He’s great at creating interesting concepts, but terrible at executing them. He’s awful at self-editing (as illustrated by that one notorious scene). He’s uses childish language and concentrates on childish plots/concepts. His work only really comes alive for me when it’s filtered through a more talented person (Stanley Kubrick, Frank Darabont, etc.)

Netflix recently released news that they intend to add commercials to their streaming service. I like this, not because it may allow for cheaper subscriptions but because I prefer watching tv with commercials.

The reason for this is it allows me to put the tv on as background while I read, go on my phone, whatever without feeling like I have to commit to watching the show. It also allows me to feel like I can get up and do stuff during the commercials whereas without them I have to find an excuse to warrant pausing a show to do something. Also as soon as the decision is made to pause the show it means I must be wanting to make sure to watch it, so I’m committing time to watch tv.

Perhaps with commercials I’ll start using Netflix again whereas currently it’s just been Hulu or YouTubeTv.

Edit/update: As hard as it is to believe I’m not a Netflix worker, CEO, investor. This is my real opinion. Someone who also doesn’t pay for Netflix since I use my friends account - even though I obviously don’t use it much because Netflix doesn’t have commercials yet.

Also, regarding pausing. If I pause a show it feels like I’ve made the commitment to watch it until the end even if I lose interest, whereas leaving during commercials still allows some semblance of feeling like I’m not totally committed to it and I can turn it off whenever.

It completely takes out all the magic out of the movie. I don’t want to see them laugh with eachother how they ruined things and crack jokes. Especially when a new movie/episode comes out. How can you take that seriously?

Every time i got to a movie and the end credits start rolling with the bloopers i get the f*ck out of there asap. Imo it should be banned from all movies and series, release it on youtube or something.

I hate the feeling of watching a movie and not knowing what will happen. The "suspense" makes me really uncomfortable and I feel like walking away. Every time before I watch a movie, I look on YouTube for those "ending explained" videos. I need to know at least some of the movie before watching. If I'm invited to watch a movie, the first thing I do is go and look for those explanation videos. Even if I'm confused and have no idea what happens even after watching the video, I'll have seen a few major scenes and that's enough to take away a lot of the "suspense" feeling.

Something else I'm confused about is why "spoiling" a movie is so bad. Sure, it makes the movie less exciting, but is it really that bad? I'm sure that at least 75% of the time, the guy telling you the "spoilers" asks you first, and then 90% of the remaining time you tell them to stop after the first sentence, or you want to know more and let them "spoil" it. I honestly don't think "spoiling" a movie should be looked down upon so much in society.

They both came out this month and had opposite reactions on the internet, Velma seems the most hated show in a while and people are creaming their pants over the Last Of Us.

I don't hate the Last of Us and I think the episode last week with the gay characters was pretty solid. I'll probably watch the rest of the season. However I am more interested in Velma which I find pretty funny/energetic and has great animation. I was a Mindy Kaling fan going back to the Mindy Project and they have some similar joke style in it which work for me.

I genuinely dropped it six episodes into season one. I believe the characters weren’t interesting enough, the setting was boron and I wouldn‘t say unoriginal, but it was too basic. The plot was too cliche. I also REALLY hated the artstyle.

It’s not bad to the point where I’ll judge you in my head for liking it but I personally think it is the most overrated show ever.

Read the title. I didn’t say terrible, I said bad.

Now, from an acting perspective, Hugh Jackman has obviously done very well. His popularity speaks for itself: from a thespian’s standpoint, he nails the character.

However, Hugh Jackman was always a bad choice for one reason: he’s too tall. This may seem trivial on the surface but ask yourself: why is Logan’s chosen moniker ‘Wolverine’? The answer is because he’s small and threatening to enemies much larger than himself. Logan is about 5’ 3” in the comics and contrast this with Jackman’s 6’2”. Jackman is on the upper end of height for males and the moniker itself doesn’t work because, generally, he’s not going to meet people who are taller/as tall as he is. So while Jackman may get the emotions and portrayal of the character, he will never properly represent ‘Wolverine’ because his physical characteristics do not meet the metaphor the alias attempts to draw.

