Messages

It's the same reason we'll never again see a pop artist as big as Michael Jackson or Madonna at their peak, or an athlete as famous as Michael Jordan.

I'd agree on the popstar front, but there have been several globally branded sporters since Jordan. I have no interest in Tennis, but I know Roger Federer is a Swiss man who is very good at it and that Serena Williams married that guy from Reddit. I actively dislike golf* but I know who Tiger Woods is.

I'd guess the majority of this forum don't really follow football, so you might not be aware that you can go almost anywhere in the world and spark a debate over whether Ronaldo or Messi is better**.

I dunno man. I think it's hard to overstate just how huge Michael Jordan was back in the day. He wasn't just world famous in the way Serena Williams or Tiger Woods are - he was an actual superstar. LeBron James is a big deal right now, but are people going to be wearing Nike Air James in 30 years time?

It also does have a very satisfying complete arc in and of itself I would say.

I think another point is that almost all of the 'classic' movie moments we think of are from wholly original movies - bit harder to replicate the novelty when almost everything nowadays is a prequel, sequel, reboot, remake or an adaptation of an already wildly popular book series*

*and yes, I know The Godfather, Apocalypse Now and Goodfellas are all technically book adaptations, but it's a bit different to something like Harry Potter, The Hunger Games or Fifty Shades of Grey where the filmmakers just have to make a slavish, box-ticking adaptation for a massive built-in audience.

Was looking forward to catching up with this at some point. Does Season 1 stand up on its own?

I would say yes.

It does sort of set itself up for a second season, but you could definitely enjoy it as a one off too. I mean, you basically know how the Age of Resistance went from the original movie.

I'm gonna hold my hand up and say that I think Elf is actually pretty great. I avoided watching it for years because I thought it looked terrible from the trailer and I'm somewhat ambivalent about Will Ferrell, but when I finally watched it I loved it. Watch it every year now.

It's shame that cinematic comedies are pretty much dead - there's nothing quite like seeing a big comedy with a packed audience. I think the last one with any kind of broad appeal and enduring cultural relevance was probably Bridesmaids, which is nearly ten years old now. I think people get their comedy from other sources these days.

I think there's plenty of animated stuff that counts as classic. Toy Story and the like.
There are certainly British films which are culturally resonant, such as Love Actually, The Full Monty, Trainspotting.

Very true - however almost all of those you mention are well over twenty years old. Good shout with Pixar though - I think a lot of their films reach the bar for 'timeless classic', especially ones like Up and Wall-E.

Makes me wonder what the last really big, internationally successful British film was. Maybe Slumdog Millionaire? The King's Speech?

Similarly, layered and complex situations or anecdotes are often described as being like Inception (that's one I've heard used in interviews too).

Yeah - I'd say Chris Nolan is one of the last few 'big name' directors who pretty much have a blank check with what they get to make and whose name is itself is enough to sell a big movie. As I said earlier I think The Dark Knight is easily the most iconic superhero of the modern era.

I'd say Children of Men, wonderful though it is, is firmly in the 'cult classic' box. It was a massive bomb when it came out and hardly anyone I know has seen it.

I think timing is a large part of the equation. If you think about it, what really crystallized all of these (predominantly) 70s, 80s and 90s movies as part of the classic canon was the advent of home video, and especially DVD.

A whole generation of budding film nerds were able to build up this huge back catalogue of Scorcese and Tarantino and Coppola, watch and rewatch them over and over and delve into the special features. We had a lot of choice back then, whereas today we arguably have too much choice, with streaming, reality TV, social media etc etc. Viewers tend to be more more fickle and attention spans are shorter so it's harder for stuff to really break through.

Re: the Marvel movies (and I'll probably catch a bit of flack for this) they're a lot of fun but they're almost their own genre unto themselves - a kind of hybrid of cinema, theme park ride and episodic TV. They're certainly very popular and the closest thing we have to classic golden era blockbusters in terms of cultural reach.... but to my mind there's something a bit generic and cookie cutter about them, and like most other modern blockbusters they're so fast-paced and so packed with visual effects and spectacle that few moments really stand out amongst all the noise. I'll concede that there are a handful, but I'd be really hard pressed to think of that many individual moments from all 20+ of them that come anywhere close to the pure movie magic of something as simple as Indy getting chased by the giant boulder in Raiders.

