Movies are objectively a
better medium and for an obvious reason: Easier to remember. You can remember 85% of the movies you watched, but when it comes to shows you only remember like 30% of the episodes.
40 years from now. You are more likely to recall the 90 minutes right now you spent watching a movie than if you spent those 90 minutes watching 3 episodes of a show.
>>212279971 (OP)TRVTHSVPERNOVA:
If you enjoy movies and or shows ,you are a cuck. You are letting a man (or god forbid a foid) dictate how the source material should look like over your own imagination, he's basically fucking your brain and you're letting him. Books are superior .
>TRVTH HEAT DEATH
Films with real sets and real actors make an immeasurable impact of the quality of films. The best films of all time are from the 60s and 70s because they had zero CGI of any kind
>>212279971 (OP)Horror is the most interesting genre in a theoretical sense but the reality of the genre is pretty sad. Really good horror movies are peak cinema to me
Horror is a failed genre for immature kids. 99.7% of horror movies aren't remotely scary to most functioning adults who past the mirror test and adding "gore" doesn't make the movie higher quality. This is why they need to throw in half naked women in all the time:Because otherwise it's just not interesting enough of a genre on its own.
>>212280407Truly good horrors are hard to find but they exist. Outcast (2010) is fantastic and has based James Nesbitt in it
The very concept of genre is flawed. Movies should just do what needs to be done. Whether that that's switching to a sci-fi time travel halfway in your slasher movie or the sequel goes from children's action adventure to slow-burn romantic tragedy.
The boxes aren't real. The art is.
