3 ms·

I respectfully disagree. Things look the same only if you look at the same things. Fashion and trends where always a thing. They spread faster and more globall

I respectfully disagree. Things look the same only if you look at the same things. Fashion and trends where always a thing. They spread faster and more globally today because the communication is rich and easy, and of course there are a lot of followers of any trend. But, not everything is "average". That bell curve is probably very high today, but there is a lot beyond the ±σ , just need to look there.

mihaic 2y ago
> there is a lot beyond the ±σ , just need to look there. Of course, the world if large and kaleidoscopic. But the rate of homogeneity in the middle 80% is higher than it's even been, and that really affects everyone. I actually want diversity in the mainstream, since some projects are only enjoyable if you can share them with others and if they get the most talented people to work on them. The fact that nobody would make a Doctor Zhivago or even a Back to the Future today is not something I can fix with all my searching.
- ben_w 2y ago
  > The fact that nobody would make a Doctor Zhivago or even a Back to the Future today is not something I can fix with all my searching. What do you mean by that? I'm not familiar with Doctor Zhivago so I had to look it up, the 1965 film is based on a 1957 novel, which seems to match just fine with the pattern of The Martian, The Three Body Problem, Game of Thrones, Fifty Shades of Grey, etc. Back to the Future is a fun trilogy, but the first film was mostly set in 1955 (so if it had been done today the past would have been 1994, compare to Captain Marvel being mostly set in 1995), the second film was 1985's idea of 2015 (and we still get plenty of what-if fiction in the near-ish future, e.g. Blade Runner 2049, Cyberpunk 2077), the third was yet another wild-west Cowboys-and-Indians gunslinger (1885) — but if you mean to focus on the more playful and fun aspects of how it was put together, or the positive vibes of good people working to solve problems and where it's clear who the goodies and baddies are, BttF reminds me more of The Orville or Lower Decks. (And The Martian if you want to consider the environment/time travel itself, rather than Biff, to be the problem).
  - mihaic 2y ago
    I don't mean in broad genres, but more in terms of the range of emotions and thoughts that the top movies of the year evoke. The Martian is great movie, and does thankfully hit a different spot than the generic dystopian Sci-Fi, but there still seems to be a compression of that range, one which unfortunately nobody can quantify so that's why it's mostly opinion here.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      Ah, I think I see. For that issue, I think that as any medium ages, it transforms from "explore" to "exploit", which is also why films have a lot more sequels and reboots. So, if you want more range, explore new media: games, youtube, etc.
      - mihaic 2y ago
        > For that issue, I think that as any medium ages, it transforms from "explore" to "exploit", which is also why films have a lot more sequels and reboots. I've never agreed with this argument, it just felt like an excuse. For 100 years movies kept changing as society also changed, and all of a sudden they hit the exploit phase somehow after 2000, when GCI was still improving. Movies are in part a product of a social climate, and that climate is never static, so to me it seems like there should always be something to explore. It just seems that financier no longer want to put any money in exploring, and culture becomes poorer while the GDP grows.
        ben_w 2y ago
        It wasn't a sudden change, it's been a gradual tendency towards them. James Bond was already 19 films by the turn of the century (or 20 if you include the other Casino Royale), King Kong and Star Trek both got to 6, Batman 8, Star Wars had just had the 4th, Friday the 13th had reached 9 films. Even BttF itself was three films, and in the second one was parodying the tendency towards sequels with the holographic Jaws 19.
bluetomcat 2y ago
There used to be more regional diversity, though. Things had distinctive characteristics that could easily be associated with the culture that produced them. A German car looked restrained and taut and had no cupholders. A French car looked kinda unusual and Avant-garde. Now everyone is driving the same blobby thing with several cupholders decided after a customer survey among Americans driving through McDonalds. The concept of "McDonaldization" (coined in 1993) sums it best: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonaldization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonaldization
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  McDonaldization = globalization? The world is smaller now than it was in the 80's, and even then there were trends in design and fashion that spread across the world.
  - bluetomcat 2y ago
    They are not quite the same idea. In a globalised but diverse economy, a Japanese buys a Swiss watch and a Swiss buys a Japanese air conditioner. McDonaldization refers to the incessant urge of Western societies to over-rationalise every aspect of the economic and cultural life, resulting in bland uniformity. It is a progression of Max Weber's ideas on bureaucracy and rationalisation.
    - Spivak 2y ago
      I think globalized but diverse was always kind of a pipe dream because along with things you're trading across the globe you're also spreading information back and forth. And as the article points out, human preference is roughly the same in aggregate across the globe, so we all loosely converge on a local maximum of "the best" rinse, repeat, and you suddenly get homogenization.
t14n 2y ago
+1 there are a million million subcultures with pretty stark differences in taste/aesthetics that you can dig up on the internet. looking at what's grossing in mega-dense populations of millions of people then yeah, perhaps in aggregate at large N, things their individuality -- surprise? there are parts of every major city that feel the same, but if you're willing to take a train out 45 minutes in any direction without google maps, i'm willing to bet you get into spaces that are incredibly local!

