quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r

Hot Rod FTW.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat

The only thing I remember about Land of the Lost is Anna Friel in shorts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OPEN YOUR EYES

quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat

Here's one for you lot, and I'm going to elaborate on my opinion instead of just saying "lol it's overrated".

The adulation that Anchorman receives has always baffled me. It does a couple of pretty chucklesome moments and I do have a lot of time for McKay and Ferrell's later collaborations like Step Brothers and Talladega Nights. But for me, Anchorman isn't really that funny. There's very little wit to it. It is essentially people just saying random weird things and shouting a lot.

I never got Ferrell in general but I wholeheartedly agree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Coyleone

I don't think 40 Year Old Virgin is funnier, might be a better film though.

Also, Elf is abysmal. Easily one of Ferrell's worst films, and that's saying quite a lot because he's been is some awful stuff.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Squidward Hark Bugle

The Tree Of Life remains this decade's crowning achievement in film.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dannybohy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Squidward Hark Bugle

The Tree Of Life remains this decade's crowning achievement in film.

just when this thread appears to waiver out of context, someone always brings it back around. I salute you, even though you are clearly insane.

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dannybohy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Squidward Hark Bugle

The Tree Of Life remains this decade's crowning achievement in film.

just when this thread appears to waiver out of context, someone always brings it back around. I salute you, even though you are clearly insane.

Up until seeing The Master I'd have agreed with Squid.

What would you go with Danny?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dannybohy

Well, the wording 'crowning achievement' has different connotations than say `best movie`. LotR trilogy could be a crowning achievement in film, for filming the once unfilmable, but not the greatest movie. I find these sorts of questions very difficult , I prefer whats your favourite Horror movie, romantic movie etc. Id have to think on movie of the decade, saying that I believe Godfather is the greatest movie ever made , and I like to think that could never be an unpopular opinion

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dannybohy
Just throwing this out there, but I anyone else think that TV in the past decade has become a more fulfilling experience that watching a movie?. think I might give that question its own thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dannybohy

Well, the wording 'crowning achievement' has different connotations than say `best movie`. LotR trilogy could be a crowning achievement in film, for filming the once unfilmable, but not the greatest movie. I find these sorts of questions very difficult , I prefer whats your favourite Horror movie, romantic movie etc. Id have to think on movie of the decade, saying that I believe Godfather is the greatest movie ever made , and I like to think that could never be an unpopular opinion

I took Squid's comment to mean this decade (2010-2020). If we're going back to 2000 then I'd stick There Will Be Blood at the top.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dannybohy
Just throwing this out there, but I anyone else think that TV in the past decade has become a more fulfilling experience that watching a movie?. think I might give that question its own thread.

I know a bunch of people who think along those lines, but I can't get on board with it. I was at a Q&A with Mark Cousins earlier this year when someone in the audience asked "Is it just me, or are there fewer masterpieces being made these days?" to which Cousins replied "It's just you". Cinema is offering so much at the moment, with the key difference perhaps being that one has to seek it out in a more forceful manner than they do with television. TV is a lot more accessible, and while I do get swept up in the medium occasionally (Boardwalk Empire and The Walking Dead are real favourites) the experience just doesn't compares to how cinema can make me feel. Time aside, I can't think of one thing television does better than cinema. Nor do I get the same buzz out of approaching television from an analytical perspective.

Obviously this is all very personal, and different folk react to different things in a different way, but the notion that television is the new heir to what film once was goes way back (Roberto Rossellini declared the cinema to be "dead" in 1962 and it's still going strong) and I don't see that as ever really changing (the two are destined to be at loggerheads/complement each other forever).

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

I think it depends on the genre. The best TV comedy is way sharper, cleverer and funnier than 90% of cinema comedy. Having said that there's way more comedy on telly than at the cinema.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harry Tuttle

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

I think it depends on the genre. The best TV comedy is way sharper, cleverer and funnier than 90% of cinema comedy. Having said that there's way more comedy on telly than at the cinema.

Yeah but on the other hand TV has more time for characterisation as well. I have a huge wishlist of books I'd like to see adapted to screen. Stuff like Sandman, Preacher, American Gods, Anansi Boys, The First Law trilogy etc. My preference, without exception, would be to see them adapted into TV seasons rather than film because the characterisation would suffer in a more condensed format. I also think Harry Potter would have been much better if they'd spread it out over a number of TV mini seasons. The films are alright, for what they are, but TV always seemed a more appropriate place for the Harry Potter series to me.

It all depends really dunnit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

I think it depends on the genre. The best TV comedy is way sharper, cleverer and funnier than 90% of cinema comedy. Having said that there's way more comedy on telly than at the cinema.

Single Virgin Mod Candidate 2013

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives
To paraphrase the great man himself:

Vad3r won't go anywhere near this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

For there's a lack of sincerity in TV. I get the impression that nobody wants to be working there, or rather they'd prefer to be working in cinema. Abrams and Chase have proven this, while even Whedon only turned to the small screen after he couldn't hack the big. Currently the only real tv artist is David Simon, the rest are using it as either a stepping stone or as a forced alternative.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harry Tuttle

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

I think it depends on the genre. The best TV comedy is way sharper, cleverer and funnier than 90% of cinema comedy. Having said that there's way more comedy on telly than at the cinema.

