A list of theories for why Lego-izing movie posters is problematic
August 5, 2015 8:49 AM Subscribe
Noel Murray (from the AV Club and the Dissolve ) talks about how the masses talk about movies in 2015.
“This is problematic.”
“No, you’re problematic!”
And now everyone here has a BA in Film Studies!
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:56 AM on August 5, 2015 [28 favorites]
“No, you’re problematic!”
And now everyone here has a BA in Film Studies!
posted by The Card Cheat at 8:56 AM on August 5, 2015 [28 favorites]
tl;dr;
The internet has turned into a platform for criticism and uninspired derivative works.
Heavy stuff coming from a professional critic.
posted by schmod at 9:03 AM on August 5, 2015 [11 favorites]
The internet has turned into a platform for criticism and uninspired derivative works.
Heavy stuff coming from a professional critic.
posted by schmod at 9:03 AM on August 5, 2015 [11 favorites]
You're responding to art wrong.
posted by Kabanos at 9:04 AM on August 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Kabanos at 9:04 AM on August 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
Eghhhh, I feel like most of this essay is "please stop responding to film in ways I find annoying," which, okay, I think most of us can sympathize with that, but it also feels like he's saying a lot of these responses are coming at the expense of genuine film criticism and I really don't think that holds water. A majority of this stuff is either a) genuine, if trite, appreciation from fans of one thing or another or b) clickbait targeted directly at the will-immediately-purchase-any-rectangular-object-painted-like-a-TARDIS crowd. And, yes, the latter thing can be super-obnoxious but there is clearly both a nice, healthy market for it and that sort of stuff isn't generated by a place that would otherwise be today's Cahiers du cinéma.
posted by griphus at 9:05 AM on August 5, 2015 [14 favorites]
posted by griphus at 9:05 AM on August 5, 2015 [14 favorites]
At some point, amid all the scripted insults and role-playing, moviegoers forgot something important: The Rocky Horror Picture Show is pretty good.
Did they? I'm not sure that the film is especially good, first of all (I find its final act interminable), and I'm not sure that participating in the enjoyable group activities surrounding the film renders the viewer unable to figure out what the original film was.
But originality alone doesn’t make them more insightful than a simple, well written review that digs into a movie’s aesthetics and themes.
This strikes me as a matter of taste, but also irrelevant. It's not as though fan theories are crowding out insightful mainstream criticism.
Does the box office success of Wes Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom and The Grand Budapest Hotel have anything to with both being released in the era of “If Wes Anderson directed…” videos?
Since almost all of them are terrible (but for the terrific SNL sketch), I'm going to go with no.
Does doing a 1970s porn-themed Magic Mike XXL trailer really say anything new about porn or Magic Mike? Or is it just “a thing that is done?”
Well, that presupposes that these films exist as commentary on the original. Stephen Spielberg made Super-8 movies when he was a boy that were essentially recreations of films he had seen and liked growing up. He did it for fun, which is a valid reason for doing anything, and, futher, they gave him the essential tools to become a filmmaker. These sorts of recreations, with Lego or cardboard (as in Sweded films) are inherently worthwhile, because the people enjoy making them, but they may also be training a future generation of filmmakers.
The less said about [honest trailers] the better. There’s scarcely a movie that’s been made that can’t be nitpicked, smirked at, or reduced to a formula.
This sounds like a nitpick and a smirk. The honest trailers are funny. They may not be great criticism, but, then, they aren't meant as criticism. They're a sort of comedy sketch.
Just as nearly any movie can be forced through the “Everything wrong with…” mill, it doesn’t take much to find something in any given film that’s socially regressive—or at least insufficiently progressive.
Come on. Discussions regarding problematic art -- and how to enjoy it -- have been tremendously nuanced and sophisticated. You do them a terrible discourtesy by dismissing them.
That said, a good list can serve a function
I see. So the one form of mediocre criticism you engage in is actually worth defending.
Bah. MEDIOCRE.
posted by maxsparber at 9:10 AM on August 5, 2015 [24 favorites]
Did they? I'm not sure that the film is especially good, first of all (I find its final act interminable), and I'm not sure that participating in the enjoyable group activities surrounding the film renders the viewer unable to figure out what the original film was.
But originality alone doesn’t make them more insightful than a simple, well written review that digs into a movie’s aesthetics and themes.
This strikes me as a matter of taste, but also irrelevant. It's not as though fan theories are crowding out insightful mainstream criticism.
Does the box office success of Wes Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom and The Grand Budapest Hotel have anything to with both being released in the era of “If Wes Anderson directed…” videos?
Since almost all of them are terrible (but for the terrific SNL sketch), I'm going to go with no.
Does doing a 1970s porn-themed Magic Mike XXL trailer really say anything new about porn or Magic Mike? Or is it just “a thing that is done?”
Well, that presupposes that these films exist as commentary on the original. Stephen Spielberg made Super-8 movies when he was a boy that were essentially recreations of films he had seen and liked growing up. He did it for fun, which is a valid reason for doing anything, and, futher, they gave him the essential tools to become a filmmaker. These sorts of recreations, with Lego or cardboard (as in Sweded films) are inherently worthwhile, because the people enjoy making them, but they may also be training a future generation of filmmakers.
The less said about [honest trailers] the better. There’s scarcely a movie that’s been made that can’t be nitpicked, smirked at, or reduced to a formula.
This sounds like a nitpick and a smirk. The honest trailers are funny. They may not be great criticism, but, then, they aren't meant as criticism. They're a sort of comedy sketch.
Just as nearly any movie can be forced through the “Everything wrong with…” mill, it doesn’t take much to find something in any given film that’s socially regressive—or at least insufficiently progressive.
Come on. Discussions regarding problematic art -- and how to enjoy it -- have been tremendously nuanced and sophisticated. You do them a terrible discourtesy by dismissing them.
That said, a good list can serve a function
I see. So the one form of mediocre criticism you engage in is actually worth defending.
Bah. MEDIOCRE.
posted by maxsparber at 9:10 AM on August 5, 2015 [24 favorites]
I also find fan theories annoying and wanted to tell people who talk about them that they are bad. Thanks Noel!
posted by skewed at 9:10 AM on August 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by skewed at 9:10 AM on August 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
Oh noes, the internet is wrong!
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 9:13 AM on August 5, 2015
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 9:13 AM on August 5, 2015
Feels like a mix of 60% Get Off My Lawn, 25% These Ways of Interacting With Films Don't Say Anything New or Insightful and 15% Amuse Me Better, Internet from the author here.
