(If you disagree, isn’t it no longer a consensus?)
The thing is, I think many of the people who watch it kind of agree. It’s far more addictive than it really is good, in any meaningful sense.
I’d say “fucko off” in jest with a 
at the end, but that would probably be considered a personal insult. So I’m just gonna spend 20 minutes listening to Rio with Opal and hope that I don’t get graped. Gotcha ya!
I LIKED Stephen King’s The TommyKnockers, dammit!
Wh… why…?
As Kirk asked, why would God need a starship? And didn’t “God” in that movie say something about having been trapped on that planet by others of his kind? That doesn’t sound like God.
I think ST V is the worst of the TOS movies. But I do think it’s got some great bits in it. The parts where Sybok made people relive episodes from their past was pretty effective, to my (several years old) recollection.
-Kris
Because while God may have written the laws of physics, only the Enterprise can BREAK them.
Yep. Lost is far overrated. A meaningless stream of deliberately confouding cliffhangers - not written to develop a plot, or even to be interesting, but just to make you watch again next week. It’s the attention whore of TV series’
Oh, and I also think the plural of anecdote sometimes is data. So there.
Battlestar Galactica is a shitty, shitty, mess of a show. Something that could have been great, but is completely crippled by bad acting. Specifically, the woman who plays Starbuck has the range of a Daisy air rifle. She is a horrible actor, and it sucks the life from that series.
Deadwood, however, is the greatest show ever to grace a television screen. The worst actor on Deadwood is a quintessential thespian next to your best actor on Galactica.
I cling to the heretical notion that George Lucas’s creative output is more entertaining than that of Joss Whedon.
Good to see all the heretics gathered in one place. If you could all move just a little bit closer together…
Release the hounds!
Only if you run Chi-square and compute confidence intervals and otherwise test validity. Otherwise you’re just rattling off social science numbers.
Well fuck me sideways, you cuntlicking shiteating son of a two-bit rat whore’s syphilitic ballsack! You’re gonna make me sorry I completely missed it when it was on HBO.
OK, here are some of mine:
Blackadder is more worthy of being quoted than Monty Python. Both because MP has been done to death and Blackadder is funner to people who aren’t steeped in all of the MP movies.
Fantasy and SF are not the same thing. SF is about ideas in addition to the normal dramatic elements, whereas Fantasy recasts traditional drama in a new environment notable mainly for the existence of magic. This is especially relevant when discussing Magical Realism.
Zombies and vampires have merged into one entity in modern genre fiction, at least what of it I’ve seen. This is indicative of a general lack of imagination in the creators of such fiction. Personally, I think an entirely new creature should be created that is free of both Hatian voodoo and Old European superstition. Both vampires and zombies have interesting potential in their traditional forms, which is why they were created to begin with, and that a new creature is preferable to the bland merger we’ve been subjected to.
A food one.
Inn’'Out burger sucks. Their burgers are mediocre (perhaps better than McDonalds but worse than any neighborhood burger joint I’ve been at) but their fries are awful - either way. When half your menu sucks, you suck.
(I recently got dragged to one by friends, and it was every bit as bad as I remembered.) The SDMB consensus is that they’re great.
Not necessarily. If you are in a minority of one in your disagreement,the consensus is still safe. Keep in mind that a consensus need not be unanimous.
There appears to be consensus agreement with the notion that Star Trek benefitted by morphing into a franchise; that it was appropriate for Shatner, Nimoy, and the guys (and girls) to return to employment through the medium of the theatrical release film; that it was perfectly all right for something called Star Trek: The Next Generation to come into being; that books with stories completely irrelevant to those recorded in the years spanning 1966-1969 are worthy of publication, readership, and discussion; that the question of Kirk vs. Picard is of any moment.
I disagree. I take no side in the Kirk vs. Picard debate, because I refuse to acknowledge its existence. There is no Picard. To me, anything released post-1969 represents a craven capitulation by Roddenberry to the powers of entertainment capitalism at its worst. He should have held out for a return of the Kirk/Spock Enterprise to network prime time television. I did, until original cast members began to die.
Now it’s all over.
Amen. The LOTR books were horribly written. HORRIBLY. I found them almost unreadable, and I’ll read almost anything! The movies took the story that Tolkein came up with and presented it in a way that made it actually entertaining and enjoyable. And kudos to him for not including a bunch of dwarf songs. 
My soon-to-be-ex husband and I quote Blackadder all day and all night and it’s great because we get it. The main downside to quoting BA all the time is that the majority of people don’t get the references, like they do with MP (which I also quote with alarming frequency).
(one of my favorites is, after anyone asks “who knows?”, to say in a Percy-in-wonderment voice “…or dares to dream??” But I can count on one finger the number of times someone knew what I was talking about*.)
**do a text search for dream *
The general consensus seems to be that “Forrest Gump” was an atrocious movie. I thought it was terrific.
Since everyone else is already taling Star Trek; I thought VI, The Undiscovered Country, was an appalling movie. It was a stupid, smarmy, awful movie in every respect, almost as bad as its immediate predecessor.
I’ve posted a thread in the past that I thought Keanu Reeves is a perfectly competent and quite intelligent and self-aware actor (he picks roles for himself that are well within his range). Plus, I really like looking at him. And I also liked “Constantine.”
I’ve also posted a thread that I liked the sitcom “Friends,” and I don’t care who knows it.
I watched some of “Arrested Development” and I hated it. Self-indulgent garbage.
I hate the movie “The Producers.” I thought some film school students could have made a better film as a class project. I have no problem with juvenile humour (I think the fart scene in “Blazing Saddles” was hysterically funny), but it should actually be funny.
I like disco, too. One of my current favourite songs is “One Way Ticket” by Boney M. It just really rocks.
Forrest Gump is an effective movie, in the same way The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (original version) is an effective movie: Both of them set out to accomplish a goal and then follow through with competent plotting, acting, and general craftsmanship. The difference between the two of them is that one of them is about a mentally retarded man who makes a very individual mark in life and the other stars Tom Hanks.
More seriously, Forrest Gump got panned by people who thought it was jerking them around in a cynical, practiced manner. People don’t care that much about cynicism when the main character is wearing someone else’s face.
The concensus here is that Quentin Tarantino makes great and powerful movies.
I say he is a disgusting sick scary dude who makes shit.
Also… I think the Matrix trilogy was good. I don’t care that Keanu Reeves may be a wooden one trick pony; the woodenness worked just fine in these movies and the one trick happened to be the right one. I don’t care that it was a big mishmash of recycled mythology and psychology; it worked fine for me. I don’t care that some other movie did that same thing first, only better; I would never have heard of it were it not for the comments to the effect “[some other movie] did it first, only better”.