RM Curmudgeon of the Year 2026

[spike]

LV off to a potentially insurmountable lead. Breathtaking campaign thus far.

[BurtReynolds]

Lot of stiff competition

[LoathedVermin72]

What do you mean spike life is wonderful

[lennytheweedwhacker]

Praying for LV

[spike]

Lot of stiff competition

people, amirite?

[VinylGuy]

LV off to a potentially insurmountable lead. Breathtaking campaign thus far.

[tree_]

I don't necessarily think of Elvie as a curmudgeon, but I do find it strange how he declares nothing good has come from an artist in an "x" number of years (more than 5 usually), when their latest work is virtually, universally considered among their best (referring to charli xcx and PTA, as two examples off the top of my head). I just find it strange, that's all. Quirky even.

[The Argonaut]

I would love for LV to explain what he means when he says "cinema is dead". He throws it off like I'm supposed to know what it means, but I don't. Can you give me a reading list or something, LV?

[LoathedVermin72]

I don't necessarily think of Elvie as a curmudgeon, but I do find it strange how he declares nothing good has come from an artist in an "x" number of years (more than 5 usually), when their latest work is virtually, universally considered among their best (referring to charli xcx and PTA, as two examples off the top of my head). I just find it strange, that's all. Quirky even.

In my experience, when a contemporary work of art is universally acclaimed, I almost never like it. I usually find that universal acclaim (again, specifically for new things) is an indicator that something is milquetoast or shallow.

[tree_]

I don't necessarily think of Elvie as a curmudgeon, but I do find it strange how he declares nothing good has come from an artist in an "x" number of years (more than 5 usually), when their latest work is virtually, universally considered among their best (referring to charli xcx and PTA, as two examples off the top of my head). I just find it strange, that's all. Quirky even.

In my experience, when a contemporary work of art is universally acclaimed, I almost never like it. I usually find that universal acclaim (again, specifically for new things) is an indicator that something is milquetoast or shallow.

That's interesting. I just like to give things a whirl and judge for myself whether the people are correct about it or not. I think even the thing being popular works really well in favor when an artist has been producing gold for years with it largely going under the radar, and then finally they break through. It feels really good. I really hope you can enjoy Brat one day. It is so fucking good. How I'm Feeling Now is also really fucking good. Also, Charli has some great stuff on it as well.

[LoathedVermin72]

I would love for LV to explain what he means when he says "cinema is dead". He throws it off like I'm supposed to know what it means, but I don't. Can you give me a reading list or something, LV?

I think COVID was the nail in the coffin for cinema as a culturally relevant artform. A huge factor in that is that Hollywood has died as an industry town, and the professional craftspeople who drove it have dispersed to other locations and other industries. (A good recent piece on this: https://fortune.com/2026/03/13/hollywoo ... y-cluster/ ) Soooooo many movies I see now are simply broken on a fundamental, formal level: blocking, cinematography, editing, casting, acting, etc. Like they just flat-out do not function on a baseline level. That was not at all the norm as recently as a decade ago.

The constant counter-argument to this is that, "There are still plenty of good movies - you just have to find them!" And sure, there are good movies. (Though, IMO, most of the examples people cite are absolute dogshit, but that's a separate issue.) But the issue is that, when Hollywood and cinema were thriving, you didn't have to dig to find good movies, or at least movies that functioned with a baseline of pleasure, even if they weren't great. Movies, generally, looked good and were formally well-executed because there was a glut of seasoned professionals in the industry who knew how to achieve that baseline. Even when the movies might have sucked, there was usually still at least some amount of pleasure to be derived from their cinematography, their casts, watching real locations shot on film, and a million other factors. That has largely evaporated now. The vast majority of movies now look flat and ugly (transitioning away from a photochemical process that relied on in-camera lighting to a digital workflow where everyone thinks they can tweak everything in post and it will look fine was the start of this), so many movies spend the money on casting - if we're lucky- one recognizable actor and then fill the rest of the cast with faceless nobodies who will work for peanuts and we'll never see again, so many directors now come from TV where the visual language is so different from cinema (even though people pretend it's not and that those walls have crumbled). There are a million reasons.

Like everything else in this miserable country right now, a lot of this has to do with "late stage capitalism," or whatever you want to call it: private equity buying up companies, people who don't care about movies running studios, and - of course - rich people at the top gradually siphoning away more and more money from the workers until the industry is not sustainable for professionals anymore. So the talent pool dries up and everything shrivels. I think that's where we are. Good movies can happen, but - as an industry - cinema is already over. This isn't even touching on how, in terms of pop culture relevance, it's already lost to video games and short-form internet content. The new blood isn't there. And why should it be when the industry isn't working to put asses in the seats and create new things?

