One would have to spend years watching these shows to really answer this question.
Too much content.
The best way to answer the question is if you were going to be given a random episode of either show and would HAVE to finish watching it regardless of whether or not you you were enjoying yourself, which one would you choose?
I'd go with SP for 'topicality.'DaMU wrote: ↑Thu Jul 30, 2020 6:09 amFor sheer number of quality seasons, based on my limited experience, I think South Park had a longer run of reliable entertainment, but I don't think South Park at its best could touch The Simpsons at its best, which carried (to me) a much more effective synthesis of sincerity, pop-culture homage, topicality, and just generally excellent storytelling for something like eight or nine seasons, which is really pretty incredible.
Eh, I don't know about all of that; it may be easy to forget now that The Simpsons has long been accepted as a mainstream cultural institution, but despite its incredible early popularity, it was actually fairly controversial with certain groups during its first few seasons, like with the teachers who felt Bart's smartassness would make him a bad role model for their students, and a lot of social Conservatives, even George H.W. himself, spoke out against the show at the time (meanwhile a couple of decades later, modern Republicans like Ted Cruz are doing terrible impressions of Mr. Burns in an attempt to relate to actual human beings through pop culture references). But, that was part of the whole point of the show at the time; outside of occasional exceptions like a certain "show about nothing" and a few others (like, ugh... Married With Children), 80's Sitcoms were dominated by a lot of sickeningly saccharine, family-friendly shows like Full House or The Cosby Show, while The Simpsons was openly, unapologetically satirical of American institutions through both its characters and its sense of humor, and it accomplished this through the "kid's medium" of animation to boot, which of course, made the show feel even more subversive as a result.replican wrote: ↑Fri Jul 31, 2020 6:00 amAlso, SP has always aimed to be more subversive whereas prime Simpsons leaned towards traditional Americana. Even in depicting the title family and Springfield as having its warts, the ethos always felt like the old school mentality of family construct is wholesome as is the larger community...the collective good of humanity.
SP is just as 'sincere' as The Simpsons was. It's a more cynical approach but still sincere in its portrayal of the families and town. At its best, SP gets to the truth of matters better than the Simpsons ever did. It's just that the show doesn't make you feel good about it always.
I'd tack Street Fighter: The Movie on that list, barely. I think it's necessary viewing to truly understand the 90s zeitgeist
I think y'all are forgetting Cyborg.Rock wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 2:52 amI don't know how rigidly we're defining "essential" but Timecop is a lot of fun.
Also, I like Replicant and In Hell for his committed performances and the movies' willingness to trust in them. They're not as fun as Van Damme directed by a Hong Kong director (in this case Ringo Lam) might suggest, but especially with the latter that's kind of the point.
Above the Law and Die Hard on a Battleship are the only two Seagal that are any good.Thief wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 8:45 pmI'll take most Van Damme films over any Seagal film any day. Stuff like Bloodsport, Kickboxer, TimeCop, Sudden Death... even Double Impact or Lionheart, they're mostly fun and at least he has some level of charisma. I haven't seen much of his recent efforts beyond the Universal Soldier films we mentioned, but I think JCVD is a worthy watch, particularly to those familiar with the Van Damme craze of the 90s and its subsequent decline.
EDIT: I remembered The Expendables 2. He was the best thing on that film. Take from that what you may.
The only one I remember clearly is Die Hard on a Battleship. The first 3 or 4 are a blur to me and I always get them mixed up. I also remember seeing films like On Deadly Ground and Under Siege 2 back then and thinking they were crap, even when I knew shit about movies.
Dude. Dude. Dude.
I don't really care if people pick on all the subtleties or not. If a film doesn't get the job on done on the surface of the text, then the movie doesn't work. The subtleties enhance what is already working.replican wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 5:22 amListening to non-movie people talk about movies really grinds my gears. Much in the same way when bandwagon fans start cheering for a winning team that's nowhere near where they are from or live.
The lack of knowledge in how they critique a film is painfully obvious. If you aren't passionate enough about film to follow the great auteurs or perceptive enough to pickup on subtleties, ironies, etc. then I don't care to hear anything about a movie from the beyond 'it was great/ok/terrible.'
That's what people with shit taste usually say.The Nameless Two wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 11:38 pm"Taste" is a myth reserved for the Illuminati. I respect people who watch any old movie and is all "that was a good show, whatever" because they obviously haven't been sucked down this particular vortex. Opinions are nasty things, big respect for the path of least intellectually void resistance
As if I'm not fine with what you, a single barely anonymous user in some internet hole in the ground, have to think about my inconsequential opinion towards next to nothing establishments in our overarching culture. I'm totally losing sleep over it
That's the spirit! You have every right to like what you like. You have a limited right to have "wrong beliefs," in general. It's a wonderful thing. And most James Bond movies are still not all that great.
It's like talking to a doctor who smokes in their office, it's kinda funny if you dig deep enough in the irony but mostly gross
I am high on life, Nameless. But 2020 is a bad trip.
Oh no, am I the drug peddler again? What is this "escape from taste and free will" bullshit? What kind of sheltered ass life do you lead? If I had freedom of taste I'd surely be long gone from these pastures, literally everything I do here is satire as a result of how ridiculous these notions are. Pissing into a sea of piss is whatMelvin Butterworth wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 12:49 amI am high on life, Nameless. But 2020 is a bad trip.