Yeah but on the other hand TV has more time for characterisation as well. I have a huge wishlist of books I'd like to see adapted to screen. Stuff like Sandman, Preacher, American Gods, Anansi Boys, The First Law trilogy etc. My preference, without exception, would be to see them adapted into TV seasons rather than film because the characterisation would suffer in a more condensed format. I also think Harry Potter would have been much better if they'd spread it out over a number of TV mini seasons. The films are alright, for what they are, but TV always seemed a more appropriate place for the Harry Potter series to me.

It all depends really dunnit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

For there's a lack of sincerity in TV. I get the impression that nobody wants to be working there, or rather they'd prefer to be working in cinema. Abrams and Chase have proven this, while even Whedon only turned to the small screen after he couldn't hack the big. Currently the only real tv artist is David Simon, the rest are using it as either a stepping stone or as a forced alternative.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

Coulter, the guy who was responsible for directing episodes in Boardwalk Empire (including the brilliant episode where Jimmy meets Harrow), The Sopranos, Sex and the City, Rome, Six Feet Under did direct Remember Me which was a decent hit. It was also one of the worst films ever but there was at least one who found himself on the big screen.

He also did Hollywoodland.

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

For there's a lack of sincerity in TV. I get the impression that nobody wants to be working there, or rather they'd prefer to be working in cinema. Abrams and Chase have proven this, while even Whedon only turned to the small screen after he couldn't hack the big. Currently the only real tv artist is David Simon, the rest are using it as either a stepping stone or as a forced alternative.

Hmm, there's a hell of a lot of sweeping statements in that post.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

For there's a lack of sincerity in TV. I get the impression that nobody wants to be working there, or rather they'd prefer to be working in cinema. Abrams and Chase have proven this, while even Whedon only turned to the small screen after he couldn't hack the big. Currently the only real tv artist is David Simon, the rest are using it as either a stepping stone or as a forced alternative.

Always surprised how the HBO crop of rotating directors have never broken out. They have dealt with everything from gangster dramas, to horror to fantasy and historical epics, yet never really got onto the big screen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

Your point may have been the case 20 years ago but it's really not the same these days - for every writer/director/actor who may see TV as a leg-up to a movie career there are scores who prefer working in quality TV due to the relative freedom and creativity it can encourage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives
I don't think Abrams and Whedon are very good examples either as they still work in both mediums and as for Chase, he may have always wanted to direct films but he also only (belatedly) took that route once he'd said and achieved everything he was determined to in television.

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

Your point may have been the case 20 years ago but it's really not the same these days - for every writer/director/actor who may see TV as a leg-up to a movie career there are scores who prefer working in quality TV due to the relative freedom and creativity it can encourage.

Such as?

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

Well, of the top of my head - Chuck Lorre, David Crane, Marta Kaufman, Christopher Lloyd, Louis CK, Dan Harmon, Rob McElhenny, Frank Darabont, Howard Gordon, Alan Ball, Matthew Weiner...and loads more including a ton of others I've never heard of. Sure, a couple of those have worked in film but it's a massive generalisation to suggest that anyone working in TV only does so because they couldn't make it in cinema, or they're simply hanging around waiting for an offer from Hollywood. I'm sure that is the case for a few but plenty actually enjoy the medium and prefer it's emphasis on writing and characterisation (especially for the likes of HBO, AMC and Showtime), something not always guarenteed in (mainstream) cinema.

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

Sure, a couple of those have worked in film but it's a massive generalisation to suggest that anyone working in TV only does so because they couldn't make it in cinema, or they're simply hanging around waiting for an offer from Hollywood.

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

Well, of the top of my head - Chuck Lorre, David Crane, Marta Kaufman, Christopher Lloyd, Louis CK, Dan Harmon, Rob McElhenny, Frank Darabont, Howard Gordon, Alan Ball, Matthew Weiner...and loads more including a ton of others I've never heard of. Sure, a couple of those have worked in film but it's a massive generalisation to suggest that anyone working in TV only does so because they couldn't make it in cinema, or they're simply hanging around waiting for an offer from Hollywood. I'm sure that is the case for a few but plenty actually enjoy the medium and prefer it's emphasis on writing and characterisation (especially for the likes of HBO, AMC and Showtime), something not always guarenteed in (mainstream) cinema.

The ones that you've mentioned that are significant names in popular culture have all flirted with Hollywood tho, and been spat out the other end. Louis CK is a great example. Darabont is another, albeit from the opposite side of the fence, in the sense that he proved that television couldn't house the vision of a significant filmmaker (I'm no fan of his, but he's a notable filmmaker nonetheless). I love The Walking Dead, but as his experience has shown, the confines of television proved fatal for his relationship with that property in the medium. The other names mentioned are either one-hit wonders (Crane) or niche figures, and are mostly figures involved in comedy, the cinematic output of which I ain't about to start defending.

Interestingly I note that Weiner (who I had to google: another case of the property being bigger than the creator, a common trope for television) is planting the seeds of a transition over to film for when Mad Men finishes in 2 years time, similarly to how David Chase has done so.

While I think Alan Ball had his greatest success with (and remains to be defined by) his work in cinema, I accept that some of his television work has been just as notable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

Sure, a couple of those have worked in film but it's a massive generalisation to suggest that anyone working in TV only does so because they couldn't make it in cinema, or they're simply hanging around waiting for an offer from Hollywood.

I don't know, it might be a bit of a generalisation, but the evidence presented certainly seems to back up this line of thinking. Pretty much every major creative player in television appears to have aspirations of working in film, while I don't think the opposite can be said of those working in film.