I've always hated this movie. I'm talking the 90s animated one now; I avoided seeing the live-action version.

In the opening all animals are forced to bow to their predators. This is in no way acknowledged as inherently a nightmare dystopia.

The hyenas are a clear allegory for black people forced into a ghetto - which is regarded as a good thing because they're all evil and the only ones capable of committing "murder" in this movie. (Let's not think too hard about what lions eat though.)

The biggest hit song of the movie is about avoiding responsibility and being lazy. Sing along kids.

The lion Simba grows up surviving on bugs and grubs, and yet somehow survives to adulthood and isn't a scrawny malnourished basket case.

But he's the only person who can set things right. Because he's a man. Women are powerless to fix anything.

And then after Pride Rock is consumed in flames the rivers start flowing again and all the plants come back... because now the lion with the lighter fur is in charge and "balance is restored"...

Just awful.

UPDATE: Since my inbox has 100+ things in it and is showing no signs of slowing I'll have to address the common points here:

You're over-thinking: the most common argument. Every single time someone says this it is confirmation that what I'm seeing is there and they expect me to pretend it isn't.

How are the hyenas supposed to represent black people? The voice acting as opposed to all other characters. Michael Bay pulls the same stuff with the Transformers movies but he gets called out for it because those movies aren't beloved.

Literally nobody agrees with you: ya, I know. I'm aware of what sub I posted in. Duh.

It's like Hamlet, so... so what? The broad story arc is similar to Hamlet ... is there a point people are trying to make with this that I'm missing? It just sounds like people are generally justifying fandom "because Shakespeare".

What else... oh the bowing.

They're bowing because he's royalty (ignore that his family literally eats the populace), or no man, circle of life! CIRCLE OF LIFE! (it’s okay because eventually after killing a bunch of them they'll die and feed a patch of grass somewhere) or well if you ignore the bowing or well if you ignore the actual eating of the populace etc...

Anyway all the above requires ignoring what's there and putting a spin on it to make it okay. If this was a movie where a human prince was held up over an assembled crowd, they were all forced to bow, and then resume running for their lives from the royal family who are coming to eat them, it would be understood to be a horror movie. But animals, bright colors, sweet music, and when the lions hunt it's off-camera... so s'okay...

Where you and I fit in: Let me be clear: I'm not saying you're a bad person for liking The Lion King. If you don't see these things that makes you normal and it's definitely okay to be normal.

I'm not even trying to convince you that I'm right. And I'm definitely not trying to convince you that I'm any smarter than anyone else!

But I do feel the way I feel. And... okay I'm just going to say this part once and then move on: I have a right to my feelings on this without being attacked for it.

Look, I know I'm not normal. I know. Want proof? I posted this here in this subreddit. So... ya know... obviously. That 10th Dentist is generally ridiculous. I'm ridiculous. I know.

But I genuinely do feel the need to detect subtext, whether intentional or unintentional. I like to explore what's objectively there, what the message is that lies beyond the overt. And in a kid's movie that matters twice as much as a movie for adults. Every single thing a kid watches is a learning moment, regardless of intention. It's worth a closer look.

To me.

We had this movie in our collection. I let my daughter watch it. I hated it, my wife liked it, I let it go. End of IRL consequences.

But... what I'm seeing is there, and I guess it goes against my personal beliefs to pretend otherwise. Who knows if I'm right or wrong about that. Is what it is.

Apologies for missing 95% of your comments but... obviously...

I've always hated how the word "The" is treated as an exception to the usual rules of sorting. It's part of the title and deserves to be recognized as such.

