3 ms·
It’s the inevitable consequence of design by committee. By layering on requirements unrelated to “fun”, eventually fun becomes incompatible with all the differ
by jiggawatts 3y ago
It’s the inevitable consequence of design by committee.
By layering on requirements unrelated to “fun”, eventually fun becomes incompatible with all the different needs and wants.
“Must cater to lucrative Chinese market.”
“Must have at least one of each race represented — even if they’re a single family from one village.”
Etc… eventually the singular vision is just one of many items on a long checklist.
The only good new Disney show is Andor, which was notably made by a small team with a small budget and hence little interference from “corporate”.
Thinking about it, all of the media I’ve enjoyed in the last decade — my middle age — were made with a single “dictator” in charge instead of a committee in charge. E.g.: I like Christopher Nolan or Ridley Scott movies precisely because their personal vision and style is apparent and beautiful.
Corporate committees have only one vision: taking your money.
That’s what comes through. That’s what you’re picking up on subconsciously.
- 1123581321 3y agoAndor had a quarter billion dollar budget. What kept it free from exec interference was Tony Gilroy wrote a “here’s what you won’t let anyone make, that you should make” manifesto and they didn’t have any choice but to give him control if they wanted to work with him.
- Michelangelo11 3y ago> Thinking about it, all of the media I’ve enjoyed in the last decade — my middle age — were made with a single “dictator” in charge instead of a committee in charge. E.g.: I like Christopher Nolan or Ridley Scott movies precisely because their personal vision and style is apparent and beautiful. Agree with this totally. Two recent examples of that, that I really liked, were Succession (where Adam McKay ruled the production with an iron fist and scrutinized every detail), and Hamilton, where Lin-Manuel Miranda not only wrote the music and the lyrics and played the lead, but also had a hand in the choreography and probably in more stuff. And both of these things were considered some of the greatest, or the greatest, works in their respective genres in the last God-knows-how-many years!
- mnky9800n 3y agoAfter Oppenheimer I realized that Christopher Nolan is only able to make one movie. That movie is a movie about a damaged man who must find the solution to something and he is special in some way which either will allow him to find it or demonstrate that no one can. Which made me think about who does Christopher Nolan see himself to be in all these films? The protagonist? Maybe this is all critical nonsense.
- prepend 3y agoPeople are lucky if they have one good idea in their life. This may be Nolan’s single theme, but it’s a complex one that might take 1,000 movies to exhaust. I’m grateful for watching all these explorations.
- mnky9800n 3y agoComplex men suffering is not unique to Nolan (e.g., king Lear). He simply seems to be able to create compelling versions of that theme. But actually I'm wondering what would be different if there was creative boundaries on Nolan and what he would create instead.
- prepend 3y agoIt’s certainly not unique, nor does it need to be, nor has anyone claimed Nolan invented the concept. I share your curiosity and maybe we’ll see one day. But I’m also happy if we just see 30 more movies exploring the same theme. While Nolan isn’t truly unique in history, I think he’s rare and not many are telling stories like he is.
- mnky9800n 3y agoRidley Scott made g.i.jane and the Gucci movie. He's not always auteristic. Haha.
- jiggawatts 3y agoLinus Torvalds also wrote a dive-computer app with maybe a few thousand users. That doesn’t detract from his other successes!