dictates I should love those more, but I don't. Justice League was a better show, doesn't matter who it was "aimed for." Lex Luthor in JL was incredibly smart. Slade in Teen Titans was incredibly imposing. Raven had serious issues she had to overcome. Starfire always had interesting stories that weren't just weird alien things, but she was still relatable, and we loved her. I watch Marvel and I really don't give a shit for the characters, the story, or anything. It's hard for me to care when everyone sounds like they're some teen going through a breakup. These are the movies Hollywood believes deserve the biggest budgets. I'm glad Disney is still running their animation and Pixar, but they've created a standard where live action movies are dull, animation is for kids (or is at least required to be kid-friendly), and both are diametrically opposed. Aside from the Muppets movie and Mary Poppins, when has Disney released an upbeat big-budget live action blockbuster for families? How about anyone?

    (I also think you keep referring to a flash in the pan for Disney. You keep talking about it like Disney has only ever put out great films. When you keep referencing the Disney Renaissance, you're ultimately talking about a pretty brief era in the overall history of the company. Unless you're so far gone, you're really going to try to tell me that something like Moana or Raya and the Last Dragon is discernibly worse than something like Emperor's New Groove or Anastasia or Oliver and Company.)

    Their animation is fine. Don't touch it. I just wish the big budgets went towards making a better movie. Marvel movies, and they need more Speilburg-esque movies, the kind of grand wonder we want in a "family" experience. I consider Jurassic Park a family experience, you don't need little kids to be able to see it in order to make a grand, interesting movie everyone wants to see.

    But bad action in 3 blockbusters a year doesn't really give me any insight at all about the overall quality of Hollywood films.

    Um, I wouldn't call low-grade thrillers good action movies. Casino Royale was a diamond. Jackie Chan's fights were diamonds. Marvel keeps giving us rocks... which is strange because the animated shows gave us diamonds on far lower budgets.

    But the thing is, I like movies, so I don't *only* watch blockbusters. And it's not exactly like blockbusters are where you ever turn to for some deep, profound cinematic experience. Steven Spielberg is an overall great director, but it's not exactly like Jurassic Park, Jaws, ET, or Indiana Jones are deep, life-changing, thought-provoking movies. They're great films! But they're primarily spectacle; a good time on this two hour adventure. And that's what I want. And on the most part, I do get that from a lot of superhero movies. Not all of them, but many of them. (Especially Thor: Ragnarok, which you are downplaying pretty dramatically just to make your larger point.)

    You're equating Marvel to Spielberg, and I don't think that's a great comparison. The acting in Spielburg is kind of funny... but you get better highs and lows with classic Spielberg than most filmmakers. When I say the family adventure is over, I'm talking the Spielburg-esque movies. They're definitely not as good, but I'm not seeing movies like Night at the Museum at all right now. If you're a family, it has to be a Disney-Pixar animation, almost exclusively. If you're a teenager or young adult, Marvel all the way. Maybe they think you'll like Zach Snyder more if you're emo. No one can seem to figure out moviegoing for a broad audience the way Spielberg did back in the 80s and 90s. That has been lost.

    3 Weeks ago
    mariomguy
     

    Re: sound equipment.

    Being a fucking audiophile that has obsessively listened to music with everything from one-dollar earbuds to a several hundred dollar stereo system, I would just like to say that mguy is, as usual, right about technical details but is completely overselling how important they are. You do not need a several hundred dollar sound system to have a decent experience. You don't even need one to two hundred dollar headphones. I listen to my ASMR YouTube videos on $20 Skullcandy earbuds. Once you have even the most basic investment in sound equipment, the bottleneck very quickly moves to being about source quality and format quality rather than being about equipment.

    Unless you care about the actual sound presence in a room or incredible minutiae, you do not need a sound system or headphones. Like, yeah, a lot of TVs have shitty built-in speakers. Literally just plugging in some desktop PC speakers could give you a better experience in some cases.

    The primary thing is getting the information about the experience, not fiddling with fine-tuning every piece of equipment to be exactly as someone thinks the director intended it. Because people generally don't make things to be listened to on a specific sound system format. They try to make them sound good on everything that they can. If that includes taking advantage of theater-style systems, that's cool. But that's not the only way to get the experience. That's why professional music is generally mixed on really small, flat-sounding studio monitors.

    The only time that a sound setup actually interfered with my enjoyment of a film was when I watched Drive on a shitty little TV and the sounds actually was legitimately so bad that we couldn't hear most of the opening scenes. We had to get out an additional little Bluetooth speaker and cast to it. Since then, I've watched the film over again on mediocre TVs, computer monitors, desktop speakers, and my several hundred dollar stereo system, and it has been entirely fine on all of them.

    But you don't really care for kino, do ya?

    This is legit like the pretentious audiophiles that think that lossless formats and thousand-dollar headphones are the only way to not get a "lesser" experience. It's about listening to the music, not listening to your equipment. Most filmmakers are probably not going to put as much effort into their sound design as people making something that utilizes sound design specifically and exclusively. At a certain point, there is nothing more for you to hear, you're just using the gear to make what's there seem more impressive or important than it is. Like listening to Metallica's Death Magnetic lossless on a big sound system. That album is produced like shit, and having a big sound system does not help it at all. It just makes it louder.

    3 Weeks ago
    CZM
     

    You do not need a several hundred dollar sound system to have a decent experience. You don't even need one to two hundred dollar headphones. I listen to my ASMR YouTube videos on $20 Skullcandy earbuds.

    I mentioned that earbuds are better than TV speakers. For TV, you do need a sound system if you want everyone to hear. TV.

    Like, yeah, a lot of TVs have shitty built-in speakers.

    Thanks for agreeing with me. People have blown a gasket and called me elitist for saying this.

    The primary thing is getting the information about the experience, not fiddling with fine-tuning every piece of equipment to be exactly as someone thinks the director intended it.

    Yeah, I was just saying if an artist used sound for their production, say, to create an eerie or intense atmosphere, you won't get that from crappy TV speakers. So it's not so much "the director intended" as "capacity." If a director uses sound, you physically can't experience it without a good sound system.

