3 ms·
It's probably corruption. It eliminates competition and breeds mediocrity. If your capital isn't allocated fairly results will be pretty bad.
by spooningtamarin 11y ago
It's probably corruption. It eliminates competition and breeds mediocrity.
If your capital isn't allocated fairly results will be pretty bad.
- simo7 11y agoThis wouldn't explain why it used to be so good in the past though.
- coldtea 11y agoSoviet cinema had lots of masterpieces without "fair allocation of capital" (and lots of corruption one would presume). And I wouldn't call the Hollywood situation of giving multi-million dollar budgets to BS like Transformers and spare change to far better movies a "fair allocation" either when it comes to artistic merit. When it comes to art, allocation of capital and "efficient markets" just means more popular works get more money -- it doesn't say anything about their quality, which is part of what the article is about. (Expecting accusations of 'elitism', I'm not talking about esoteric, self-congratulatory arthouse films either. The Godfellas for example, a mighty good movie, is anything but that, or Pulp Fiction (or, at their era, The Searchers, Vertigo etc.).
- icebraining 11y agoAnd I wouldn't call the Hollywood situation of giving multi-million dollar budgets to BS like Transformers and spare change to far better movies a "fair allocation" either when it comes to artistic merit. To be fair, the title asks about its appeal, not artistic merit. Transformers is a shitty film, but it certainly has appeal.