Ditto The Force Awakens. Are there any truly memorable/quotable scenes or set pieces in that entire movie? Or any of the modern SW or Jurassic Park films?

By contrast I think Breaking Bad is packed full of truly memorable images, quotes and dramatic moments.

I took the OP to be asking about truly iconic movies - ones that really permeate the culture, become household names, spawn countless imitators and lines of dialogue that are referenced, homaged, quoted (and misquoted) ad nauseum "Make him an offer he can't refuse"/"I love the smell of napalm in the morning") and have these incredible stand out scenes that transcend the medium and will get parodied and meme-ified til the end of time.

My take is that while many magnificent films still come out every year, they just don't reach the kind of audience and cultural saturation as in the days when films could run in the cinema for an entire calendar year. I'd also hazard a guess that most people tend to rewatch movies a lot less these days, as there's always something new and shiny to dig into. Media is generally more disposable nowadays, and I'd speculate that cinema's days as the dominant form of media are on the way out.

I think the kind of thing the op is specifically asking about died out at the tail end of the 90s, with films like Titanic, The Shawshank Redemption, Good Will Hunting, Jerry Maguire, Pulp Fiction and The Usual Suspects being among the last few I can think of that really fall into this category. With the possible exception of Titanic, those kinds of films either wouldn't get made today or would be made as indie movies only seen by a tiny audience. Parasite was great no doubt - and a moderate box office hit - but I doubt the average man on the street would have even heard of it.

The closest modern phenomenon that comes the closest to that kind of pre death of monoculture cultural footprint would be something like Game of Thrones, and that isn't a movie.

At a stretch possibly Get Out and There Will Be Blood? Maybe The Wolf of Wall Street?

I think there's a fairly broad consensus that Mad Max Fury Road is a landmark of action cinema, and I think a lot of The Dark Knight is pretty iconic - it's insane that that movie is over 12 years old at this point and is still pretty indelible in the popular discourse vs most other superhero type movies.

However, I just in general think those truly iconic, enduring kinds of 'grown up' movies you mention are pretty much a thing of the past nowadays due to the fragmentation of media and the death of the monoculture. You could make an argument that Pulp Fiction was maybe the last one?

It's the same reason we'll never again see a pop artist as big as Michael Jackson or Madonna at their peak, or an athlete as famous as Michael Jordan.

It grinds my gears when people who would never dare say anything openly homophobic moan about the whole transgender bathrooms thing. Can't they hear themselves and realise that many people used to say the exact same kinds of things about gay people - and not even that long ago?

It's like people who think they're pretty liberal minded but decry BLM because they 'go a bit far' and 'don't do themselves any favours' with their actions. Have some self-awareness and understand that you'd be saying the exact same thing about the civil rights movement if you had been around back then. Do you want to be that person?

Age of Resistance has officially been cancelled by Netflix after just one season.

Absolutely gutting - it was easily my favourite TV show of the last year.

[Killing Eve]

Frasier is one of my favourite US tv shows, and there's certainly no season without highlights, though 10 is definitely the least strong - some of that's down to the death of show co-creator David Angell in the 911 attacks. But it absolutely rallies with the final season, when its best writer, Joe Keenan, returns and pens the Patrick Stewart episode. Even at its weakest, Frasier is pleasant tv, and you still feel you're hanging out with some people you're very fond of. Something simple, like Grammer's amazing enunciation, can be a joy - watch out for any time he says the word 'nude'. But at its best - stuff like The Matchmaker, The Impossible Dream, Out With Dad, Moon Dance, The Ski Lodge or The Candidate - you've got episodes that can go toe to toe with the best any sitcom's ever offered.