So my response is about 50% What Do You Care What People Do With Their Time? and 50% Find Stuff to Click On You Like Better, It's a Big Internet.
posted by nubs at 9:15 AM on August 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
So my response is about 50% What Do You Care What People Do With Their Time? and 50% Find Stuff to Click On You Like Better, It's a Big Internet.
posted by nubs at 9:15 AM on August 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
Also I wonder how much of this was him, personally, responding to the closing of the Dissolve while all the "What If Game Of Thrones Was A Nintendo Game With Charles In Charge Characters?"-video-peddling Buzzfeed clones prosper.
posted by griphus at 9:16 AM on August 5, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by griphus at 9:16 AM on August 5, 2015 [13 favorites]
Man, y'all are harsh.
I think there's a good point here, that the items in the list are ways people don't engage with the art and are just doing a thing to be doing the thing.
Nothing wrong with enjoying that if it's your thing but it's worth talking about.
posted by Tevin at 9:19 AM on August 5, 2015 [5 favorites]
I think there's a good point here, that the items in the list are ways people don't engage with the art and are just doing a thing to be doing the thing.
Nothing wrong with enjoying that if it's your thing but it's worth talking about.
posted by Tevin at 9:19 AM on August 5, 2015 [5 favorites]
Also list article complaining about lists
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 9:22 AM on August 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 9:22 AM on August 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
Fan theories are usually terrible, remix culture generates far more rote garbage than gems, Teefury is basically the Ready Player One of clothing. 99% of everything is bad and now there's so many more things for that to apply too.
Still, wanting throw all of it out or railing against it because kids having fun aren't producing art up to your high faulting level just seems like a hopeless old-manism.
posted by Artw at 9:22 AM on August 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
Still, wanting throw all of it out or railing against it because kids having fun aren't producing art up to your high faulting level just seems like a hopeless old-manism.
posted by Artw at 9:22 AM on August 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
This essay seems a little all over the place.
I reached the same conclusion around the somewhat odd "When YouTubers aren’t giving popular movies the Wes Anderson treatment, they’re recreating posters and trailers with tiny Lego bricks" segue.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 9:27 AM on August 5, 2015
I reached the same conclusion around the somewhat odd "When YouTubers aren’t giving popular movies the Wes Anderson treatment, they’re recreating posters and trailers with tiny Lego bricks" segue.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 9:27 AM on August 5, 2015
Old Man Ism sounds like the Goofus character in a "how not to be a dick to marginalized people" Goofus and Gallant-style strip.
posted by griphus at 9:30 AM on August 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by griphus at 9:30 AM on August 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
Also If I really wanted to fret about kids these days getting caught up in mass media phenomena and hypnotized by the spectacle I'd read some proper situations list theory and not this trite new fangled nonsense by Nowl Murray who really needs to get off my lawn.
posted by Artw at 9:31 AM on August 5, 2015
posted by Artw at 9:31 AM on August 5, 2015
Now, if you wanted to say something smart you might observe that culture jamming has traditionally been an attempt to break the hold of The Spectacle, but it's absorption into the marketing process puts it at risk of just being absorbed by it, BUT I GUESS THAT WOULD BE TOO MUCH WORK FOR THE KIDS OF TODAY.
posted by Artw at 9:34 AM on August 5, 2015 [20 favorites]
posted by Artw at 9:34 AM on August 5, 2015 [20 favorites]
So millennials ruined film criticism now?
posted by Ashwagandha at 9:35 AM on August 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Ashwagandha at 9:35 AM on August 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
With their MEMES. Grr.
Why are there not more Foucault memes, BTW? Look at this guy.
posted by Artw at 9:39 AM on August 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
Why are there not more Foucault memes, BTW? Look at this guy.
posted by Artw at 9:39 AM on August 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
> So millennials ruined film criticism now?
Wha...no, that - that's not what he's saying at all. Not even a little bit.
posted by Tevin at 9:42 AM on August 5, 2015
Wha...no, that - that's not what he's saying at all. Not even a little bit.
posted by Tevin at 9:42 AM on August 5, 2015
I think you're on to something there, Artw. The pace at which "underground" culture, or aspects of it, gets absorbed into the commercial mainstream has been accelerating since the late 1970s. It's to the point that many "subcultural" personalities and artifacts now seem to arrive already co-opted, no doubt thanks in large part to the internet. I'd be interested in seeing a smart film critic, or critics, discuss some of these cullture-jamming online responses to movies in that context.
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 9:44 AM on August 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Nat "King" Cole Porter Wagoner at 9:44 AM on August 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
Did it not strike anyone as ironic (or utterly amazing) that, thanks to powerful and more accessible technology, the fans the writer is talking about are creating absolutely amazing creative responses to films and television these days?
That X-Men / Wes Anderson mashup was really well done, and must have taken a lot of time and effort. As they say, "if that's wrong, I don't want to be right."
posted by Nevin at 9:44 AM on August 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
That X-Men / Wes Anderson mashup was really well done, and must have taken a lot of time and effort. As they say, "if that's wrong, I don't want to be right."
posted by Nevin at 9:44 AM on August 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
So he's mashing up Sturgeon's Revelation with fears of the PC police. Nice beat, but I can't dance to it.
posted by Etrigan at 9:46 AM on August 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Etrigan at 9:46 AM on August 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
Tevin, I was kidding. What I really meant to say it was hipsters who ruined film criticism!
posted by Ashwagandha at 9:48 AM on August 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Ashwagandha at 9:48 AM on August 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
I dunno; what Murray seems to be arguing is that the meta-phenomena around movies ("fandom", in a word) have largely eclipsed the movies themselves. And I share his bemusement with that.
Time was [straightens belt], you'd watch a movie, like it or dislike it or be unmoved by it, and then go do other things (which could possibly include watching other movies). If you enjoyed a movie on the first viewing, you might watch it again at a future date. If you were into film, you might discuss and debate it, as a work of cinema, with your film friends. And that was about it.
Nowadays, though, it seems like every movie has to be subjected to a billion amateur parodies, remixes, fan works, Tumblrs full of animated GIFs, stunty io9 articles, and on and on...
And it does come across, oftentimes, like the movie itself doesn't even matter, except as grist for the meme machine.
Maybe it's because memes have only one emotional register, which is "LOL". And don't get me wrong—I'll LOL at a dank meme like everybody else. But once a certain amount of LOL has accreted around an object, it kinda becomes hard to perceive it except as an object of LOL—a trifle, a fleeting amusement, nothing worth engaging with beyond a surface level. The creative drive as refracted through late capitalism.
I like movies. Like, the actual movies—not the culture of in-jokes and references and trivia that surrounds them. I find that stuff tedious, and I feel like it trivializes the art. This is, obviously, just an opinion.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 9:49 AM on August 5, 2015 [12 favorites]
Time was [straightens belt], you'd watch a movie, like it or dislike it or be unmoved by it, and then go do other things (which could possibly include watching other movies). If you enjoyed a movie on the first viewing, you might watch it again at a future date. If you were into film, you might discuss and debate it, as a work of cinema, with your film friends. And that was about it.
Nowadays, though, it seems like every movie has to be subjected to a billion amateur parodies, remixes, fan works, Tumblrs full of animated GIFs, stunty io9 articles, and on and on...