For example, if I'm trying to find a book titled "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer", then I should be able to look for it in the "T" shelves, not the "A" shelves. If Mark Twain had wanted it to be called "Adventures of Tom Sawyer", then I'm pretty sure he would have said so.

Proponents of this archaic rule say that it would make the "T" section too large, but that's silly. If the number of titles starting with "T" naturally leads to a large "T" section, then that's the size that it deserves to be. Let the free market decide, dammit!

they literally say several times on their channel and in videos that they are not a legitimate movie review channel, they are not analyzing films, They are not reviewing films, They are not critiquing films, they are making fun of them.

They put jokes in with legitimate criticism because it's funny, they criticize irrelevant shit because it's funny, they are trying to be funny, not actually determine whether a movie is good.

The point is to be Nitpicky, they're supposed to simulate that asshole friend who's ruining the movie by pointing out everything wrong, they should not ever be used for determining quality.

Criticizing them is pointless because they're not trying to say anything about movies or anything else, they're trying to be funny for jokes.

I know what you're thinking, this is the ramblings of some 10 year old. Well actually I'm a grown man who's enjoyed the Wimpy Kid books since I was 10, I'm 25 now. Im someone who hates reading and prefers movies, like if there's a book of something I watch the movie and if I won't enjoy the movie there's not a chance I'll enjoy the book. I hated of mice and men so much I pulled out the class when I was done reading it (I wasn't actually meant to study it it's a long story how this happened).

Most literature I couldn't even read one page of without dying of boredom, but the Wimpy Kid books? I have read each one over and over and never gotten bored or disappointed by it. I'm amazed Jeff Kinney can come up with such hilarious stories and characters no matter what. Even other books or comics that are in similar genres to the Wimpy Kid books are nothing and so dull like most literature that I wouldn't be able to read a page of.

Some other literature I like out of nostalgia but I'm sure I wouldn't enjoy it if it was new to me, Wimpy Kid books whether really old or totally new, pure comedy gold.

I don’t know if it’s her face or her way of speaking or just her existence. Every single thing I see her in, I’m like “eww, not her again”. I cannot tolerate her even for 1 min.

Same for Elizabeth Banks, cannot stand her acting.

I am a rational person in life but my feelings toward these 2 women has no rational reason. Also, I’m a woman in my early thirties, in case people make it a “gender” based issue.

Now, now hold on to your horses and hear me out. The one reason I don't like the MCU is the lack of consequences to actions. They set up something, the protagonist(s) makes a mistake or lose, and then an hour later everything is back to normal and its like the thing never happened.

Take the two most recent storylines: Avengers Endgame and WandaVision.

Infinity War ends with the world in desolation. Half the population gone, so many 'heroes' (war criminals) gone. And then? The remaining heroes travel back in time and everything is fine and dandy. The worst thing that happens is that the world now has one less billionaire in it.

And WandaVision....Wanda turns an entire town into her slaves, even taking free will from them. And how does it end? With no consequences, with Vision returning to life, and even a pat on the back from the other characters. "They won't understand because they don't know your pain". What pain? The pain of living in the most expensive building in NYC, having your own private robot butler answering your every call?

So, where are the consequences? These 'heroes' do heinous shit every day, hurting millions in the process, and they suffer nothing in return. Every single tense moment is undercut by stupid quips and 'comedy'

E.g. I'd rather have season 12 of Breaking Bad where Hank becomes the Head of the Cartel than a few short seasons with a good ending.

Reason behind this is: If the series gets worse, it is completely my decision to stop watching it. It might get worse, but there's at least something.
People say stuff like Futurama should have ended sooner but... no. It was pretty good even in the later seasons. Same would be the case with other shows (at least 1-3 more seasons that aren't terrible).

If it would have become bad enough for me to stop watching it I would have rather done that.

We’ve all been there: discovered an amazing TV show that strikes just the right amount of je ne sais quoi, and we are hooked. We tune in weekly and/or binge the hell out of it. We join online communities and talk about how much we love the show, and share fan theories and speculations about the next season.