Frasier is very good and the central cast is just phenomenally good - and its apparently really popular with the generation who weren't even born when it was on, which I find odd and strangely charming.

I can only imagine how hard it must be to balance the writing of characters like Frasier and Niles, who could so easily come off as obnoxious and unlikable and somehow make them not only bearable but lovable.

Recently watched a bit of Killing Eve. I really enjoyed the initial couple of episodes and it's a really well put together and well cast show, but I immediately wondered how they would be able to keep the central premise going without the show getting very silly and contrived.... and the answer is that it does get very silly and contrived very quickly so I ended up tuning out quite quickly. It reminded me a bit of Ozark in how its a show that seems way more interested in creating shocking watercooler moments than creating a believable, relatable world or interesting characters.

The character of Vilanelle just doesn't work for me either - you can tell she's intended to be this sassy antihero you're apparently supposed to root for, but I just found her exploits quite tiresome and her quips fairly eye-roll inducing after a while. Great antiheroes generally have a bit of complexity and ambiguity to them so that even when they do something abhorrent we can feel conflicted about it - it's much harder to relate to a character that is completely single-minded and cartoonishly amoral.

Better Call Saul is about how he becomes the scumbag he is in Breaking Bad. He's not supposed to be a fully-fledged bastard yet.

And as I say, my reading of the character as seen in BB is that he didn't 'become' Saul. It's just who he is. He's just a one-note scumbag who is utterly devoid of empathy and who would sell his own mother if he thought he could profit out of it. I never figured him for someone who had a tragic backstory, or who at one time moved in pretty illustrious circles. I just don't see it, so I have trouble 'seeing' Jimmy as the same character as Saul in my head canon.

It's totally subjective, and doesn't diminish my enjoyment of BCS, and I understand why they've had to flesh him out and make him more sympathetic to make the show work.. it's just a little wrinkle that I personally have to overlook.

Oh, no doubt. Saul was always a very cartoony figure in BB and exists more as a magical plot device than a rounded character as opposed to Mike, where there was always a hint of humanity that could be explored.

I watched the first four or five episodes. It's a snooze fest. It might "get better after season blah", but frankly life is too short to watch stuff in the hope it picks up.

I definitely understand where this criticism is coming from. It definitely gets off to a very slow start - we totally bounced off it first time round and only came back to give it a second chance around season 3. It also definitely has lulls from time to time, and lets be honest - we're talking about a show that has an entire, season-long arc about digging a hole...

On the other hand, yeah, you're definitely missing out. BCS is one of the most assured, and (weirdly for such a 'small' show) one of the most cinematic TV shows I've ever seen. The cinematography is off the charts - I constantly find myself marveling out loud at the camerawork, the composition and framing. Even 'nothing' shots like a character sitting in the front seat of a car have an artistry to them, and there are often minutes-long purely visual sequences that are mesmerizing. For me that alone makes it worth watching. It's also one of the best cast shows I've ever seen - every role, from the main cast down to bit part characters are just perfect.

It's amazing, and this season has been one of if not the best so far.

If there's a problem with the show, it's that the portrayal of Jimmy simply doesn't quite square with my conception of him as the character we see in Breaking Bad - it's too sympathetic and nuanced. The Saul Goodman of Breaking Bad is a scuzzy lowlife - a rat through and through and could never get the time of day of a classy, smart woman like Kim, imo.

But I'm more than willing to overlook all of that in order to enjoy the show on its own merits.

Thing is we didn't see much of Saul in his "off time" in BB, only when he's dealing with clients so he's always in work mode.

I hear you, yeah. It's all very subjective, but my take on Saul was always that he was a dyed in the wool sleazeball. A gutter rat. I don't believe there are any hidden depths to his character in the same way I don't believe there are any hidden depths to Trump. Some people are simply born that way and never change. When he mentions his ex wife in Breaking Bad, I have a very specific image of her in my mind, and she is not Kim!

That's not to take anything away from Bob Odenkirk's performance or the character as written. It's - to my mind - kind of revisionist, but it is brilliant on its own terms and it is what it needs to be to make the show work.