Television.

[A-Unit]

Some shows are so stupid, they're not worth watching. For instance, MTV is a shell of its former-self. Founded on "music", it's anything but now, catering more than ever to women, drama, and debauchery, its attempting to reflect, or shape, society for the adolescent group today.

However, some shows IMO, still make the grade, and in fact BEAT what the movies can put out. We all watch movies some of the time, right? TV, once a week for key shows, is beating the movie theatres in a few key areas.

1) Movie theatres are over-pricing themselves with no distinguishable upgrades in technology. With TV, you can TIVO it, DVR, download it later, watch it when you want, from the comfort of home. I bought some IMAX, fully expecting it to become the NEXT BIG THING, but obviously I was too early to the party. Still, theatres cling to an outdated form of media delivery. Worse, they're putting advertisements INTO the theatres, which shows a) a decline in revenue, or b) greed, whereby they make the same off tickets, but want MORE, without providing MORE.

2) Movies are short-lived. They don't allow for much character development UNLESS they're 1 movie in a series, or you've read about it PRIOR to attending the theatre. Often times, movies hack, chop, and wreck the original story just to appeal to the (m)asses, or to cram it into the slot, or to fit under a rating system. TV shows don't have those problems, except the rating system issue, b/c they can go as long as they PROVIDE to the public something worth watching.

Which gets to my next point...

3) How many times have you said, "Man I want to see more on __?" Only to have a production company NOT do it, or worse, replace a good producer with a bad, and TOTAL wreck a movie. TV shows don't have that problem. If they ruin it, people tune out, and they end the series. Done. Moreover, if they CHANGE a character, its impact is IMMEDIATE. In a movie and production company, they've changed james bond over the years, with only hope as their guiding instrument. They didn't know how people would react to Casino Royale, so propaganda machines and cgi bolstered the appeal, while staying true to the core.

4) TV delivers all around more depth than the typical movie, and with all the trappings of technology, it's virtually portable, downloadable, and viewable EVEN if you miss it at its scheduled time.

I know, I know, get out, read a book, do something, be active, be productive. But be honest, 99% of people have something they're into, that's not some programmed crap with an agenda. Some sporting event, or show, or comedy, or news outlet, or sci-fi skit, or dramatic soap opera.

For me it's...
Lost
Heroes
it was 24, but this season totally killed it for me
Golf
Football
Baseball
And random special events worth tuning in.

I only keep basic cable, b/c Im never there, and it provides what I want, combined with online downloading or review.

But it boggles my mind how TV is surpassing the theatre, and either they don't see it, OR they're owned by the TV companies so that, it's just another revenue stream for them, and won't change. Right now, most home theatre systems provide more, to the point that, if you're old enough, have your own place, you'd be better off bringing a girl home to your HDTV, dvd player, 5.1 dolby digital surround system, with the sex bed right by, than spending EXTRA money on worthless crap. I loved 300, but I only went to see it b/c I wanted the epxerience, otherwise it was worthless for me to go, especially when comedies are a dime a dozen, and most aren't worth $10, or $20 for 2, when it's really 3.99 for comcast on demand ordering. Talk about Saving!


A-Unit

 

[Live-n-learn]

Agreed. To me, movie theatres died out a long time ago. The last time period that I considered going to the theatres once in a while was about 6 years ago. Movie ticket prices are too high, and with today's advancements, you can watch the same movie (although at a lower-quality) right on your computer. So if you want to watch many movies, you're saving a LOT of money. Hell, even the DVD business is seemingly doing well compared to the theatres.

I don't really watch much television anymore, except for sports games and a few comedies, also a fan of Heroes but haven't caught on to Lost or 24 (probably never will watch an episode of those). I see the Internet starting to overtake the television (if it isn't already THE dominant medium). You can watch television shows on your computer as well, and more and more people are doing that (also saves you from watching the commercials!).

