They don\'t make things like they used to...

[killshot]

I'm tired of waiting for a new topic to pop up so I'll just make my own (with black jack and hookers.)

I'm noticing a trend (its actually been going on forever) with our culture. It seems like everything good has already been done and we will never see an original and exciting idea again. I cite video games as a prime example. There hasn't been a single Zelda game this decade that can compare with Ocarina of Time. Super Smash Bros. Brawl is significantly worse than Melee. The Fire Emblem series has dried up completely. Final Fantasy died years ago. I can't name a single game that has came out recently that has broken new ground.

This isn't only affecting games. Movies, television, music, and even food have gotten exponentially worse in my lifetime. I'll issue a challenge. Name one thing that is better now (innovation and creativity wise, not technologically) than it was ten years ago.

EDIT: God damn it, why does the topic title hate apostrophes so much!? I know for a fact I didn't use a backslash.

[killaziv]

Dont worry about the backslashes =). You are right about the video games and movies and television shows. It seems nowadays all the new stuff coming out are things like "Find someone to play the main in a crappy musical that has already been done" or games based on other games (I refer to KH)

Even Simpsons is starting to do it. One of the new Simpsons episodes was taken from Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind, even the title was a rip-off (Eternal Moonshine Of The Simpson Mind).

There can never be a Zelda game more successful than Ocarina of Time but lets see, something original? Umm how about PSP? Its a lot more conveniant and easier to use than playstation 1/2/3

[OverMind]

Totally and completely unnecessary movie remakes fall into the scope of this topic. 'Nuff said.

...

(i.e. MTV has plans to remake The Rocky Horror Picture Show ... There are so many things wrong with this that my mind borderline malfunctions just thinking about those reasons).

[killshot]

MTV has plans to remake The Rocky Horror Picture Show .

You've just made me sad...but I shouldn't be surprised considering its MTV.

Umm how about PSP?

Nice try, but packaging a bunch of stuff we already have into the same device is not what I would consider innovative. I believe the N-gage was pretty much the same as the PSP in theory, just with poor execution. (I giggle on the inside when I think about the N-gage.)

[Tatterdemalion]

I'll issue a challenge. Name one thing that is better now (innovation and creativity wise, not technologically) than it was ten years ago.

The internet. With the means and media for distribution of creative material constantly increasing, the internet is essentially the key breeding ground for creativity in the 21st century. Thinking about culture in the context of video games, movies and television isn't going to get you much, but keep in mind that in the past ten years the intenet has created the possibility to escape the Pop Culture Machine of the television and radio, instead creating a medium with a much more community-based approach.

The difference between the intenet and television is that television is passive, whereas the internet is relatively active. it's not that culture has ceased to exist, but rather, because the 5 world media corporations have as a collective failed to sustain their product (which was really irnevitable, considering that any "cultural" outlet so detatched from the people of the culture themselves is incapable of evolving on its own, meaning it will eventually become irrelevant to peoples' needs and interests), culture has shifted, and become much more of-the-people.

Now, this doesn't seem so amazing, and perhaps even seems childish, because it's not as though any sort of a cultural boom is apparent. I mean, if the intenet is the premier source of culture in the modern world, then where are the Miltons? Where are the Shakespeares? Where are the Mozarts, the Picassoes, the great creators? See, the thing there is that we are in a time period where, unlike any time before, people have both the means for creation and the means for distribution. In a sense, on the internet we truly have a socialist culture. In Shakespeare's time, if you wanted to be a playwright your options were generally very limited by social status, political climate, and even chance. That is, first you had to be one of the few people lucky enough to be able to get an education, then after that you had to get investors, and backers to finance your plays, then you needed a troupe of actors and a theater, and other such resources (and a producer), then after that you had to be sure to restrict yourself to creating something that was guaranteed to draw a large audience, and to satisfy the King, or Queen, who had final control over everything. In the world of the modern film industry, it's even more difficult. But what about the internet?

If you're anything from an amateur filmmaker on a very modest budget to an average person like you or me who happens to have a camera, you have the means not only to create something, but to distribute it through a medium that surpasses all financial, and even cultural restrictions. Now, does this mean that everything that is independently produced and distributed via the internet is Shakespeare? No, far from it. But if we look enough, we might just find a few Marlowes.

Now, keep in mind, an egalitarian society is not going to produce that many "great works," in the sense of artistic and creative works that stand as timeless, classic examples of a culture, acting as an ideal, and perhaps a standard bearer. That being said, this is compensated by the sheer number and diversity of the material being created. Am I saying that this means quantity is better than quality? No, of course not. What I'm saying is that because there is such a variety of works created, supported by such a varied audience, it's not an appropriate environment for an individual type of work to gain universal support or acclaim.

Now, this is both a good thing and a bad thing. On one hand, you don't have a small number of people setting the direction for an entire culture, but at the same time, works that truly are great can't have the same influence. I mean, imagine if the Beatles had distributed their music online. They would definitely never have become as popular as they are today, and wouldn't have had as much of an influence on the evolution of rock and roll. But then again, imagine how much more diverse the genre would have become if other original acts had been able to recieve more attention, and amateur musicians over the next half century had been more experimental/innovative, as opposed to spending their time learning how to cover Beatles songs. It's a win-some lose-some sort of thing. I'm not saying which is better.

But now, back on topic. It's easy to say a whole bunch of things, but you wanted examples, no? You wanted specific examples of how culture in this area is expanding, as opposed to imploding or retarding? Well, I'm sure there are plenty of examples we can think of, but the most obvious one would be The Abridged Series, no? I mean, 10 years ago would some guy with a microphone and the animation from a mediocre television series have been able to not only create, but distribute a product such as the one we all know and love? No, he wouldn't (especially considering that doing so is actually illegal).

And there are a myriad examples, however since we may not be familiar with the same material, it's hard to choose which to use. For example, there's my favorite webcomic, Sinfest. Now, Sinfest has been running for around 7 years now, only increasing in quality and the scope of its audience as it goes. Would such a clever blend of religious commentary, social satire and juvenile humor be able to reach such an audience without the internet? Well, for the record, Tatsuya Ishida has been turned down for syndication in print 11 times now, so I find it highly unlikely, also taking into consideration the fact that Sinfest can be very politically incorrect, and rather "inappropriate" at times.

There's more, of course. I mean, just look at music. How many musicians and singers and the like can be found through the internet, not just doing covers, but producing quality original material. A great deal that's for sure. And are they any good? Compared to what's been distributed by record companies for the past 2 decades yes, yes they are.