    This is legit like the pretentious audiophiles that think that lossless formats and thousand-dollar headphones are the only way to not get a "lesser" experience.

    It's prohibitively expensive... I have heard a lot better quality highs with FLAC on my sound system, and the benefits do come through on my headphones... but most people who don't care just won't care. When I tried my friend's massive Sennheisers, I was shocked by the quality. But it's totally impractical. I think if you have a subwoofer and speakers capable of playing sound without distorting, that's good enough. I recall owning a 1000-watt all-in-one Phillips sound system 15 years ago, and the sound from that was awesome! It only cost $200. If people can get that kind of quality, then that's the middle of the road. Everything beyond that is excess - tons of money for better sound, but it's diminishing returns. Most of what people need to experience can be found in the $200 price range back then. I'm just not sure how much a similar system would cost today. But people have compared Sony to $10,000 speakers and found little difference, so I'm considering a modular Sony system "high end" despite only costing $900-$1200.

    At a certain point, there is nothing more for you to hear, you're just using the gear to make what's there seem more impressive or important than it is. Like listening to Metallica's Death Magnetic lossless on a big sound system. That album is produced like shit, and having a big sound system does not help it at all. It just makes it louder.

    Kanye's My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy. Loudest album ever. Sounds like garbage. The diamonds on a good system sound incredible. But they're diamonds. Crap mixing will sound crappy no matter what.



    ^ Have this album in FLAC. It's an experience.

    3 Weeks ago
    mariomguy
     

    For TV, you do need a sound system if you want everyone to hear.


    Wrong. I watch movies with my friends on a TV with no sound system, and just last Sunday I watched Wrestlemania with a roomful of friends on another TV with no sound system.

    Thanks for agreeing with me.


    Coincidence of some terms does not constitute agreement.

    Yeah, I was just saying if an artist used sound for their production, say, to create an eerie or intense atmosphere, you won't get that from crappy TV speakers. So it's not so much "the director intended" as "capacity." If a director uses sound, you physically can't experience it without a good sound system.


    Your threshold for what is a good sound system is irrelevant, however.

    I recall owning a 1000-watt all-in-one Phillips sound system 15 years ago, and the sound from that was awesome!


    A thousand-watt system is already excessive for home listening, unless you live in a fucking warehouse. I own a 175 watt Yamaha system that cost $500-$600, and my neighbors love it.

    3 Weeks ago
    CZM
     

    Coincidence of some terms does not constitute agreement.

    Haha, oh that's rich. You just said PC speakers and earbuds are better than TV speakers. I said the same exact thing and everyone pounded down my throat for being elitist. Let's see if S.O.H. and other users of this site treat you just as shitty as they treat me, elitist snob.

    A thousand-watt system is already excessive for home listening, unless you live in a fucking warehouse. I own a 175 watt Yamaha system that cost $500-$600, and my neighbors love it.

    So, I think 1000 watts comes to about 100 watts per speaker, maybe 200 for center channel, plus 400 for the subwoofer. That's very average as far as full systems go. If you have a 175 watt system, I have to ask if that's for the entire system or just each speaker. Because if the entire system is only 175 watts, you're not really going to be able to drive a subwoofer at all, let alone 2 speakers for stereo sound in an entire living room. A "boom box" is different. No one expects to feel a movie explosion from every seat in a living room with just a boom box. It's also not just about being loud, but being present. A tiny cell phone speaker sounds loud if you put it next to your ear, and a boom box sounds loud if you sit in front of it. But most people would expect to hear and feel everything comfortably anywhere in the living room. Those moments when there's a gunshot and you need to fill the room without distorting the speakers, that's what the power is used for.

    3 Weeks ago
    mariomguy
     

    You just said PC speakers and earbuds are better than TV speakers.


    No, I didn't, and this conversation is over unless you stop lying about what I said.

    3 Weeks ago
    CZM
     

    To quote you personally:

    Unless you care about the actual sound presence in a room or incredible minutiae, you do not need a sound system or headphones. Like, yeah, a lot of TVs have shitty built-in speakers. Literally just plugging in some desktop PC speakers could give you a better experience in some cases.


    You do not need a several hundred dollar sound system to have a decent experience. You don't even need one to two hundred dollar headphones. I listen to my ASMR YouTube videos on $20 Skullcandy earbuds.


    I told everyone earbuds are better than crappy TV speakers and was called an elitist snob for it. I said $10 earbuds can be fine for most people, but spending a little on headphones will get you a more enjoyable sound. You do agree with me.

    The difference is S.O.H. hates me and other people follow his lead, and you'd rather be on that bandwagon than do anything to stop it. You'll give your opinion, and it happens to be the same as my own, but oh no, the garbage behavior needs to continue for some reason. If there is no reason S.O.H. will surely make one up and you'll agree.

    Forgive me if I just have to laugh at how ridiculous all of this really is.

    3 Weeks ago
    mariomguy
     

    The difference is S.O.H. hates me and other people follow his lead, and you'd rather be on that bandwagon than do anything to stop it. You'll give your opinion, and it happens to be the same as my own, but oh no, the garbage behavior needs to continue for some reason. If there is no reason S.O.H. will surely make one up and you'll agree.

    I dont hate you. I think you are mostly alright when you stay in your lane. I would like you better if you learned to accept other peoples opinions about things.

    Forgive me if I just have to laugh at how ridiculous all of this really is.

    I am the one laughing. You really think anyone here follows my lead? Or joins my "Bandwagon"? I assure you if I had never posted in this thread people would still be tearing your views apart.

    In the meantime

    Lets roll out boys



    3 Weeks ago
    S.O.H.
     

    I dont hate you. I think you are mostly alright when you stay in your lane. I would like you better if you learned to accept other peoples opinions about things.

