Why, of course you can repeat the past... (GE DCC)

[Shining Raichu]

For me, it's not about the show quality or whatever, it's about the story. Why start a story if you're eventually gonna lose interest and not even care how it ends? To be honest, most shows do begin to lose quality as the seasons go on - and that's a pretty commonly acknowledged fact. So if you go into a show with that understanding then you must know eventually it will lose quality and you will lose interest. So why invest in the first place? It's just counterintuitive to me. It means you'll be watching the first three seasons of a lot of shows and having a whole catalogue of stories without endings. Or middles, for that matter.

[Ryoutarou]

Originally Posted by Vendak

Definitely agree with you on a lot here, it just isn't what I (and a lot of people) look for in a lot of films. When I watch a film most of the time I'm looking for a balance of entertainment and artistic quality, when a film tips over the fence into one of those categories too far I just can't enjoy it. I can understand other people enjoying it, but would you say it's the #1 best film of all time?

Haha, I actually would say it's one of the best films of all time. To me it just hits all the right notes and is the template of what a good movie should be, so it becomes one of those things I try to defend a lot. (though To Kill a Mockingbird is my favorite film)

People look at media of the past and see in such a better light than those of the past. If Citizen Kane didn't turn out to be as important was it was, it would have been forgotten amongst a sea of countless films out there. It's also possible that half the innovative ideas credited to CK were even done beforehand, CK was just the first film to use those techniques and be recognised at the same time. This is just baseless speculating here, but it is not very unlikely seeing as such things happen often.

What I think made Citizen Kane stand out so much was that, yeah, you probably saw a few of its ideas done here and there, but nothing quite like it had ever been done before. The film was made during an era where Hollywood was controlled by a select few people more than ever before or ever since, so there were these unspoken rules. Filmmakers just knew there were certain things they couldn't touch and Welles said to hell with it all and did what he wanted. Welles went into this movie with a contract that essentially gave him complete artistic control, nothing like that had ever been done before.

Beyond all of this, I think it was Welles' background that did a lot to help bring fresh ideas to the film world. The guy was coming off what was essentially a career in theater, he had never actually worked in film to this extent before. A lot of his ideas were adapted from things he learned and innovated in the world of theater and they were innovative there, but on screen on was allowed to play with these ideas in ways that the theater didn't allow. He was also so paranoid that he had something historic on his hands that people would want to mess with it that he actually went to the lengths of implementing a lot of basic things like fades to black on set. He would have the set lights be turned off one by one until there was complete darkness just so he could have one more thing the film editors didn't need to touch.

And, yeah, dude was pretty...maybe arrogant isn't the right word, but he knew he was good and wanted to protect his vision.

For me, it's not about the show quality or whatever, it's about the story. Why start a story if you're eventually gonna lose interest and not even care how it ends? To be honest, most shows do begin to lose quality as the seasons go on - and that's a pretty commonly acknowledged fact. So if you go into a show with that understanding then you must know eventually it will lose quality and you will lose interest. So why invest in the first place? It's just counterintuitive to me. It means you'll be watching the first three seasons of a lot of shows and having a whole catalogue of stories without endings. Or middles, for that matter.

Nobody goes into something with the expectations that things are eventually going to lose steam and it will become a shell of its former self. I mean, yeah, there is the accepted fact that if a show is incredibly popular, it's going to be milked, but people don't expect it to become this hollow thing. At the worst, people probably accept that later seasons might not be as good as the first few, but I'm sure they don't go into them with the mindset that these stories will eventually become trash. People invest because they like what they see and they want a similar quality to continue on through the life of the show. If this wasn't the case, the TV industry would not be where it is today. It feels more counterintuitive to start off a new show and expect for it to become crap as the years go along, it's a waste of time. All of my favorite shows are ones that I've gone into with the hope that they won't lose quality, and you know what? They don't. (okay maybe that one season of 24 was pretty bad) Like, I can't honestly look at Community and feel there is ever going to come a day when the show doesn't consistently produce outstanding material.

This is the essential flaw of American TV, there are too many episodes produced per year and rather than go until the story comes to a natural end, they go until they aren't popular anymore. This is sort of why I like the way shows are done in places like Japan, a season over there is only 13 episodes and shows manage to come to natural conclusions.

[TRIFORCE89]

Originally Posted by Vendak

Going back to my Beatles analogy, it's like people grabbing the first Beatles album, because it is the first Beatles album. It's good, but everyone's real favourite is still Abbey Road or the White Album. And for an art analogy, it's the Mona Lisa of the film world; not many people would hang a replica of the Mona Lisa on their wall, but everyone appreciates it.

Rubber Soul is where it's at. And Pepper. And the naked version of Let It Be. But I fondness for the old days with their first album.

Anywho... I liked Citizen Kane when I watched it. It was well-crafted and while not highly entertaining, it was certainly captivating. Greatest film of all time though? I don't know. I don't think so.

