>"It's fun.">"As long as it's entertaining, it's good."These opinions are absolute dogshit...

>>131046492Jerry from Totally Spies?also: KKK catpcha

>>131046292Are you trying to be pretentious with a fucking simpsons memepic?

>>131047195>Analyzing stuff is good. It contributes to better creativity and critical thinking.I analyzed your post and conclude that you are a nonbinary child rapist.

>>131046292These threads don't even make sense because people here don't judge a work's quality by how fun it is, they deem quality by how not woke it is.

>>131046292Family Guy>the simpsonsall era's

>>131047195There's a stark difference between critically analyzing something like the works of Tolstoy versus analysing the plot of TMNT as an example. Not all media is created equally and is equally deserving of critical thought.

>>131047217That's a bad comparison because you're not the one telling the author to make the art for you. Unless you're getting a commission of some kind. You're not ordering art. The art is already there. Food isn't one of a kind. When you go to a restaurant you expect the same thing that you see on the menu, and would be rightfully dissatisfied if what you get isn't what's on the menu. With art, there is no menu. Each work of art is something new. So unless you plan to make your own art, it's the artist's job to determine what might make you satisfied, and in doing so must create something unique.

>>131047377Umm, what? Criticism isn't okay for certain pieces under your arbitrary rules? All art should be judged under the same metrics.

>>131047391The art is there, being shown to the consumer, because the artist,presumably, wants to make money. Do you think the networks just wanted to hand out free shows to simpletons like yourself? The menu is the channels/websites/etc. The shows advertise what they contain (comedy, action, drama, etc.) The creators want money, the customer wants something in return, you absolute dipshit. Hey, if you want to be some autist on Deviantart giving out your sonic hentai to everyone freely and pretending it's high art go for it though.

>>131046470>>131046963>>131047333>>131047377this is what consooming shit the MCU does to people

>>131046292Not everyone is going to have the doctorate in pretentious cuntology required to put into words why something is good. That doesn't mean good writing and art aren't important and having an effect, it just means they don't know why it does.

>agree that there should be more media literacy because people have the stupidest takes on really basic storytelling and its actively making things worse when artists have to dumb their shit down for those same people>at the same time everyone who talks about media literacy will in the same breath drop the most retarded take about how some hero's journey story is actually pro socialist anti neoliberal whatever the fuck, or completely miss the mark on why people don't like some shitty reboot and blame it on racist white men

Attached: 1645666026274.gif (600x432, 3.92M)

>>131046292Oh, you again retard? How long has it been, a month?

>>131047496Unless you're getting a commission, the customer has no input on what art they make. You're falsely equivocating these two things, retard. The moment that the artist cares about the feelings of the people, he stops being an artist.

>>131047509>implying people haven't gone to see stupid plays about drunk satyrs since the dawn of timeIf we were on a cave you'll be complaining about silly hunting tales instead of your high brow shamanic creation myths

>>131047649The customer absolutely has input you buffoon, if you think otherwise then you're even dumber than you sound now. You'd be making these supposed longwinded reviews to no effect. Imbecile!You want a burger? You to a burger place, order one, and consume it. You want to watch a show? You go to the website/channel/theatre, make a selection, and watch it. Now, we imagine these creators are going to continue making more of their show/burgers, but if it's shit they'll go out of business. They take feedback. Do you get it yet? Did it need to be so painfully spelled out for you?You pretentiously whine about feedback that lacks details, yet you're so dull witted you can't understand basic analogies.

>>131047781You're not ordering anything from the artist, you're getting something that was already produced. If it was already produced, you can check if it's something you want to spend your time and money on before you get it. Your food analogy is retarded and so are you.

>>131047830>You're not ordering anything from the artist, you're getting something that was already producedYou can say that about the first episode, but once it airs your show receives feedback. You could continue without listening, but then you'd be like a chef that can't handle customer criticism, a hack. As when you watch a new show, when you order the burger from the chef, you don't ACTUALLY know what you're going to get until it reaches the table. The burger could be undercooked, overcooked, covered in hair, etc. The show could be dry, full of filler, and any number of problems. Either way, you give feedback AFTER consuming the material, whether it was made by a chef or an artist.The analogy is fine, you're just an incredulous autist. If it were any more fitting, it wouldn't be an analogy anymore.

>>131048036>There is no difference between watching a show and giving feedback on it, to specifically telling a chef what you want and them making it poorly.Yeah, you're the autist here.

>>131048188Yeah we get it, you don't understand how analogies work and despite wanting detailed feedback you're incapable of both understanding or accepting when you yourself receive it. Literally everyone else here knows what was meant, you're a waste of time to talk to.