    So the pizza comment was not just trying to get a rise out of me, calling me an elitist snob was just a perfectly acceptable response to suggesting a sound system is important to the experience of many movies, games, and shows, and hijacking the mascot thread was not literally disrespectful? You always hate me. Doesn't matter what I say. Doesn't matter what I do. Even if it's something you agree with you'll still misread everything and turn it into an attack.

    No, I don't need to accept other people's opinions if their opinion is spending $2,000 a year on entertainment, but not $160 for halfway decent sound. Or they're going to spend $300k on a house, but not the extra $200 to make sure the lights are energy efficient and don't look like garbage. Those people need better opinions, opinions that actually make sense to justify, ideally opinions that are well informed and evaluated and actually hold up in an argument. Sorry if that's asking too much.

    3 Weeks ago
    mariomguy
     

    So the pizza comment was not just trying to get a rise out of me, calling me an elitist snob was just a perfectly acceptable response to suggesting a sound system is important to the experience of many movies, games, and shows, and hijacking the mascot thread was not literally disrespectful? You always hate me. Doesn't matter what I say. Doesn't matter what I do. Even if it's something you agree with you'll still misread everything and turn it into an attack.

    The pizza comment was pointing out that even years later your opinions have not changed. We are having the same arguements we had 5 years later because you refuse to acknowledge other peoples perspectives on things.

    hijacking the mascot thread was not literally disrespectful?

    Providing in put as a community member who was present when DOG FUCKING DRAMA unfolded and telling you it might not be best to have a dog as a mascot because it might trigger some people who were also there is not disrespectful. Telling others to "get over" their trauma is.

    You always hate me. Doesn't matter what I say. Doesn't matter what I do. Even if it's something you agree with you'll still misread everything and turn it into an attack.

    Again I dont hate you. If I did I would just block you lmao.

    No, I don't need to accept other people's opinions if their opinion is spending $2,000 a year on entertainment, but not $160 for halfway decent sound. Or they're going to spend $300k on a house, but not the extra $200 to make sure the lights are energy efficient and don't look like garbage. Those people need better opinions, opinions that actually make sense to justify, ideally opinions that are well informed and evaluated and actually hold up in an argument. Sorry if that's asking too much.

    Comments like this is why people dislike you. You keep complaining that I turned the community against you when you have done that yourself.

    3 Weeks ago
    S.O.H.
     

    The pizza comment was pointing out that even years later your opinions have not changed. We are having the same arguements we had 5 years later because you refuse to acknowledge other peoples perspectives on things.

    Other people's perspectives do not magically change my own. Their perspective is... just ignore it. If Hollywood gives the biggest budget to mediocre movies... just ignore it. Like, just don't talk about it. What the hell kind of perspective is that?!

    Providing in put as a community member who was present when DOG FUCKING DRAMA unfolded and telling you it might not be best to have a dog as a mascot because it might trigger some people who were also there is not disrespectful. Telling others to "get over" their trauma is.

    Whatever happened didn't happen on this site. If it did, I don't think many users saw it. I didn't see it, and I'm on here constantly. If someone shows me a terrible video, I'm not going to watch it all the way through so I can get more traumatized, I'm cancelling that immediately and pushing to get whoever sent that to me banned. A smiley face might be traumatizing to people who broke up over a text, so, the voice of one person shouldn't drown out an entire site. Personally, foxes scream furry trash more than anything, but Riven suggested a fox over a dog, which surprised me. So I got that feedback, I tried other things. I posted brand new blue sky sketches based on suggestions, and I will put forth my best effort to make sure the mascot isn't going to traumatize people. But you were traumatized by every animal in the world, that's limiting :\

    At that time I didn't have any viable alternatives, and I knew it would take like a year to get the banners finished. And since the incident didn't happen on the site I couldn't imagine banning a mascot for it. But you hijacked the thread and mixed it in with the furry comments and you wanted to bar ALL animals from being mascots. It was like, wow, reasonable, much? And you didn't just do say that and go, no, you seriously tried to force it, and you said you didn't want to see furry garbage and you wanted to shut everything down. If you think I seem stubborn sometimes, look in a mirror. People made normal comments, and I responded. But I had to shut you down, block you, and ignore everything you said in order to allow a real conversation to begin. Just don't do that, man.

    Comments like this is why people dislike you. You keep complaining that I turned the community against you when you have done that yourself.

    Well, that's fine. People don't have to like my opinion. But if they don't have a reason to disagree, or their reason just doesn't make sense, you see how that's difficult for me to sympathize. Everyone says they look terrible under fluorescent lights, but Q made fun of me just because I'm saying the same thing with different words and terms that he doesn't understand. Now if he'd ask me what CRI meant I'd be happy to tell him. But people here, you included, are far more quick to dismiss me, make fun of me, yell at me, yeah bully me, put me down, etc. etc. before asking questions, coming to an understanding, and eventually a reasonable agreement. You know, actually entertain the thought that I know what I'm talking about and what I'm saying does make sense to more people than just me?

    "Flourescent lights really don't look as good as other lights. Oh, is that what CRI means? Wait, you can get, like professional lighting, for $200? You buy these bulbs online? Yeah! That really does look a lot better! Thank you so much for showing me that. You taught me something and made my life better because of it. You are a very helpful person who is not an asshole. I am not going to treat you like one."

    ...Or...

    "This should be added to the list of mariomguy quotes."

    Well, you tell me. I try being the good guy and helping people, but that doesn't work. People still treat me like garbage and ransack my threads and everyone in the circle jerk hops on the bandwagon. So then I put people in their place with a series of logical traps, mirrors, and mic drops, and they all fall into those traps, reflect on their words, and outright refuse to respond to the mic drop because that really strikes the core of the problem, and overall that seems to work a whole lot better. At least people have some chance of listening to me that way, because they sure as hell weren't listening before. I can be a really nice guy with people who are reasonable. But I'm not going to let the stupid jerk circle run my life. If you don't know what CRI is and end up making a really, really stupid comment like Q just did right here, or you think private for-profit corporations should control healthcare and make a really stupid comment in politics, or you want the whole world to bend to your will like what you and several others were hoping for in the mascot thread, it's not my fault people waste their free speech on something so dumb. I really wish more people used their free speech to ask questions and learn instead of just staying dumb and saying dumb things.