Plus, as you mentioned A-Unit, I'd rather read or go do something or learn something with that time instead of watching TV for the most part.

 

[KarmaSutra]

A-man, do you think it's the different POV of the movie studio heads which are coming up with drivel in order to put people in searts or general lack of talent? I think it's a mixture. Case in point, Spider-man 3. Although Alvin Seargent is a great writer I think it could have been a completely different, and vastly superior, film without all of the musical numbers ( I'll blame that on Sam Raimi contributing to the screenplay). The studio spent a reported $250 million on the production, although I believe it to be twice that amount with publicity. Let's say $400 million as a good figure. The studios bottom line is the bottom line.

Television, on the other hand, seems to have gotten their sh!t together. Look at some of the brilliant programming tv has to offer: Lost, Boston Legal, 24, Family Guy, The entire lineup on The Science channel, Discovery channel. Though most of the crap on tv is on MTV AND VH1, it's not fair to blast it industry wide.

 

[Nighthawk]

I am largely boycotting cinemas because they cannot or will deal with trouble-makers and noisy ****s who talk through the whole movie. I'm sick of nearly getting in a fight every time I want to watch a movie because no one else will tell them to stfu.

 

[wootapotky]

There's good movies just not a lot of good mainstream movies mainly because people go to movies to be entertained so movie directors and producers strip things down and only provide explosions and drama because that's what sells.

 

[A-Unit]

Re:

I did have fun at *Grindhouse,* that's how movies should be done. I liked 300although it COULD have been equally well on a high def tv, with dd surround sound, and the new blue ray technology for near equal or better viewing enjoyment.

We see it, I don't get why multi-million dollar production houses and theatres don't. As a kid, I remember getting totally jazzed over the theatre, MOSTLY b/c, what was out wasn't nearly as good to see, or to view. But with a more fluid form of media, internet companies, rental companies, cable providers, and small scale producers have adapted, whereas major movie companies haven't.

I still don't think they can compete anymore anyways. Just see all the tv shows that have stretched seasons, and possibly decades! People want THAT. Imagine movies based around 300? Prequels, or more intricate writing that had you REALLY into the characters, outside of having to read the history and the books? Movie theatres totally butcher comic book adaptations, b/c they cast perfect actors and actresses, but lose them to long production times. For instance, I thought Hugh Jackman was a perfect Wolverine in XMEN, and the XMEN universe is HUGE, and probably never-ending, to the point, an awesome tv show, or series, could be made on say, cable, like HBO, and comic book junkies and kids would line up for miles to watch it.

Plus, if someone were to say "special effects" are the reason, I'd disagree there, too. CGI, or any other technology so named for special effects, is a waste of time and investment. The star wars movies have been terrible compared to the original, both in acting and in screenplay. It was hokey, and overdone. It was as if Lucas had such a small budget and low quality props that he made up for the difference by jamming it into the last 3, effectively ruining it for current generations. Not to mention, Heroes on NBC mondays has done well with its special effects/cgi imaging. Sometimes, less is more. And the movie the protector, and many in the same series, have done ALOT without any stuntmen/women and without any wires and safety contraptions.

More than anything...it's probably the big name actors/actresses that push it all. But even that's a farse, because I prefer the B level actor who isn't type cast so often so a role is seen more uniquely. Watching heroes on tv, or movies like 300, or grindhouse, and other's, you can see where a type cast actor, one who's played MANY movies with distinguishing roles HURTS a movie. Just check out Samuel L Jackson in Star Wars, can anyone believe that crap? The lore of the jedi go back decades, but you throw a guy in who's noted for Pulp Fiction and the movie Shaft, and you bring all those jokes with you. I'ved like Jet li alot b/c he's stay true to who he is, mostly, aside from the flubs with DMX and the other guy from Marked for Death * Co.