[Scarf]

I really like movies and love finding good movies to watch, but I've never seen Citizen Kane. Or Casablanca, Gone With the Wind, To Kill a Mockingbird (though I've read it), and pretty much 90% of the classics. I guess I assume they are going to be overrated.

And I also prefer TV from places where they keep a limit to the episodes, like the UK and Japan. I would much rather have a 1 or 2 season show and nothing longer even it was really, really good.

[Mr Cat Dog]

Originally Posted by Scarf

And I also prefer TV from places where they keep a limit to the episodes, like the UK and Japan. I would much rather have a 1 or 2 season show and nothing longer even it was really, really good.

I'm the opposite, in that I like TV series that are really good at 'world-building': shows that create such a vivid world in which all of the characters interact, that you could actually imagine such a place existing, even if it was very out-of-the-ordinary (e.g. Springfield from The Simpsons). Shorter shows, for the most part, don't have the freedom to do this as they're constantly all about plotplotplotplotplot and can't really expand their worlds for fear of losing the plot... so to speak. It's for this reason that I don't really like a lot of British TV; the pacing is very different to that of US TV, and British TV is a lot more plot-centric, as opposed to character-centric like US TV.

But that's just my preference, really. :D

[Scarf]

Originally Posted by Mr Cat Dog

I'm the opposite, in that I like TV series that are really good at 'world-building': shows that create such a vivid world in which all of the characters interact, that you could actually imagine such a place existing, even if it was very out-of-the-ordinary (e.g. Springfield from The Simpsons). Shorter shows, for the most part, don't have the freedom to do this as they're constantly all about plotplotplotplotplot and can't really expand their worlds for fear of losing the plot... so to speak. It's for this reason that I don't really like a lot of British TV; the pacing is very different to that of US TV, and British TV is a lot more plot-centric, as opposed to character-centric like US TV.

But that's just my preference, really. :D

That's kind of what I hate about a lot of American TV: its character-centric-ness. So many shows think they only need to throw in "quirky" characters and that will make a good show (or one that will sell anyway). I can't stand those kinds of characters because they so frequently do stupid things that no one with their personality/background/etc. would do.

Plus I like plotplotplotplotplot.

[AWsquared]

[SIZE="a"]Looking for dubstep other than Skrillex. I know some dubstep besides Skrillex like Nero and Flux Pavillion but I want to expand my library.[/SIZE]

[Shining Raichu]

I'm a fan of both British and American TV. I watch more American (mostly because there is so much more of it) but I love both. I must admit I'd never consciously seen the difference between the two as far as whether the shows focus on plot or character, but regardless I find I have an appreciation for both.

That's a bit of a fence-sitting answer, but whatever lol.

[TRIFORCE89]

Originally Posted by Scarf

That's kind of what I hate about a lot of American TV: its character-centric-ness. So many shows think they only need to throw in "quirky" characters and that will make a good show (or one that will sell anyway). I can't stand those kinds of characters because they so frequently do stupid things that no one with their personality/background/etc. would do.

... Have you seen British sitcoms?

[Shining Raichu]

Britcoms are amazing how dare you.

[Scarf]

Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89

... Have you seen British sitcoms?

... Have you seen any American TV?

But I get your point. I still think there's more for me in non-American television, but then I don't watch a lot so I'm only see the top stuff (for me anyway) from either country.

[TRIFORCE89]

Originally Posted by Shining Raichu

Britcoms are amazing how dare you.

lol Okay. More specifically, I meant some of the older stuff. Loads of quirky characters in those.

[Scarf]

Anyone seen/read The Hunger Games? It's the new Harry Potter, the new Twilight, so we're all now expected to know about it now.

I'm scheduled to see it this weekend. Wish me luck.

[jbthedelirious]

Originally Posted by AWsquared

[SIZE="a"]Looking for dubstep other than Skrillex. I know some dubstep besides Skrillex like Nero and Flux Pavillion but I want to expand my library.[/SIZE]

Skream http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sOidFHmAGE
Benga http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c-BZ9c-sAY
The Widdler http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPlxFrFyo1Y
Rusko http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKKDDyLSw8o
Chase and Status http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPb1w7s7iUQ
Deadmau5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV8eiSA4vqc
Bassnectar http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M-jOZRe0-8

I'm looking for some more Japanese rock and metal bands, preferably ones that sing entirely or mostly in Japanese. I already listen to Maximum the Hormone, X Japan, Abingdon Boys School, D'espairsRay, Dir En Grey, Girugamesh, Malice Mizer, Mantenrou Opera, Rentrer en Soi, and Versailles

[Shining Raichu]

You won't need luck, it's amazing! I saw it during the week without having read the book and I was sucked in. The book is now the next one on my list to read after I've finished the book I'm reading now!

Despite what the media says, it's not the new Harry Potter or the new Twilight. It's something totally different again.