    3 Weeks ago
    mariomguy
     

    I didn't see it

    good for you? it doesnt matter if YOU saw it or not. The rest of the community saw it and dealt with it. IS STILL DEALING WITH IT. Hence the push back.

    But you were traumatized by every animal in the world, that's limiting

    again it doesnt need to be an animal. If the rest of the community wants a different animal that is fine I am willing to compromise.

    But if the rest of the community doesnt want an animal and YOU want an animal and REFUSE to CONSIDER ANYTHING ELSE that is an issue.

    But you hijacked the thread and mixed it in with the furry comments and you wanted to bar ALL animals from being mascots.

    Yes I dont care for animals especially not animated ones that have had no PRESENCE in the History of this site. If my thoughts resonate with other members thats not my fault.

    I try being the good guy and helping people, but that doesn't work.

    being condescending and telling people they are doing something wrong when they obviously are not isnt being a good guy or being helpful.

    I really wish more people used their free speech to ask questions and learn instead of just staying dumb and saying dumb things.

    the community would agree with you there and tell you to practice what you preach.

    I wish you the best of luck with your movie set up. I am looking forward to going to the movies now that I am full vaccinated. It has been a long time coming.

    3 Weeks ago
    S.O.H.
     

    Forgive me if I just have to laugh at how ridiculous all of this really is.


    Just now realizing this?

    3 Weeks ago
    Q
     

    No, I don't need to accept other people's opinions if their opinion is spending $2,000 a year on entertainment, but not $160 for halfway decent sound. Or they're going to spend $300k on a house, but not the extra $200 to make sure the lights are energy efficient and don't look like garbage. Those people need better opinions, opinions that actually make sense to justify, ideally opinions that are well informed and evaluated and actually hold up in an argument. Sorry if that's asking too much.

    Explain how "I don't want to spend my limited money on shit I do not need" is an uninformed or unevaluated opinion.

    So then I put people in their place with a series of logical traps, mirrors, and mic drops, and they all fall into those traps, reflect on their words, and outright refuse to respond to the mic drop because that really strikes the core of the problem, and overall that seems to work a whole lot better.

    why doesn't anyone like me i dont understand :(((((

    3 Weeks ago
    The Bandit
     

    The Bandit I love you. You got discord?

    3 Weeks ago
    S.O.H.
     

    Nah, I don't use Discord. But thank you SOH. I guess I love you too since I'm only here because I'm "following your lead?" Or something?? ???

    i am the above comment btw, idk how i accidentally changed my name to the title of the thread

    3 Weeks ago
    The Bandit
     

    good for you? it doesnt matter if YOU saw it or not. The rest of the community saw it and dealt with it. IS STILL DEALING WITH IT. Hence the push back.

    I only hear you dealing with it, let alone the fact that my mascot didn't even look like a normal dog and wasn't a problem until you mentioned it.

    again it doesnt need to be an animal. If the rest of the community wants a different animal that is fine I am willing to compromise.

    Riven was OK with an animal. He was OK with the dog and suggested a fox because several users have fox in their names. Others had no issue with animals at all. Just you.

    But if the rest of the community doesnt want an animal and YOU want an animal and REFUSE to CONSIDER ANYTHING ELSE that is an issue.

    Someone just wanted a treasure chest and other people, yourself included, just wanted weird objects and figments that wouldn't work for the concept. I am open to the community, but not at the complete detriment of the design. After I stopped you, the discussion opened up and a lot more people said they were OK with animals. Nobody had an issue with my sketches. And when users gave reasonable suggestions, I made more sketches. You were the single loudest most obnoxious voice there, and it was actually stopping real conversation from happening. I wasn't ignoring other people, you were.

    Yes I dont care for animals especially not animated ones that have had no PRESENCE in the History of this site. If my thoughts resonate with other members thats not my fault.

    You know what else is new? The ability to post images and youtube videos. The site feed. The waiver behind Politics and Sexuality. This site didn't have a logo before someone made one. It doesn't feel new because it's been around for a decade, but it was very new when it was first created. And now that I want to contribute, you're blaming the fact that it's new to put a stop to it. Not only that, but you're putting words in other people's mouths and pretending the users who disagree with you don't even exist. It's not new things you oppose, just me.

    I want to be clear, I'm only weening off the dog design because actual constructive feedback from other users is leading us in a different direction, not because you personally demanded it.

    the community would agree with you there and tell you to practice what you preach.

    Read the room. And look in the mirror, for once. People are tired of this. I don't have a problem being reasonable with people who are reasonable with me. If you can't be civil because the rules demand it, then you will stop with the garbage whining because I don't need to keep acknowledging it anymore. I already blocked you. The only thing I expect from you is a completely unreasonable attitude. And every time I open the post, I get it.

    I wish you the best of luck with your movie set up.

    Well this is new. I was called an elitist by Jet Presto for having a home theater, and argued with you for, what, 70 replies now? Wow.

    Just now realizing this?

    If all you can give back is shitty one-liners, just stop.

    3 Weeks ago
    mariomguy
     

    I'm late to this circus but try to keep the personal attacks at zero. I'll tag things as needed -- only needed to do one so far, but who knows how the rest of the thread will go.

    3 Weeks ago
    Riven
     

    If you can't be civil because the rules demand it, then you will stop with the garbage whining because I don't need to keep acknowledging it anymore.


    Meanwhile, you should probably stop taking offense at things that aren't actual personal attacks. (Again, that's happened exactly once so far and been dealt with).

    3 Weeks ago
    Riven
     

    Explain how "I don't want to spend my limited money on shit I do not need" is an uninformed or unevaluated opinion.

    You don't need a TV, electricity, or running water, either. But if you buy a TV and don't spend $160 for a halfway decent sound system, you're not getting the full experience of anything you watch or play.

    Meanwhile, you should probably stop taking offense at things that aren't actual personal attacks. (Again, that's happened exactly once so far and been dealt with).