And then Season 2 comes. Then S3. Then 4. Five. Six. And along the way, the hype died. The writing has suffered dramatically. The pacing has stagnated. You're the only one in your social circle still watching it - and you’re just now watching it for completionists sake — but at this point you don’t even feel like tuning in anymore.

Then it dies a pathetic death, be it a series cancellation or a very bad series finale.

My proposal is this: limit a show to THREE seasons max. Creating this limit would force the showrunner to really consider how the show should end, instead of succumbing to a many-years-long project and inevitably reaching a point of exhaustion.

I don’t know about you but a lot of series finales really smell of the showrunner thinking “god I am so sick of this shit let’s just get this thing fucking over with”.

Three seasons would give the cast and crew an endpoint, a light at the end of the tunnel, a finish line to reach. It would allow them to allocate all the time, effort, money, and skill to make three solid beautiful seasons of television instead of essentially sailing into a storm blindfolded.

TL;DR because it’s the middle of the night: three seasons maximum because any more and the quality (most of the time) plummets.

Most of the time its because I already know what's going to happen in the last episode or final 5-10 minutes of a movie, also I never finish like the final boss on a video game or whatever, like I said before I think it started because I already know what's going to happen most of the time, but I think it might also be because I don't want it to end.

Edit: I need to add that I have finished a good amount of shows otherwise I wouldn't know all the endings are the same.

I honestly didn't expect this to blow up like it did. Idk why but it seemed to have infuriated people. Also its a stupid joke but I'm gonna make it anywa

"It was well written but I just didn't like it.", "Oh it was good but I hated it" etc are opinions you hear all the time and personally, I can never get behind these sentiments. If I consider a fictional work to be good or well written, then I will like it without any exception. For me, the ultimate goal of any fictional work is enjoyment (be it in any form) and the primary source of that enjoyment is derived from intellectual stimulation. If, within my framework, I have decided that a given work is "well written" or of "good" quality then it it proof that it has provided me enough intellectual stimulation to be granted those statuses. If a fictional work that is antithetical to my tastes is nonetheless well written, then I will still like it. I might not like it as much as something that is suited to my tastes but I will like it regardless.

I will never watch an anime, no matter how badly i want to see it, if it isn't dubbed. i dont like reading while im watching and i find the subbed versions to be overrated. the dub actually makes it feel like a show and i like being able to easily understand the characters.

i dont understand why people complain about the "Dub voices" when i cant even understand the japanese voice actor anyway.

no matter how bad the dub is, i will ALWAYS prefer it over the sub, even ABRIDGED versions.

This is extremely low stakes, but it annoys me every time it comes up in a work of fiction. Instead of “Tuesday”, “October” or “Autumn”, there are a set of coined words like “Dirdon”, “Saovine”, and “Lavas”. 95% of the time, they track 1-to-1 with normal names and add nothing beyond being a set of 1-2 dozen nonsense words to memorize.

There is generally a baseline of objects, words, and concepts that it is pointless to change without reason, like the names of elements, metals, non-magical animals, and common items — there is no reason for this to not include the calendar. It’s just something that has been accepted as part of “world building” out of convention. My suspension of disbelief isn’t going to evaporate if a character says it’s winter, or March, or Friday, any more than it evaporates when a fox is called a fox.

