|
Look at almost any British drama or comedy the people are ugly as gently caress
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
Americans are obsessed with idolizing famous people to the point of borderline cultism. Americans can't even fathom looking at a video thumbnail unless a big name actor is front and center. Americans don't have any interest in media outside of the name of the star. This is one of several factors that has led to stagnation of entertainment and art in the US. There's other reasons why American media sucks, but celebrity worship is a big factor because it obscures many talented people who could do cool stuff. Most importantly to me, however, is that this is why Movie posters blow rear end like a loving hurricane. There is no attempt to represent a film or a theme, no art or intrigue at all. Just a loving pile of famous people's faces looking at nothing with some boring poo poo in the background. poo poo looks like babby's first photoshop. Alternatively it's just a boring logo that tells you nothing. Same goes for box art on video games. Boring as hell. The good poo poo was back in the Atari and NES days, back when the box art was cooler than the game could ever be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
If American entertainment sucks so badly, why is it so extremely popular in basically every other modern country compared to their own output too?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
The Skeleton King posted:Americans are obsessed with idolizing famous people to the point of borderline cultism. Americans can't even fathom looking at a video thumbnail unless a big name actor is front and center. Americans don't have any interest in media outside of the name of the star. This is one of several factors that has led to stagnation of entertainment and art in the US. There's other reasons why American media sucks, but celebrity worship is a big factor because it obscures many talented people who could do cool stuff. lol what? What stagnation of entertainment and art in the US are you talking about? There's a goddamn explosion of entertainment and art, there are more movies and TV show being made now than ever before. I guess if you only watch network sitcoms and comic book movies you might think there's stagnation...
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
America produces such a volume of media and culture that the average quality doesn't matter because you might get 10 Big Bang Theories or two and a half men and a million garbage transformer or superhero movies you also get The Expanse or Always Sunny or Master of None or The Arrival or a huge list of other genuinely quality or entertaining poo poo to suit just about any taste. We're in a golden age of TV at the moment. There's just more of everything, but you don't have to watch the trash that comes along with it. American do seem to demand everyone on their screens be pretty though, to a higher degree than a lot of other places.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:lol what? What stagnation of entertainment and art in the US are you talking about? There's a goddamn explosion of entertainment and art, there are more movies and TV show being made now than ever before. I guess if you only watch network sitcoms and comic book movies you might think there's stagnation... It might just be a bias of mine. I dislike a lot of things that aren't actually bad, and I don't keep up on what's new very often, so I won't defend my point very hard. I guess my point is more that the generic garbage stuff gets a lot more publicity than other stuff. I didn't even know about The Arrival until last week. Never heard a word about it. It might just be me, again. So feel free to say I am wrong, because I probably am. Movie posters still blow, though. The Skeleton King has a new favorite as of 17:59 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
http://i.imgur.com/hTglpjU.jpg http://i.imgur.com/hTglpjU.jpg yeah I eat rear end posted:If American entertainment sucks so badly, why is it so extremely popular in basically every other modern country compared to their own output too? People like to look at beautiful people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
The Skeleton King posted:It might just be a bias of mine. I dislike a lot of things that aren't actually bad, and I don't keep up on what's new very often, so I won't defend my point very hard. Let me guess, you don't even own a TV.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Hahaha. I remember those and love them, but that's not what I was talking about. But you knew that, didn't you? I'd get some of the super rad, good ones if I wasn't on my phone at work. Good example though is the DOOM 2016 box art, which was bland, despite them having another, much cooler one that they could have used but didn't for some reason. Again, I'd post what I mean if I wasn't on my phone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