    S.O.H. has such a very twisted and completely unreasonable way of looking at the world and responding to people, it's best if we don't talk to each other. Like ever. And, you know, Jet Presto calling me elitist probably didn't help. Q didn't know what CRI was, and instead of asking me, he just stuck one-liners at my expense. A good, meaningful, constructive conversation just isn't possible with some of these people, Riven. The biggest budgets in Hollywood are going to mediocre films targeted to angsty teens, and so far the best response I heard was "if you don't like it, just ignore it." Not a conversation about how Marvel movies could be better. Not a conversation about the kind of movies that deserve this funding. Not a conversation about how streaming and home theaters (and yeah, the pandemic) are changing people's behaviors, and possibly closing down movie theaters for good. I wish this thread could get a do-over where I ignore S.O.H. and people maybe didn't call me elitist for having a theater system where the screen and speakers both face my eyeballs and ears. Just a little bit of reasonableness really goes a long way.

    3 Weeks ago
    mariomguy
     

    I only hear you dealing with it, let alone the fact that my mascot didn't even look like a normal dog and wasn't a problem until you mentioned it.

    Poptart, CMZ, Dooku and Xhin said it was in bad taste. If I had not mentioned it someone else would have.

    Riven was OK with an animal. He was OK with the dog and suggested a fox because several users have fox in their names. Others had no issue with animals at all. Just you.

    RIVEN IS NOT THE COMMUNITY. RIVEN IS NOT THE COMMUNITY. RIVEN IS NOT THE COMMUNITY. RIVEN IS NOT THE COMMUNITY. Several other people expressed interest in non animal mascots which you shot down. At this point we are better off commissioning an artist than we are letting you do anything for this website.

    also poptart said no to all animals as well. CZM requested something else altogether. How are you this full of yourself?

    You were the single loudest most obnoxious voice there, and it was actually stopping real conversation from happening. I wasn't ignoring other people, you were.

    I literally supported the non animal concepts.

    just wanted weird objects

    video game consoles are weird objects for a site with a gaming focus. oh my fucking god.

    Not only that, but you're putting words in other people's mouths and pretending the users who disagree with you don't even exist. It's not new things you oppose, just me.

    why are you projecting? Seriously? Why are you projecting? Several people commented they were interested in the console idea or a variation of it even if they consider it obvious/ generic. Why are you such a liar dude.

    I want to be clear, I'm only weening off the dog design because actual constructive feedback from other users is leading us in a different direction, not because you personally demanded it.

    no they are in my bandwagon remember? I demanded it and they made it S.O.H.

    Read the room. And look in the mirror, for once. People are tired of this. I don't have a problem being reasonable with people who are reasonable with me. If you can't be civil because the rules demand it, then you will stop with the garbage whining because I don't need to keep acknowledging it anymore. I already blocked you. The only thing I expect from you is a completely unreasonable attitude. And every time I open the post, I get it.

    Learn to read period. People are getting tired of you. (You even got the Bandit to stop lurking just to call you out jfc) Not only have you derailed two different threads in video games but you somehow managed to annoy everyone in this thread alone. Oh my dude blocking me doesnt really mean anything I dont even have a registered account. Youve been blocked by several people for some time now. Not that I expect you to notice as you dont even bother reading their responses before replying lmao.

    Well this is new. I was called an elitist by Jet Presto for having a home theater, and argued with you for, what, 70 replies now? Wow.

    oh no I am not agreeing with you in any way shape or form. Do not flatter yourself. I think you are an elitist that is extremely disconnected from the plights of the average American. We have several posts here indicating that.

    3 Weeks ago
    S.O.H..
     

    I wish this thread could get a do-over where I ignore S.O.H. and people maybe didn't call me elitist for having a theater system where the screen and speakers both face my eyeballs and ears. Just a little bit of reasonableness really goes a long way.

    That would have happened regardless if I entered the thread or not. Again stop complaining that I turned everyone against you, you have done that yourself.

    3 Weeks ago
    S.O.H..
     

    Nah, I don't use Discord. But thank you SOH. I guess I love you too since I'm only here because I'm "following your lead?" Or something?? ???

    oh man that is a shame. if you ever make one let me know! we have a strong group of gters on there would love to have you!

    Yeah I didnt know how much influence I had over this community. I wonder if I can put in a community vote to have mariomguy buy us all soundbars!

    sorry for the triple post riven I wasnt able to post everything in one kept getting an error on mobile.

    3 Weeks ago
    S.O.H.
     

    To get back on topic, Vice has a great article about this. A study of movie remakes found 91% of remakes scored lower with audiences than the original, and only 21% made more money than the original. TV Writer Normal Lear said remakes make people remember happier times, taking us back to simpler times, and far away from this era. The article ends quite ominously: if you don't like remakes, there's always another one of Marvels movies that come from an endless supply.
    https://www.vice.com/en/article/9kx4yz/people-dont-actually-like-remakes-but-studios-keep-making-them
    The reason remakes keep happening? They're profitable. In an ocean of content, the familiar is more stable, and a much better bet. Despite the guarantee people won't like it more than the original. And in a way, the endless supply of Marvel movies has kind of become it's own morphing persistent vortex of remakes. So it has turned to this.

    Big budget "Hollywood" blockbuster movies tend to be retread grounds, but more cynical. Marvel tends to be superheroes, but cynical. DC tends to be Marvel, but even more cynical. Indie films tend to be low budget and cynical. Small studios that make thrillers are definitely cynical. Oscar winners tend to be very happy joyous films.. NOT. Original content tends to be cynical. If you want a nice, fun, upbeat movie, one full of life and great fun for a family, you want animation. And if animation is not for kids, it's still kid-friendly. And I'm not alone. There are many countless others who think this and have written about it more poignantly than I can. People have done actual studies on this to arrive at this conclusion, remakes suck. Theaters might die because of the pandemic, but they died a lot sooner when the Steven Spielbergs of cinema were shut out in favor of whatever we have now. Perhaps Jet Presto is right and Hollywood was never that good in the first place. After all, direct-to-dvd sequels and remakes existed far before Casino Royale made it popular. But why does that feel so painfully apparent right now?