mihaic 2y ago

> there is a lot beyond the ±σ , just need to look there. Of course, the world if large and kaleidoscopic. But the rate of homogeneity in the middle 80% is higher than it's even been, and that really affects everyone. I actually want diversity in the mainstream, since some projects are only enjoyable if you can share them with others and if they get the most talented people to work on them. The fact that nobody would make a Doctor Zhivago or even a Back to the Future today is not something I can fix with all my searching.

ben_w 2y ago
> The fact that nobody would make a Doctor Zhivago or even a Back to the Future today is not something I can fix with all my searching. What do you mean by that? I'm not familiar with Doctor Zhivago so I had to look it up, the 1965 film is based on a 1957 novel, which seems to match just fine with the pattern of The Martian, The Three Body Problem, Game of Thrones, Fifty Shades of Grey, etc. Back to the Future is a fun trilogy, but the first film was mostly set in 1955 (so if it had been done today the past would have been 1994, compare to Captain Marvel being mostly set in 1995), the second film was 1985's idea of 2015 (and we still get plenty of what-if fiction in the near-ish future, e.g. Blade Runner 2049, Cyberpunk 2077), the third was yet another wild-west Cowboys-and-Indians gunslinger (1885) — but if you mean to focus on the more playful and fun aspects of how it was put together, or the positive vibes of good people working to solve problems and where it's clear who the goodies and baddies are, BttF reminds me more of The Orville or Lower Decks. (And The Martian if you want to consider the environment/time travel itself, rather than Biff, to be the problem).
- mihaic 2y ago
  I don't mean in broad genres, but more in terms of the range of emotions and thoughts that the top movies of the year evoke. The Martian is great movie, and does thankfully hit a different spot than the generic dystopian Sci-Fi, but there still seems to be a compression of that range, one which unfortunately nobody can quantify so that's why it's mostly opinion here.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Ah, I think I see. For that issue, I think that as any medium ages, it transforms from "explore" to "exploit", which is also why films have a lot more sequels and reboots. So, if you want more range, explore new media: games, youtube, etc.
    - mihaic 2y ago
      > For that issue, I think that as any medium ages, it transforms from "explore" to "exploit", which is also why films have a lot more sequels and reboots. I've never agreed with this argument, it just felt like an excuse. For 100 years movies kept changing as society also changed, and all of a sudden they hit the exploit phase somehow after 2000, when GCI was still improving. Movies are in part a product of a social climate, and that climate is never static, so to me it seems like there should always be something to explore. It just seems that financier no longer want to put any money in exploring, and culture becomes poorer while the GDP grows.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        It wasn't a sudden change, it's been a gradual tendency towards them. James Bond was already 19 films by the turn of the century (or 20 if you include the other Casino Royale), King Kong and Star Trek both got to 6, Batman 8, Star Wars had just had the 4th, Friday the 13th had reached 9 films. Even BttF itself was three films, and in the second one was parodying the tendency towards sequels with the holographic Jaws 19.

bluetomcat 2y ago

There used to be more regional diversity, though. Things had distinctive characteristics that could easily be associated with the culture that produced them. A German car looked restrained and taut and had no cupholders. A French car looked kinda unusual and Avant-garde. Now everyone is driving the same blobby thing with several cupholders decided after a customer survey among Americans driving through McDonalds. The concept of "McDonaldization" (coined in 1993) sums it best: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonaldization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonaldization

Cthulhu_ 2y ago
McDonaldization = globalization? The world is smaller now than it was in the 80's, and even then there were trends in design and fashion that spread across the world.
- bluetomcat 2y ago
  They are not quite the same idea. In a globalised but diverse economy, a Japanese buys a Swiss watch and a Swiss buys a Japanese air conditioner. McDonaldization refers to the incessant urge of Western societies to over-rationalise every aspect of the economic and cultural life, resulting in bland uniformity. It is a progression of Max Weber's ideas on bureaucracy and rationalisation.
  - Spivak 2y ago
    I think globalized but diverse was always kind of a pipe dream because along with things you're trading across the globe you're also spreading information back and forth. And as the article points out, human preference is roughly the same in aggregate across the globe, so we all loosely converge on a local maximum of "the best" rinse, repeat, and you suddenly get homogenization.

t14n 2y ago

+1 there are a million million subcultures with pretty stark differences in taste/aesthetics that you can dig up on the internet. looking at what's grossing in mega-dense populations of millions of people then yeah, perhaps in aggregate at large N, things their individuality -- surprise? there are parts of every major city that feel the same, but if you're willing to take a train out 45 minutes in any direction without google maps, i'm willing to bet you get into spaces that are incredibly local!