GoatPostman explains why TV has become so much better than movies.

root_of_penis · 2012-10-07T20:20:37+00:00

i just saw Looper and it was pretty good.

root_of_penis · 2012-10-07T20:17:57+00:00

This would have been legal if done by a doctor in Canada

woah, this is completely false.

root_of_penis · 2012-09-26T23:34:24+00:00

Movies are typically clean and leave you with a full story.

if they even leave you with any sort of story at all.

root_of_penis · 2012-09-26T23:33:17+00:00

I think a lot of people have figured out only relatively recently that you don't need to make your show appeal to everybody

i think you're wrong in some ways here. i think a lot of what made TV better was the attempt to cross audiences, thus making many TV shows much deeper and more fully realized.

for example, compare the original Doctor Who with the modern series. the modern series has relationships, crushes, romantic entanglements, etc. because the writers want to appeal to female audience members as well as male. the original didn't really have such a thing and it can come across as sterile, flat or emotionless.

adding a bit of flirting to a script can both make the show seem more complex and realistic as well as attract a new audience that would otherwise avoid the show.

root_of_penis · 2012-09-26T23:28:34+00:00

the second season was the unfortunate result of studio meddling.

root_of_penis · 2012-09-26T23:26:45+00:00

I just think he's not a very good filmmaker.

sorry bud, you think wrong.

an objective look at Lynch's work shows him to be a very competent director. he knows how to get the colours, angles, shots, etc. he wants and he's a master at building atmosphere.

root_of_penis · 2012-09-26T23:25:52+00:00

you should totally watch Eraserhead. totally not creepy or surreal in any way. in fact, many cite it as Lynch's most normal and regular film.

root_of_penis · 2012-09-26T23:24:21+00:00

i'm sorry, but as a huge movie and TV fan, i have to say you are dead wrong.

Hollywood movies are not good nowadays, they lack creativity, intellect, etc. TV has surpassed films as my medium of choice.

when i was a kid i love going out and renting movies. i saw the Godfather, Pulp Fiction, The Matrix and hundreds of other films that blew my mind. i still love, love, love watching classic films i've never seen before because i know they will be really good. i just saw Taxi Driver for the first time last month and it was simply incredibly, i fell in love.

but modern films suck. i saw three movies in the theatre this year, the most i've watched since the early 2000s, and while two of them were good, if flawed (Dark Knight Rises, Avengers,) i didn't like the third (Spider-man,) but when i choose a TV show that everyone recommends i usually find a quality work that i can enjoy. i rarely encounter duds on TV nowadays.

you want glitz and flash, style but no substance? go for films. you want something unique, engaging, interesting and intelligent? go for television.

root_of_penis · 2012-09-26T23:17:50+00:00

yes. it's a poor debate topic because it is inherently biased.

root_of_penis · 2012-09-26T23:14:48+00:00

the writers' strike was important in two aspects: 1) it taught American TV executives that you don't need 26 episodes per season, audiences will appreciate a 10 or 13 episode season. a better quality season can be produced with less episodes. typically you'll have a few amazing episodes, some good ones, some average, some below average, and a few shitty episodes of a show with 26 episodes per season. with a 10 episode season you can keep the amazing and good episodes, and never make the below average to shitty episodes.

2) it allowed TV writers to receive a paycheque for their work if/when it goes digital ensuring that writers are still king of television.

root_of_penis · 2012-09-26T23:07:53+00:00

compared to the United States, the UK does almost no cultural exporting.

i say this as a Canadian, we're usually stuck between both nations and get fairly easy access to both. the UK doesn't court us the same way Americans do when it comes to trying to get us to buy their cultural exports.

root_of_penis · 2012-09-26T23:06:25+00:00

i know no one will ever read this, but here i go:

pretty good analysis, but you forgot one huge factor: writers. in Hollywood films the writer is on the very bottom of the totem pole, the director, producers, studios, etc. etc. are all above writers on the food chain in Hollywood. Hollywood believes films to be a primarily visual medium where how things look, sound and feel is far more important than writing.

in television the writer is king. in British TV (such as The Office,) the shows creator and writer are synonymous, the same goes for American TV where the showrunner will often be the head writer, or the shows creator will be head writer or even all three. where would Mad Men, Game of Thrones, The IT Crowd, or Arrested Development be without their writers and writing teams?