And it does come across, oftentimes, like the movie itself doesn't even matter, except as grist for the meme machine.
Maybe it's because memes have only one emotional register, which is "LOL". And don't get me wrong—I'll LOL at a dank meme like everybody else. But once a certain amount of LOL has accreted around an object, it kinda becomes hard to perceive it except as an object of LOL—a trifle, a fleeting amusement, nothing worth engaging with beyond a surface level. The creative drive as refracted through late capitalism.
I like movies. Like, the actual movies—not the culture of in-jokes and references and trivia that surrounds them. I find that stuff tedious, and I feel like it trivializes the art. This is, obviously, just an opinion.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 9:49 AM on August 5, 2015 [12 favorites]
Internet Professional Realizes Internet is Full of Hair Splitters, Legalists, and Mediocre Comedians, also Children. Film at Eleven
posted by Doleful Creature at 9:50 AM on August 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Doleful Creature at 9:50 AM on August 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
> Tevin, I was kidding. What I really meant to say it was hipsters who ruined film criticism!
Well, they did it first, anyway.
posted by Tevin at 9:54 AM on August 5, 2015
Well, they did it first, anyway.
posted by Tevin at 9:54 AM on August 5, 2015
Time was [straightens belt], you'd watch a movie, like it or dislike it or be unmoved by it, and then go do other things (which could possibly include watching other movies).
I received a good chunk of my formative Nerd Education by people who came up in fandom circles in the 60s and 70s and IMO the only thing the internet has done was link people who were already doing this stuff and allow them to appreciate and amplify each others' work, and also inspire people to create fanwork because they knew they'd have an audience they never could before. Add technology to the mix and yeah, you're definitely going to get more content than before. But the whole Fandom Nerds Ruined Art thing just doesn't bear out; more mainstream culture just decided to start appreciating what they were doing more (in part because you could make money off it.)
posted by griphus at 9:55 AM on August 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
I received a good chunk of my formative Nerd Education by people who came up in fandom circles in the 60s and 70s and IMO the only thing the internet has done was link people who were already doing this stuff and allow them to appreciate and amplify each others' work, and also inspire people to create fanwork because they knew they'd have an audience they never could before. Add technology to the mix and yeah, you're definitely going to get more content than before. But the whole Fandom Nerds Ruined Art thing just doesn't bear out; more mainstream culture just decided to start appreciating what they were doing more (in part because you could make money off it.)
posted by griphus at 9:55 AM on August 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
I dunno; what Murray seems to be arguing is that the meta-phenomena around movies ("fandom", in a word) have largely eclipsed the movies themselves.
You could argue that because what passes for entertainment these days is pretty shallow (look how many comic book movies there are in theaters now, every year), and that in order to stage engaged, fans try to "remix" and create their own experiences.
Or, you could say that, thanks to the amazing SFX these days (as well as cross-promotional marketing initiatives in other media), films (like comic book movies) have created amazingly engaging worlds that fans want to explore further.
It's kind of a strange thing for a critic to fixiate on. The Avengers and so-on is pure spectacle. Why worry about the fan responses eclipsing the original product?
It's not as though "serious" films like Boyhood have the same thing going on.
posted by Nevin at 9:57 AM on August 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
You could argue that because what passes for entertainment these days is pretty shallow (look how many comic book movies there are in theaters now, every year), and that in order to stage engaged, fans try to "remix" and create their own experiences.
Or, you could say that, thanks to the amazing SFX these days (as well as cross-promotional marketing initiatives in other media), films (like comic book movies) have created amazingly engaging worlds that fans want to explore further.
It's kind of a strange thing for a critic to fixiate on. The Avengers and so-on is pure spectacle. Why worry about the fan responses eclipsing the original product?
It's not as though "serious" films like Boyhood have the same thing going on.
posted by Nevin at 9:57 AM on August 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
My main actual complaint which aligns with what he's saying is that in the rush to get out all the hot-takes and memes on thing-of-the-week and stay relevant its getting harder and harder not to run into a wall of spoilers at every turn. Generally stuff responding to cultural artifacts that have bedded in a little is better, anyway.
posted by Artw at 9:58 AM on August 5, 2015
posted by Artw at 9:58 AM on August 5, 2015
>Or, you could say that, thanks to the amazing SFX these days (as well as cross-promotional marketing initiatives in other media), films (like comic book movies) have created amazingly engaging worlds that fans want to explore further.
That is a great point, but I think Murray is saying the fans in question aren't exploring the world the film created but using the film as a platform to draw attention to themselves, to be the first (or best) person to ape the subject in question.
I don't even go as far to say this is a problem in itself but I think it's absolutely worth talking about because I've seen one too many soulless mashups of Disney princesses re-imagined as characters from Full House and just a little less of that would be super.
posted by Tevin at 10:05 AM on August 5, 2015
That is a great point, but I think Murray is saying the fans in question aren't exploring the world the film created but using the film as a platform to draw attention to themselves, to be the first (or best) person to ape the subject in question.
I don't even go as far to say this is a problem in itself but I think it's absolutely worth talking about because I've seen one too many soulless mashups of Disney princesses re-imagined as characters from Full House and just a little less of that would be super.
posted by Tevin at 10:05 AM on August 5, 2015
Why are there not more Foucault memes, BTW? Look at this guy.
I couldn't agree more.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 10:06 AM on August 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
I couldn't agree more.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 10:06 AM on August 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
"You LOOKin' at ME?" something-something Panopticon.
...
I'll keep working on it.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 10:10 AM on August 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
...
I'll keep working on it.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 10:10 AM on August 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
Why are there not more Foucault memes
posted by escape from the potato planet at 10:10 AM on August 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by escape from the potato planet at 10:10 AM on August 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
I dunno; what Murray seems to be arguing is that the meta-phenomena around movies ("fandom", in a word) have largely eclipsed the movies themselves.
Enhanced communication techniques lead to increased communication and a lowered bar to entry for discussion and commentary. Which is wrong, obviously. Can't we limit the internet to Serious Critics?
I mean back in the day, I had to drive six hours once per year so I could meet with fellow fans people I could exchange witty comments, jokes and theories about my favorite SF. Now with a click of a button I can share my ideas with millions of people, and they can add their ideas to the mix.
With so much variety out there, it's only natural for some to long for the day when a few self-important critics could act as gatekeepers for criticism and commentary.
posted by happyroach at 10:12 AM on August 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
Enhanced communication techniques lead to increased communication and a lowered bar to entry for discussion and commentary. Which is wrong, obviously. Can't we limit the internet to Serious Critics?
I mean back in the day, I had to drive six hours once per year so I could meet with fellow fans people I could exchange witty comments, jokes and theories about my favorite SF. Now with a click of a button I can share my ideas with millions of people, and they can add their ideas to the mix.