The Skeleton King posted:It might just be a bias of mine. I dislike a lot of things that aren't actually bad, and I don't keep up on what's new very often, so I won't defend my point very hard. You can't really complain about the lack of interesting new things if you make no effort to find interesting new things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Let me guess, you don't even own a TV. I do, but don't use it often.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:You can't really complain about the lack of interesting new things if you make no effort to find interesting new things. I know, but that's why I am posting in is thread, because I know my opinion is built upon a weak foundation. Edit: don't worry guys, I know I'm stupid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
TV is good because the overculture is good. You should join The Establishment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:I'm not a cat owner but outdoor cats seem infinitely happier and cooler and if it gets run over by a truck at least it probably died having fun. Just make sure it's balls are gone and who cares. Indoor cats are miserable blobs owned by dweebs. Outdoor cats suck because they kill every small animal in the neighborhood. At least several times my house has had a chipmunk nest in my backyard, but the lovely cat next door would always end up killing them. Nasty animals. ToxicSlurpee posted:Seriously, if they can drive here at all it won't be that long before nobody has to drive anymore. It might take decades for them to completely displace human drivers but trust me; they're already here. Once they become common enough there will be more autonomous cars than human-driven ones which will make it far, far easier for autonomous cars to drive. Eh, it's important to realize that self-driving cars may be the sort of problem where 5% of the problem takes 95% of the time. We can deal with all the low-hanging fruit, but this doesn't mean the remaining problems necessary in order to remove drivers from the equation (since you basically need to ensure the cars will work well in virtually all situations in order to do this) can be solved nearly as easily. edit: I think they'll find use for things that involve mostly highway driving or following set routes, but think it will be an indefinite amount of time until normal people use them while reading a book and not needing to pay attention to the driving at all (which is the sort of end-game hypothetical people talk about). starkebn posted:there are evidence based, secular addiction help groups out there. AA is poo poo and has no proof their methods work even after all this time They can be difficult to access in certain cities. I live in Memphis, TN and the nearest secular addiction group (SMART Recovery IIRC) is an hour drive away in Mississippi. One lovely thing (in addition to all the other lovely things) about most NA/AA group is they don't allow suboxone users (or make you hide you suboxone use). I'm pretty convinced that whatever minor benefit exists to AA/NA is entirely just due to having a support group and has absolutely nothing to do with the steps themselves. Ytlaya has a new favorite as of 19:16 on Mar 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Nice
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:If American entertainment sucks so badly, why is it so extremely popular in basically every other modern country compared to their own output too? We're good at eye candy. We can plastic surgery a person into near perfection and let cgi do the rest. Hollywood also figured out a formula to make a movie that will print money, hence the homogeneous nonsense. All the tech in California also lets American movies be full of insane action scenes full of the biggest explosions and fastest car chases. There isn't a culture in the world that will refuse to watch a movie with pretty people, cool visuals, and fast action. Hollywood has the money and technology to do that very well. Of course they're stagnating from an artistic standpoint but they don't care because money. If generic garbage is what pays that's what they'll make.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Fashionable Jorts posted:There's no such thing as good breakfast food. We perfectly disagree on this, I almost always skip lunch but having plans to make crepes with raspberries, blueberries, jam and/or maple syrup will get me out of bed early on a lazy Sunday morning and I even like the plainer staples like oatmeal & cereal. Guy Goodbody posted:lol what? What stagnation of entertainment and art in the US are you talking about? There's a goddamn explosion of entertainment and art, there are more movies and TV show being made now than ever before. I guess if you only watch network sitcoms and comic book movies you might think there's stagnation... I'm probably going to need more details on the 'explosion of entertainment and art,' at least re: movies since most Hollywood insiders who maintain any degree of transparency of what goes on inside studios lament the girdling of creativity caused by the increasingly blind use of metadata by execs to green-light films. That metadata includes a set of parameters to be fulfilled in the right