During the day, tv is junk, unless its a sporting event. At night, its fun to rewind to a good show, esp if you've got a way to watch it on your terms, and the internet is providing that. Eventually, everything based on media will be on our terms, at our time, with what we want, and you won't have just packaged cable channels, of which some you don't want. And it will stream through the internet. I think it's safe to say Bill Gates is trying to get people to that point, and we all know friends savey enough to integrate, XBOX and their computer so they can download any movie, any game, any music, any show, at any time, keep it, record it, burn it save it, and play it anywhere in the house. Well, I do anyways.

A-Unit

 

[Desdinova]

I haven't had cable TV in 6 years. I don't miss it at all. I fail to see the reason for me paying $40 per month on a bunch of crap that I'm not going to watch. When I do get a chance to watch someone else's TV, it's usually game shows of some sort (and I don't mean reality game shows either). Give me The Price is Right and I'm happy.

Other than game shows, there's nothing that I want to pay for. I don't need re-runs of The Simpsons five times a day. I'd rather spend the $40 on a DVD season or two of a good show. That way, I don't miss any episodes, I can watch them whenever I want, and I don't have to pay $40 next month to see them again. IMO, I'm getting more bang for my buck for not buying Cable TV packages. Yeah, like I need the woman's network, the weather channel, stations in another language, the infomercial channel, and a bunch of local crap I don't wanna see.

Give me an internet connection and I can keep myself entertained for hours. A search engine beats the hell out of flipping through channels only to find nothing good on, and I might even learn something.

Movie theatres leave something to be desired as well. It's easy to spend $20 just to watch one 5hitty movie that will be sold on DVD for six bucks in two years. I cannot remember the last "gotta see it" that came out in the theatre. The last movie I REALLY wanted to see in the theatre was the South Park movie. I've seen a total of about 3 movies in the theatre since then. Each time I left with an empty feeling, and a lighter wallet. I couldn't help but think "I spent that much money to see a piece of 5hit?"

 

[A-Unit]

Re:

Ahhh moving off topic...

24 good? How so. Here's my points, which are by no means "spoilers".

**Nobody to root for. Jack became a wuss for most of the season, and many of episodes had him for what, like 2 minutes? And the remaining 58 were spent on boring cast members. Chloe was "ok," but less the roll of who we're used to. Morris was "ok," but he was fractured and broken. Milo? Buchanan? Shooting Curtis, wtf? Curtis was actually cool, and a good actor. The Presidents? Logan was MUCH better last season. And his wife stabbing him? Man was that episode ever filler. When they brought him back, I cheered, but when it was painfully obvious nothing was going on...I changed to the Sox.

**Plot is played out. Attack this, attack that. Jack is always the odd man, bad man, never trusted hero. Do his points rack up, or are they spent? I mean, he's saved everyone at least once, sometimes twice, ONLY to have them doubt him. It's inconsistent to say he's a renegade, or a cowboy, or a soloist, when all he makes stuff happens, and all of characters owe their lives to him. It's no longer believable that he's this rogue or renegade agent that's hard to predict. People are so unbelievably unappreciative it's no longer believable. Moreover, nukes are played out. Attacking CTU is played out. Even conflicts with the President are played out.

**NORMALLY, the first episodes are a piece of final episodes, as if the main plan was what was coming in the last 4, making it worth STAYING with the show. Here...they let off a few suit case nukes, downed a drone plane by Jack's ability (again), recovered the suitcase nukes, killed Fayid, found Audrey, had CTU attacked by the Chinese GOV, and found out Jack lost another gf by reason of insanity. It bounced around...way...too...much. 4 and 5 were the best IMO. One was so so, as it was only trying to find its legs and feel.