Now, am I saying that the internet is therefore perfect, and that culture is booming in all respects, and life is wonderful? Not necessarily. There are definitely some problems. One of them, which Douglas Rushkoff brings up, is that the internet is still largely corporately controlled, and that as long as this continues, the power of the people to influence culture will be limited. Now, this is true. At the same time, with the more recent rise of this entire sort of Creative Commons mentality, the power of corporate influence to limit the creativity of people is in ways diminishing. There's also the problem that when everyone is equally able to contribute, the products are going to represent the most common interest, or cultural mode (a term I just made up), meaning that if the majority of people are crass, immature and stupid, then the works produced will largely reflect this. In a sense, it would be like letting the lunatics run the asylum. Then again, I like a bit of lunacy, and at the same time such a problem already exists with mass-market culture, so perhaps it's better to allow it to develop on its own, because then culture will be allowed to grow naturally out of and away from such a nature, as opposed to being kept in arrested development by the mass-media. And then there's the argument that the internet doesn't count as "real life." Now, there is validity to this argument, however at the same time, it's not any less real than television. In fact, it's probably more real, because while on the internet you're actually interecting with other people in some way, shape or form, as opposed to watching television, where you just sit and stare.

So are we in the middle of some sort of cultural Golden Age? No, we're not. But perhaps, as cultural and technological boundaries are torn down, and new media and connections are built, we may just end up on the verge of a modern-day Renaissance.

So no, they don't make things like they used to. In many ways, they make them much better. You just have to know where to look.

[Tatterdemalion]

You've just made me sad...but I shouldn't be surprised considering its MTV.

Hey, you're sad...I'm angry. I'm hoping that the entire project falls through...if they go through with it, they're destroying a classic.

Although I've heard Richard O'Brien say that he doesn't approve of the remake. Couldn't he then just not allow them to do it? I mean, doesn't he control the rights, at least to the Rocky Horror Show?

[Azat]

(i.e. MTV has plans to remake The Rocky Horror Picture Show ... There are so many things wrong with this that my mind borderline malfunctions just thinking about those reasons).

Oh god, I fear what is about to come.

Anyways, I do feel things aren't really "fresh" anymore, but I have noticed that at least some people are still trying.
Or at least people try to improve on things, but sometimes it doesn't...really work out so well. Like remakes of movies and stuff like that.

[OverMind]

The internet

I believe the internet falls under the scope of technology. Though, in some sense I do understand the point you are trying to make; the internet has had a profound impact on culture and, like the television set or the radio, it is a medium through which culture is shared. I think killshot was looking for examples that could be compared to the past (i.e. Movies, TV shows, music, video games and food are a constant from at least the 80s and upwards).

Basically, is there an analog for the Abridged Series before the internet? Not really. As such, it doesn't really fall into the category of things "they don't make like they used to".

I suppose webcomics have an analog to comics that are syndicated in newspapers worldwide but, as you mentioned, diversity really limits webcomics to specific target audiences. Is there any webcomic that has really reached the level of popularity as, say, Garfield, Dilbert, or even Calvin and Hobbes? Heck, I don't really even read comics from newspapers so why do I know about all of these aforementioned comics, and their basic premises? At the same time, I've never heard of Sinfest (though, I'm sure it's a great comic). Web comics, then, have enough of an audience to survive but they're not really mainstream. You can even extend this to bloggers/satirical writers on the internet (most of them anyway), and amateur film-makers.

[Tatterdemalion]

I believe the internet falls under the scope of technology.

Not really. I mean, it's a relatively new medium, but at the same time we're not talking about the internet itself, but the created works which are now distributed via internet. So no, it's not really technology, because it's still innovation and creativity.

I think killshot was looking for examples that could be compared to the past (i.e. Movies, TV shows, music, video games and food are a constant from at least the 80s and upwards).

That's because he's thinking in the past.

I suppose webcomics have an analog to comics that are syndicated in newspapers worldwide but, as you mentioned, diversity really limits webcomics to specific target audiences. Is there any webcomic that has really reached the level of popularity as, say, Garfield, Dilbert, or even Calvin and Hobbes? Heck, I don't really even read comics from newspapers so why do I know about all of these aforementioned comics, and their basic premises? At the same time, I've never heard of Sinfest (though, I'm sure it's a great comic). Web comics, then, have enough of an audience to survive but they're not really mainstream. You can even extend this to bloggers/satirical writers on the internet (most of them anyway), and amateur film-makers.

That's pretty much the entire point of a couple of paragraphs of my post.

I was also implying that because you don't have this need to appeal to such a vast audience, the artist has much more creative liberty, which leads to the work being more original, and in most cases better. The point is that with the internet you shift from a small number of people trying to appeal to a very large audience to a very large number of people each trying to appeal to a relatively small audience. And overall this is better for culture, and allows more growth and creativity.

I mean, I've heard of Garfield and Dilbert too, and I've read a bit of them, and quite frankly, they're not that good (except for Garfield Minus Garfield, that's pretty funny). If it comes to a choice between reading something that isn't that good but has a lot of name recognition, and reading something that I like a lot more but is less popular, which one do you think I'm going to choose?

[killshot]

You do make a persuasive argument, but the Internet didn't really do anything to directly influence creative works. The Internet merely provided a way to freely distribute the ideas of the common person. Before the Internet, many good ideas had to be swept under the rug because there was no practical way to share them with the public. Just because we are seeing an increase in original material created by ordinary individuals doesn't mean that originality as a whole is alive and well. Think about the ratio of quality work to the utter garbage that gets churned out daily. Not to mention that any good work that gets created is guaranteed to produce countless imitators trying to leech off the success of the original. Once again, The Abridged Series is a perfect example. Yu-Gi-Oh has inspired a select few other abridged series that can creatively hold their own against the original, but go to Youtube, search "abridged series," and see how many other imitators exist that should have never been allowed to see the light of day. If you thought Hollywood was being repetitive, just take a look at what happens when amateurs don't have copyright laws to contend with.

If anything, I would say the Internet has lowered the bar for artistic creation. Sure some great work has been accomplished and made available thanks to the Internet, but overall the Internet has only served to lower our expectations on what it means to be entertained. If some guy with a camera can put a video on Youtube that will be watched by thousands of people free of charge, what incentive does a television producer have to spend millions of dollars on programming that gets just as many views as the amateur video? Don't get me wrong, I am all for the little guys getting their work out to the public, but there comes a point where amateur work just gets in the way of real talent. I'm not trying to insinuate that professional work is automatically better than anything an amateur could come up with, but they do have the budget to produce higher quality material. I would say that overall the Internet has been a negative influence on our culture's creativity.

Sinfest sounds like something I would probably be interested in. I may have to check this out later.

[OverMind]

Not really. I mean, it's a relatively new medium, but at the same time we're not talking about the internet itself, but the created works which are now distributed via internet. So no, it's not really technology, because it's still innovation and creativity.

The internet is a technology no matter which way you put it.

That's because he's thinking in the past.

I really didn't get that impression from the title of the thread. Thanks for clearing it up.

I was also implying that because you don't have this need to appeal to such a vast audience, the artist has much more creative liberty, which leads to the work being more original, and in most cases better. The point is that with the internet you shift from a small number of people trying to appeal to a very large audience to a very large number of people each trying to appeal to a relatively small audience. And overall this is better for culture, and allows more growth and creativity.

Don't we already get this with the multitude of genres and the multitude of artists/authors/directors, etc. within those genres of the multitude of media forms already out there? For instance, music. I can't really think of any music artists solely born out of the internet.