combination such as: securing the right, crowd-drawing A-list talent. of which the current pool of marketable stars is much smaller than it was 15 years ago; existing brand recognition to offset advertisement costs, as seen in the huge number of remakes, reboots, sequels, rebootquels presently getting made; ensuring the film's content is immediately marketable, which can exclude anything really weird, daring or pioneering whose value is uncertain; etc, etc, etc; fulfilling these all things is intended to offset the growing disparity between shrinking ticket sales and rising costs of production to ensure some revenue while working with the fact there's a lot of sharks in the tank in the form of the big franchise movies that most movie-goers seem to prefer watching instead, given a choice on a Friday night. It's not just jerks at places like RLM who notice these trends. I'm aware that low budget films aren't terrifically affected so traditionally low budget genres like horror still produce significant original content and do straight comedies/dramas but any film requiring some budget lives and dies on this, even a big original content film like Arrival (based on a short story but original enough) snaked by through a combination of getting the right talent, having marketable content with a history of success with similar films (Contact, ET, etc) and having an undemanding, middling budget anyway. There def seems to be less creativity than before since there's still a net loss even if some genre's aren't affected. TV is something I'm less sure of because I watch very little of it these days since there's not much that appeals to me and I don't follow anyone knowledgeable on it either but imuo the last TV golden age was like 4-5 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
This reminds me, there's somewhat of an exception to the US "must be attractive" rule: Comedians. Sometimes they can be fat! Or look like someone you'd walk by on the street, I guess. Acceptable. But you're still going to find a poo poo ton of comedies almost purely assembled out of attractive actors. Maybe they'll put glasses on the ugly one. (Rachael Leigh Cook is the ugly one.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
My opinion is that remakes of things are fantastic, just as a cover version of a song can give it a fresh new sound or change its tone or style, remakes of movies and videogames give the chance to breathe new life into worlds, characters and places which might not have otherwise fufilled their original artistic vision. gently caress everything if they ever remake Jaws though Edit: Or Jurassic Park
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
My opinion is that David Bowie's best album was Young Americans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
Ramagamma posted:Edit: Or Jurassic Park Have I bad news for you...
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
It was a sequel, not a remake! And it wasn't that bad, a forgettable fling of fun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
Jurassic world was thoroughly unenjoyable imo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
The new Zelda game looks just like every other open-world game, wander bored through an nondescript world then, oh look, a slightly larger mob that's ultimately uninteresting to fight. Eminem is lyrically overrated. Rock even at it's greatest will always pale in comparison to hip-hop. Canned asparagus is good. [edit] marijuana needs to be legalized for alcoholics that want to quit drinking but don't want to give up being hosed up. Sobriety isn't for everyone, and plenty of addicts could benefit from replacing one vice for a less harmful other (look at cigarette smokers that switch to vaping). Tony Bologna has a new favorite as of 06:38 on Mar 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:Jurassic world was thoroughly unenjoyable imo. Only if you hate fun. It was better than 3 and even 2 in some ways. People always point toward the assistants death and the motorcycle part but who cares, it's a dinosaur movie. If you start trying to analyze it from a feminist perspective you are overthinking it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 07:10
|
|
|
JW is dull because of the dull characters. I felt nothing watching the movie except an increased hatred of Jimmy Fallon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 07:15
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:it's a dinosaur movie. If you start trying to analyze it from a feminist perspective you are overthinking it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 08:02
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Only if you hate fun. It was better than 3 and even 2 in some ways. People always point toward the assistants death and the motorcycle part but who cares, it's a dinosaur movie. If you start trying to analyze it from a feminist perspective you are overthinking it. I didn't say any of that, but ok. It was unwatchable in the same way any Michael Bay movie is. Garbage characters, bloated lovely story, with 20 things going on at once, CGI overload. It was just a POS and it bored the hell out of me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 08:23