The problem we face is...the grass is greener syndrome. They assume people only watch the show b/c of Jack and none of his co-acting members. Not true. Although this episode lacked mightily in casting, previous seasons had characters to like...Tony, Michelle, Curtis, Chloe, Audrey, Edgar, (Frodo Baggins), Logan, Palmer. People who you DID not want killed, people who know how to act, people of depth, that were immediately likeable. The saddest scene to me in 24 was Edgard dying, as they left him to the Nerve Agent that was released...he trots up to the window, murmurs chloe, and falls to the ground, all with a silent clock. Michelle and Tony dying weren't a big deal, as it seemed...painless. But they were still nice characters when it wasn't all jack. Doyle is a dope. He's super happy positive guy, who's nothing compared to Jack. He makes the wrong call all the time, unlikes his predecessors, ie Curtis and Tony.

Yes...It needs to seem like Jack is alone, but is he really? He's normally got the best technology, a gun, and at least one insider who's hooked up, be it the prez, secretary of defense, someone at ctu, always chloe, etc.

It's time for a season where the might and force of CTU + JACK + the pres BATTLE TOGETHER. And THEN let someone try to undermine the office. Or put it AROUND an election point, where they may have a lame duck president who overrides the call (like that's new). Let's ROOT for jack AND people around him. Seinfeld got it right when they left before it was over. Season 5 was the "over point."

Heck, even LOST has a determined end date...3 years from now. This season + 3 more. That's good news. Now they can lock up everyone who's going to be in it, and write the story accordingly. With 24, nobody knows. There's no REAL story behind Jack. It's just...season whatever, with no major build up to say...major players involved, pulling strings like a world conspiracy or something. THAT would make for an explosive season, AND force people to watch previous seasons so that they could provide clues and basis for the grand finale. I'm disappointed.

If you like it, all the power to you, but as someone who eagerly waited for each season, and praised its excitement, I'm truly off the bandwagon, and on the Heroes and Lost bandwagons.

A-Unit

 

[SalParadise]

The Wire

A-Unit,

I like your comments on the advantage of TV, particularly the scope for gradually building up characters and plot-lines. I have a show which I think encapsulates much of what you see as positive in current TV.

Anyone who is deflated by 24's sloppy return should consider catching 'The Wire'. This show is so careful and precise in it's writing, and it's presentation of every aspect of the characters' lives, that it's like a novel.

It's about a police detail set up to bring down the notorious Berksdale drug crew in Baltimore. We get to know both the police and the dealers intimately, and see how both have to battle the codes of their institutions to get what they want. Detectives Macnulty and Daniels are constantly obstructed by their superiors, while dealers Avon, Stringer and DeAngelo struggle to define where the line is drawn in their pursuit of profit.

The show digs deep into the power struggles and traps of each organisation, refusing to find easy solutions or bend any of the characters too far into 'good' or 'evil' to satisfy the demands of the plot. More than any other show of the last 20 years, it plays as a realistic and meticulous study of human nature, yet it always manages to keep the action tight and suspenseful (Not an easy balance).

Each season expands the focus of the series - from the drugs business, to the docks, to the city hall, and then to the schools of Baltimore. We build up a clear understanding of how the battle between the law and the criminals infringes on the lives of people in entirely different worlds, marking their fates.

The Wire is an angry, intelligent show, dealing with serious issues in a way that makes you think, and exploring the lives of incredibly intricate and believable characters. But it's not some "worthy",and thus boring, sermon of a show. The 'visual novel' elements are are consistently punctuated by brilliantly suspenseful action, compelling face-offs, and moments of unexpected comedy.

This is a show where a guy thinks he's going on an assassination mission, and at the last agonizing minute finds out he's been sent to feed someone's pets.

And that's the killer element which makes this the best show on television. Surprise. The show is driven by the motivations of realistic, fully-drawn characters, which means the story takes risky and unpredictable turns, and s**t happens, as in real life. Just when you think you know what page the writers are on in the Big Book of Screenplay Structure, a dumb minor character will act out of turn and totally change the shape of the story. Particularly in Season 2, the series is always willing to take a less travelled path.