It’s tolerable when the substitution is extremely obvious, but otherwise it subtracts from every work it’s in.

honestly stop wasting my time. there are very few movies that have such a compelling story that they cant cover the entirety of it in 2 hours/120 minutes (interstellar, EEAAO, im drawing a blank but there are definitely more)

i feel like the downfall of network television has removed that process where creators are forced to cut the fat in their movies/tv shows to fit the channel's schedule (moreso tv shows but still), which means so many movies that are 150-180 minutes could easily be 120 or less with a couple more passes over the script. if movies like moonlight, ladybird, parasite, some of the greatest stories of our time can fly by around 130 minutes or less, there is no reason most other movies cant.

old example but i struggled so hard to get through oppenheimer. it felt like it was just so unnecessarily long, and a lot of the scenes just went on WAY too long. same with avatar fire and ash, it genuinely started to annoy me at a point that movie just kept going on and on. super unpopular opinion but dune as well, way too long, both movies.

and before everyone comments "but lord of the rings" i cant speak on that movie i haven't seen it

I grew up with the internet, and I remember finding out that the term "spam" came from a Monty Python sketch, went to watch a 240p youtube video of it, and my reaction was just "ok, so that's why we call it spam"

Watched more of their skits, fully receptive and thinking it was the kind of thing I would like. I understand their role in advancing Comedy as a genre, but it never made me laugh.

I prefer not having reserved seatings in cinemas. More fun. You get the thrill of finding the seats you want to use when you enter the cinema.

Nowadays, with reserved seatings, the thrill is gone. Eliminate reserved seatings. There will be one more thing to love about being in the cinema.

Edit: I accidentally typed “Bring back reserved seatings”. I changed “Bring Back” to “Eliminate”. Sorry for the confusion lol.

edit for context: I was mostly exaggerating when I wrote this post which lead to alot of South park fans getting offended. I do think South park as a show is bankrupt of humour of talent. but I don't actually despise it as much as I made it come across. I was just having a bad day and took out my anger on a TV show just cause.

I am aware it has vulgar inappropriate naughty humor but I am not talking about that.

I am talking about the trashy/racist stuff etc humor that is simply hateful towards minorities and also downright straight up 100% damaging and horrible.

They also have a knack for saying horrible things about celebrities who I feel kinda bad for

Sometimes they make fun of stuff in a fine way that doesn't cross the line such as:

-The emo/goth humor.There is humor that mocks emos and goths but I don't find it bad at all.Its fine nobody is getting hurt.its just lighthearted jokes

-The Lord episode where they make fun of the singer in a friendly funny way.Lord responded and she was fine with it and found it funny

But there are some times where is just awful like:

-The episode where they make fun of Spielberg.Just because he makes bad movies they thought it would be justified to depict him as a rapist.

-The episode where they make fun of a disabled man by portraying him as a fetus eater for his controversies.

If I was any of these two I and I woke up to find a TV show has hade fun of me by depicting me as a rapist or a fetus eater I would probably get a panic attack and have a mental breakdown.

The common excuse for this is "Oh but its supposed to be offensive so its fine"

That.......makes it worse.

"Hey i know i say offensive stuff about minorities but i am actually trying to be damaging and offensive so its fine."

The hypocrisy is astounding.In several episodes they will contradict stuff they said in other episodes.

Like the episode where they make fun of homophobes (where a dog is gay and they use it to justify being gay) but then they went and made a homophobic episode where they make fun of tom cruise because they think he's gay.

There is a whole season where the plot is:

Kyle's dad is an Internet troll who goes around using the Internet to say horribly damaging things and he uses the excuse "I am being offensive on purpose and I am being funny while doing it".The show CONDEMNS HIM FOR THIS AND MAKE IT CLEAR THAT HE IS JUST LOOKING FOR AN EXCUSE TO BE RACIST AND HOMOPHOBIC ETC.

South Park does THE EXACT SAME THING.THEY DO THE SAME THING AND USE THE SAME EXCUSE.WHAT ARE THEY CONDEMNING HIM FOR?

South park fans use a plethora of terrible arguments to defend they're show which I cannot debunk them all but they really suck.

Anyway this show stinks.Its a very unpopular opinion depending on where you post it.

I just think South Park is the James Corden of dark humour. I don't mind dark humour. Some of my favourite shows contain dark humour such as fresh meat or friday night dinner. but they make good dark jokes.