    I mean, Brad Bird made an Incredibles sequel and it sucked. What happened?

    3 Weeks ago
    mariomguy
     

    I wish this thread could get a do-over where I ignore S.O.H. and people maybe didn't call me elitist for having a theater system where the screen and speakers both face my eyeballs and ears. Just a little bit of reasonableness really goes a long way.


    I'm genuinely speechless...

    3 Weeks ago
    Jet Presto
     

    Mariomguy, I know I've been especially aggressive towards you lately, but I genuinely want you to understand this:

    I did not call you an elitist "because you have a home theater set-up." I called you an elitist because you have constantly told us that we're essentially watching movies wrong by *not* having one. And then acting like we're harming ourselves by not spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars many of us probably don't even have because you were able to do it.

    Home entertain systems are dope, and I'm glad that you were able to get that for yourself. I really want you to read this and re-read this until you really understand what it is I'm saying here. The fact that you personally have a home entertainment system is *not* why I called you an elitist. It's the fact that you keep telling us we're doing movies wrong and acting like there is no real obstacle for us to have one, too.

    It's like with the map thing in the BotW post, where all I said was that incomplete shrine icons were a little hard for me to parse out because the difference was just a little too subtle, and you responded by telling me that I should spend money I don't have on a bigger TV, because *you* have a bigger and more expensive TV and therefore *you* don't have that problem. It's the fact that you're constantly judging us as individuals for things like our financial situation or even something as completely irrelevant as what we enjoy doing in a video game.

    Again, I want to be explicitly clear here, and while I know you're probably reading this with an unbelievable amount of defensiveness and indignation, I really hope you understand this, and I'll repeat: the fact that *you* have a bigger and better TV than me or a better more expensive surround sound system, and probably a bigger living space than I do (I honestly don't even think I could fit a 65" inch TV in my living room even if I had an extra $500/600), none of that is why I have called you elitist.

    It is explicitly because you constantly tell us that we need to spend that money, too, or we're doing movies or video games wrong. It's the, essentially, bragging about how much disposable income you apparently have while not even being willing to acknowledge that we aren't all in that same financial position, but still judging us anyway. THAT is why I have called you an elitist.

    3 Weeks ago
    Jet Presto
     

    A good, meaningful, constructive conversation just isn't possible with some of these people, Riven.


    I've had good, meaningful, constructive conversations with all of those people individually. Also you.

    3 Weeks ago
    Riven
     

    I did not call you an elitist "because you have a home theater set-up." I called you an elitist because you have constantly told us that we're essentially watching movies wrong by *not* having one.

    You're just not getting the same experience without it. You're losing something. I get it, I've watched some amazing movies and played games for years without a sound system, and for years with one. It can be expensive for people, especially if they're not aware of the cheaper offerings. But I hope people get in the mindset of giving sound as much importance in their life as they give pictures. For entertainment, sound is a vital part of the experience. Working in a theater and being a film buff yourself, I'd hoped you understood the other side of this fence. Casino Royale doesn't sound the same on crappy speakers. The Dark Knight isn't the same movie. Wall-E doesn't feel as immersive.

    It's the fact that you keep telling us we're doing movies wrong and acting like there is no real obstacle for us to have one, too.

    When there are $160 systems out there, it's hard to argue there are no real obstacles. A long time ago, I bought my first sound system for $200 from Wal-Mart. It was a 1000 watt system, no slouch. There is such a huge leap pairing a sound system even with a TV that's not the best that it makes no sense to me people would focus on other things entertainment-wise. Better speakers need to be part of the budget.

    It's like with the map thing in the BotW post, where all I said was that incomplete shrine icons were a little hard for me to parse out because the difference was just a little too subtle, and you responded by telling me that I should spend money I don't have on a bigger TV, because *you* have a bigger and more expensive TV and therefore *you* don't have that problem.

    No, I wasn't sure what you were doing because the icons are pretty clear even in handheld mode, but I only ever saw the blue ones. I imagined you were gaming on a 32" or 40" from far away, and on top of that had nearsightedness. I had issues with that myself. For a living room you really do need a larger TV. Nowadays prices are incredibly cheap for TVs, and I still recommend it as a goal, not a "go out and buy a TV now" sort of thing.

    It's the fact that you're constantly judging us as individuals for things like our financial situation

    No. I was not doing that.

    I notice people tend to hold on to appliances, furniture, and large electronics a lot longer than other purchases not just because of price, but because of stigma. There's a stigma that upgrading a TV, or a kitchen sink, or furniture is wrong. We should wait until those things literally fall apart before making our lives better, and not being proactive somehow makes us feel more frugal. But it doesn't. I always have a goal for the next thing I want to improve in my home. Whether it's lighting, the ceiling, the bathroom, the sound system, the TV, etc, I made a list and prioritized which one thing would bring me the most happiness, and that's the next thing I work towards. All other purchases come to a halt because the one big thing is more important. It drives me to waste less and spend smarter.

    The kitchen sink was one of the first: The sink was a stainless steel original from the 1970s. The old faucet was banging into pots, and the split design with the shallow basin wouldn't even fit our dishes. My mother argued with me anytime I wanted to do one of these things, but quickly saw the value in it. I replaced the sink with a full basin and one of those faucets that pull out, and she realized how much easier it made washing dishes. No more banging pots. And it made the kitchen look beautiful. She stopped stressing. I spent $200 on the sink, and someone in our family installed it for I think $50. She said she wished we had done this sooner.

    If you're having trouble seeing the icons from Zelda's map on your TV... maybe your next big thing should be a bigger TV. That's going to be an investment, so it will take some time to get there. Yeah, you might need to open up a line of credit for it. Best Buy has 0% offers with autopay for big things. So for $30 a month for the next two years you can own a 60" TV. Not a bad one, a really, really good one.