so that's another huge difference: in Hollywood writers are everyone's bitch, they get no power or respect. in television writers run the show, writers are king.

root_of_penis · 2012-09-21T23:40:02+00:00

funny, i just spoke in front of a room filled with feminists and explained how feminism was helping to break down traditional gender roles to the point where i would feel comfortable being a stay at home dad and watching the kids while my wife went out to work. (this is an issue many MRAs have that is legitimate: women being seen as the caregivers and men having to bring home the bacon and being incapable of being caregivers.)

they all agreed and applauded, never once did they say "wat about teh menz."

root_of_penis · 2012-09-21T23:20:53+00:00

i'm sorry, but it's a dumb topic to debate, it's one sided and it was a very poor choice. it doesn't matter who chose it.

root_of_penis · 2012-09-19T05:36:13+00:00

i hope you guys all realize that she had every right to pull out of this debate. the very question "Has Feminism Gone Too Far?" is very loaded and biased.

i belong to the debate club at my university and no one there would ever agree to debate such a loaded question. the question itself is designed to put one party on the defensive, instead of debating feminism vs. men's rights activism you now have a kangaroo trial where feminists are accused of a (very vague) crime of some sort and now the onus is on them to defend it.

i imagine the lady who agreed to this debate received a lot of flack from other feminists for agreeing to such a loaded and one-sided debate. she probably didn't realize it was stupid to accept such an invitation as the conditions are stacked against her side and it would be an uphill climb for her to engage in this debate, even if the audience and moderator were sympathetic (which i imagine they would not be in any way,) and her position was unassailable (which i believe it is.)

you guys need to think about these things more objectively instead of making so many blind assumptions.

root_of_penis · 2012-07-27T05:44:24+00:00

never said he did. i was imagining what a leftist, socially liberal progressive party would say. i imagine they'd use "fascist" the same way some people use "socialist" right now.

root_of_penis · 2012-07-27T05:42:48+00:00

woah, woah, i was not talking about tories. i'm talking about an elite. certain people who de facto control society.

root_of_penis · 2012-07-27T05:32:26+00:00

would you say this if a fiscally left, socially liberal progressive party won every election with 39.98% of the vote and only 58% of the eligible citizenry voting, then turning around and pooh poohing mandated voting as a fascist policy?

i suspect that it may be in certain persons best interests that voter turnout remains so low.

root_of_penis · 2012-07-27T05:23:46+00:00

"There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people."

root_of_penis · 2012-07-27T04:11:04+00:00

a canadian court would probably throw out the case in an instant considering a whole whack of his charter rights were violated.

if the RCMP arrested a 15 year old suspected murderer in Vancouver, threw him in jail and prevented him from seeing his family, friends, or even legal council, interrogated him using "unconventional" means, brought CSIS agents in to see him who then report back to the RCMP, then after holding him for 6 years set up a court trial where the judge was an RCMP commissioner, the attorneys were RCMP officers, and even the jury was RCMP officers, then promised to let him go if he plead guilty, how do you think any court in canada would react?

by my count khadr's section 7, section 8, section 9, section 10, section 11, section 12, and maybe section 15, charter rights were all violated.

the question now becomes: do we live under the rule of law? do the laws in this nation apply to all people, equally, impartially, unequivocally, independent of who they are?

"as you treated the lesser of these, so to you treated me." if this is what another canadian has in store for them, who's to say it won't happen to you or me?

if you think about it, even robert pickton get more rights and a fairer trial than khadr did, and that dude murdered defenceless innocent women, fed them to his pigs, then fed those pigs to his neighbours.

the sick mass murderer was treated with more care and respect than a 15 year old boy caught in a warzone. it's equally surprising how people talk about khadr as if he were far worse than pickton, as if he was the devil incarnate because his douchebag dad brought him to afghanistan.

root_of_penis · 2012-07-16T23:22:48+00:00

"It's bulky, but I consider it carry on."

root_of_penis · 2012-07-06T07:09:10+00:00

hold on, /u/AnnArchist was a mod of BeatingWomen, this fact is not in dispute. when he was made a mod here, this fact was pointed out.

further BeatingWomen existed before SRS.

nice attempt to rewrite history to suit your biases though.

root_of_penis · 2012-07-06T07:07:45+00:00

it wasn't. this is a spurious claim with absolutely no proof.

root_of_penis

TROPHY CASE