You can get the whole first season on the torrent sites, if you are the dodgy type, or pick up seasons 1 & 2 on DVD from Amazon (it's a good deal used & new).

If the show has a weakness, is that it's so complex, you need to watch every scene like a hawk to pick up on subtle ripples in the pond. But attentive viewers are very well rewarded.


ALSO WORTH SEEING:


(both of these shows can be streamed at a site called TV Links. They're from the UK so you may not have heard from them, but they're award winning and way better than Monty Python )

Peep Show (British comedy - allows us to hear the inner thoughts of a pair of below average AFCs as they screw up their love lives).

Louis Theroux (journalist who infiltrates wierd subcultures - pornographers, survivalists and UFO hunters - and acts shy to lower their defences, to get a deep look at their belief systems).

 

[Deep Dish]

I studied film for a few years, wrote a few feature-length screenplays, read books, visited industry websites, spoke to some successful Hollywood screenwriters, and worked in a movie theater for two years. I'm no expert but I can spread some educated knowledge on the subject.

1) Movie theatres are over-pricing themselves with no distinguishable upgrades in technology.

It's all about declining revenue. Movie theaters have agreements with studios that for the first four weeks of a film's release the studios will grab 80% of the gross revenue. Should a theater renew the film for another four weeks then the formula inverses but with few rare exceptions a film will never be renewed, as sales precipitously drop after the first week. One roll of film costs $60,000 a pop and, ultimately, ticket sales only amount to enough money to break even and thus the only way theaters can make a profit is to overprice their food and show those annoying commercials. During the late 1990's, over-saturation of cineplexs prompted widespread bankruptcies. For the past few years theaters have been converting to digital projectors and while I don't know how much the projectors cost I can only imagine they ain't cheap.

The interesting thing is movie theaters will never die away. People are sociable animals and have a deep need to engage in publicly social rituals, most especially groups of teenagers on a Friday night. There are also certain visceral aspects of the movie going experience which will never be replaced; e.g. the shared laughter in a comedy like Rush Hour. I know many people who either wait for the DVD or get a pirated download—and I do a bit of that myself—but we will never say goodbye to the cinema.

Movies are short-lived. They don't allow for much character development UNLESS they're 1 movie in a series, or you've read about it PRIOR to attending the theatre. Often times, movies hack, chop, and wreck the original story just to appeal to the (m)asses, or to cram it into the slot, or to fit under a rating system.

Certainly, films are generally limited to two hours but with rare exception of a few great directors—Steven Spielberg, Paul T. Anderson, Quentin Tarantino, to name a few—people won't watch anything over two hours. It better be one amazing story.

As for Hollywood destroying good stories, the blame largely falls upon development execs who need to justify their existence by making story changes. Another reason is that screenwriters, arguably the most important element of a film, are bottom of the totem pole of power and everyone from the director's girlfriend to the catering cook to the cook's puppy dog think they have a "good" idea. Another reason is directors feel they need to fit the story to their "vision" which of course isn't their job. Alan Ball, who wrote American Beauty, did the "DJ" thing by insisting either his screenplay was produced as-is or he wouldn't agree to selling it. I will agree, though, there is truth in the saying it's the studio exec's job to take an original idea to the nearest cliché and it's the screenwriter's job to take a cliché to the nearest original idea.

Additionally, for adaptations of novels, messing around with the story is a practical necessity. If the typical-length novel was faithfully adapted into a film it would run about six or seven hours long. The average feature-length screenplay is 20,000 words and the average novel runs about 75-100,000 words. Thus, characters and storylines need to be dropped or merged while maintaining the essence of the original story which is certainly a most difficult task. In fact, even for original non-adapted screenplays, usually the director's first cut of a film which they are satisfied with will turn out to be three hours. The cutting room is exceptionally difficult but most especially for adaptations.

But it boggles my mind how TV is surpassing the theatre, and either they don't see it, OR they're owned by the TV companies so that, it's just another revenue stream for them, and won't change.