I mean, I've heard of Garfield and Dilbert too, and I've read a bit of them, and quite frankly, they're not that good (except for Garfield Minus Garfield, that's pretty funny). If it comes to a choice between reading something that isn't that good but has a lot of name recognition, and reading something that I like a lot more but is less popular, which one do you think I'm going to choose?

If it came to choosing which has had a greater impact on culture (because, really, isn't culture what this topic is about in the first place?), which one would you choose?

[Tatterdemalion]

You do make a persuasive argument, but the Internet didn't really do anything to directly influence creative works.

Of course it did. You take a group of people who may or may not produce creative works then give them a medium, you're increasing the number of people who have a reason and a means to create and distrubute these works. I mean, you could argue that the printing press didn't influence creativity, because written language already existed prior to its creation, and the same number of people had the power to write, but once you make it possible for a person to distribute and circulate material, even if they already had the power to create it, then you're influencing the spread of creative ideas, and encouraging the growth of new ideas and works.

Before the Internet, many good ideas had to be swept under the rug because there was no practical way to share them with the public.

Exactly. But now good ideas are given a means to develop, grow, expand, influence others, and become fully formed creative works, as opposed to just ideas in somebody's head. That's an increase in creative expression.

Just because we are seeing an increase in original material created by ordinary individuals doesn't mean that originality as a whole is alive and well.

So you're saying that there are more people who are on the whole being more creative, yet originality and creativity as a whole are not doing so well? Odd, I would think that sort of contradicts itself...

Think about the ratio of quality work to the utter garbage that gets churned out daily.

Yep, I think I covered that in my first post. As I said, it's win-some, lose-some.

Not to mention that any good work that gets created is guaranteed to produce countless imitators trying to leech off the success of the original.

Honey, that's the way culture works. A few people have a few revolutionary ideas, then these revolutionary ideas set a precedent for what the standard is, then these eventually become traditional ideas, with most works that come after acting in an attempt to live up to the standards set by the original...this continues for a while until someone has some more revolutionary ideas, but these ideas are ultimately rejected for being too unconventional, and going aginst the already established standards, and so they're generally forgotten until someone else comes along and synthesizes the ideas, putting them together while throwing in something original, creating something that people accept as being revolutionary (this is how "movements" start).

I mean, really, looking at the Western cultural legacy, there are a handful of innovators, and a myriad of imitators. Now, we don't study the imitators, but they're there. Also, keep in mind that even the innovators are also imitators. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle stole the idea for his detective novels from Edgar Allen Poe. Shakespeare stole most of his plots from mythology, Greek or otherwise. And these are the guys we put on a pedestal. Imagine what all the writers that we don't remember were doing. Mary Rowlandson spawned an entire enormously popular genre of fiction that were essentially a cheap imitation of her work. Were the masses of writers being brilliant and innovative? I think not.

So yeah, you give culture too much credit. And there's also Hollywood, not to mention formulaic soap operas and situation comedies...

Yu-Gi-Oh has inspired a select few other abridged series that can creatively hold their own against the original, but go to Youtube, search "abridged series," and see how many other imitators exist that should have never been allowed to see the light of day.

Yep, that's generally how it works. I mean everywhere, that's the way it goes.

If some guy with a camera can put a video on Youtube that will be watched by thousands of people free of charge, what incentive does a television producer have to spend millions of dollars on programming that gets just as many views as the amateur video?

That's a good question. Perhaps the problem is that the programming the television producer is producing isn't any better than what some guy with a camera can create? I mean, keep in mind, television is pretty much free too (that is, you don't have to pay per episode, you just pay for cable, the same way a person pays for their internet connection).

So you have two things available to the public. Both of them are free, both of them are relatively easy to access. One of them is produced by a television studio, and has a budget of millions of dollars. The other was created by some guy with a camera. So if the guy with a camera is actually such a captivating alternative that the television studio is losing viewership, and has no more incentive to produce television programming, what does that tell you?

I mean, with no other significant variables, if people choose one program over another, isn't it reasonable to assume that one is better, or at least more appealing? So who loses out? The television studio, that's who. But if the television studio is the one that's more creative, and is producing better programing, then why would people not watch it? Again, television is free. There's no reason people should choose the internet over televison other than the quality and nature of the material they can view.

So how is an alternative to television that is, as you suggest, just as popular (for a reason, no doubt) detrimental to creativity?

Don't get me wrong, I am all for the little guys getting their work out to the public, but there comes a point where amateur work just gets in the way of real talent. I'm not trying to insinuate that professional work is automatically better than anything an amateur could come up with, but they do have the budget to produce higher quality material.

And now you're just being silly. Since when is money directly related to quality? That seems like a rather superficial position to take. I mean, if money is indeed a requirement for quality, then why is it that there are a great deal of low-budget and/or independent films that are generally of a much better quality than major hundred-million dollar Hollywood blockbusters (and I'm sure we agree that most of television and Hollywood movies of late are of an incredibly substandard quality, or else I doubt you'd have started this thread).

Also, consider that as I said before, working with a large distributor requires sacrificing creativity for marketability. You don't have this same problem when the mass-market media corporations aren't involved. If it comes down to a choice between having a moderate budget, but complete creative control and having a large budget, but having to receive approval from a group of producers who are more concerned with making a profit than the creative interests of the artist, and who ultimately decide the nature of the final product, then which is going to lead to a work that is more original, more creative, and generally of a higher quality?

And on top of that, it's not as though television and the film industry are going to go away any time soon. They have as much money as ever. So if those who have the money will always support creativity in a culture, why is it that there's never anything good on? It's not as though these companies are in too much of a predicament, and face so much competition that they can't afford to put money into producing quality material. They can do whatever they want with their money. They just choose not to use it to invest in quality material. So what does this tell you?

The fact remains that if the internet, which is essentially a large number of amateurs or semi-professionals at anything, is in a position to present serious competition to the long-established, heavily funded mass media corporations that have been in power for most of the 20th century then either the internet is doing something very right, or the mass media is doing something very wrong. More than likely, it's a combination of both.

So what exactly is the problem?

I would say that overall the Internet has been a negative influence on our culture's creativity.

And I would say the opposite, for reasons I just outlined.

[Tatterdemalion]

The internet is a technology no matter which way you put it.

Yes, but the people who use the internet, and the creative material (video, music, writing, artwork, etc.) they put on the internet are not a form of technology.

Don't we already get this with the multitude of genres and the multitude of artists/authors/directors, etc. within those genres of the multitude of media forms already out there?

No, I'd say that for the most part you don't get the same variation. I don't know about you, but to me most of the movies, television shows, and even musicians that are all about these days seem to blend into one another. There are a great deal of genres, but not only is this number limited, but within these genres you don't see much diversity. There's still very little in the mainstream mass media that's different. Unless you know something I don't.

I can't really think of any music artists solely born out of the internet.

I can. I mean, not that there are that many musicians who distribute via the intenet who are going to have the same popularity as someone who is played on the radio, but that doesn't change the fact that there are still plenty of talented musicians who do so.

