“…besides Jeopardy who even does game shows anymore?”

The thing that truly puzzles me is not that their average viewer age is 58. I turned 58 in July, and in recent years, I’ve watched more from the CW than from every other broadcast network combined.

You are missing the point. The article undermines its own premise. It claims that 2022 was a year of “squandered IP,” yet it rattles off a batch of films that were both critical and financial successes. It inexplicably fails to mention the biggest film currently in release.* And one of its alleged failures, Doctor…

So, 2022 was a year of disappointing films based on existing IP, except for Top Gun, The Batman, Prey, Wakanda Forever and Scream (plus an entirely overlooked Avatar). Oh, and a couple of MCU films that made only a fuckton of money instead of a mega-fuckton. (BTW, Doctor Strange 2 nearly doubled the domestic gross of…

Karen Gillan’s shorts were a major factor for me.

Yeah, let’s not forget how bizarre it is that a one-off character from a 1960 Marvel monster comic is one of the beloved stars of a blockbuster film franchise.

This. I suspect that the entire reason Dwayne was so adamant to bring back Cavill was that he wanted to show he could beat Superman. 

I don’t care one way or the other about Shatner the man. He’s got a reputation for being an asshole, and I have no reason to doubt it.

I wouldn’t disagree. The 2010s were pretty amazing, though.

I suppose that you think that’s some kind of “gotcha,” when in fact it’s the point I was making. I wasn’t arguing that 1982 was “better,” just using it as an example of a stretch of time that’s vital to one particular subset of film fans, yet (presumably) insignificant to others. (Though if you’re a Stallone fan, 1982…

FYI, IMDB lists 33,730 feature films released between 1970 and 1979. Not that IMDB is authoritative and infallible, but even if this number is off by 10 thousand titles, the stone-cold classics are going to be an eensy, teensy fraction of the total output of the ‘70s film industry.

Let me provide a specific example: 1982. That’s part of the decade QT ranked “the worst era in Hollywood history,” but if you’re an older sci-fi fan, 1982 is the watershed year that gave us “E.T.,” “Blade Runner,” “Tron,” “The Thing,” “The Road Warrior” and “The Wrath of Khan.”

Ooo, facile. Been a while since I’ve been called that!

Is “eye-rolling happy ending” a reference to the aliens dying of Earth diseases? Because that’s not only *the* ending of every iteration of “War of the Worlds,” it’s pretty much the entire point.

Thanks, but no thanks. I’m not interested in “criticism” for its own sake, or—more to the point—for the sake of a batch of professed experts high-fiving each other over their shared love of movies that are somehow both obscure and vitally important.

TBH, I think the entire conversation is stupid. There is no greatest decade for movies. There are good movies and bad ones. There are ones that appeal to you and ones that appeal to me. Unless you can provide some hard numbers to support your claim, it’s all subjective. It’s all just lists of the movies we remember…

I would need to see some numbers before accepting as a given that the “hit rate” (by what criteria?) was higher in the ‘70s. I lived through the ‘70s, and for every risky studio movie you can remember, I guarantee there are ten that are forgettable garbage. 

That’s every decade. I’m sure that Tarantino is similarly remembering the good movies of the ‘70s, conveniently forgetting the dross.

A not-at-all inclusive list of ‘50s films I’d consider classics:

That’s something I have never understood about the (for lack of a better name) “recurring sketches.” It’s not just that they employ a similar premise, but that they are beat-for-beat exactly the same.