|
Just because the movies they make are poo poo doesnt mean that the culture that its ostensibly marketed to is bad.
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 06:53 |
|
|
doverhog posted:"Nerd culture" is really broad. There is some great stuff on TV, like Legion, that would never have happened without comics becoming mainstream. Are scifi novels like A Scanner Darkly part of nerd culture? Is that the same culture as My Little Pony? Really broad. All those things fall into an incredibly narrow spectrum!
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Most of the shows in this "golden age of TV" aren't that good, they just have higher production values and have surpassed the pitifully low standards of television thus far.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Pick posted:All those things fall into an incredibly narrow spectrum! Is the spectrum you are thinking about "art"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
doverhog posted:"Nerd culture" is really broad. There is some great stuff on TV, like Legion, that would never have happened without comics becoming mainstream. Are scifi novels like A Scanner Darkly part of nerd culture? Is that the same culture as My Little Pony? Really broad. (This isn't an opinion, just facts, sorry:) American comics were main-stream, then they dropped out in the nineties and haven't managed to slip back in. Movies about super-heroes established in American comic books are what went mainstream and that got you Legion (which I haven't watched because the commercials for it made it look really boring).
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:(This isn't an opinion, just facts, sorry:) American comics were main-stream, then they dropped out in the nineties and haven't managed to slip back in. Movies about super-heroes established in American comic books are what went mainstream and that got you Legion (which I haven't watched because the commercials for it made it look really boring). It's a winding road. Legion is really good if you like a Lynch-esque confusing unreliable narrator, time jumps, cool visuals, lots of style, and great acting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
doverhog posted:It's a winding road. Legion is really good if you like a Lynch-esque confusing unreliable narrator, time jumps, cool visuals, lots of style, and great acting. From what I saw, the lead actor seemed to belong to the "I make a lot of stupid faces to show emotion" school of acting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
... you just said you didn't watch it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
doverhog posted:... you just said you didn't watch it? I said I'd seen commercials for it. Commercials for TV programs around here tend to show clips from the actual product. Most of the clips were of the protagonist (I assume) making stupid faces.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:If you're going to bother to poo poo-talk a movie at least watch it first. That is unnecessary
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:That is unnecessary What would putting feathers on add to the movie experience? Absolutely nothing. Movies aren't striving for scientific accuracy. The vast majority of movie goers don't give a poo poo whether dinosaurs had feathers or not. Maybe next one they'll add a line by the asian guy about how they had to replace the feather gene with a snake's one or something just to satisfy autists like yourself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
The only thing that counts as good writing is if I don't find the character annoying/whiny, and they don't have any emotional problems/character flaws.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:What would putting feathers on add to the movie experience? Absolutely nothing. Movies aren't striving for scientific accuracy. The vast majority of movie goers don't give a poo poo whether dinosaurs had feathers or not. Maybe next one they'll add a line by the asian guy about how they had to replace the feather gene with a snake's one or something just to satisfy autists like yourself. Nope, afraid not. Jurassic Park, while it got some details wrong, did at least try to represent dinosaurs in a new light using then-up-to-date science. Before JP, most American adults (and adults in other countries) probably thought of dinosaurs as just Godzilla, slow, lumbering behemoths that live in swamps and roar. But JP updated dinosaurs and introduced them in a new light. That is the spirit of science fiction: to take the most recent scientific understandings and try to spin a story about them, to use them to express ideas and themes. The theme of JP is that screwing around with nature and trying to control nature is wrong, its too complicated and we know too little, we need to check our hubris and respect what we dont understand, lest we create chaos. To best illustrate this theme, it was important to make the dinosaurs as real as possible, to show people that dinosaurs werent just big dumb movie monsters but were actually complex living things. And to do this, they had to surprise people and to subvert their expectations. "Oh, you think dinosaurs were slow and cold-blooded and dumb as rocks? Guess again". So using the most recent and latest paleontological findings to make the dinosaurs more believable, more than just monsters, was important to express the theme that we can't control them, they exist independently of our ideas of them. Jurassic World screwed all of that by ignoring recent science. Science has evolved since 1993 and now we know that dinosaurs had feathers. To continue the themes of the first JP, it