If you think about it, there is no escape from taste any more than there is an escape from free will. Even if you genuinely believe that you're a puppet of the cosmos, you will still have to think, deliberate, and weigh options, all of which are taxing and demand your participation. Even if you officially don't believe in free will, you still have choices to make and those choices will be as real to you as they've ever been. Likewise, we can deny standards of beauty, refuse the critical consensus, and deny the idea that there really is any such thing as a "good" or "bad" movie, but you won't get five minutes into a film discussion tomorrow without sliding into aesthetic judgments that fit like a comfy pair of slippers. Regardless of whether you "officially" believe in good taste, you believe in good taste.
Hey, I'm just in the business of being as comfortable around as many people as I can and, spoiler alert, there isn't much in the ways of these waters so if you want to flounder and dry up on this here beach that is your prerogative, not mineAnd the joy of aesthetic discussion is the intermingling of our subjectivities revealing intersubjectivities, allowing us to chart islands of agreement among fellow dreamers, shifting shorelines that nevertheless have general shapes we can identify. Even if there is not absolute timeless truth about art, there is still enough of a measure of objectivity that we can and do have meaningful discussions about various categories of art. Indeed, the fun largely lies in the challenge of this cartography. Only an absolutist throws up her hands in defeat and an abiding scepticism is fun for about fifteen minutes in college (until you realize that it is a nuclear move, a checkmate which end all conversation in places like this).
I'll keep with the sports analogy:Melvin Butterworth wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 11:23 pmI don't really care if people pick on all the subtleties or not. If a film doesn't get the job on done on the surface of the text, then the movie doesn't work. The subtleties enhance what is already working.
What I can't stand is just garbage taste. No, The Purge is not deep. No, Transformers is not a great film series. No, most Bond films are not very good. No, the "family" themes in Fast and Furious are not amaze-balls.
I can see what you're saying. But even Anderson has to put the ball in the net. All the globetrotter stylistic shenanigans in the world don't make up failing to tell an effective story.replican wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 3:03 amI'll keep with the sports analogy:
It's fine to appreciate a thunderous dunk during a basketball game. It's visceral. An easy to compute emotion. But me being an avid basketball fan, I see that there's so much more to this (hypothetical) play. While the beer chugging fan is jumping for joy at the spectacular display of atheticism, I take note of how the play developed, how his teammate set a pick for him to get open to drive down the lane, how another teammate fed him a precision pass, how there were decoys on the play, etc. I also take note of the fact that the defender was an awful player so the coach took advantage of that and set up the correct play.
So if I'm enjoying the game with someone, I'd much rather want to hear them be able to see what I'm seeing as well. The true beauty of the game and not just the end result payoff of a dunk. Who the hell can't appreciate that?
Same with movies. It's such a more enjoyable experience going into a Wes Anderson movie with someone that is familiar with his works, understands and appreciates on the same level as me. Or even they don't like him as much as I do, they at least are aware of what the attraction there is.
Sean Young was Scott's call in Blade Runner. No one else wanted her because she couldn't really act, but Scott saw that she had the right look for the film.replican wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 4:48 amCasting is such an underrated aspect of film making. So many films get it wrong. It probably has to do with the fact that of all the departments, casting is where directors have the least control. I'm speaking of the big budget, major motion picture studios here.
There's a reason that you hear/read stories about a director REALLY wanting a particular actor for a part. The director had to make a huge deal about it.Melvin Butterworth wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 5:23 amSean Young was Scott's call in Blade Runner. No one else wanted her because she couldn't really act, but Scott saw that she had the right look for the film.
Depends on the era, the studio, the profile of the director, I guess.
So much of what makes a good film is just good luck. Directors are a part of the picture, but it is a weird collaborative/competitive process that either works out or doesn't.
Sure. Usually the blame for a bad film goes to meddling producers, but I wonder how many films have been saved by them? It's kind of easy to blame the producer as a "non-creative," a "money man," a penny-pincher, so they fall under the natural contempt of "artists" bleeding for their work (even though it is the veins of the producer's bank accounts that have been opened).
From a making their money back perspective, sure, casting choices by producers overriding a director's choice I'm sure have saved films.Melvin Butterworth wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:28 amSure. Usually the blame for a bad film goes to meddling producers, but I wonder how many films have been saved by them? It's kind of easy to blame the producer as a "non-creative," a "money man," a penny-pincher, so they fall under the natural contempt of "artists" bleeding for their work (even though it is the veins of the producer's bank accounts that have been opened).
Brad Pitt... Hmm... Pretty boy phase. Crazy guy phase. Laconic bad-ass phase. He seems to get locked in on one character for 5-7 years. Yeah, I am hard pressed to think of a film that absolutely needed Brad Pitt. Has he really carried any film? Maybe there are 2-3 roles that he really knocked out. You can say the same thing about St. Keanu Reeves, I think. The man can't act. His best role was Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. Of course, there is a whole host of people who are bad actors who have kept finding work (e.g., Arnold Schwarzenegger, Kate Mulgrew, Ben Affleck).
I agree that Pitt's "crazy man" phase was his most interesting period.MrCarmady wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 8:54 pmBrad Pitt is excellent in roles which require humour and charisma (Basterds, Hollywood, Burn After Reading, Ocean's Eleven). Not everyone needs to be Daniel Day-Lewis. Schwarzenegger, likewise, fantastic actor with a very narrow range, can't think of a single actor in the world who would've done a better job in Commando, Total Recall, or Kindergarten Cop. Acting is about being right for the role, not fitting some platonic ideal of what acting is supposed to be.
PS. Pitt is also great in 12 Monkeys and his Fincher stuff so his range is wider than that.