5 ms·

YOU are not the problem. The individual has ridiculously low power to influence corporate decisions. Individuals may desperately want high quality moving media,

YOU are not the problem. The individual has ridiculously low power to influence corporate decisions. Individuals may desperately want high quality moving media, but those have lower expected value than "sure bets" of franchises. Art has become dictated by demands of MBAs and shareholders. Also look at FIFA World Cups right when they were formed versus now, same exact tournament and participants, but the modern has become completely filled with "value" through ads.

TOMDM 4y ago
High quality media hasn't stopped being produced, but the sure bets are performing better. Sure, the risky subversive stuff doesn't have multi-million dollar marketing budgets, but why should it, it's risky and subversive. The current media environment is the product of what people give attention to.
- SQueeeeeL 4y ago
  It's a construct that the purpose of art is to turn a profit and not enrich. But that construct is so deeply instilled that you'd be very hard pressed to find someone who thinks producers of works have responsibility to anyone other than shareholders.
  - TOMDM 4y ago
    Yes, literally every statement about what art is, what it should be, how it should be made and for who is a construct. That's entirely beside the point and not an argument for why certain kinds of art thrive.
BlargMcLarg 4y ago
People are the problem in cases of entertainment. You don't need to watch only sequels or remakes, or deal with the latest broken mess made by some AAA filled with lootboxes. The options are out there still. It's a different story for industries where doing the alternative has a high amount of friction. Entertainment is not one of them.
godelski 4y ago
Exactly this. If you listen to the stories told by directors and writers of cult classic movies/shows then you'll hear them often talk about having to fight for it and how much of a "risk" the movie was. Hell, Guillermo del Toro has yet to produce At The Mountains of Madness despite it already having many eager fans waiting. But we also have problems with advertising and distribution. Every Sci-Fi lover I know loves Arrival but that movie didn't even play in half the theaters when it came out. Ironically we're seeing many streaming services produce higher quality content and a big part is that they are taking more risks. People are not just being vocal, but voting with their dollars. I'd far rather see something in the theaters than at home but not only is the price of a movie far higher than a month of streaming, but there just are so few good theatrical movies now. A major part of streaming services' success actively demonstrates that YOU are not the problem.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
> The individual has ridiculously low power to influence corporate decisions. What power does corporate have to force someone to watch a game of football? > the modern has become completely filled with "value" through ads. Because sufficient people agree with trade. If they were not OK with the trade, sufficient people would do any of the countless other activities available to them.

TOMDM 4y ago

High quality media hasn't stopped being produced, but the sure bets are performing better. Sure, the risky subversive stuff doesn't have multi-million dollar marketing budgets, but why should it, it's risky and subversive. The current media environment is the product of what people give attention to.

SQueeeeeL 4y ago
It's a construct that the purpose of art is to turn a profit and not enrich. But that construct is so deeply instilled that you'd be very hard pressed to find someone who thinks producers of works have responsibility to anyone other than shareholders.
- TOMDM 4y ago
  Yes, literally every statement about what art is, what it should be, how it should be made and for who is a construct. That's entirely beside the point and not an argument for why certain kinds of art thrive.

BlargMcLarg 4y ago

People are the problem in cases of entertainment. You don't need to watch only sequels or remakes, or deal with the latest broken mess made by some AAA filled with lootboxes. The options are out there still. It's a different story for industries where doing the alternative has a high amount of friction. Entertainment is not one of them.

godelski 4y ago

Exactly this. If you listen to the stories told by directors and writers of cult classic movies/shows then you'll hear them often talk about having to fight for it and how much of a "risk" the movie was. Hell, Guillermo del Toro has yet to produce At The Mountains of Madness despite it already having many eager fans waiting. But we also have problems with advertising and distribution. Every Sci-Fi lover I know loves Arrival but that movie didn't even play in half the theaters when it came out. Ironically we're seeing many streaming services produce higher quality content and a big part is that they are taking more risks. People are not just being vocal, but voting with their dollars. I'd far rather see something in the theaters than at home but not only is the price of a movie far higher than a month of streaming, but there just are so few good theatrical movies now. A major part of streaming services' success actively demonstrates that YOU are not the problem.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

> The individual has ridiculously low power to influence corporate decisions. What power does corporate have to force someone to watch a game of football? > the modern has become completely filled with "value" through ads. Because sufficient people agree with trade. If they were not OK with the trade, sufficient people would do any of the countless other activities available to them.