    Again, I want to be explicitly clear here, and while I know you're probably reading this with an unbelievable amount of defensiveness and indignation, I really hope you understand this, and I'll repeat: the fact that *you* have a bigger and better TV than me or a better more expensive surround sound system, and probably a bigger living space than I do (I honestly don't even think I could fit a 65" inch TV in my living room even if I had an extra $500/600), none of that is why I have called you elitist.

    I live in a small condo, first floor. Just used the recommendations for TV size based on viewing distance. For 10' it's around 65"

    It is explicitly because you constantly tell us that we need to spend that money, too, or we're doing movies or video games wrong. It's the, essentially, bragging about how much disposable income you apparently have while not even being willing to acknowledge that we aren't all in that same financial position, but still judging us anyway. THAT is why I have called you an elitist.

    My mentality is definitely not that. I'm not judging people for saving money, or not getting a satisfactory pay from their job. That's not it. I'm judging people who will say they can afford an Apple iPhone for $1,000, Airpods for $160, and watch movies on the cheapest 40" flatscreen possible with no decent speakers and complain that they don't have any money to spend. Like, a $200 phone would be fine, a $600 TV would be better, a $160 sound system would be pretty darn good, and you still have $40 left over for a chicken wing pizza party and a year's subscription to both Disney+ and Netflix, and a pair of earbuds that can rival and outperform the airpods in every conceivable way. I'm certain everyone here has some way to figure out how to work towards a $160 sound system if they really wanted to. But because most people who don't make much money put too much on something they don't really need, they're left with nothing to spend on the things that do have a real major impact. And there are many people who do have the money, but they just don't care. They can't fathom the improvements of having a sound system vs. not. Businesses operate under the same mentality, and it just bothers me. This mentality keeps the world mediocre forever. It doesn't have to be this way...

    When people spend so much on a phone, which we only use intermittently, and not enough on the sound system we all watch movies, shows, and games on, that just doesn't make sense to me. Cheap Apple airpods cost the same as a surround sound system. The reason I can afford all this is because I literally chose to live in the cheapest listing that wasn't totally run down in my city. I managed my spending carefully, focusing on the most impact and long-term gains, and I'm reaping the benefits of those early decisions right now.

    3 Weeks ago
    mariomguy
     

    I like how he continues to ignore the various entry prices for an iPhone, payment plans, and trade in opportunities lol.

    3 Weeks ago
    S.O.H.
     

    I'm judging people


    why

    2 Weeks ago
    poptart!
     

    I think I'm allowed to say it bothers me when most people are willing to waste so much on cell phones, Apple products, consoles, and PC parts, but not spend a penny on decent sound for your living room. If that opinion bothers you, OK, but it's not illegal. You're missing a lot if you choose to spend your entire life without a decent system. And there are systems around $160-$250 that will suffice. Even something that isn't "the best" will still be a lot better than what you have.

    2 Weeks ago
    mariomguy
     

    why are you bothered by what other people do or don’t do?

    2 Weeks ago
    poptart!
     

    Q didn't know what CRI was, and instead of asking me, he just stuck one-liners at my expense.


    Please point out for the rest of the class where I said I didn’t know what CRI was.

    2 Weeks ago
    Q
     

    why are you bothered by what other people do or don’t do?

    I see someone scrubbing a floor with a toothbrush, I get annoyed.

    Please point out for the rest of the class where I said I didn’t know what CRI was.



    Please explain to the rest of the class what the hell you meant by "these need to be added to the list of mariomguy quotes."

    If you didn't know what CRI was or what I was talking about, all you had to do was ask. Instead you just had to go and make that comment.

    2 Weeks ago
    mariomguy
     

    Please explain to the rest of the class what the hell you meant by "these need to be added to the list of mariomguy quotes."


    that is pretty self explanatory. It is the list of things said by you. There was a number of them hosted on the site somewhere. Not sure where they went. But I agree we should include them.

    2 Weeks ago
    s.o.h.
     

    I see someone scrubbing a floor with a toothbrush, I get annoyed.


    why would that annoy you if it’s not your floor?

    2 Weeks ago
    poptart!
     

    Please explain to the rest of the class what the hell you meant by "these need to be added to the list of mariomguy quotes."


    The rest of the class doesn’t need it explained to them but apparently you do. You have a history of saying things that show how out of touch you are with reality. The fact that you say you were so poor that you could barely afford to have light in your place and then bought $200 CRI lighting instead of a normal electric lamp with some standard 40W or 60W light bulbs is crazy. The fact that you keep harping on spending around $200 on a sound system to watch movies because you are “missing the full experience” is also crazy.

    Forgive me if I just have to laugh at how ridiculous all of this really is.

    2 Weeks ago
    Q
     

    that is pretty self explanatory. It is the list of things said by you. There was a number of them hosted on the site somewhere. Not sure where they went. But I agree we should include them.

    Any good reason for that?

    why would that annoy you if it’s not your floor?

    Well, considering this conversation was about the end of theaters, I made it a point that you can bring that experience home for a lot less money than people realize. For a family of 4 to go to a theater, you might end up spending $80 between tickets, popcorn, drinks, etc, or half the price if you buy the ticket only and literally nothing else. For the same price as 2 movie outings, you can get a sound system. 4K massive TVs are already the norm. Popcorn, drinks, and snacks are way cheaper at home. A few movie outings for an individual can pay for Disney+. And Disney+ streams in the highest quality possible for no extra charge.

    Yes, it does annoy me, even if it's not my floor. People work so hard and get so little in return, and even with the little they have get even less in return. People will work themselves to the bone before thinking there could be a better way.

    2 Weeks ago
    mariomguy
     

    This reminds me of how one of my neighbors spent like thirty minutes trying to convince me to buy a ten thousand dollar mattress. Best sleep ever, it will change your life, you will not regret it, you gotta do it one time. Just buy a ten thousand dollar mattress, man.