If it came to choosing which has had a greater impact on culture (because, really, isn't culture what this topic is about in the first place?), which one would you choose?

Oh, Garfield, definitely. But at the same time, the culture is changing...it's already been established that these mass-distributed pop culture works are declining in quality, while internet material is slowlly yet steadily growing in popularity. So the internet is consistently becoming more and more of a viable alternative to the mainstream. While no individual webcomic is going to have the same household notability of Garfield and Dilbert, that doesn't change the fact that the internet's significance and cultural relevance to people is growing, and may in time come to be culturally significant on an even wider scale, not in the form of a handful of immensely popular works, but as a single overall cultural movement.

[OverMind]

Yes, but the people who use the internet, and the creative material (video, music, writing, artwork, etc.) they put on the internet are not a form of technology.

Let's just agree that the internet itself is a technology (like the radio or TV) while the content on the internet is not (like music (radio) and television shows).

No, I'd say that for the most part you don't get the same variation. I don't know about you, but to me most of the movies, television shows, and even musicians that are all about these days seem to blend into one another.

The same can be said about the internet. Originality ceases to exist when there are a multitude of people posting uninspired web comics (see the Project Wonderful ad at the bottom of this page) or youtube videos voicing their opinions (because, you know, everyone's opinion matters) or writing blogs. I really don't feel that the internet can replace the old media forms. It can complement it however.

I can. I mean, not that there are that many musicians who distribute via the intenet who are going to have the same popularity as someone who is played on the radio, but that doesn't change the fact that there are still plenty of talented musicians who do so.

Fair enough. I doubt that these musicians can replace mainstream ones though.

Oh, Garfield, definitely. But at the same time, the culture is changing...it's already been established that these mass-distributed pop culture works are declining in quality, while internet material is slowlly yet steadily growing in popularity. So the internet is consistently becoming more and more of a viable alternative to the mainstream. While no individual webcomic is going to have the same household notability of Garfield and Dilbert, that doesn't change the fact that the internet's significance and cultural relevance to people is growing, and may in time come to be culturally significant on an even wider scale, not in the form of a handful of immensely popular works, but as a single overall cultural movement.

Get back to me when that happens.

[Tatterdemalion]

Let's just agree that the internet itself is a technology (like the radio or TV) while the content on the internet is not (like music (radio) and television shows).

Okay, I agree.

The same can be said about the internet. Originality ceases to exist when there are a multitude of people posting uninspired web comics (see the Project Wonderful ad at the bottom of this page) or youtube videos voicing their opinions (because, you know, everyone's opinion matters) or writing blogs. I really don't feel that the internet can replace the old media forms. It can complement it however.

So the fact that there are a multitude of uninspired webcomics means that originality ceases to exist? How, then, do you account for the webcomics that aren't uninspired? I mean, there are crappy webcomics, yes, but it's not as though there are no good webcomics, is it? (Then again, maybe you do think so, I don't know)

I'd say that compared to syndicated comics, there's a lot more to be found on the internet. Don't just use the fact that not everything on the internet is brilliant to claim that originality is dead. Compared to almost any other point in history, originality on the contemporary internet is far from suffering.

And are you saying that there should be no blogs/"vlogs" because the idea for blogging has already been invented by someone else, so therefore any blogs are just cheap imitations that have no real substance whatsoever? Because other than this, which doesn't make much sense, I don't see what you could be getting at bringing up blogging and the like.

Fair enough. I doubt that these musicians can replace mainstream ones though.

Again, I never said anything was going to replace mainstream, I said that the internet is growing into a viable alternative to the mainstream. I think the problem is that you're trying to hold everything up to the standard set by the mainstream, which suggests that the quality of something can be evaluated based on how well it compares to the mainstream.

If something is just as good as the mainstream, is just as creative as the mainstream, and people like it as much as the mainstream, why on earth would it matter if that work is a part of the mainstream or not?

So yeah, the difference between a single "mainstream" and an internet is that with an internet rather than having a large organization decide what is the quality material, and therefore what you get to watch, almost anyone can distribute the material, meaning that you have to judge for yourself what and where the quality material is, and you have to choose what to watch from a multitude of options, some of which are definitely better than others. Which overall allows material to grow and be supported independently, which encourages and supports creativity. It also means that you have a responsibility of your own. Yeah.

Get back to me when that happens.

It's already happening. I mean, it's nothing too fancy right now, but it's here and growing. Let's compare 5 years from now, shll we?

[Tatterdemalion]

<i>Post censored by darkarcher.</i>

[Tatterdemalion]

<i>Post censored by darkarcher.</i>

[Tatterdemalion]

That was an accidental triple post, right? Wow, sorry about that.

[killaziv]

Damn I spent ages trying to think of that. Something else...I suppose things like solar panels or other ways to get electrictity without polluting but thats probably been around for longer than 10 years.

Lol Y'all Write An Awful Lot Don't Ya <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley7.png'>

[OverMind]

I'd say that compared to syndicated comics, there's a lot more to be found on the internet. Don't just use the fact that not everything on the internet is brilliant to claim that originality is dead. Compared to almost any other point in history, originality on the contemporary internet is far from suffering.

The fact that there's more doesn't necessarily mean that its better or original but, in fact, brings about the quality vs. quantity scenario. I'm going to make this clear so you don't start painting me as the guy that's anti-internet: There is original material on the internet (saying so otherwise is ridiculous). I (and killshot) are merely pointing out that, for every one decent web comic out there, there are countless other poorly thought-out ones. Is this "diverse" (which you seem to be rambling on about)? Definitely. Is most of it worth viewing? No.

With the mainstream, there are checks and balances ensuring that the media I see, hear, read, or watch has a certain level of quality that, even if it doesn't fulfill my tastes, is decent. It seems that, with the nature of the internet, media is born out of a guy drawing crappy comics or making crappy videos and then selling T-shirts for revenue.

Clearly, you are looking at it microscopically, pointing out the good parts (a decent web comic) out of the generally bad whole. I prefer the macroscopic view that you've got to take everything (the good, the bad, and the ugly) and it is in this way that the internet is lacking in quality.

Again, I never said anything was going to replace mainstream, I said that the internet is growing into a viable alternative to the mainstream. I think the problem is that you're trying to hold everything up to the standard set by the mainstream, which suggests that the quality of something can be evaluated based on how well it compares to the mainstream.

Err ... if something is an alternative does that not mean it replaces? And if it is indeed viable, does it not replace something significantly? I'm holding the internet up to the standard set by the mainstream because you and I are comparing them. Without a comparison, there is no argument.

If something is just as good as the mainstream, is just as creative as the mainstream, and people like it as much as the mainstream, why on earth would it matter if that work is a part of the mainstream or not?

You can be the most creative person in the world, make the greatest music, or even write the greatest story ever but it means nothing if you are not mainstream. What happens to your work when you die? Will you be remembered? Will it be preserved?What impact did you have on culture? If your audience is limited to a select group of fans on the internet, then your efforts were a waste. What was the point? To give those very few people who actually viewed your work enjoyment? You may disagree with this philosophy entirely (and I bet you probably do), but it's my opinion.