With so much variety out there, it's only natural for some to long for the day when a few self-important critics could act as gatekeepers for criticism and commentary.
posted by happyroach at 10:12 AM on August 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
Did someone order a relevant Foucault meme?
posted by griphus at 10:12 AM on August 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by griphus at 10:12 AM on August 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
Is the sarcasm necessary, happyroach? Anyway, no one's arguing in favor of that strawman.
"A neverending tsunami of ironic mashups" and "complete ivory-tower dominion over cultural criticism" are not the only two possibilities.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 10:18 AM on August 5, 2015
"A neverending tsunami of ironic mashups" and "complete ivory-tower dominion over cultural criticism" are not the only two possibilities.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 10:18 AM on August 5, 2015
At the PanoptiComiCon, JJ Abrams observes the proceedings from his perch above convention hall (obscured from the crowds by lens flare) and metes judgement on those who break the rules of acceptable fanatic expression.
posted by Tevin at 10:20 AM on August 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Tevin at 10:20 AM on August 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
I of course write all my film crit in endless Se7en style journals and never show them to anyone to keep my bodily fluids pure... I've said too much
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 10:23 AM on August 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 10:23 AM on August 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
Fab 4 looks a bit grimm, mind
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 10:23 AM on August 5, 2015
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 10:23 AM on August 5, 2015
Still, wanting throw all of it out or railing against it because kids having fun aren't producing art up to your high faulting level just seems like a hopeless old-manism.
Well then it's a good thing nothing like that is in the linked article, then!
Actually, on further inspection, it seems like a lot of people in this thread either didn't read the linked thing or read something else and are responding to that.
... the items in the list are ways people don't engage with the art and are just doing a thing to be doing the thing.
This right here is what the article was about. The rate at which people comment on films and books and TV shows and all kinds of art is accelerating (which is cool), but at the same time it appears that the rate of people doing that after having engaged with the work in question and thought about it is not accelerating. There's all this rote performance stuff that's just people grabbing whatever just came out regardless of what it is and doing an Internet Thing to it and posting that. It's noise, basically, rather than actual comment on work or understanding of work. And you know what we usually call "NEW PRODUCT IS OUT CONSUME AND BE PART OF THE IN-GROUP" noise when it conforms to a small number of formulas and doesn't carry any thought or commentary?
Advertising.
We're all bathed in a wave of free crowd-sourced thoughtless advertising of the type that everyone hates when big corporations do it but for some reason seem fine with when it's some person on Tumblr (or at least, when they can't tell the difference). But please, continue to be snarky rather than actually engaging with the article or thinking about it, because that is always a response that is helpful and useful to everyone.
posted by IAmUnaware at 10:25 AM on August 5, 2015 [11 favorites]
Well then it's a good thing nothing like that is in the linked article, then!
Actually, on further inspection, it seems like a lot of people in this thread either didn't read the linked thing or read something else and are responding to that.
... the items in the list are ways people don't engage with the art and are just doing a thing to be doing the thing.
This right here is what the article was about. The rate at which people comment on films and books and TV shows and all kinds of art is accelerating (which is cool), but at the same time it appears that the rate of people doing that after having engaged with the work in question and thought about it is not accelerating. There's all this rote performance stuff that's just people grabbing whatever just came out regardless of what it is and doing an Internet Thing to it and posting that. It's noise, basically, rather than actual comment on work or understanding of work. And you know what we usually call "NEW PRODUCT IS OUT CONSUME AND BE PART OF THE IN-GROUP" noise when it conforms to a small number of formulas and doesn't carry any thought or commentary?
Advertising.
We're all bathed in a wave of free crowd-sourced thoughtless advertising of the type that everyone hates when big corporations do it but for some reason seem fine with when it's some person on Tumblr (or at least, when they can't tell the difference). But please, continue to be snarky rather than actually engaging with the article or thinking about it, because that is always a response that is helpful and useful to everyone.
posted by IAmUnaware at 10:25 AM on August 5, 2015 [11 favorites]
I'm sorry, but Metafilter is home to one of the great fan theories of all time, and we will not tolerate this denigration of fan theories.
posted by graymouser at 10:26 AM on August 5, 2015
posted by graymouser at 10:26 AM on August 5, 2015
If this essay is supposed to be about fan culture, it's a poor one. There are books written about these topics, and this writer would do well to avail himself of the decade (at least) of writing, thinking, and research that's gone into these topics; he should at least have the awareness that he's not breaking any new ground here (which is the tone that permeates this piece).
Also, he seems surprised that most stuff that people make is not very interesting? And here I've been motoring along thinking it's glaringly self-evident that most stuff that we make, of any kind, isn't particularly interesting and mostly derivative and that exceptional stuff is exceptional because, well, there isn't that much of it. Hm.
posted by LooseFilter at 10:30 AM on August 5, 2015
Also, he seems surprised that most stuff that people make is not very interesting? And here I've been motoring along thinking it's glaringly self-evident that most stuff that we make, of any kind, isn't particularly interesting and mostly derivative and that exceptional stuff is exceptional because, well, there isn't that much of it. Hm.
posted by LooseFilter at 10:30 AM on August 5, 2015
I feel like this critique doesn’t add up to anything. It leans heavily on auteur theory and implies that the only “correct” interpretation of a film is the one that the filmmaker intended to convey. I've never liked Rocky Horror Picture Show, but it resonated with a specific counterculture in a way that may or may not have been intended by the makers. And that resonance is important, even if Murray thinks it's orthogonal to the reasons why he, personally, thinks Rocky is a good movie. He shouldn't try to write off its fans as somehow missing the boat.
If a Rocky “virgin” is truly seeing the movie for the first time inside the performative context, rather than having watched it first on home video, then of course that context will color their viewing of the film. But I don’t think this is necessarily an “incorrect” way of consuming media.
At the end Murray writes: Filmmakers spend years of their lives working on a project, only to jump online and hear, “Okay, you’ve had your turn. Now look at this thing I scribbled all over it.” Which reveals his belief that the the meme-ification of films is both (a) intended for the filmmaker, rather than for other Random Internet People; and (b) damaging to the original artistic product, rather than happening on a separable, opt-in layer.
Film crit is a context through which Murray appreciates film. For mass-market cinema, at least, it has never been the dominant way of appreciating film. It seems to me that the general public will appreciate well-told stories for the same reasons that film-crit people do, even if they don't talk about them out loud or reflect upon them after the fact. I can't help but feel like Murray feels like everyone would be talking about movies the way he does, if only the silly memes weren't getting in the way.
posted by savetheclocktower at 10:30 AM on August 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
If a Rocky “virgin” is truly seeing the movie for the first time inside the performative context, rather than having watched it first on home video, then of course that context will color their viewing of the film. But I don’t think this is necessarily an “incorrect” way of consuming media.