I already addressed the financial side but from a creative quality perspective it all goes back to the sagely wisdom of William Goldman, who most notably wrote Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and All the President's Men, who said “90% of anything is crap.” The golden age of film and television had as many awful productions as today... but with nostalgia we remember the hits and forget the misses.

 

[Last Man Standing]

For me it's...

it was 24, but this season totally killed it for me

A-Unit

24 is government propaganda - conditioning the public!! This is obvious!!

99% of TV and movies are worse than the smell of crap!!! I went to less than 10 movies in the last 30 years!!! The Matrix was the only recent masterpiece! The movie 300 is propaganda -- it was the Spartans who were Homos and evil not the persians!!!

98% of the material produced on TV is made for women and effeminates!!!

 

[PeterNorthisawesome]

Well if your smart or don't want to waste your money. Then you should read some MOVIE REVIEWS by DIFFERENT FILM CRITICS, it's their job to inform the public. Usually the critics are old, so they usually don't get the teen comedy movies and give it bad reviews, but overall they do a decent job. Sometimes they screw up like "Zodiac" was sh*t, probably the worst drama movie I ever saw. If the movie got crappy reviews by a lot of critics... then don't go see it.

TV is all cr*p, way too much commercials during the programs. I usually have to keep switching channels to aviod being brainwashed by commercials. What's annoying is how the stations syncronise when they have commericals. It's close to 20 mintues these days and it's a total waste of time. That's why buying the season DVDs of shows is way more efficient and fun.

Of course watching football, basketball and baseball is a little different. The commercial is between innings or when there's a timeout. Thank god they don't have commercials every 15 mintues.

 

[PeterNorthisawesome]

24 is government propaganda - conditioning the public!! This is obvious!!

99% of TV and movies are worse than the smell of crap!!! I went to less than 10 movies in the last 30 years!!! The Matrix was the only recent masterpiece! The movie 300 is propaganda -- it was the Spartans who were Homos and evil not the persians!!!

98% of the material produced on TV is made for women and effeminates!!!

Please explain why defending your country against a faciast dictator is evil? The persians were going to enslave them and the Spartans fought for their existance. Just because the movie was based on a comic book, doesn't mean it's inaccurate. Most of the movie was correct, you should go read some history books.

 

[gmillar]

24 is government propaganda - conditioning the public!! This is obvious!!

99% of TV and movies are worse than the smell of crap!!! I went to less than 10 movies in the last 30 years!!! The Matrix was the only recent masterpiece! The movie 300 is propaganda -- it was the Spartans who were Homos and evil not the persians!!!

98% of the material produced on TV is made for women and effeminates!!!

If you had some evidence for your ridiculously extreme generalizations, and used less exclamation marks, people might take you seriously. Hell, they might even believe that you're actually 44. I doubt it though.

 

[Hyde]

I'm actually not to entertained by TV today.

 

[backbreaker]

Some shows are so stupid, they're not worth watching. For instance, MTV is a shell of its former-self. Founded on "music", it's anything but now, catering more than ever to women, drama, and debauchery, its attempting to reflect, or shape, society for the adolescent group today.

However, some shows IMO, still make the grade, and in fact BEAT what the movies can put out. We all watch movies some of the time, right? TV, once a week for key shows, is beating the movie theatres in a few key areas.

1) Movie theatres are over-pricing themselves with no distinguishable upgrades in technology. With TV, you can TIVO it, DVR, download it later, watch it when you want, from the comfort of home. I bought some IMAX, fully expecting it to become the NEXT BIG THING, but obviously I was too early to the party. Still, theatres cling to an outdated form of media delivery. Worse, they're putting advertisements INTO the theatres, which shows a) a decline in revenue, or b) greed, whereby they make the same off tickets, but want MORE, without providing MORE.