would have been best to update the dinosaurs with 2015 science and to show that they had feathers and that they looked and acted completely different from anything we had ever imagined. This would help drive home the idea that these animals, these living beings, are not our playthings. They do not conform to our expectations and will always surprise us. But nah, just make them big scaly monsters instead. Make them look like they did in the original Jurassic Park, since thats what people remember. Dont surprise people. Dont challenge them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Low Desert Punk posted:Most of the shows in this "golden age of TV" aren't that good, they just have higher production values and have surpassed the pitifully low standards of television thus far. See: Game of Thrones. Game of Thrones seems to have just become A Big Thing by insisting it's A Big Thing and everyone just going along with it. It confuses complexity for narrative quality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Gyro Zeppeli posted:See: Game of Thrones. Game of Thrones seems to have just become A Big Thing by insisting it's A Big Thing and everyone just going along with it. It confuses complexity for narrative quality. It's not complex.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Video games are a loving terrible storytelling medium, at least as they've been used so far. Barring a few examples, even the best video game plots would be average at best if told in any other medium. And since gamers have made it very clear that any storytelling more advanced than "Freshman year philosophy and basic moral dilemmas" is SJW cuck poo poo, it's going to stay that way for a very long time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:It's not complex. I just mean in terms of "Add more characters and subplots instead of having any interesting A-plot".
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Game of Thrones is a deconstruction of the old classic fantasy genre, and it's more interested in characters than plot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Game of Thrones also has the token "white fiction author" trope of rape for character development
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Tell us more about white token fiction authors.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Fantasy remains a completely garbage-tier genre.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Game of Thrones is meant for children, and that's why it's more interested in characters than plot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
Jerry, usually plot is seen as juvenile, and character study the more adult focus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Jerry, usually plot is seen as juvenile, and character study the more adult focus. Well that certainly fits this thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Game of Thrones is just pulp soap opera bodice-ripper trash. If you like it, fine. But its not high art or anything. Its not thought provoking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
You may be confusing plot with theme or something like that. (never would claim GoT as high art)
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
Das Boo posted: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." I dunno, some films definitely seem to be intended to just be fun in that they engage the viewer visually and emotionally all the way through and they will explicitly make decisions to enhance those elements even at the expense of doing something more cerebral. Those kinds of films fall apart at any extended analysis because it just spotlights any holes you might've not cared about before even if you can still discuss the things you did like intelligently. Rigorous dissection will do nothing for a film like Star Wars except reveal how sophomoric the entire experience was from its awful, awkward, stilted dialogue to its childish presentation of conflict but people still love those films anyway. An in-depth analysis seems to miss the point because we're all more-or-less aware of those issues but we choose to ignore them because the rest of the film succeeds. You sorta do have to shut off your brain to some criticisms to get why some people feel the way they do about those films even if you can still talk meaningfully about the parts you liked. steinrokkan posted:I sincerely doubt major newspapers and TV stations were routinely using pop culture references as their main means of grounding events for their audiences. Also 60s and 70s aren't that far off, and focusing entirely on America is denying the massive change in pop culture significance in the rest of the world in like last 20 years. Denying the exploding importance of pop culture in generalized discourse is denying the incredible ways in which the entertainment and news sectors are growing intertwined, and that's just talking about journalism alone. That's something I really dislike about current news sectors and modern journalism. Sure people have been using references to ground current events for ages, previously those choices tended to be drawn from classical literature, fables, religious texts and the like which at first glance just seem like older, more pompous versions of the same materials pop culture draws from but the issue was that a lot of those references belonged to, and were studied in, systems of classical education - everyone studied similar works and were educated to know the intended meaning behind those works. Biblical references could be dropped confidently knowing that at one point the vast majority of the population went to church and went through