At the end Murray writes: Filmmakers spend years of their lives working on a project, only to jump online and hear, “Okay, you’ve had your turn. Now look at this thing I scribbled all over it.” Which reveals his belief that the the meme-ification of films is both (a) intended for the filmmaker, rather than for other Random Internet People; and (b) damaging to the original artistic product, rather than happening on a separable, opt-in layer.
Film crit is a context through which Murray appreciates film. For mass-market cinema, at least, it has never been the dominant way of appreciating film. It seems to me that the general public will appreciate well-told stories for the same reasons that film-crit people do, even if they don't talk about them out loud or reflect upon them after the fact. I can't help but feel like Murray feels like everyone would be talking about movies the way he does, if only the silly memes weren't getting in the way.
posted by savetheclocktower at 10:30 AM on August 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
Bah. MEDIOCRE.
Hmmmm. If Film Critic Hulk is played out, maybe we could get Film Critic Immortan Joe?
Or, in this case, Film Critic Critic Immortan Joe
posted by GenjiandProust at 10:32 AM on August 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
Hmmmm. If Film Critic Hulk is played out, maybe we could get Film Critic Immortan Joe?
Or, in this case, Film Critic Critic Immortan Joe
posted by GenjiandProust at 10:32 AM on August 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
He's conflating several different issues together and taking it to be a sign of deficit in the larger culture.
One of those things is that YouTube pays you money for popular videos. These tend to be trend based, and SEO-ish. If you're trying to build a YouTube brand with subscribers and enough views to clear real money each week, then one option is to review popular culture that a large number of people have an opinion about. Operating within genre tropes for YouTube movie related content will also up your numbers.
Like a lot of 'kids these days!' commentators (as others have said) he mistakes the cause and effect relationship of increased visibility versus the formative nature of the medium. If we were back in film's golden age in the 70s, what would we get if we gave every movie watcher a cheap-to-free ability to broadcast their opinions to thousands? Even in this bygone era, the mainstream media still broadcasted mostly review shows that boil films down to a commercial choice of star ratings and thumbs up or down. I love Siskel and Ebert as much as the next person, but their reviews aren't exactly deep digs into meaning and craft.
The 'problematic' concern seems odd, and picky. People are responding shallowly to movies, except for when they approach them critically, and then it's a matter of the tone not being exactly right?
A lot of people see movies as pure entertainment - especially so with the current trend of franchise films based on children's media. In an age of low cost publication we're going to get a lot of treatments of film that fall into that pure entertainment mode, where people want to see fanservice for something they already like, or a pithy take-down of something they don't.
The other side of that coin is that film criticism is also expanding. You don't have to be part of a humanities program at NYU to have access to, or to widely publish deep reading of film. Even further, access to some of the best filmic work ever created is easily within your fingertips given either a disregard for IP law, or a few bucks a month. Plus technology is giving the ability to make and distribute film to a much greater cross section of people. For however many clickbait fan theories about The Avengers we get, the same technology gives you access to much, much more.
posted by codacorolla at 10:36 AM on August 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
One of those things is that YouTube pays you money for popular videos. These tend to be trend based, and SEO-ish. If you're trying to build a YouTube brand with subscribers and enough views to clear real money each week, then one option is to review popular culture that a large number of people have an opinion about. Operating within genre tropes for YouTube movie related content will also up your numbers.
Like a lot of 'kids these days!' commentators (as others have said) he mistakes the cause and effect relationship of increased visibility versus the formative nature of the medium. If we were back in film's golden age in the 70s, what would we get if we gave every movie watcher a cheap-to-free ability to broadcast their opinions to thousands? Even in this bygone era, the mainstream media still broadcasted mostly review shows that boil films down to a commercial choice of star ratings and thumbs up or down. I love Siskel and Ebert as much as the next person, but their reviews aren't exactly deep digs into meaning and craft.
The 'problematic' concern seems odd, and picky. People are responding shallowly to movies, except for when they approach them critically, and then it's a matter of the tone not being exactly right?
A lot of people see movies as pure entertainment - especially so with the current trend of franchise films based on children's media. In an age of low cost publication we're going to get a lot of treatments of film that fall into that pure entertainment mode, where people want to see fanservice for something they already like, or a pithy take-down of something they don't.
The other side of that coin is that film criticism is also expanding. You don't have to be part of a humanities program at NYU to have access to, or to widely publish deep reading of film. Even further, access to some of the best filmic work ever created is easily within your fingertips given either a disregard for IP law, or a few bucks a month. Plus technology is giving the ability to make and distribute film to a much greater cross section of people. For however many clickbait fan theories about The Avengers we get, the same technology gives you access to much, much more.
posted by codacorolla at 10:36 AM on August 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
One more thing: in general, I struggle with fan theories. When the ending of a movie is purposefully ambiguous, Christopher Nolan–style, I struggle because I derive no pleasure from deciding between Meaning 1 and Meaning 2 because the whole point of the ending is the ambiguity. To me it'd be like trying to figure out whether Pat is actually male or female. And when the fan theory is a deliberately subversive reading of a popular thing, I might assess its elegance, but otherwise I don't feel like it's enhanced my reading of a particular story.
But I've read enough fan theories to know that they're an authentic expression of film appreciation. They're the result of deep affection for the universe a film has created and a desire to feel out the boundaries of that universe beyond what the filmmaker depicted. And it'd be arrogant of me to assume people are wasting their time just because their fan theories don't affect how I approach the source material.
posted by savetheclocktower at 10:40 AM on August 5, 2015
But I've read enough fan theories to know that they're an authentic expression of film appreciation. They're the result of deep affection for the universe a film has created and a desire to feel out the boundaries of that universe beyond what the filmmaker depicted. And it'd be arrogant of me to assume people are wasting their time just because their fan theories don't affect how I approach the source material.
posted by savetheclocktower at 10:40 AM on August 5, 2015
I once wrote about what I'd consider this piece to be an example of:
I don't know Noel Murray's background, but the linked item reads like someone who simply has not made the cognitive leap from the scarcity and exclusivity of paper and ink to the abundance and relative democratization of the Web. Or who has made the cognitive leap and just doesn't like the implications of being on slightly more even footing with people who somehow haven't earned a right to their opinions, mode of critique, or kinds of enjoyment.
I get the unease. I'm a writer and I built my career on getting paid a living wage for my writing. I had to deal with the collapse of several revenue models between 1999 and 2012. As someone who manages technical writers at a startup, I sometimes feel like I'm operating a small ark for people who have sought refuge from the chaos engendered by the rapid and sometimes violent depreciation of their core skills.
At the same time, I recently got asked the "what do you see yourself doing in five years?" question. It took me a minute because I had to think back to being just out of college and working at a newspaper, then making the move to early web publishing (display revenue), then the shift to content marketing (lead gen), and then to technical writing, before thinking to say "continuing to adapt."
