4 ms·

I can't help but agree with this. I'm noticing this more with games than anything else, but it's simply not possible to release something that won't be immedia

I can't help but agree with this. I'm noticing this more with games than anything else, but it's simply not possible to release something that won't be immediately bombarded with hate. There are too many people who style themselves reviewers who cannot tell the difference between something not being for them, and something being actually objectively bad.

zimpenfish 3y ago
> something being actually objectively bad. How would you even define "objectively bad" when it comes to art?
- _urvc 3y ago
  I think current Hollywood is a prime example of doing objectively bad art especially live action movies. They ignore the source material to make it fit their political agenda, which has always been a thing, but it becomes problematic when it breaks the characters and rules of the world. The stories become so inconsistent that you just cannot get immersed. Knowing more about the writer than the characters is really bad writing. I also consider the all knowing character very popular in webtoons to be just a form of cheating. I've seen it done well, e.g. knowledge as a double-edged sword, but mostly poorly to the point it could have been removed and the story would have been the same. In general adding superflous elements because it is trendy is really shallow writing.
  - astrange 3y ago
    > I think current Hollywood is a prime example of doing objectively bad art especially live action movies. There are two movies out today that are famously doing very well and are quite good. > They ignore the source material to make it fit their political agenda It's one thing to use "thought terminating cliches" in posts, but actually believing them is nothing more than self-harm, so you should try stopping.
- RugnirViking 3y ago
  something that dilutes itself and tries to appeal to everyone and yet very few people actually like it. of course "bad art" is a ridiculopus concept in some sense, but I think here the issue is a total lack of "art", an entirely cynical attempt to hit the exact average with no ideas behind it

zimpenfish 3y ago

> something being actually objectively bad. How would you even define "objectively bad" when it comes to art?

_urvc 3y ago
I think current Hollywood is a prime example of doing objectively bad art especially live action movies. They ignore the source material to make it fit their political agenda, which has always been a thing, but it becomes problematic when it breaks the characters and rules of the world. The stories become so inconsistent that you just cannot get immersed. Knowing more about the writer than the characters is really bad writing. I also consider the all knowing character very popular in webtoons to be just a form of cheating. I've seen it done well, e.g. knowledge as a double-edged sword, but mostly poorly to the point it could have been removed and the story would have been the same. In general adding superflous elements because it is trendy is really shallow writing.
- astrange 3y ago
  > I think current Hollywood is a prime example of doing objectively bad art especially live action movies. There are two movies out today that are famously doing very well and are quite good. > They ignore the source material to make it fit their political agenda It's one thing to use "thought terminating cliches" in posts, but actually believing them is nothing more than self-harm, so you should try stopping.
RugnirViking 3y ago
something that dilutes itself and tries to appeal to everyone and yet very few people actually like it. of course "bad art" is a ridiculopus concept in some sense, but I think here the issue is a total lack of "art", an entirely cynical attempt to hit the exact average with no ideas behind it