For me if I had to pick a good contender it would be the UK version of The Office.
I know many tend to debate how Ricky Gervais really fell off and how he repugnantly acts like a whiny centrist edgelord but me personally IMO I actually don’t think he was ever funny not even a little.
His big break through television was just so painful to sit through it’s so charismatically boring the characters are completely generic at best (notably Tim) or straight up insufferably unlikable at worst (especially the protagonist David FUCKING Brent) and most importantly the humour is just embarrassing.
Always seemed like The Thick Of It but without the nuisance tongue in cheek and charming satire.
Harry Potter, even ignoring how much of a piece of shit the author is the books just aren’t particularly well thought out.
I’m just here to see if anyone has any wrong opinions about something I love.
Paying a subscription to watch sports.
Big Bang Theory
American football. Fox turned it into a video game you can’t play.
Mens soccer. Stop with the fucking cry baby drama! Women’s soccer is better in this regards.
Dr. Seuss. I really don’t know why, but that stuff is creepy and disturbing in a way that almost nothing else is. All of it. The art, the writing, the themes. I literally just can’t even.
Sports. I have little tolerance for it because every time a big event is on, people get incredibly obnoxious. They think they know better than the professional players, they keep making so much noise, it polarizes people into arbitrary bands and start talking shit like using that as an excuse to be a homophobic POS, sometimes they’ll even riot because their team lost/won (da fuk), and even kill people over their favorite fucking team, and so much more. If the game is on I’d rather steer clear because it really brings out the worst in people.
You’re right and you should say it. Ricky Gervais has always been weird and off-putting and the idea that he was ever good has always baffled me. I never enjoyed The Office. When my dad tried to get me into Extras I just found all of Ricky’s parts annoying. When my sister told me how great Derek was, I just found the whole thing simultaneously tasteless and bland, like it couldn’t commit to being offensive but didn’t put the work into being real. His standup is often clever, but always the kind of clever that is let down by a complete lack of emotional intelligence. The man just does not understand people, but thinks he really does.
The US version of The Office, LOL.
Watched 8 episodes and would rather watch paint dry for the rest of my life than watching the rest of the series.
Disturbed’s cover of “Sound of Silence.” I like the original Simon & Garfunkel, or at least the more upbeat version of it. And I like Disturbed (see below). But this cover absolutely blows.
Yes, I know the lead singer is a grade A shitbag. I liked the band long before I knew anything about any of it and have since stopped listening to them.
Last Christmas. Whenever it pops up in the radio, I switch to the next station.
A big part of why many of the things in this thread haven’t aged well, is because a lot of what made these shows original and unique was copied to death following the fame of the original.
If you weren’t there for the original release of a piece of media, there’s a good chance you’re not necessarily seeing it in the context where the accolades make sense.
Seinfeld basically invented the 3 camera sitcom and a lot of the key tropes in the format. If you go back today having not watched it before, the vast majority of it just comes across as a boring sitcom, because every sitcom to follow took notes from the way they did Seinfeld.
It’s the same with the UK office, it basically invented the modern mockumentary format as well as the cringe comedy era that followed (and gave us things like peep show). If you look back now without that context, it just looks like a generic combination of both those things.
I believe “I Love Lucy” is credited with inventing or popularizing the three camera sitcom. Not to dampen’s "Seinfeld"s contributions or the point of your comment, but I just wanted to add that small correction.
The Office (US) pretty much killed laugh tracks in US sitcoms.
Just to mention it, this is literally named the Seinfeld is Unfunny effect on TVTropes
I think the bigger issue is that most of the show isn’t that good. Less than half the seasons are good, and the lows from the bad seasons are really low. Watching it on a streaming scenario exposes this a lot more than reruns of the good parts.
I actually still enjoyed it for the most part last time I went through. Jerry’s standup is terrible and I have no clue how he ever got an audience, but the actual show I enjoyed most of, even if nowadays pretty much all the plots would be solved because everyone would have a cell phone.
Seinfeld didn’t invent the three camera sitcom, but it was important in creating modern sitcoms that didn’t have a lesson to learn at the end of redeeming protagonists.
Ahh so THAT’S what they meant with the whole “It’s about nothing!” thing…
Mad Men. Everyone on that show is a fucking scumbag and not in a funny or interesting way.
Also Thor Ragnarok. I hate it for the reasons people say they hate the next one but it was the same people that said they liked Ragnarok so Idk what the fuck is going on there. I’m not watching the second one to find out.
The James Cameron Avatar movies.
They’re so bad.
…well the first one was. Didn’t bother with any after that…
I thought the wecond one was way better and more intereating than the first one. It even made me genuinely sad at one point. I watched like 15 or 20min of the third one and found unwatchable. I’m not saying you should watch the second one, because it’s a masterpiece or something, but i thought that if they keep that pace, maybe the third one will be good are something. It’s still a technical marvel, at least the first one at the time and the second one for the insane water scenes and water physics and time and effot that went into it. The third one looks a lot more like a greenscreen movie.