The linked essay doesn't read like adaptation.
posted by mph at 10:40 AM on August 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
But the way things are published isn’t the only thing that has changed: The way people solve problems and learn things has changed, and the sort of deference people used to show to an authority who’d managed to write a book (or get published in a magazine) is in short supply. Many who came to the Web from print thought the prestige and authority that came with working for a print institution would somehow transfer. For a few years it was relatively easy to nurture that belief, and then the mood changed as people began to connect and engage. As annoying as early bloggers’ lengthy blogrolls and in-group shout-outs were, you can look back and see them as the Web establishing itself as a social medium. Once those conventions had been established, that assumed authority began to collapse. You still see signs of the process in the form of, for instance, a Salon film critic’s periodic meltdown over the cheek of readers who’d question her authority; or out-of-touch tech columnists who cite a stint at DEC in the ’80s as a good reason to listen to them now. Getting a paycheck to say something doesn’t mean what it used to.I appreciate the craft and insight people like Noel Murray bring to their critical analysis of entertainment. I've got no issue with Noel Murray enjoying things the way Noel Murray chooses to enjoy things. I'm sorry there are large tracts of the movie-going Web that are now tedious to Noel Murray.
I don't know Noel Murray's background, but the linked item reads like someone who simply has not made the cognitive leap from the scarcity and exclusivity of paper and ink to the abundance and relative democratization of the Web. Or who has made the cognitive leap and just doesn't like the implications of being on slightly more even footing with people who somehow haven't earned a right to their opinions, mode of critique, or kinds of enjoyment.
I get the unease. I'm a writer and I built my career on getting paid a living wage for my writing. I had to deal with the collapse of several revenue models between 1999 and 2012. As someone who manages technical writers at a startup, I sometimes feel like I'm operating a small ark for people who have sought refuge from the chaos engendered by the rapid and sometimes violent depreciation of their core skills.
At the same time, I recently got asked the "what do you see yourself doing in five years?" question. It took me a minute because I had to think back to being just out of college and working at a newspaper, then making the move to early web publishing (display revenue), then the shift to content marketing (lead gen), and then to technical writing, before thinking to say "continuing to adapt."
The linked essay doesn't read like adaptation.
posted by mph at 10:40 AM on August 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
Time was [straightens belt], you'd watch a movie, like it or dislike it or be unmoved by it, and then go do other things (which could possibly include watching other movies). If you enjoyed a movie on the first viewing, you might watch it again at a future date. If you were into film, you might discuss and debate it, as a work of cinema, with your film friends. And that was about it.
You know that in 1893, when Sir Arthur Conan Doyle killed Sherlock Holmes (or, spoiler, "killed" Sherlock Holmes), fans held public funerals for the deceased, although thoroughly fictional, character. The first fan fiction around Holmes might date back as far as 1897. Science fiction fandom borrowed heavily from an earlier fan culture -- the Western, which included what we would now consider cosplay. When Harold Lloyd was a boy here in Omaha, his father built him a stage in his basement, where he produced his own western plays, which were pastiches of westerns he had seen onstage and read in pulp books.
There was never a time that you describe. You just didn't participate in it.
posted by maxsparber at 10:48 AM on August 5, 2015 [11 favorites]
You know that in 1893, when Sir Arthur Conan Doyle killed Sherlock Holmes (or, spoiler, "killed" Sherlock Holmes), fans held public funerals for the deceased, although thoroughly fictional, character. The first fan fiction around Holmes might date back as far as 1897. Science fiction fandom borrowed heavily from an earlier fan culture -- the Western, which included what we would now consider cosplay. When Harold Lloyd was a boy here in Omaha, his father built him a stage in his basement, where he produced his own western plays, which were pastiches of westerns he had seen onstage and read in pulp books.
There was never a time that you describe. You just didn't participate in it.
posted by maxsparber at 10:48 AM on August 5, 2015 [11 favorites]
In 1977 there was probably some insurance salesman in Idaho who saw Smokey and the Bandit at his local cineplex, and was really taken by the movie. As soon as he left the airconditioned darkness his mind started going out, making connections, thinking about what Bandit might do next. Maybe a cross country road race to save an orphanage. Maybe he could meet Kojack in New York, and Kojack helps him fix his truck. Excited by the possibilities he sat down at his mechanical type writer, cracked an ice cold Coors for inspiration, and typed out a script using a book he'd gotten at the local library for reference on screenwriting. Over the course of a weekend he has a full outline and several scenes for Bandit On the Loose: Truckin' Across America. He tells his work friends about it on Monday, and they laugh. "Stick to Insurance, Larry."
In 2015 someone decides to imagine what would happen if the Jurassic Park dinosaurs fought the Avengers. He publishes it on Reddit and it gets 13 upvotes, with "FartHammer56" saying, "lol, pretty cool" as the only comment.
posted by codacorolla at 10:57 AM on August 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
In 2015 someone decides to imagine what would happen if the Jurassic Park dinosaurs fought the Avengers. He publishes it on Reddit and it gets 13 upvotes, with "FartHammer56" saying, "lol, pretty cool" as the only comment.
posted by codacorolla at 10:57 AM on August 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
My theory is that Larry and FartHammer56 are the same person.
Think about it.
posted by griphus at 11:00 AM on August 5, 2015 [6 favorites]
Think about it.
posted by griphus at 11:00 AM on August 5, 2015 [6 favorites]
Larry is farthammer's sock puppet? he said, and immediately realized these words had never been uttered in this order before.
posted by maxsparber at 11:02 AM on August 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by maxsparber at 11:02 AM on August 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
You just activated a Soviet sleeper agent who's gonna try to assassinate President Ford. This is on you.
posted by griphus at 11:02 AM on August 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by griphus at 11:02 AM on August 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
Oh my God as I always suspected it is 1975, this is Sacramento, and I have been speaking to Squeaky Fromme.
How could I not trust my instincts on this?
posted by maxsparber at 11:04 AM on August 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
How could I not trust my instincts on this?
posted by maxsparber at 11:04 AM on August 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
Metafilter: Farthammer's sockpuppet
posted by Tevin at 11:11 AM on August 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Tevin at 11:11 AM on August 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
There was never a time that you describe. You just didn't participate in it.
But you know, that nostalgia for a time that never actually existed us one of the core elements of the Sad/Rabid Puppies movements. But I wonder what the equivalent to disrupting the Hugos would be for the "Fans r doin it WRONG" crowd?
posted by happyroach at 11:12 AM on August 5, 2015
But you know, that nostalgia for a time that never actually existed us one of the core elements of the Sad/Rabid Puppies movements. But I wonder what the equivalent to disrupting the Hugos would be for the "Fans r doin it WRONG" crowd?
posted by happyroach at 11:12 AM on August 5, 2015
Why are there not more Foucault memes
By Farthammer's sockpuppet, the Internet provides!
posted by Artw at 11:16 AM on August 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
By Farthammer's sockpuppet, the Internet provides!
posted by Artw at 11:16 AM on August 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
Fess up, codacorolla - you looked up when Smokey and the Bandit came out and made sure that Larry lived in a state where Coors was sold. This smacks of effort! Effort, I say! The New Criticism is lazy! Lazy! To put effort in smacks of dirty fandom with their cosplays and banners. No, instead the Critic must internalize content and maintain that their reaction is the universally correct one.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 11:17 AM on August 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by robocop is bleeding at 11:17 AM on August 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
But you know, that nostalgia for a time that never actually existed us one of the core elements of the Sad/Rabid Puppies movements. But I wonder what the equivalent to disrupting the Hugos would be for the "Fans r doin it WRONG" crowd?
