4 ms·

Intentional mediocrity is incredibly hard to achieve. Smart people who can create something that's perfectly mediocre and can be consumed by the masses are the

by spaceman_2020 4y ago

Intentional mediocrity is incredibly hard to achieve. Smart people who can create something that's perfectly mediocre and can be consumed by the masses are the true geniuses of this world.

mathematicaster 4y ago
Is it even fair to call that mediocrity?
- spaceman_2020 4y ago
  Maybe it's "cerebral suppression" where you intentionally switch off the part of your brain that wants to make it more clever and smarter. Chuck Lorre (creator of Two and a Half Men and Big Bang Theory) comes to mind.
AlbertCory 4y ago
I present to you, ladies & gents, James Cameron: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Cameron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Cameron Avatar and Titanic are stunningly mediocre films. But look at the box office numbers.
- spaceman_2020 4y ago
  Cameron is strange because he is a legitimate genius at some parts of movie-making. For all their mediocrity, Titanic and Avatar have exceptional action sequences - and Cameron is a bonafide genius at that.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- rl3 4y ago
  To be fair he also created The Terminator, Aliens and Terminator 2: Judgement Day—all of these films were blockbusters and arguably excellent films. Avatar and Titanic presumably aspired to be excellent films as well. The visual effects that went into each were nuts, and Titanic's production values were quite good. Why legendary directors sometimes end up making progressively worse films later in life is a rather complex question.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    I'm not arguing, but what are some examples? I'll start: Spielberg. I would argue with this, though: "Avatar and Titanic presumably aspired to be excellent films as well." No, I don't think they did. I think by now Cameron had internalized the screenwriter's gospel of character arcs and what audiences (presumably) want to see, and regurgitated it. "Excellent" to him meant "what people will pay for."
    - rl3 4y ago
      Somewhere in there I think is ego gone awry; why write for what you think audiences want to see? That's such a cynical corruption of art. I suppose it's fear of your movie gross failing to exceed your production budget, and you retire as a legendary director anyways. Ah, that doesn't seem too bad. Well worth the risk. But, no.

Intentional mediocrity is incredibly hard to achieve. Smart people who can create something that's perfectly mediocre and can be consumed by the masses are the true geniuses of this world.

mathematicaster 4y ago

Is it even fair to call that mediocrity?

spaceman_2020 4y ago
Maybe it's "cerebral suppression" where you intentionally switch off the part of your brain that wants to make it more clever and smarter. Chuck Lorre (creator of Two and a Half Men and Big Bang Theory) comes to mind.

AlbertCory 4y ago

I present to you, ladies & gents, James Cameron: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Cameron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Cameron Avatar and Titanic are stunningly mediocre films. But look at the box office numbers.

spaceman_2020 4y ago
Cameron is strange because he is a legitimate genius at some parts of movie-making. For all their mediocrity, Titanic and Avatar have exceptional action sequences - and Cameron is a bonafide genius at that.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rl3 4y ago
To be fair he also created The Terminator, Aliens and Terminator 2: Judgement Day—all of these films were blockbusters and arguably excellent films. Avatar and Titanic presumably aspired to be excellent films as well. The visual effects that went into each were nuts, and Titanic's production values were quite good. Why legendary directors sometimes end up making progressively worse films later in life is a rather complex question.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  I'm not arguing, but what are some examples? I'll start: Spielberg. I would argue with this, though: "Avatar and Titanic presumably aspired to be excellent films as well." No, I don't think they did. I think by now Cameron had internalized the screenwriter's gospel of character arcs and what audiences (presumably) want to see, and regurgitated it. "Excellent" to him meant "what people will pay for."
  - rl3 4y ago
    Somewhere in there I think is ego gone awry; why write for what you think audiences want to see? That's such a cynical corruption of art. I suppose it's fear of your movie gross failing to exceed your production budget, and you retire as a legendary director anyways. Ah, that doesn't seem too bad. Well worth the risk. But, no.