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:My unpopular opinion: There is no such thing as "overthinking" a movie. There is such a thing as going on and on about something no one else cares about, so if you're in a group of people who just want to talk about which dinosaur was coolest or whatever then maybe save your feminist analysis for some more appropriate forum, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with thinking critically about even the shallowest of movies. The "this movie is misogynistic" critique is just about as shallow as the movie is. You can think whatever you want but parroting the same thing you read on tumblr/huffpo/jezebel/whatever is annoying and tiresome. It's like trying to analyze the tasting notes of a steel reserve the same way they do for craft beer - yeah you can do it and there's nothing "wrong" with doing it, but your time would be better spent enjoying it for what it is in my opinion. e: veni veni veni I know you didn't say that explicitly, but every time someone mentions that movie someone eventually brings it up and it seems like a big "thing" with goons so I considered it 50/50 that that is why you didn't like it. My bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 08:26
|
|
|
Imo Jurassic Park is great, but there was literally nowhere to go with it after the first movie. Everything after the first one was diminishing returns culminating into the poo poo sandwich which was Jurassic World. It's basically everything that sucks about hollywood wrapped up into one movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 08:31
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:My unpopular opinion: There is no such thing as "overthinking" a movie. There is such a thing as going on and on about something no one else cares about, so if you're in a group of people who just want to talk about which dinosaur was coolest or whatever then maybe save your feminist analysis for some more appropriate forum, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with thinking critically about even the shallowest of movies. Nah - I think the main situation where someone overthinking a movie could be bad is if overthinking it caused them to miss some of the main themes/qualities of the movie. Like, imagine a situation where someone tried to attach some meaning to a bunch of random poo poo using schizophrenic-ish logic and, in the process, missed the major themes of the work (that is, missing the forest for the trees).
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 08:48
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:The "this movie is misogynistic" critique is just about as shallow as the movie is. You can think whatever you want but parroting the same thing you read on tumblr/huffpo/jezebel/whatever is annoying and tiresome. It's like trying to analyze the tasting notes of a steel reserve the same way they do for craft beer - yeah you can do it and there's nothing "wrong" with doing it, but your time would be better spent enjoying it for what it is in my opinion. you cant switch off your brain and enjoy a movie for what it is any more than you can switch off your stomach and not puke after eating spoiled food. i suspect people who use this argument do not have much to switch off in the first place
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 09:14
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:you cant switch off your brain and enjoy a movie for what it is any more than you can switch off your stomach and not puke after eating spoiled food. I can just acknowledge the pretentious parts of my brain and tell them to shut up for a couple hours. If you really feel that way about that type of movie, why not do what you would do when you are presented with spoiled food? Just don't eat (watch) it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 09:20
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:Imo Jurassic Park is great, but there was literally nowhere to go with it after the first movie. Everything after the first one was diminishing returns culminating into the poo poo sandwich which was Jurassic World. It's basically everything that sucks about hollywood wrapped up into one movie. JP2 is the perfect complement. Way more cynical and mean. All the good guys are idiots and bad guys like Roland are cool. And you've got the Peter Stormare character doing animal abuse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 09:22
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of "shut off your brain and watch." If this is the effort of hundreds of people and millions of dollars, it shouldn't be too much to ask that it have some thought and cohesion put into it. Plus it's really rewarding to watch something meticulously crafted in script, storytelling, art direction, acting, score and theme. When it all weaves together, it's like a secondhand high. That's the fun of movies, right there: Getting to say, "Woah, that choice was brilliant."