So yeah, the difference between a single "mainstream" and an internet is that with an internet rather than having a large organization decide what is the quality material, and therefore what you get to watch, almost anyone can distribute the material, meaning that you have to judge for yourself what and where the quality material is, and you have to choose what to watch from a multitude of options, some of which are definitely better than others. Which overall allows material to grow and be supported independently, which encourages and supports creativity. It also means that you have a responsibility of your own. Yeah.

I've already mentioned that, more often than not, the quality is terrible.

It's already happening. I mean, it's nothing too fancy right now, but it's here and growing. Let's compare 5 years from now, shll we?

Alright, when it does indeed get 'fancy' (which you seem to know will occur 5 years from now) I promise to eat my words.

[Tatterdemalion]

The fact that there's more doesn't necessarily mean that its better or original but, in fact, brings about the quality vs. quantity scenario. I'm going to make this clear so you don't start painting me as the guy that's anti-internet: There is original material on the internet (saying so otherwise is ridiculous). I (and killshot) are merely pointing out that, for every one decent web comic out there, there are countless other poorly thought-out ones. Is this "diverse" (which you seem to be rambling on about)? Definitely. Is most of it worth viewing? No.

Clearly, you are looking at it microscopically, pointing out the good parts (a decent web comic) out of the generally bad whole. I prefer the macroscopic view that you've got to take everything (the good, the bad, and the ugly) and it is in this way that the internet is lacking in quality.

No, I'm looking at the big picture too. I'm just saying that the good makes it all worthwhile, whereas you seem to be using the bad as an excuse to dismiss the rest altogether. You're saying that when looking atmaterial on the internet as a whole, there's a lot that's uninspired and substandard, which is true. But because you're in a position where you're able to view what is of quality, and are not forced to take everything in equal quantities, then you can exclude the bad parts, because the bad parts will more often than not be irrelevant. So in a sense, it's the ultimae case of quality over quantity.

So whether or not "most" of the material on the internet is worth viewing is of little consequence, considering that you're not going to view most of what's on the internet. Even if you want to, you can't. So of the tremendous amount of material on the internet, some good, some bad, any one person is going to only view a very small percentage of it.

Now, I don't know about you, but I can count the number of television shows I watch on no hands (okay, maybe one hand). And of the maistream Hollywood movies I've seen that have been released in the past 4 years (most of them with other people, not of my own volition), I'd consider maybe one or two of them to actually be good.

You suggest that somehow there's a system of "checks and balances" in the media (although I don't know what's supposedly being balanced), but there's nothing of the sort. The mass media isn't centered around any sort of artistic integrity, or an interest in promoting higher quality work over the rest. All that drives the media is marketablility, which invariably means eliminating anything that doesn't have mass appeal, or doesn't fit the pre-established standard as to what sells. The barrier to distribution created by the mass media doesn't act as a filter, separating the good from the bad, but instead acts like a dose of radiation, killing off almost everything indiscriminately (I need to stop with the similes/analogies). So while the mass media may serve to prevent some of the most terrible material from being distributed, at the same time it excludes everything that isn't designed to appeal to the most basic viewing habits of the largest number of people, then at the same time strips down most of whatever good may get through into something more banal, to produce a product that, if it were any better, would be mediocre.

Perhaps the difference in our views is that you would characterize most of what's in the mainstream as "decent," whereas I would characterize it as dull, formulaic, unimaginative, commodified, crude mind-numbing crap. That being said, while you're entitled to your opinions as much as anyone, arguing from that position that the problem is that webcomics are awful is kind of like the pot calling the pot a pot.

But anyway, the difference is that with the internet you don't have someone telling you what's quality material by limiting what you are capable of watching, leaving you to discover material for yourself, and decide for yourself what's good and what's not..

Also, if we were to judge the internet based on what makes up the majority, wouldn't we be talking about porn?

Err ... if something is an alternative does that not mean it replaces?

No. No it doesn't. Going by the American Heritage dictionary,

Existing outside traditional or established institutions or systems: an alternative lifestyle.
Espousing or reflecting values that are different from those of the establishment or mainstream: an alternative newspaper; alternative greeting cards.

it means the opposite of that. So a viable alternative would be a practical choice that exists outside of the mainstream. Viable doesn't mean widely popular, and if a viable alternative were to become so popular as to replace something in the mainstream it would cease to be an alternative.

Yes, I know how to use words.

I'm holding the internet up to the standard set by the mainstream because you and I are comparing them. Without a comparison, there is no argument.

Yes, but if you're comparing two things you can't use one as the standard against which to evaluate the other. If you do, then you're going to be bised towards the one which you make the standard-bearer. Perhaps the internet is in ways better because of the way it differs from the mainstream. If you're going to be comparing two things you still need to use an objective standard as opposed to a relative standard.

You can be the most creative person in the world, make the greatest music, or even write the greatest story ever but it means nothing if you are not mainstream. What happens to your work when you die? Will you be remembered? Will it be preserved?What impact did you have on culture? If your audience is limited to a select group of fans on the internet, then your efforts were a waste. What was the point? To give those very few people who actually viewed your work enjoyment? You may disagree with this philosophy entirely (and I bet you probably do), but it's my opinion.

You're right, I do disagree.

I'd say that in any case the value of the work itself is based only on the work, and not the number of people who it reaches. The value of the work relative to you and your life is based only on how much value and meaning you allow it to have.

The fact stands that of all the artists in the world, only a very small number of them are going tohave their work distributedon a large scale, and of those who are, an even smaller number are going to become widely popular, and then of them only a handful will become a part of the enduring historical legacy. The vast majority of artists at any given point in time, even without the internet, will never recieve widespread recognition or historical preservation. That's just the way the world works. Now, are these people all untalented? Some, perhaps, but there are still plenty of others whose works are never subject to large-scale distribution, perhaps because they are not in a position where they can devote their time and energy to pursuing distribution, or because as creative as they may be, they don't have the knack for the business aspect of the industry, or lack adequate representation, or because they're creating at a time when their particular field or genre isn't popular, or because their works just aren't enough of a guarantee to sell for anyone to be wiling to invest in them.

So yeah, of all of the talent in the world, very little ever gets recognized on such a level as to become universally known, or become a lasting part of the historical record. Does the fact that a person won't be recognized by everyone therefore mean that they shouldn't be recognized by anyone?

I mean, you ask what the point is of creating something if it won't be preserved, and won't cause you to be remembered after you die. That raises the question of why anyone should create anything at all. Is the main purpose of art self expression and communication, or is it fame, glory, and et cetera? I'd be inclined to say that not only is it the former, but the former is itself more meaningful.

I mean, it's nice to believe that every young artist one day hopes to become a star, but if we accept that we also have to accept that these young artists are being terribly naive, and if they continue to define themselves this way, most of them will end up very disappointed. Now, can we therefore say that all of those who don't become stars are simply wasting their lives, and that anything they do is meaningless? I don't know, I think it's silly to define people based on what they can't do, while actively ignoring what they can.