Misogynistic internet campaigns centered around rape threats, most likely.
posted by Artw at 11:17 AM on August 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
Misogynistic internet campaigns centered around rape threats, most likely.
posted by Artw at 11:17 AM on August 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
(At this point you should probably assume any claim that something is problematic where the poster is identifiable female comes with one.)
posted by Artw at 11:28 AM on August 5, 2015
posted by Artw at 11:28 AM on August 5, 2015
> I don't think the author's point is actually that one way of being a fan is better than another way of being a fan, but rather that in 2015, the current way of being a fan of movies/TV is so dripping in remix/mashup culture that it's hard to even get anyone to listen to you when you try to interact with movies/TV outside of this context.
Sure, and I’d buy that if it were impossible for me to see The Avengers without consuming the mashup culture surrounding it. But not only is it easy, it's also the default. If I scroll through my Twitter timeline or browse MetaFilter I might see references to some “everything wrong with The Avengers” video a dude posted on YouTube, but I don’t have to click on them, and I don’t feel like those mere mentions affect my appreciation of the movie.
(Whereas for would-be RHPS viewers between, say, 1976 and the mid-to-late-80s, there was no way to see the movie without going to their local midnight showing.)
If Murray’s critique is that, metaphorically speaking, you're the one dude who saw RHPS on video at home and you're dying to talk about it with someone but all the other RHPS fans just want to talk about the things they yell at screenings… well, OK, but I feel like that's just a restatement of “too few fans of movies approach them from a film-crit perspective.” To me the essay strongly implies that, e.g., the “this is problematic” people should just stop doing what they’re doing — either for their own sake (you’d like this movie better if you interpreted it the right way) or for Murray’s sake (you’re making it hard for me to do my own thing). And that’s not a persuasive argument.
posted by savetheclocktower at 12:05 PM on August 5, 2015
Sure, and I’d buy that if it were impossible for me to see The Avengers without consuming the mashup culture surrounding it. But not only is it easy, it's also the default. If I scroll through my Twitter timeline or browse MetaFilter I might see references to some “everything wrong with The Avengers” video a dude posted on YouTube, but I don’t have to click on them, and I don’t feel like those mere mentions affect my appreciation of the movie.
(Whereas for would-be RHPS viewers between, say, 1976 and the mid-to-late-80s, there was no way to see the movie without going to their local midnight showing.)
If Murray’s critique is that, metaphorically speaking, you're the one dude who saw RHPS on video at home and you're dying to talk about it with someone but all the other RHPS fans just want to talk about the things they yell at screenings… well, OK, but I feel like that's just a restatement of “too few fans of movies approach them from a film-crit perspective.” To me the essay strongly implies that, e.g., the “this is problematic” people should just stop doing what they’re doing — either for their own sake (you’d like this movie better if you interpreted it the right way) or for Murray’s sake (you’re making it hard for me to do my own thing). And that’s not a persuasive argument.
posted by savetheclocktower at 12:05 PM on August 5, 2015
I don't think this was a super coherent post, but I get Noel's frustration. Seeing The Dissolve close down, when listicles, overused gifs, FILM CRIT HULK, semi-nonsensical conspiracy theories and deconstructions, and other by-this-point-cliched ways of engaging with movies flourish. These things are all fun, and there's nothing inherently wrong with making or enjoying any of them, but they're also hard to wade through sometimes. It's like when the Internet went from deciding that bacon is tasty to being like "LET'S ALL TALK ABOUT BACON ALL THE TIME!!!!!!! ALL FOOD NEEDS BACON ON IT!! NERD CULTURE FTW!!!"
I think we have to just do our best to support the things that need supporting, because the pendulum will swing back and forth on the fads.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 12:08 PM on August 5, 2015 [5 favorites]
I think we have to just do our best to support the things that need supporting, because the pendulum will swing back and forth on the fads.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 12:08 PM on August 5, 2015 [5 favorites]
"what if every movie was actually an occurrence at owl creek bridge?"
"whoa man, heavy.
posted by Ferreous at 12:16 PM on August 5, 2015
"whoa man, heavy.
posted by Ferreous at 12:16 PM on August 5, 2015
In the end I didn't bother seeing Age of Ultron, but within a few days of release I could give you a pretty good summary of it, without clicking on anything.
posted by Artw at 12:22 PM on August 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 12:22 PM on August 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
The point about the "this is problematic" part, I thought, was that some people watch movies specifically to find things that are problematic for a reason to get on their particular soap box without contextualizing it in a meaningful way. Again, the problem there is that's more about the Act of Finding the Problematic Aspect (like Where's Waldo, but for x-ism!) than it is about engaging with the movie (or the greater cinematic context).
And I think that's a good point because I have found myself doing exactly that.
I do not, at all, think this is Murray saying other people have to do criticism the way he does criticism. Maybe I'm being too much informed by the hundreds of other pieces I've read by him but I don't think that's what this piece is saying one little bit.
posted by Tevin at 12:45 PM on August 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
And I think that's a good point because I have found myself doing exactly that.
I do not, at all, think this is Murray saying other people have to do criticism the way he does criticism. Maybe I'm being too much informed by the hundreds of other pieces I've read by him but I don't think that's what this piece is saying one little bit.
posted by Tevin at 12:45 PM on August 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
clickbait targeted directly at the will-immediately-purchase-any-rectangular-object-painted-like-a-TARDIS crowd
I'm wondering if some of the dislike for the clickbait is how it is culturally reinforcing rather than actually culturally subversive. To return to the Rocky Horror example, Rocky Horror viewing itself has developed a codified, communal culture that is extremely conservative and prone to not changing, and even people who haven't been to a Rocky Horror midnight showing can find out roughly what happens if they want to. It was once edgy and underground, and it is now commercialized and the connection depends on repetition, not originality. Likewise, most clickbait is fairly conservative (Cracked is bucking that tendency through being clickbait that is more progressive than the commentariate - but ultimately it's about reinforcing A culture if not THE culture of the internet).