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 09:28
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:The "this movie is misogynistic" critique is just about as shallow as the movie is. You can think whatever you want but parroting the same thing you read on tumblr/huffpo/jezebel/whatever is annoying and tiresome.  yeah I eat rear end posted:e: veni veni veni I know you didn't say that explicitly, but every time someone mentions that movie someone eventually brings it up and it seems like a big "thing" with goons so I considered it 50/50 that that is why you didn't like it. My bad. Ytlaya posted:Nah - I think the main situation where someone overthinking a movie could be bad is if overthinking it caused them to miss some of the main themes/qualities of the movie. Like, imagine a situation where someone tried to attach some meaning to a bunch of random poo poo using schizophrenic-ish logic and, in the process, missed the major themes of the work (that is, missing the forest for the trees). steinrokkan posted:you cant switch off your brain and enjoy a movie for what it is any more than you can switch off your stomach and not puke after eating spoiled food.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 09:39
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Nah - I think the main situation where someone overthinking a movie could be bad is if overthinking it caused them to miss some of the main themes/qualities of the movie. Like, imagine a situation where someone tried to attach some meaning to a bunch of random poo poo using schizophrenic-ish logic and, in the process, missed the major themes of the work (that is, missing the forest for the trees). That's underthinking. If people are genuinely missing an obvious point, accuse them of thinking badly, not of thinking too much. The only reason to fear "overthinking" is if you are worried that your opinions might change if you pay too close attention. In a society where huge numbers of people forge identities based on the media they consume, this is understandable. No one wants to believe their favourite TV doctor is a "secret" misogynist, as what does that say about them? "Switch your brain off and enjoy it" is an mantra of an egotistical coward. sassassin has a new favorite as of 15:18 on Mar 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 10:58
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:If you really feel that way about that type of movie, why not do what you would do when you are presented with spoiled food? Just don't eat (watch) it. I don't, but as everybody else I still have to live in an environment where those films are a big deal and where one isn't always in control of what he gets to do or consume. Tiggum posted:"Switch your brain off and enjoy it" is just a slightly more diplomatic way of saying "you're paying attention to the wrong things and you don't understand the point." Like, it's rude to tell someone that they're fixating on irrelevant details that don't affect the themes or message of the film, because you're telling them they're watching it wrong, so instead you say "hey, I guess you're just too clever for this movie, you should try putting yourself in the shoes of one of us idiots and try to enjoy it anyway without thinking about those terrible mistakes the filmmakers made" because it's an insult disguised as a compliment. Well, obviously it's an insult. But once you think about something, you can't consciously make yourself to unthink it. Like that stupid The Game meme. Or when people say that somebody should decrease their standards so they can enjoy more things. Well, maybe that's true, but it's not a choice, it's the result of years of past experiences, and nobody can just erase that and start from a blank slate genuinely believing that mayo on white bread is just as good as a roast chicken dinner. steinrokkan has a new favorite as of 14:02 on Mar 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
sassassin posted:That's underthinking. If people are genuinely missing an obvious point, accuse them of thinking badly, not of thinking too much. This is a good post, really well-put. This line of discussion reminds me of something I recently read and quite liked; rather than try to whip up my own clumsy paraphrase on the spot, I'll quote from someone else's: quote:Caetlin Benson-Allott’s claim in her book Killer Tapes and Shattered Screens [...] draws a link between VHS and the opening credits of the 1980 film Friday the 13th, where the title card appears to crash through a glass plane, the shards spinning out menacingly towards the viewer. Although it is hardly the first time a title sequence has broken the fourth wall, this act explicitly positions the film as a televisual work, designed to threaten the hermetic nature of the home viewer’s TV-set. This moment, she writes, is emblematic of the massive shift in film spectatorship towards VHS and the home-video viewer. The broken glass is a historical marker of puncture, of a new dynamic between film and viewer that hits you where you live.  Whether or not that was the director's intention (e.g. the choice of having the title card smash through a glass [television] screen rather than tearing through whatever it is movie screens are made of) isn't really important, because it does provide the critic and her readers with a jumping-off point from which she can continue her discussion/argument/etc. This feels like an example of what your average "switch your brain off" viewer would accuse of being "overthinking" - it's one moment, and not even a diagetic one, in the first film in what's largely regarded as a trash series within a trash genre, i.e. exactly where one would expect to switch off one's brain. And yet! This is why "overthinking" popular / "trash" culture is valuable: every decision that gets made in a work was at least theoretically made for a reason - maybe not a good or interesting one, but often worth considering independently and as working parts of a creative whole.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 13:55
|
|