That is, when it comes to a choice between creating something and reaching everyone, creating something and reaching a few people, and creating nothing and reaching no one, and the first one isn't an option, which produces something that is more meaningful? And if it's the latter, please explain how, because if it is you've lost me.

You say that if you write the greatest story ever written, but it doesn't get published and become a celebrated part of culture, preserved forever through history, and remembered long after your death, the story becomes meaningless. But isn't it still the greatest story ever written? I mean, it still exists, doesn't it? You still have the satisfaction of having created a work of art, and any person you share it with, no matter how few in number such people are, will have the satisfaction of having read it. If that's enough for you, which it may be, how can you say that it's meaningless?

And also, keep in mind that a significant number of people we celebrate today had little to no mainstream success in their lifetime. Van Gogh, as everybody likes to emphasize, never sold a single painting, Melville was popular for a while, but by the time he wrote Moby Dick was largely forgotten.

So tell me, what about someone like Emily Dickinson? Here's a woman who today is generally recognized as one of the greatest American poets in history, who in her life literally lived in her attic, published only a very small number of her poems, and even then never went beyond very local publications. So, are you saying that Dickinson's life was meaningless Naturally, she would have had less of an impact on society as a whole, but can the value and meaning of her life and her works themselves change after she has died? I think not.

So yes, I'd say that self expression and the enjoyment of others are definitely the main reasons someone should create something. If you're creating because you're trying ti change society and alter the course of history then you're not an artist, you're an activist. After that, all other motives are fickle.

Also, keep in mind, I'm not saying the way things are is anything close to ideal. I mean, we've been talking about the internet, but if we could have it my way (which we can't), I'd say we should take it a step further. Ideally, you wouldn't need an electronic medium for you to distribute your work. What would be even better would be if it was commonplace for everyone to try their hand at some sort of creative venture, then share their work with others within their community or in other communities. Not that there could be no medium for distribution beyond that, but that a mass media would be in no way exclusive, or necessary for a person to be around or exposed to art and creative work, which could become something social, experienced and shared with others in a healthy way, as opposed to something based purely on consumption. Now, this isn't anything that's going to happen any time soon, considering people are generally not imaginative or social enough to participate in and enjoy something of that nature (I blame the television). And I'm sure this is far from what you'd consider ideal. Still, I can dream, can't I?

I've already mentioned that, more often than not, the quality is terrible.

I think I covered this already in the first part of this post.

Alright, when it does indeed get 'fancy' (which you seem to know will occur 5 years from now) I promise to eat my words.

Hey, don't twist my words around. I didn't say I know that anything is going to occur exactly 5 years from now. What I said was that the internet's cultural relevance is already growing, which you haven't said anything to specifically disagree with, or argue against, so I'll assume you don't disagree with me there. Prediction specifically regarding how the internet's cultural relevance is going to grow, and what specific changes will occur is just speculation, but I'm not making many claims there. All I'm saying is that 5 years from now the internet will be even more relevant to modern society and culture, in a way that is more appealing than it is now. And 5 is an arbitrary number, which I figured was reasonable amount of time. You're making it out like I'm acting like Nostradamus or something. I'm not.

(which you seem to be rambling on about)

Do I ramble? Wow, I had no idea. Thank you for so tactfully pointing that out. But hey, at least it's better than missing the point altogether, right?

[OverMind]

No, I'm looking at the big picture too. I'm just saying that the good makes it all worthwhile, whereas you seem to be using the bad as an excuse to dismiss the rest altogether. You're saying that when looking atmaterial on the internet as a whole, there's a lot that's uninspired and substandard, which is true. But because you're in a position where you're able to view what is of quality, and are not forced to take everything in equal quantities, then you can exclude the bad parts, because the bad parts will more often than not be irrelevant. So in a sense, it's the ultimae case of quality over quantity.

So whether or not "most" of the material on the internet is worth viewing is of little consequence, considering that you're not going to view most of what's on the internet. Even if you want to, you can't. So of the tremendous amount of material on the internet, some good, some bad, any one person is going to only view a very small percentage of it.

Now, I don't know about you, but I can count the number of television shows I watch on no hands (okay, maybe one hand). And of the maistream Hollywood movies I've seen that have been released in the past 4 years (most of them with other people, not of my own volition), I'd consider maybe one or two of them to actually be good.

You can apply this argument to conservative media forms as well. As you've been arguing, there's a lot of crap in the mainstream which is why you're seeking an "alternative", but not all of it is crap enough to dismiss it altogether, now is it? Heck, even if (and I'm using if here liberally) most of mainstream media does not garner to your tastes, you can ignore those parts and go for the good stuff right? Just like you claim you're not "going to view everything on the internet" you're not going to view/watch/listen to everything in the media, right?

You suggest that somehow there's a system of "checks and balances" in the media (although I don't know what's supposedly being balanced), but there's nothing of the sort. The mass media isn't centered around any sort of artistic integrity, or an interest in promoting higher quality work over the rest. All that drives the media is marketablility, which invariably means eliminating anything that doesn't have mass appeal, or doesn't fit the pre-established standard as to what sells. The barrier to distribution created by the mass media doesn't act as a filter, separating the good from the bad, but instead acts like a dose of radiation, killing off almost everything indiscriminately (I need to stop with the similes/analogies).

I'm just waiting for you to hand out anti-corporation pamphlets. Because, you know, the internet is in no way whatsoever fueled by a desire for money. Yep, no adverts at all on your "artistic" sites, or requests for "donations". Yep, the internet, it seems, was a gift from God encouraging "artistic integrity" (P.S. please buy merchandise from my online store, I'm an up-and-coming artist and need your support!).

Perhaps the difference in our views is that you would characterize most of what's in the mainstream as "decent," whereas I would characterize it as dull, formulaic, unimaginative, commodified, crude mind-numbing crap. That being said, while you're entitled to your opinions as much as anyone, arguing from that position that the problem is that webcomics are awful is kind of like the pot calling the pot a pot.

Are you implying that webcomics, generally, are indeed awful?

But anyway, the difference is that with the internet you don't have someone telling you what's quality material by limiting what you are capable of watching, leaving you to discover material for yourself, and decide for yourself what's good and what's not..

I'm sorry, I didn't know we were incapable of changing the channel or even deciding what is or is not "quality" on the television set. I guess it's the hypnosis those fiend corporations use on us that prevents us from thinking for ourselves. I guess it further allows them to "brainwash" us, making us unable to distinguish between quality and crap. And then life turned into a science-fiction movie, ironically, playing at your local theatre.

Also, if we were to judge the internet based on what makes up the majority, wouldn't we be talking about porn?