2) Movies are short-lived. They don't allow for much character development UNLESS they're 1 movie in a series, or you've read about it PRIOR to attending the theatre. Often times, movies hack, chop, and wreck the original story just to appeal to the (m)asses, or to cram it into the slot, or to fit under a rating system. TV shows don't have those problems, except the rating system issue, b/c they can go as long as they PROVIDE to the public something worth watching.

Which gets to my next point...

3) How many times have you said, "Man I want to see more on __?" Only to have a production company NOT do it, or worse, replace a good producer with a bad, and TOTAL wreck a movie. TV shows don't have that problem. If they ruin it, people tune out, and they end the series. Done. Moreover, if they CHANGE a character, its impact is IMMEDIATE. In a movie and production company, they've changed james bond over the years, with only hope as their guiding instrument. They didn't know how people would react to Casino Royale, so propaganda machines and cgi bolstered the appeal, while staying true to the core.

4) TV delivers all around more depth than the typical movie, and with all the trappings of technology, it's virtually portable, downloadable, and viewable EVEN if you miss it at its scheduled time.

I know, I know, get out, read a book, do something, be active, be productive. But be honest, 99% of people have something they're into, that's not some programmed crap with an agenda. Some sporting event, or show, or comedy, or news outlet, or sci-fi skit, or dramatic soap opera.

For me it's...
Lost
Heroes
it was 24, but this season totally killed it for me
Golf
Football
Baseball
And random special events worth tuning in.

I only keep basic cable, b/c Im never there, and it provides what I want, combined with online downloading or review.

But it boggles my mind how TV is surpassing the theater, and either they don't see it, OR they're owned by the TV companies so that, it's just another revenue stream for them, and won't change. Right now, most home theater systems provide more, to the point that, if you're old enough, have your own place, you'd be better off bringing a girl home to your HDTV, dvd player, 5.1 dolby digital surround system, with the sex bed right by, than spending EXTRA money on worthless crap. I loved 300, but I only went to see it b/c I wanted the experience, otherwise it was worthless for me to go, especially when comedies are a dime a dozen, and most aren't worth $10, or $20 for 2, when it's really 3.99 for comcast on demand ordering. Talk about Saving!


A-Unit

I play the races, and when I don't have the time to make it to the track (or better yet fight the traffic to get to the track) or Iknow I am going to be playing alot of bets over different tracks, I stay home, so 90% of the time my TV is on TVG and HRTV, preferring the latter

as far as normal TV shows, the sopranos, Entourage and law and order. When football season starts I am a big college football fan but that's pretty much it. if something interesting is on the history channel (which ironically, never really shows anything about history anymore) I watch it. Same with snakes and the discovery channel. something about snakes and sharks, gotta watch it.

As far as movies, I haven't been to the movie theater in over a year. The last movie I paid to go see I think was the Di Vinci code...yeah that was it. wasn't THAT bad.. actually I thought it was pretty good.. too bad the girl I was with was a complete dimwit. The last movie I actually enjoyed going to see was Batman Begins. I like to watch older movies when I o watch movies. However, one of my fav movies of all time, in my top 3 is V for Vendetta, even though it's somewhat not accurate of the comic, the movie gets to me.

 

[backbreaker]

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and All the President's Men, who said “90% of anything is crap.” The golden age of film and television had as many awful productions as today... but with nostalgia we remember the hits and forget the misses.

that is very true, there were and always be crap movies, but look at how many movies have received a 4 star review in the last say, 5 years? i can probably think of all of 1. there aren't many. shoot I'm happy with a solid 3 now.

 

[DarthJuan]

I like having the TV on for background noise when I'm doing other things (working on the computer, surfing, cleaning up, etc). I don't really watch anything. Well, I'll watch the local news when I'm eating lunch or dinner on the coffee table. But I mostly just listen to talk radio.

 

[backbreaker]

i find myself listening to talk radio in the car as well..

 

[arvind]

i think it is a stupid box found in every home.
total waste of time ............