This isn't my bold statement, but I read on another site where Nolan was asked why Man of Steel didn't have a post-credit scene like the MCU movies. Nolan said real movies don't have post-credit scenes.

Source: http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/11/...r-man-of-steel

I agree, though a film can only do so much.

My bold statement would be: a great TV series trumps almost any great film.

Don't know how bold that is, I've heard it too many times .

I think it's a 50-50 thing. A TV show can stretch the narrative out and last 60+ hours, but even in the digital age, it doesn't quite have the production values or clout of a feature film. That's why there are both .

I agree w/ hanshotfirst1138 on the later.

I do wonder what kind of work ethic they'll go for Daredevil though. I know they said it's like a 13 hour movie but I was wondering in this release format if they changed up the tactics involved in "TV" or not. Doesn't matter either way as long as it is good. I just think some TV looks boring in its visual composition... ESPECIALLY when it comes to its action.

The post credit scenes in the Marvel films are each better than any "real" film that Nolan has been involved in.

It's not terrible, but it's pretty average - no better or worse than the TAKEN films.

A season of an expensive tv show costs $50-$100 million. An expensive film can go over $200 million.

I get a very strong impression his statement was taken out of context.

That's because television production is all about efficiency. Most tv episodes have a production time of, what, a week? Maybe 2 tops? If they wanted to make a 13-hour Daredevil movie and have the action/cinematography/effects/etc. meet the standards of Hollywood films, it would be in production for years.

I don't know, a show like Breaking Bad didn't look like a big-buget feature film, but my involvement I had with that show trumped almost anything released in film lately (save for Drive, which coincidentally feature Cranston). That's, of course, my own personal opinion. I still love and watch more movies than TV shows, whatever that's worth.

Nolan denied saying something like that (not that it matters for trolls like stvn1974) -

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/11/...r-man-of-steel

Zac Efron is a fantastic actor and deserves to be an A-list performer.

Can we please rename this thread "Make a bold statement about movies...and Ash Ketchum will either reaffirm or shoot down your statement"

Oh, c'mon, in 18 pages of bold statements I've only done that twice...I think. (I'm not going back to check. )

Statement shot down.

Agreed. I don't think it's that bold though.

Under the Skin is a better & more intelligent sci-fi film than Interstellar.

Hans Zimmer's DARK KNIGHT scores needed more cowbell.

Gummo is one of the 10 best films of the 90's.

how is that bold?

To get us more in sync with what's considered bold, I've devised a little survey below. After each statement, answer one of the following: B (BOLD), NB (NOT BOLD) or DL (DOWNRIGHT LUDICROUS).

1.) SPHERE is a better & more intelligent sci-fi film than Interstellar.
2.) CONTACT is a better & more intelligent sci-fi film than Interstellar.
3.) ZARDOZ is a better & more intelligent sci-fi film than Interstellar.
4.) PROMETHEUS is a better & more intelligent sci-fi film than Interstellar.
5.) SNOWPIERCER is a better & more intelligent sci-fi film than Interstellar.
6.) MARS ATTACKS is better than Interstellar or Under the Skin

Do any of these fall between "not bold" or "ludicrous"? (ZARDOZ is one of my favorite films but I haven't seen Interstellar yet.)

DEATH TO SMOOCHY isn't any smarter than BEVERLY HILLS COP III.

I must have missed the memo arguing that it was.

When I go to my shelves to pick something to watch, I often think, "Eh, I've seen all of these recently and their memory is vivid in my head" or "Eh, I'll wait and watch that with my kids when they're older so I'm not seeing it back to back" or "Eh, why do I own this," and more and more, owning movies isn't as appealing to me as it used to be.