"Blu-Ray is wasted on older movies, but newer movies filmed in HD look fantastic."

Older movies can look better on blu-ray than on DVD as well, it depends first and foremost on the quality of the analog reel, but also on how much work the studio put in cleaning up and "restoring" the scanned images.
I'll quote Wikipedia on this, as I do not have enough expertise myself:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinematography#Resolution

I've heard that 35mm film (like they used the old days) are actually higher res than HD video, so to restore films from the old days to BD is rather DOWNSCALING than upscaling. There are more pixels than HD video that is used today.
But then again, when comparing HD to film, one must take into account that lines are what matters (because pixels are mostly redundant if you go past a certain amount because your eyes can't see them) are lines. In that case, then 35mm film is superior-- but only on the actual print itself.

Rather, there are no pixels at all, as the film is an irregular mess of grains. Just about impossible to losslessly translate into digital with its neat little rows of pixels.
Although, in part you're right (well, as i said, I'm just invoking the knowledge of wikipedia here), the detail in traditional film is higher than the common HD formats, and 2K cinema. Wether or not it's higher than what 4K cinema format produces is another matter. (Cinema sizes are specified in width, not height like consumer HD - so 2K is just slightly wider than 1080p, and same height)

That's way you compare lines instead.

older movies can look amazing on bluray... it's all down to the crapload of various factors that go into the film... the cameras, the lenses, the lighting, the film stock, the cinematographer the types of special effects used the source used for the bluray (original camera negative, a finished print, whatever) the scanning process, the restoration process once the film is scanned the encoding of the video for the bluray itself are all important
also most new movies (at least the a-list titles that don't go straight to video) are not shot in HD they are still shot on 35mm film
of course after typing all that i get this feeling you meant that that ignorant comment aggravates you and you wanted us to post other ignorant comments that aggravate us
of course you stole my current favorite

Your feeling is spot on. I should have made the intent clearer!!! I thought the thread title would do it.

"Quality graphics = quality game"

And of course:
"Old game = Shit game"
From the PS1 days:
"Quality CGI FMV = OMG teh grafics r teh besterest!"

If a game has FMV cutscenes now they still put that on the back of the box...who cares if the cutscenes look pretty!?
Weird Game = Crap Game
Some of the most bizzare games are the greatest.
Xbox Live looks good = Better than PC online play

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. Few companies have perfected multiplayer gaming, multiplayer interfaces, and other stuff on the PC to the point where it's as good as Live, or heck, the PSN. Valve kinda is getting there, and their L4D lobby thing isn't bad, but give me an example of a great multiplayer infrastructure, and I'll tell you you're wrong. (For the record, EA Nation is terrible. And Battle.net in its current form is antiquated.)

People who use the word "ignorance" to mean something other than "lack of knowledge in a particular subject".... that really grinds my goat.
:-P

HL2 is the best FPS ever made.

Like when people use the word ignorant instead of stupid? This is why people will get offended when you use the word ignorant properly. Hey that is ignorant thoguh isn't it? Oh the irony!

Bullshit. EVERYONE NOES THE BEST FPS EVAR IS HALO 3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seriously though, I think that the very FIRST Call of Duty (before the consolefags got their hands on the series) was the best. No joke.