You go out to see a movie. You have heard little about it, so you have no significant expectations of which to speak. At the end you found it completely tepid, unremarkable and mediocre. Then you wonder. Would it have been better if it had been a disaster?
A disastrous product, while not often desirable, can be more entertaining than something that is merely serviceable.
Why then do we see much more mediocrity in entertainment products? Unrestricted creativity involves taking risks. Genuine novelty can delight or baffle a prospective audience. Any major production involves the investment of a lot of money. Such investments incline the decision making process to be conservative. People who take big risk that don’t pay off rarely get to take such big risks again.
Opening this up to a wider consideration: When is it better to risk disaster than to accept mediocrity?
Mediocre-Dangerous
Granted, films arent living dangerously, but instead try to cash in on established formulas and franchises.
Awful-Awesome
The scale is our satisfaction with the movie. Obviously, we arent going to be blown away by a film thats not particularly dangerous, but that doesnt mean we cant enjoy it. Ie. most hollywood action movies (competently done, fairly enjoyable, utterly forgettable).
Im only interested in being satisfied, and trash can fulfil that. I also appreciate being challenged, but sometimes that’s tiresome.
“…no way a liberal could make the mashin’ of the christ.” far too tempting isn’t it?!?
nothing contradictory about it…
and the progressive liberal left would rather ban and censor any mention of christian anything… (and that’s great with me personally - christians are as good as liberals in my mind) but it is pure hypocracy on the left…
didn’t you hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth? a jesus movie?!? that will never make any money… WRONG!!! $200 million MORE THAN 99% of the liberal SHIT hollywood constantly tries to shove down the public’s throats…
The progressive liberal left would rather ban everything and have us use neutral language for everything. Happy holidays. What holiday? Chrismahanakwanzika day of course.
It’s funny they connect violence to video games (yes, violence never existed before video games).
certainly the liberals were wailing that it wouldn’t make any money, Mel didn’t listen and made the movie he wanted to make. A slasher flick. The highest grossing R film in history.
The highest grossing Jesus movie in history. The Horny jesus only made 100 million. The gory Jesus made over a billion dollars.
As for happy endings… it’s got the happiest doesn’t it? Mankind is saved by believing in christ?
sure… violent slasher flick… try to deny it for what it was…
millions of fools believe in that story… that violent story as it was told in the book with the biggest amount of copies in the history of publication…
that must burn any good marxist’s sensibilities…
you mean one zombie movie isn’t as good as another zombie movie?
“Mankind is saved by believing in christ?”
LMAO… too bad mankind couldn’t be saved by enslaving themselves to the communist ideal good…
At most, I’d espouse for voluntary socialism. Freedom utmost is the best ideal to espouse.
I prefer zombie games.
But, that’s hardly a “liberal” thing, remember my post above, if the TRUE hard-lining liberal had their way both the passion and other zombie content would be censored.
I’m a hardliner against censorship of any kind wether it come from the right or left.
too bad most of them have already enslaved themselves to the capitalist idea of “buy, buy, buy”
Always looking for the next shiny bauble, aren’t we?
scythekain:I’m assuming you think I espouse communism.
IMP: LMAO… too bad mankind couldn’t be saved by enslaving themselves to the communist ideal good…
scy: “too bad most of them have already enslaved themselves to the capitalist idea of “buy, buy, buy”
Always looking for the next shiny bauble, aren’t we?”
Kropotkin: I think Scythekain has a point here, this consumerism
fetish. The requirement of being a good citizen is not one who votes,
or participates in civil society, but the one who buys the latest shiny
baubles. The vision bush want to push on the mid east, is not
about voting or civil rights or freedom, that vision is about
exporting American consumerism to the mid east.
It is about companies and mass production and mass
consumerism. It is about the empty promise of consumerism.
If you buy my shiny bauble, you will have … popularity, dates,
wealth, friends, status, any number of false and empty
promises. They are false because unlike the car commercials,
if you buy a truck you won’t get the pretty girl next door, or
if you just try our body spray, you will suddenly have women throwing
themselves at you. reality is a bit harsher. In the end, in the
consumerism society, all you are left with, is the shiny baubles.
Is shiny baubles really the meaning and basis of life?
in my opinion no. But you can’t force people to think that. And let me ask you? do you:
Buy all your clothes at the local goodwill, st. vincent de paul?
Buy only used cars and when they breakdown fix them?
Repair your shoes instead of buying new ones?
Have the same computer for the last 10 years?
Chances are you buy shiny baubles somewhere. Does that mean you make them the basis of your life? Probably not. But I’m holding you to the same standard I held Uccisore and thirst too. Do you practice what you preach?
btw, my clue that you don’t is that you’ve seen these commercials.
my personal favorite “body spray” commercial is when the women are humping the drain pole of the showering guy on the top floor. Axe appeals to the “ultra-male” I talk about in the “moral homosexual” thread.
Scy, I have gone through many phases of my life.
I have been poor, homeless poor. I have had situations whereas
I had no money and one medium jar of peanut butter to
last me three weeks. Today we are well off, better then
the average bear. We can afford to buy the finer things in
life, but we don’t. Now tomorrow, the big earthquake may
strike and we might lose everything we own.
I would be ok with it because it is beyond my control.
A shiny bauble is just that, and it doesn’t reflect what is
really important in life.
xanderman:
Opening this up to a wider consideration: When is it better to
risk disaster than to accept mediocrity?
Kropotkin: The problem with this question is, disaster and
mediocrity mean different things to different people.
One other thing is “going for it, to risk disaster” means different
things at different ages. What I would have considered risking
disaster in my twenties is different now that I am almost 50.
You get safe and cushy in your older years plus as you get older
you can see the cost of a bad choice. For example cheating
on my wife with a beautiful women sounds like fun, but the cost
is not worth it.
It could all depend on the consequences. When do you risk disaster rather than settle for mediocrity? When the consequnces are worth it. Of course our predictive powers are usually less than Carnac the Magnificent.