Yep. But, don't fret, porn borderlines art so I don't mind you using that as an argument promoting the internet's artistic integrity. In fact, I insist you do so. You can find all sort of porn unimaginable a decade ago. There's literally millions of genres. You want diversity? There's your diversity. There's no big, bad corporation deciding for us the sort of porn we should watch, no, in fact, let your deviant desires wander free. You want furries. They're there. You want simulated rape. It's there too. You want child pornography. It's illegal, but hey, it's the internet and, therfore, it is there. Yep, none of that "dull, formulaic, unimaginative, commodified, crude mind-numbing crap", the internet is for creativity and you can have all the "creative" porn you want (even though it basically boils down to fornication one way or another).

I guess the mainstream sort of sucks in that manner because it isn't all about porn (though, it is there, but not on the proportional scale of the internet). As opposed to showing sex, it attempts to limit itself to showing society other tidbits of culture that, you know, perhaps are actually worth spending time on.

No. No it doesn't. Going by the American Heritage dictionary:

I can play that game too.

From hitting "define: alternative" in Google, I got:

alternate: serving or used in place of another; "an alternative plan"

Going back to what I said:

Err ... if something is an alternative does that not mean it replaces?

I'm not going to fight over this point because you're using "alternative" in a different, yet still correct, context.

Yes, I know how to use words.

And you are quite adept at running to a dictionary. I commend your efforts.

Yes, but if you're comparing two things you can't use one as the standard against which to evaluate the other. If you do, then you're going to be bised towards the one which you make the standard-bearer. Perhaps the internet is in ways better because of the way it differs from the mainstream. If you're going to be comparing two things you still need to use an objective standard as opposed to a relative standard.

Fair enough. I'll play by your rules. I wont compare internet to modern mainstream technologies even though they've set the standard for media and you claim the internet is filling that niche better than they are.

You're right, I do disagree.

And you should have just left it at that because, that large, unwieldly text that appeared right after this sentence was just your opinion. I've got mine, you've got yours, so I guess we can move on. I'll be damned if I'm going to argue with a different philosophy.

Hey, don't twist my words around. I didn't say I know that anything is going to occur exactly 5 years from now. What I said was that the internet's cultural relevance is already growing, which you haven't said anything to specifically disagree with, or argue against, so I'll assume you don't disagree with me there. Prediction specifically regarding how the internet's cultural relevance is going to grow, and what specific changes will occur is just speculation, but I'm not making many claims there. All I'm saying is that 5 years from now the internet will be even more relevant to modern society and culture, in a way that is more appealing than it is now. And 5 is an arbitrary number, which I figured was reasonable amount of time. You're making it out like I'm acting like Nostradamus or something. I'm not.

We'll see.

Do I ramble? Wow, I had no idea. Thank you for so tactfully pointing that out. But hey, at least it's better than missing the point altogether, right?

Summarization is key.

[killshot]

So whether or not "most" of the material on the internet is worth viewing is of little consequence, considering that you're not going to view most of what's on the internet. Even if you want to, you can't. So of the tremendous amount of material on the internet, some good, some bad, any one person is going to only view a very small percentage of it.

How is this any different than television or Hollywood films? People have the ability to choose what they watch on television so how is the Internet superior in this aspect?

Now, I don't know about you, but I can count the number of television shows I watch on no hands (okay, maybe one hand). And of the maistream Hollywood movies I've seen that have been released in the past 4 years (most of them with other people, not of my own volition), I'd consider maybe one or two of them to actually be good.

I don't watch a whole lot of television or movies either. If I had to give an amount, I would guess about 1 hour of television a week and maybe 3 new movies a year. But this is the whole reason I started this thread. I know mainstream media is hardly worth watching and I can clearly remember a time when this wasn't the case. Granted it was a long while ago and what was considered "good" back then isn't being recaptured in modern media. I don't know if its just me, but I have seem to have lost touch with what most people consider "good." Comedies are what come to mind immediately. Where is the Mel Brooks of our generation? When did classics like The Princess Bride disappear? Comedy today seems to be a train wreck of juvenile sex jokes and race humor. I can certainly see why you prefer the Internet over other forms of entertainment, but I don't see the Internet replacing television anytime soon. I would much rather have the mainstream become more suitable to my tastes than abandon it altogether.

Perhaps the difference in our views is that you would characterize most of what's in the mainstream as "decent," whereas I would characterize it as dull, formulaic, unimaginative, commodified, crude mind-numbing crap.

The problem is that I would describe both the mainstream and the majority of the Internet as "dull, formulaic, unimaginative, commodified, crude mind-numbing crap." Whether you have your crap served over the Internet or over the television it doesn't change the fact that its crap.

But anyway, the difference is that with the internet you don't have someone telling you what's quality material by limiting what you are capable of watching, leaving you to discover material for yourself, and decide for yourself what's good and what's not..

Once again, who's forcing you to watch the material you are given?

Do I ramble? Wow, I had no idea. Thank you for so tactfully pointing that out. But hey, at least it's better than missing the point altogether, right?

Your points might be better received if they weren't buried under a mountain of text. Not a criticism, just a suggestion.

[Tatterdemalion]

Wow, I'm going to respond here.

You can apply this argument to conservative media forms as well. As you've been arguing, there's a lot of crap in the mainstream which is why you're seeking an "alternative", but not all of it is crap enough to dismiss it altogether, now is it? Heck, even if (and I'm using if here liberally) most of mainstream media does not garner to your tastes, you can ignore those parts and go for the good stuff right? Just like you claim you're not "going to view everything on the internet" you're not going to view/watch/listen to everything in the media, right?

Yes, hey, you're right, and I do watch some television. I also generally watch just a couple hours of television a week (except during the summer, when there's absolutely nothing), haven't been to a worthwhile movie in years (well, maybe there was one, but that's about it) and as far as music goes, I have to admit, I've just stopped trying. If you actually like what's on television, then by all means, watch it. I, however, would be inclined to say that with very few exceptions, television, the music industry, and Hollywood aren't worth it.

Without wanting to split hairs, there is one thing I'd like to ask.

And you are quite adept at running to a dictionary. I commend your efforts.

What exactly is this supposed to mean? I'd be inclined to think it's sarcasm, were it not for the fact I'm using a dictionary to demonstrate the definition of a word I already used correctly, which means that I only had to "run" to it to point out to you that the meaning of the word didn't lead to me contradicting myself, as you suggested it did. So I don't see what there is to be sarcastic about, considering that I do both know how to use words, and know how to use a dictionary...

And keep in mind, a dictionary isn't a crutch, it's a tool. A tool I think I use pretty well. So perhaps it is commendable, when compared with the hypothetical person who doesn't know how to use a dictionary...assuming such a person exists...

And you should have just left it at that because, that large, unwieldly text that appeared right after this sentence was just your opinion. I've got mine, you've got yours, so I guess we can move on. I'll be damned if I'm going to argue with a different philosophy.

That's odd, I assumed you liked me, and actually cared about what I had to say, and would have shown interest even if you disagree, because you want to know more about me and my views. I didn't know you only got into this relationship so that you could try to argue with everything I say. Now my feelings are hurt. The wedding is off!


And, since OverMind has broken my heart, I'm going to move on

How is this any different than television or Hollywood films? People have the ability to choose what they watch on television so how is the Internet superior in this aspect?