[BurtReynolds]

Elvie is correct. It's why I had to cancel the Rimmies last year

[The Argonaut]

I'm unconvinced. Need some time to think

[spike]

I don't necessarily think of Elvie as a curmudgeon, but I do find it strange how he declares nothing good has come from an artist in an "x" number of years (more than 5 usually), when their latest work is virtually, universally considered among their best (referring to charli xcx and PTA, as two examples off the top of my head). I just find it strange, that's all. Quirky even.

A curmudgeon is someone who is habitually grumpy, irritable, or negative—often especially toward change or other people. Typical traits include:

1. Chronic complaining
• Frequently finds fault with things or people.
• Often focuses on what’s wrong rather than what’s good.

2. Dislike of change
• Prefers “the way things used to be.”
• Resistant to new technology, trends, or ideas.

3. Social irritability
• Can seem unfriendly, blunt, or impatient with others.
• May avoid small talk or social niceties.

4. Cynicism or pessimism
• Expects things to go wrong.
• Often skeptical of people’s motives.

5. Strong opinions
• Holds firm views and isn’t shy about expressing them.
• May argue or dismiss opposing perspectives quickly.

6. Dry or sarcastic humor
• Some curmudgeons actually have a sharp wit.
• The grumpiness can sometimes be more theatrical than mean-spirited.

7. Preference for solitude
• Often enjoys being alone or keeping a small circle.

[spike]

LV, to be clear, I consider you a lovable curmudgeon.

[:)]

WOODnT U know ..

.. i luv AT muthafuccee !!

[Dev]

I would love for LV to explain what he means when he says "cinema is dead". He throws it off like I'm supposed to know what it means, but I don't. Can you give me a reading list or something, LV?

I think COVID was the nail in the coffin for cinema as a culturally relevant artform. A huge factor in that is that Hollywood has died as an industry town, and the professional craftspeople who drove it have dispersed to other locations and other industries. (A good recent piece on this: https://fortune.com/2026/03/13/hollywoo ... y-cluster/ ) Soooooo many movies I see now are simply broken on a fundamental, formal level: blocking, cinematography, editing, casting, acting, etc. Like they just flat-out do not function on a baseline level. That was not at all the norm as recently as a decade ago.

The constant counter-argument to this is that, "There are still plenty of good movies - you just have to find them!" And sure, there are good movies. (Though, IMO, most of the examples people cite are absolute dogshit, but that's a separate issue.) But the issue is that, when Hollywood and cinema were thriving, you didn't have to dig to find good movies, or at least movies that functioned with a baseline of pleasure, even if they weren't great. Movies, generally, looked good and were formally well-executed because there was a glut of seasoned professionals in the industry who knew how to achieve that baseline. Even when the movies might have sucked, there was usually still at least some amount of pleasure to be derived from their cinematography, their casts, watching real locations shot on film, and a million other factors. That has largely evaporated now. The vast majority of movies now look flat and ugly (transitioning away from a photochemical process that relied on in-camera lighting to a digital workflow where everyone thinks they can tweak everything in post and it will look fine was the start of this), so many movies spend the money on casting - if we're lucky- one recognizable actor and then fill the rest of the cast with faceless nobodies who will work for peanuts and we'll never see again, so many directors now come from TV where the visual language is so different from cinema (even though people pretend it's not and that those walls have crumbled). There are a million reasons.

Like everything else in this miserable country right now, a lot of this has to do with "late stage capitalism," or whatever you want to call it: private equity buying up companies, people who don't care about movies running studios, and - of course - rich people at the top gradually siphoning away more and more money from the workers until the industry is not sustainable for professionals anymore. So the talent pool dries up and everything shrivels. I think that's where we are. Good movies can happen, but - as an industry - cinema is already over. This isn't even touching on how, in terms of pop culture relevance, it's already lost to video games and short-form internet content. The new blood isn't there. And why should it be when the industry isn't working to put asses in the seats and create new things?

Imo there was a huge drop in non corporate film-making since like 2015 but no doubt the last 5 years has been really bad. Still I have seen a handful of what I would call legitimate films made during that time.

[BurtReynolds]

[lennytheweedwhacker]

Is that Joseph