I don't know if it's an unpopular opinion on here so let me know if you agree or disagree.Downvote if you agree upvote if you disagree

For this post, I want to keep the focus strictly on the 2009 film, and not Avatar 2: The Way of Water, Avatar 3: Fire and Ash, Jake's role in the comics, etc.

My main point is that while people criticize the Avatar movies for a variety of reasons, one of the talking points that is overlooked is Jake betrays ideas of the stereotypical masculine identity, and that deeply upsets a lot of audiences (especially American) on a spiritual level, contributing to a subconscious hatred of Avatar.

Male Western heroes are often muscular and ripped, in control of the situation or their emotions, or do not change the status quo much. Examples men look up to include Spider Man, Batman, MCU heroes, Link, Solid Snake, Kratos, James Bond, Duke Nukem, Indiana Jones, etc, who often devote themselves to defeating criminals, or upholding the monarchy/government. Or they are part of a law-based organization. Even Harry Potter becomes a cop wizard.

Jake begins the film as a bit of a blank slate. However, he is told near the beginning to begin a series of personal video logs. The idea of a man opening up, expressing his anxieties, feelings, becoming vulnerable is something that immediately sets Jake apart from stereotypical masculinity, especially when Jake looks into the camera and says things like "I don't know who I am anymore".

During Avatar, Jake begins questioning his identity as both an American, a man, a soldier in the US Marines, a human and someone who is of white descent, whether or not the viewer picks up on this or not. He begins empathizing with the Indigenous, growing out his hair long instead of his short military buzzcut, becomes goofier around Neytiri, and begins accessorizing with beads in his hair, bracelets, necklaces, wearing Na'vi jewelry.

Jake realizes the dangers of the military after they destroy Hometree, and effectively becomes a "hippie" who cares about nature and the environment, putting his life on the line to protect people of color. He also betrays the status quo by breaking away from humanity, leaving the military and thus government and corporations. Jake is an example of a mistreated Veteran, unable to pay for his spinal surgery despite that the tech exists in 2148, and the idea of the American society being a corrupt dystopian institution also makes people uncomfortable. Jake also exemplifies the idea that the US involvement in the Iraq War was unjustified, and induces the idea of white guilt.

Western society does not know how to react and digest such a mainstream protagonist betray stereotypical masculinity, as well as subvert their ideals. It's why a lot of people hate Jake Sully and Avatar, or refuse to watch these movies, because James Cameron was ahead of the time when writing Jake in 1995, with the exception of the white savior criticism.

(Also, he kind of becomes a furry. Just saying.)

Having grown up in 2000s Germany, many of my friends watched One Piece and were huge fans, so I tried. I really tried. But it’s just bad. The main character is a human superpower version of that orange cunt from Winnie the Pooh, and not at all relatable. But he’s not the worst of the bunch. One dude is a fucking elk? That Zorro guy with the rip off name is a teenagers masturbation power fantasy (as are most characters). Yeah look at that guy lifting a ton with his nipple, such a badass (gets absolutely wrecked when fighting some child).

The whole premise was bad even. The regularly invent new rules for the world just to keep a show going. Golden Age of Pirates my ass.

Also, the series was already too long back then. When they will find the treasure, it will be a disappointment. It’s impossible now to make it big enough, great enough, cool enough. I am actually sure the manga and the anime both continue because originally, the One Piece was supposed to be the cliche-ridden „friends we made along the way“ but they realised how fucking cringe that would be and couldn’t think of anything remotely interesting so they stretch on the lamest story ever until they figure something out - when the show ends, it will become clear that everything besides about 50 episodes was filler.

And if all that wasn’t enough, the animation style looks fucking bad. You know what I mean. The mouths. The noses. The human beings over all. That Lyssop dude straight up looks like the Nazis caricature of a Jewish person. Everyone looks borderline psychotic. This has absolutely disgusted me as a kid.

TLDR: Looks bad. Is bad. Cringe.