[Harlequin]

Originally Posted by Shining Raichu

You won't need luck, it's amazing! I saw it during the week without having read the book and I was sucked in. The book is now the next one on my list to read after I've finished the book I'm reading now!

Despite what the media says, it's not the new Harry Potter or the new Twilight. It's something totally different again.

The movie may be different to Twilight and Harry Potter, but the fanbase of The Hunger Games is exactly the same to the Twilight and Harry Potter fanbases, possibly all fanbases. I haven't even read the books or seen the movie and I'm starting to get sick of The Hunger Games already.

[TRIFORCE89]

Does any one think this will be the big money making movie of the year?

I've heard this all week long. At the very least it will have The Dark Knight Rises to contend with

[Archenoth]

Does anyone know of some decent J-Core..? I have been interested in finding some since I sometimes like crazy Japanese happy-hardcore techno. (Like the style of Medely of Pokemon)

[Hagumi]

Originally Posted by Archenoth

Does anyone know of some decent J-Core..? I have been interested in finding some since I sometimes like crazy Japanese happy-hardcore techno. (Like the style of Medely of Pokemon)

I don't know any J-Core artists that do Pokemon remixes but here's a few J-Core artists that mostly create original work and/or do Touhou Project remixes:

REDALiCE [1, 2, 3]
P*Light [1, 2, 3]
DJ SHIMAMURA [1, 2, 3]
MUZIK SERVANT [1, 2, 3]
Betwixt & Between [1, 2, 3]
DJ Laugh/RoughSketch [1, 2, 3]
DJ Technetium [1, 2, 3]

I've linked some 'darker' J-Core but most of it's happy hardcore and such.

[Shining Raichu]

Originally Posted by Harlequin

The movie may be different to Twilight and Harry Potter, but the fanbase of The Hunger Games is exactly the same to the Twilight and Harry Potter fanbases, possibly all fanbases. I haven't even read the books or seen the movie and I'm starting to get sick of The Hunger Games already.

If you have zero tolerance for hype then I think you'll find there will be a lot of things that bug you in your lifetime lol.

As for whether it will be the big money-maker, it's only March. I think it's way too soon to tell.

[Scarf]

I think everyone is getting their hopes up too high for this series. Gonna see the movie in a few hours so I'll have a better idea if it's going to hold up. I mean, HP had a really bad first movie, but only the 3rd movie was actually good so I'd be surprised if this first movie isn't that great and somehow the others were good.

[Shining Raichu]

I'm not sure if you're just trying to be inflammatory or if I'm misunderstanding your post. Either way, using Harry Potter as an example of a bad movie franchise is kind of dumb lol.

[TRIFORCE89]

Originally Posted by Scarf

I think everyone is getting their hopes up too high for this series. Gonna see the movie in a few hours so I'll have a better idea if it's going to hold up. I mean, HP had a really bad first movie, but only the 3rd movie was actually good so I'd be surprised if this first movie isn't that great and somehow the others were good.

The only one I'd say was really bad was HP5. But, I'd say the same for the book. It's my least favourite in both mediums.

But HP1&2 weren't bad. They were good. I don't think they've aged particularly well. They're more like Wizard of Oz than the original Star Wars. They were well-made, well-reviewed, popular, and game changers (first one anyway). But, at least for me, they don't lend themselves well to multiple viewings. Original Star Wars I can watch over and over though. HP3 does, and I hated that movie when it first came out because of how it differed from the book.

But, HP3 has probably aged the best. Yes, it's different than the book a bit, but it had some great pacing. It was engaging. The first two Potter movies (moreso the very first one) were very pedestrian in their adaptation and now kind of boring to sit through once you've seen it. But, still good films. And still worth seeing at least once.

[Scarf]

I'm not trying to be inflammatory this time. The 3rd HP movie is the only movie I would own and watch again. It's not a good movie if you never want to watch it again. Maybe that's just how I think of it because I'm pretty harsh about a lot of things, but that's what I do.

And HG was better than I thought it would be.

Spoiler:

A little too much use of the shaky cam, but aside from that the only things that I can point out as things I'd want to see changed are the main character looking a little too old/healthy/pretty (though that's something that can be overlooked) and how I didn't really feel as horrified as I should at seeing kids killing each other for the fun of soulless people. I don't care for blood and violence, but I think their intentionally not showing as much of it as they could (and omitting some of the more moving and psychological parts from the games themselves) makes it less of a moving as it could. Waters down the message, I suppose.

[Mr Cat Dog]

There's a nice provocative title change! :D Although most people here know that I have no real opinion on the HP film franchise, having not seen any past the first.

In other news, I'll be off to the operaaaaaah in a few hours. First time for everything, even if it's over three hours long, in French and I have to watch it standing up. Oh well; it's about time this place got a little bit more 'cultured' as well as media-d. (That made more sense in my head.)

Glad to see that you all haven't killed yourselves in my absence! :D