Sunday school though I'd def argue they're less appropriate now. Everyone gets pretty much the same educational backbone either way. Someone could also confidently make a reference to Crassus knowing that the reader would be knowledgeable about his life and his supposedly ironic death since the readers probably went through the same traditions of standard western education. Pop culture tends to be consumed unequally and isn't studied in a classroom setting so not everyone walks away with intended meaning. Imagine if some satires weren't explicitly called out for being what they are, like A Modest Proposal is in most classrooms, you'd definitely get some people misinterpreting Starship Troopers the movie and misusing it as a pop culture reference. Being consumed unequally means that if someone in a news article keeps making Harry Potter references, for example, they'll be lost on me since I read all of two books before I decided they weren't for me. By making such specific references you're just communicating to niche and that kind of communication should just be dropped from professional settings. I don't wanna have to decipher a line like Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra just because the journalist is a huge sperg who consumes and views the world entirely through the lens of star trek and that poo poo is okay in the modern era.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
The theme is some grimdark bullshit about HuMaN NaTuRe and freshman politics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The theme is some grimdark bullshit about HuMaN NaTuRe and freshman politics. If you are talking to me, the theme comment was about whether plot, characters or theme are considered more important in fiction among globalist literary elitists, not about GoT.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
I've not seen a single thing from GoT, I assumed it was a political thriller about a bunch of factions fighting over the crown? Am I close?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
Aramek posted:I've not seen a single thing from GoT, I assumed it was a political thriller about a bunch of factions fighting over the crown? Yes and also there are ice zombies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Aramek posted:I've not seen a single thing from GoT, I assumed it was a political thriller about a bunch of factions fighting over the crown? It's about that, and everybody dies before they can reach their goal because the struggle for power is futile or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Yes, but it's also a deconstruction of the fantasy genre. The good guys lose, morality is actually bad for you, the dragon princess can't control her dragons, etc. Also a melodrama, etc. There is a funny dwarf who is drunk a lot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
That's not deconstruction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Ok, what would be?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Aramek posted:I've not seen a single thing from GoT, I assumed it was a political thriller about a bunch of factions fighting over the crown? It's really really good. And the books are like 800 pages EACH. IF you want to impress people in public read a big important book like Game of Thrones, A Sword of Storms, A Clash of Kings, A Feast for Crows, or A Dance with Dragons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
It hardly ever actually exposes - at least in the show - the contradictions of the structures of typical fantasy. The good guys often lose, but it doesn't really analyze the concept of bad guys and good guys at all. The good guys have minor flaws, everybody else is a monster constructed to be hated, to be in opposition to the virtue of the good side. One horde of outsiders is humanized, but they are followed by another horde of literal monsters. The The dragon queen can't control her dragons and is a lovely ruler, but she still goes through a hero arc, at the end of which she is currently a glorified, victorious leader inspiring loyalty. The ostracized protagonist goes through the typical hero arc and is apparently heir to some ancient powers like every fantasy hero ever. Virtually all the people who get defeated are child murderers, general murderers, rapists, child rapists... It's just a bog standard fantasy story stretched artificially by a series of "bluffs" where supposed protagonists get killed off to get replaced by the actual protagonists and by plenty of side stories that don't seem to go anywhere at all. steinrokkan has a new favorite as of 22:15 on Mar 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
I'd love to see how much hatred could be generated if the last book (or even better, the tv season finale in contrast to the book) wrapped up with it all just being some nerd playing an MMO
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
This is getting too deep into GoT to really respond to, but, you didn't respond to what would qualify as a deconstruction. oldpainless posted:It's really really good. And the books are like 800 pages EACH. IF you want to impress people in public read a big important book like Game of Thrones, A Sword of Storms, A Clash of Kings, A Feast for Crows, or A Dance with Dragons. This is bad advice, instead you should work out and grow a beard, people will be much more impressed, in public.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 06:53 |
|
|
doverhog posted:This is bad advice, instead you should work out and grow a beard, people will be much more impressed, in public. I mean if you're a woman, sure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 22:26
|
|