However, US culture tends to obsessively claim to value originality and creativity, not consumption and conformity. How that actually plays out is largely in a consumptive and conforming manner, though; people describe themselves as "edgy" because they repeat stereotypes that are decades, if not centuries, old. Something "new" and "fresh" is wanted, but dressed up in youthful white skin with perfect hair and a slim body. Actual creativity has to exist on the margins because the consequences of failure in the center have become so enormous and the people with the money are so much more privileged; you can see it in movies, in video games - even the current TV renaissance could be seen as a product of decades of stagnation which lowered the value of TV as a medium.
And I think part of what people miss when they get caught up in the idea of everything being new and fresh is that what builds community is repetition. Repetition of time, of place, of activity, of interaction. We relax when we know mostly what to expect with a little bit of novelty thrown in. I am a lover of not just episodic TV but re-watching episodic TV because my work life is hectic and unexpected and often overwhelming; relaxing into a world where I know pretty much what's going to happen and I like most if not all of the people involved is incredibly soothing and comforting. I seriously doubt I'm alone in this, indeed it seems to be a human thing.
Likewise, shared jokes, new ways of wearing TARDISes (I want a TARDIS dress like a wanting thing), and predictable lines are places where we can meet other people and relax in a shared reality. I wish people saw the value in that more rather than wanting people to attempt to be on an eternal quest for novelty.
posted by Deoridhe at 2:13 PM on August 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'm wondering if some of the dislike for the clickbait is how it is culturally reinforcing rather than actually culturally subversive. To return to the Rocky Horror example, Rocky Horror viewing itself has developed a codified, communal culture that is extremely conservative and prone to not changing, and even people who haven't been to a Rocky Horror midnight showing can find out roughly what happens if they want to. It was once edgy and underground, and it is now commercialized and the connection depends on repetition, not originality. Likewise, most clickbait is fairly conservative (Cracked is bucking that tendency through being clickbait that is more progressive than the commentariate - but ultimately it's about reinforcing A culture if not THE culture of the internet).
However, US culture tends to obsessively claim to value originality and creativity, not consumption and conformity. How that actually plays out is largely in a consumptive and conforming manner, though; people describe themselves as "edgy" because they repeat stereotypes that are decades, if not centuries, old. Something "new" and "fresh" is wanted, but dressed up in youthful white skin with perfect hair and a slim body. Actual creativity has to exist on the margins because the consequences of failure in the center have become so enormous and the people with the money are so much more privileged; you can see it in movies, in video games - even the current TV renaissance could be seen as a product of decades of stagnation which lowered the value of TV as a medium.
And I think part of what people miss when they get caught up in the idea of everything being new and fresh is that what builds community is repetition. Repetition of time, of place, of activity, of interaction. We relax when we know mostly what to expect with a little bit of novelty thrown in. I am a lover of not just episodic TV but re-watching episodic TV because my work life is hectic and unexpected and often overwhelming; relaxing into a world where I know pretty much what's going to happen and I like most if not all of the people involved is incredibly soothing and comforting. I seriously doubt I'm alone in this, indeed it seems to be a human thing.
Likewise, shared jokes, new ways of wearing TARDISes (I want a TARDIS dress like a wanting thing), and predictable lines are places where we can meet other people and relax in a shared reality. I wish people saw the value in that more rather than wanting people to attempt to be on an eternal quest for novelty.
posted by Deoridhe at 2:13 PM on August 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
@griphus: the only thing the internet has done was link people who were already doing this stuff and allow them to appreciate and amplify each others' work, and also inspire people to create fanwork because they knew they'd have an audience they never could before
But other than the appreciation, and the amplification, and the inspiration ... what has the Internet ever done for us?
posted by nickzoic at 7:04 PM on August 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
But other than the appreciation, and the amplification, and the inspiration ... what has the Internet ever done for us?
posted by nickzoic at 7:04 PM on August 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
Don't underestimate the impact of amplification and inspiration.
And I think part of "inspire people to create fanwork" is caused by that amplification. Not all those people that made Lego animated versions of movies decided to do that independently. A lot of them saw someone else's Lego animation and thought, "Hey, you can do that!?"
In spite of codacorolla's story of someone writing Smokey and the Bandit fanfiction ex nihilo, honestly I think the likelihood of writing fanfiction depends a lot on having read other people's fanfiction. It establishes in your mind, this is a thing you can do. Pre-internet, that could be spread at science-fiction conventions or whatever. Not to say that nobody started writing their own Sherlock Holmes and Star Trek stories independently, but I think the odds go up a lot when you can see others doing it.
See all these genres of fanwork, the development of these genres is going to come from people viewing other fanwork and being influenced by that.
(And this isn't limited to what is obviously fanworks. People start punk bands because they listen to punk bands. I drew a journal comic after reading journal comics; I don't think I would have made that leap without seeing the example.)
The other thing to consider is the easier it is, the more people will do it. Remember the Harlem Shake as a meme? That spread as quickly as it did, because it wasn't something difficult. And there wasn't much expectation that you add anything new to it, just replicate the formula.
So ways of engaging as a fan, the ones that spread the quickest tend to have a high attention-grabbing/difficulty ratio. And sorry, engaging on a deep nuanced level is difficult.
posted by RobotHero at 7:54 AM on August 6, 2015
And I think part of "inspire people to create fanwork" is caused by that amplification. Not all those people that made Lego animated versions of movies decided to do that independently. A lot of them saw someone else's Lego animation and thought, "Hey, you can do that!?"
In spite of codacorolla's story of someone writing Smokey and the Bandit fanfiction ex nihilo, honestly I think the likelihood of writing fanfiction depends a lot on having read other people's fanfiction. It establishes in your mind, this is a thing you can do. Pre-internet, that could be spread at science-fiction conventions or whatever. Not to say that nobody started writing their own Sherlock Holmes and Star Trek stories independently, but I think the odds go up a lot when you can see others doing it.
See all these genres of fanwork, the development of these genres is going to come from people viewing other fanwork and being influenced by that.
(And this isn't limited to what is obviously fanworks. People start punk bands because they listen to punk bands. I drew a journal comic after reading journal comics; I don't think I would have made that leap without seeing the example.)
The other thing to consider is the easier it is, the more people will do it. Remember the Harlem Shake as a meme? That spread as quickly as it did, because it wasn't something difficult. And there wasn't much expectation that you add anything new to it, just replicate the formula.
So ways of engaging as a fan, the ones that spread the quickest tend to have a high attention-grabbing/difficulty ratio. And sorry, engaging on a deep nuanced level is difficult.
posted by RobotHero at 7:54 AM on August 6, 2015
I will say this: FILM CRIT HULK BAD!
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 12:24 PM on August 6, 2015
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 12:24 PM on August 6, 2015
But it's film crit done in character as someone who uses ALL-CAPS!
posted by Artw at 2:17 PM on August 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 2:17 PM on August 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
« Older Why Straight Men Have Sex With Each Other | Ai Pioppi: Human powered fairground; with good... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Foosnark at 8:55 AM on August 5, 2015 [1 favorite]