    2 Weeks ago
    CZM
     

    The rear of the class doesn’t need to explained to them but apparently you do. You have a history of saying things that show how our of touch you are with reality. The fact that you say you were so poor that you could barely afford to have light in your place and then bought $200 CRI lighting instead of a normal electric lamp with some standard 40W or 60W light bulbs is crazy. The fact that you keep harping on spending around $200 on a sound system to watch movies because you are “missing the full experience” is also crazy.

    No, this was after I got the new condo. I already said it was the cheapest listing in my city, so it's not the best place, alright? But I can afford to buy some lightbulbs every week to change the old ones that look crappy. Whoever did the lighting in the place didn't know what they were doing. They had daylight flourescents in the kitchen, original 70s boob lights in the hallways, the lowest grade CFLs ever.

    Do you know how much a modern hallway light costs? $40 each, we needed 2. I got a cheaper pack of 2 boob lights for $20 for other areas that nobody will notice. Do you know how much high CRI LED lighting costs? $25 for a pack of 6. We already had tracks, we only needed 6 bulbs. $50 for two dimmers. High quality LED tubes for the kitchen? $30. Overall, the costs were about $200 total to relight the house, and it was all done over a couple months. The new lighting was fantastic. Once I got the dimmers installed, my mother said it was the best house she'd ever been in. I like to think the lighting had something to do with it. Most people would just buy any bulb and put it anywhere, so they end up with poor quality daylights in the bathroom and flourescents in the kitchen so everything looks cold and dull. But I installed warmer lights of better quality so it's more comforting and appealing.

    The better the lighting is, the more comfortable and motivated you feel. Now maybe you personally feel very comfortable and motivated in a home that's dark, dank, and janky, but your comments are irrelevant to me. A little improvement in light goes a very long way. It's not expensive to change a lightbulb. It's not expensive to buy a lamp. It's not expensive to make the right choices. But it does require a certain amount of direction and knowledge, otherwise you will be lost.

    And if you think you're getting "the full experience" from crappy TV speakers facing the wall, or crappy earbuds you bought from the Dollar store, I don't think that's because you're very smart. I think it's because you don't want to actually think about everything you're missing, and you've gotten very good at being OK with mediocrity, just how most people are OK with mediocre lighting.

    2 Weeks ago
    mariomguy
     

    mariomguy: im not elitist!

    also mariomguy: And if you think you're getting "the full experience" from crappy TV speakers facing the wall, or crappy earbuds you bought from the Dollar store, I don't think that's because you're very smart. I think it's because you don't want to actually think about everything you're missing, and you've gotten very good at being OK with mediocrity, just how most people are OK with mediocre lighting.

    2 Weeks ago
    s.o.h.
     

    No, this was after I got the new condo.


    Not what you originally said.

    I got a cheaper pack of 2 boob lights for $20 for other areas that nobody will notice.




    And if you think you're getting "the full experience" from crappy TV speakers facing the wall, or crappy earbuds you bought from the Dollar store, I don't think that's because you're very smart. I think it's because you don't want to actually think about everything you're missing, and you've gotten very good at being OK with mediocrity, just how most people are OK with mediocre lighting.


    Do your legs get tired from jumping to all of those conclusions?

    2 Weeks ago
    Q
     

    It's all just excuses for bullying. If you guys had the ability to make a real conversation, we'd actually have one. S.O.H. is calling me elitist for saying you need something better than TV speakers and dollar store earbuds to get the full experience for a movie. And I don't know what Q is doing, but it's not a conversation.

    2 Weeks ago
    mariomguy
     

    If you guys had the ability to make a real conversation, we'd actually have one.


    You don’t know how a conversation works. You don’t acknowledge other people’s points of view, you talk down to them and tell everyone that thier opinions are wrong and that yours’ are facts. I’ve tried for years to have actual debates with you and you either ignore my points entirely or respond with completely irrelevant topics.

    2 Weeks ago
    Q
     

    Just gonna chime in one more time and state a pretty non-controversial factual statement: if we genuinely want to experience films the way they were intended to be seen and experienced, we'd be going out to theaters to watch them. I promise you that every filmmaker makes their movie imagining it on the big screen, and not just in some random person's house.

    So if anything, I'm the person who has been watching movies "correctly" the most often. If you don't work in a movie theater and watch half your movies in a theater, you just clearly don't understand how to watch movies properly and you're being robbed of the full experience. Which is clearly also the most important aspect of watching a movie.

    2 Weeks ago
    Jet Presto
     

    I recall Roger Ebert sort of described Finding Nemo as the kind of movie where you want the edges of the screen to blur, and you want to lose yourself in it. Yes, Finding Nemo absolutely benefits from not just the sound, but the physically large screen of a theater. A home theater is good, but you need a big theater to do that justice. But I'll keep going back to Misery, that movie is just begging to be played on an old school retro CRT. The scene is in a home, it's very intimate, very close. A normal home TV at the time (1990s) with all the problems of the TV would almost make you even more self-conscious of the fact that you are stuck at home in that era.

    Some movies benefit more from the theater than others. But it's really very difficult for me to find a movie that doesn't benefit from good, strong, clear sound. For $160 you can have surround sound that's better than the TV.

    2 Weeks ago
    mariomguy
     

    but your comments are irrelevant to me.

    We know.

    I really like how Jet's point completely flew over mguy's head.

    2 Weeks ago
    The Bandit
     

    Would you care to explain why you think Jet's point flew over my head? And how exactly you feel my comment failed to address it? And perhaps give me a better suggestion for how I can make my point while also addressing Jet in a way that also appeases you?

    Because apparently communicating isn't enough anymore, I also have to appease you.

    2 Weeks ago
    mariomguy
     

    Mariomguy literally proving my point right now lol

    2 Weeks ago
    Q
     

    Would you care to explain why you think Jet's point flew over my head?

    Not really, no.

    2 Weeks ago
    The Bandit
     

    Then you're not very good for conversation. Also you're wrong.

    2 Weeks ago
    mariomguy
     



    2 Weeks ago
    Q
     

    Reply to: The Death of Modern Movies

    Username
    Password