It's not a reason that the internet is superior, it 's just an explanation as to why it may have seemed that I was looking at the internet "microscopically"

I would much rather have the mainstream become more suitable to my tastes than abandon it altogether.

I think a lot of people would like that. Is it going to happen? I strongly doubt it.

The problem is that I would describe both the mainstream and the majority of the Internet as "dull, formulaic, unimaginative, commodified, crude mind-numbing crap." Whether you have your crap served over the Internet or over the television it doesn't change the fact that its crap.

I'd say the internet leaved more elbow room, though.

Once again, who's forcing you to watch the material you are given?

No one's forcing you to watch it, it's just that the process by which material in the mainstream goes from an idea in someone's head to something that is produced and mass-distributed essentially weeds out most of what is unique, original, not marketable and, as is often of the case, what has the potential to be very good. So what you do have to choice to watch or not to watch is still markedly lacking in diversity, so in a sense they are limiting what you get to see, not out of everything that's being aired, but from everything that starts out as a proposal.

Your points might be better received if they weren't buried under a mountain of text. Not a criticism, just a suggestion.

Actually, they're a part of the text, not underneath it...At least, I think they're in there somewhere.

[OverMind]

Alright, now that 2 weeks have passed (which, I feel, is ample time for anyone who wanted to continue this somewhat-pointless debate to .. er, continue it), now seems like an appropriate time for this topic to get back on track. Face it, we're running in circles. I seriously doubt the original intent was for a debate of any sort to arise (if I'm wrong killshot, correct me), especially one in which quarrelling over semantics is involved. From re-reading the original post, it seems the intent was just to spur a discussion of how traditional outlets of culture have gone down the drain. This is a notion that everyone in the thread agrees with. It is unfortunate that the rather rhetorical question posed by killshot basically lead to this thread being side-tracked and then having a near-death experience. Heck, it wasn't even a question since killshot seemed to have left out a question mark :-).

Well, fortunately, I feel that this thread has a lot of potential and, unlike many of the topics in the General Discussion forum, it is something many of us "average joes" can relate to. As such, I'd like to revive it. If not for the sake of the topic then at least to counterbalance some of the other topics which, for a website about a parody series based off of a crappy anime, take themselves a little too seriously -even for a serious forum such as this one.

Right-O, back on track then.

I mentioned that MTV is planning to remake the Rocky Horror Picture Show but there are numerous other remakes that should have been aborted from inception. Seriously, if time travel becomes a reality of science (and not science-fiction), its single greatest ripple-achievement will be to send cyborgs back in time to prevent these films from ever materializing.

One film that has been re-made too many times is Invasion of the Body Snatchers. See here for the original and here, here, and here for its lesser-quality clones (Pick up irony here, kthx). Did I mention that the original was based off of a book so, even then, it seems like its been remade 5 times with each proceeding incarnation being worst than the last. The last one was not a critical or commercial success and, in fact, furthered my disdain for Nicole Kidman so ... I wonder, what was the purpose of the film? It didn't bring anything new to the table. It was the same old aliens taking over the bodies of some person or another in, roughly, the same way. There were no plot twists. There was no critically-acclaimed re-envisioning of an old classic. There was no breakout performace. It didn't accomplish anything except, maybe, make me question why James Bond is in this movie? And why he isn't pulling out one of his neat gadgets to make the "bad people" go away?

Now in another realm of traditional media; I loathe how video games are being converted into movies. The concept is something all gamers (especially if you're a gamer who is also a child of the 90s) have fantasized about but ... in execution, hollywood has turned this fantasy into a nightmare. Side-stepping any movie Uwe Boll has made (since his mediocrity is on levels that are outside the scope of this post and, presumably, the bounds of self-respect of those video game companies which have licensed their IP for his works of "art"; the term being used as liberally as possible), there are some movies that are just plain half-assed. Their intent is obvious (i.e. To provide additional "fast-and-easy" income to the film production company) yet I still can't figure out how they manage to succeed.

One example I'm thinking of, in particular, is Hitman based on the game by IO Interactive. I played through the original and still do sometimes; the game was amazing for its time. The storyline wasn't anything special, but it made sense. Unfortunately, the screenwriter(s) responsible for the movie didn't think so and churned out a monstrosity that was begging to be put down out of mercy (hence, the tears that ran down my face while watching the film). I don't understand why they took the simple plot of the game, ignored it completely, and then replaced it with a completely new, unsuitable, complex, and even less understandable one. It boggles my mind but it probably makes more sense to the executive with the fat paycheck he "earned" by greenlighting a series of destined-to-be-medicore films, of which this one was somewhere in that list.

[killshot]

Wow, I had almost forgotten why I made this topic in the first place.

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse than movie tie-in games, I look around at my local Gamestop and see shelf after shelf of television show tie-ins. Its like bad media fused together into a giant ball of failure. I don't see how these games could possibly make any money. It seems that every game show in existence has its own video game now. I once saw a game with Bob Saget on the front cover. What happened to the golden days of the 90's, when RPGs were at their peak and shooters didn't consist of the same game in a different package? Its almost as if they are trying to put the most uninspired garbage on the market.

I agree entirely that the movies based on video games could have been so much better. Most of these games have great stories to tell, and yet Hollywood is compelled to either mangle the original plot into something that is hardly recognizable, or omit it entirely. I would like to know if the people who actually enjoy these films realize that they were adapted from games. I don't think these abominations would bother me as much if I didn't know where they came from.

Lately it seems that Hollywood has been getting ideas from anime. I have seen teasers for a Dragon Ball movie, a Death Note movie, and a Cowboy Bebop movie, all of which are live action. Dragon Ball was an awful choice that will suck no matter how much effort they put into it. The other two, on the other hand, may have some potential. I have no doubt that all three would make me want to walk out of the theater in disappointment and rage, but I think at least Bebop is doable. Something I would like to see is a Ghost in the Shell live action movie. As long as they don't change anything about the plot, I could definitely see it turning out well. Then again, I would hate to see one of my favorite movies get bastardized by Hollywood.

[sajeev50]

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse than movie tie-in games, I look around at my local Gamestop and see shelf after shelf of television show tie-ins. Its like bad media fused together into a giant ball of failure. I don't see how these games could possibly make any money. It seems that every game show in existence has its own video game now. I once saw a game with Bob Saget on the front cover. What happened to the golden days of the 90's, when RPGs were at their peak and shooters didn't consist of the same game in a different package? Its almost as if they are trying to put the most uninspired garbage on the market.

When they make games like The Price is Right, you know there's something wrong.

[SilverFox]

I suffered from a heart attack when I saw Law & Order for PC on the shelf one day.

[Zairak]

Not really sure if this applies to languages, but...

I learned something disturbing recently. Apparently, 'woot' is now officially in the dictionary. This makes the Zairak cry, especially considering it was originally w00t, which is not really even pronouncable.

[QuirkBiscuits]

I hear "meh" got put in the dictionary too. Something strange is happening...