The first 2 are pretty much the same plot so you’re not missing much. Not sure about the 3rd one not interested in it.
It also has basically the same plot with the same enemies. Except they added a red lady villain that is weirdly sexualized and a kid gets magic powers - because nature.
…as opposed to the M. Night Shamalan movie?
Utter snoozefest I didn’t get the hype at all
I lost all respect for the movie and the entire franchise after hearing “unobtainium” as the name of the super rare space mineral. Nearly walked out of the theater.
I can’t remember if they ever refer to it as anything else in that movie but I actually appreciated this scene in the first movie for two reasons:
Info dumps irritate me in sci fi. He’s like the main guy in charge talking to one of his lead scientists. They both absolutely fucking know why they’re there. They know what it’s called and what it’s for. He’s spelling it out for our benefit without breaking in-world character. If, in-world, someone started pedantically outlining what the rocks were for to their lead scientists, it would be the equivalent of calling them an idiot. Calling it “unobtainium” is like saying “we’ve had this argument before, I remember everything you said last time, you know everything I’m about to tell you, and nothing you or I do will change what’s happening because you cant get it anywhere else and oh yeah it’s worth a fuck load of money”.
I can’t remember if they later retcon that into being the actual name, but in that moment, it didn’t sound like the actual name, it sounded like slang being used informally during a semi heated discussion.
Whether or not that was the original intent I LOVE this interpretation. I like to be entertained and err on the side of “Maybe this is a deliberate choice these very smart and passionate people made to smooth out a story.”
Sometimes I feel like people get mad that they aren’t just dropped into a completely fleshed out imaginary world.
It’s entertainment delivered to them as they relax in a chair, requiring zero effort on their part, and they make it a goal to nitpick whatever reminds them this slice of imagination was designed by humans, and isn’t actually a fully functional parallel universe they can literally isekai into to escape the mundanity of modern existence.
Critic culture is overrated, and I wish people would exercise their suspension of disbelief, basically. Hahaha
The first time I saw the first one in the theater I was blown away. Then I went and saw it again with someone else and paid more attention to the plot the second time and …yeah.
The plot sucks and the characters are forgettable, but that’s not the point. The point is the graphics, the locations, the crazy wildlife and eywa. The neural queues and the floating islands. Its a masterclass in world building, and has been an endless source of inspiration.
When did you watch it? When it came out, it was technically impressive for the computer-generated graphics, which included a lot of highly-detailed and expansive “organic” stuff like forests.
Here’s some quotes from the Roger Ebert review from the time:
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/avatar-2009
Like “Star Wars” and “LOTR,” “Avatar” employs a new generation of special effects. Cameron said it would, and many doubted him. It does. Pandora is very largely CGI. The Na’vi are embodied through motion capture techniques, convincingly. They look like specific, persuasive individuals, yet sidestep the eerie Uncanny Valley effect. And Cameron and his artists succeed at the difficult challenge of making Neytiri a blue-skinned giantess with golden eyes and a long, supple tail, and yet–I’ll be damned. Sexy.
Cameron promised he’d unveil the next generation of 3-D in “Avatar.” I’m a notorious skeptic about this process, a needless distraction from the perfect realism of movies in 2-D. Cameron’s iteration is the best I’ve seen — and more importantly, one of the most carefully-employed. The film never uses 3-D simply because it has it, and doesn’t promiscuously violate the fourth wall.
I mean, I remember being underwhelmed after I went to watch Avatar with a friend who was deeply impressed, but it did show off a lot of render capability for the time. I’d call it more impressive as a tech demo.
It’s way beyond a tech demo. Each Avatar movie invented dozens of new techniques. They actually film using cameras. They do a CGI movie with cameras, filming real actors acting. And they become huge blue aliens, while being filmed on a camera. It’s truly insane. I don’t like the movies themselves, but the BTS for them is crazy.
And that sort of thing totally DOES permeate throughout the industry. Whenever Pixar or Weta(RIP?) or Cameron or DreamWorks or whoever invent something REALLY COOL. . .
. . .At some point we eventually get it in Blender, and I think that’s neat.
I’m pretty sure that’s Cameron’s goal. He saw the direction movies were going and wanted to guarantee a niche for artists will keep existing within it 🤷♂️
@MonkeMischief you’re into animation ?
I’m a Blender hobbyist, yeah. I wouldn’t say I’m “into” animation yet but I’m taking a course right now. Making a ball bounce believably is insanely hard! But I’ll animate one day. :)
Didn’t expect this is how I found out Roger Ebert was a furry
I watched it in 3D too and was blown away
Great example of; just because it was a technical masterpiece, that doesn’t make a movie good. The special effects were outstanding for the time, and still hold up very well. That is something I will always praise it for, but it is the only thing worth praising about it. It really is a very polished turd, in that sense.
Yeah I saw it in IMAX 3D and it was certainly a spectacle. The visuals were phenomenal, but the film itself was otherwise completely forgettable.
I’ve never seen them, probably not going to either
We will never get along