>>131048234No, you retarded downie. I'm saying that your analogy is shit, because it doesn't cover nearly the same variables as an artist to a chef. You tell the chef specifically what to make, and if they make it poorly, that's their problem. You're not telling the artist specifically how to make their show. You aren't telling the artist how to do anything. You tell the chef how you want your food done. How is this anywhere remotely comparable to you yourself selecting which shows you want to watch and giving feedback?

>>131046292Your b8 is stale. If not though>no fun allowed. All shows need to be equatable to modern art because of muh meaning.

>>131046292Those opinions are more intelligent than your own

>>131048322All stories have meanings and messages. Do you not understand the basics of storytelling?

>>131048274>You're not telling the artist specifically how to make their showThen what are you doing then? What is the point of giving feedback at all?You are, by far, the dumbest poster on this entire website.

>>131048351>Then what are you doing then?Telling them what's wrong with it. Not telling them how to make it specifically catered to your tastes because you specifically asked for it. I'm convinced you have downs.

this again?

Attached: IMG_4141.jpg (750x742, 58.28K)

>>131048371>Telling them what's wrong with it.Oh you mean , like when a chef makes you an undercooked burger and you complain?So you DO understand the analogy, you're just a turbocunt and that's why everyone here hates you.

>>131048392>Oh you mean , like when a chef makes you an undercooked burger and you complain?Yes, like when you specifically asked for the burger to be made a certain way and they didn't give you specifically what you wanted. An artist is not bound by this rule. They can make whatever they want regardless of feedback. Writers and Artists are writers and artists. They are not servers.

>>131048407>like when you specifically asked for the burger to be made a certain wayat what point was that said in the analogy? You know you can go to a restaurant and order a burger right? You don't have to specify anything particular. You're just twisting the analogy around because you don't like the point it made.You just want to be an obtuse cunt about everything.

>>131048448>at what point was that said in the analogy?I'm not required to follow your analogy if it's shit and is making an obviously wrong comparison> You know you can go to a restaurant and order a burger right? You don't have to specify anything particular.You tell the chefs how you want your food to be made, and what specific kind of food you want. You don't tell the artist what to make. >You're just twisting the analogy around because you don't like the point it made.No, I'm pointing out that the analogy is shit.

>>131048448The only way this analogy works is if you're specifically commissioning an artist and they don't give you what you want.

>>131048479>You tell the chefs how you want your food to be madeWhat, you go back into the kitchen and watch the beaner flip your burger to make sure it's right? I doubt it prick. You just say, "Give me the fatfuckfiller #3.", Paco scratches his asshole and gets to work. You eat your shit-tainted burger and you whine like a little bitch about it.Then you go home, say to yourself "I'm a pathetic manchild and I'm going to watch children's cartoons seriously". You watch underage lesbians kiss and get mad, go on twitter, and whine like a little bitch to the "artist".Does that analogy hit closer to home? In both positions you, the whiney fatfuck manchild, consumed products whose composition was predetermined. There you aspie, an even more detailed update to the analogy to suit your spergness. Now get butthurt, tell me that it's not the same, and fuck off because you're dull as fuck to talk to.

>>131046292If you want media to be more intellectual why not make it yourself? No one is stopping you from opening up word and type. If you don't like the media is being offered today just don't partake in it. Partake in the media you do like not what you dislike.

>>131048589>What, you go back into the kitchen and watch the beaner flip your burger to make sure it's right? I doubt it prick. You just say, "Give me the fatfuckfiller #3.", Paco scratches his asshole and gets to work. You eat your shit-tainted burger and you whine like a little bitch about it.You've never heard of steaks, fish, poultry, or any kind of meat that has differing cooking methods or deliveries? You can tell the chef "Hey I want this fried, or medium rare, rare." etc. Jesus Christ, you must really consoom McDonald's and the shittiest fast food, huh? The rest of your post is just some insane rambling.

>>131046292>"It's fun.">"As long as it's entertaining..."There is nothing wrong with having a guilty pleasure; "so bad it's good" is a thing for a reason.I actually like The Lorax (movie) and the Angry Birds Movie and I find this youtube.com/watch?v=93F077OMxtY&list=LL absolutely hilarious

>>131048639>if I go out of my way to add a bunch of extra, unrelated bullshit to the analogy it doesn't work anymoreImagine that, you were the problem the entire time! You're stupid.

>>131048764>If I point out how your analogy is shit, that makes it shit! Who wouldda thought.

>>131046292If a piece of media entertains you than it justifies the time you have spend consuming it

>>131048844>>131048322If it's thematically fulfilling with depth, tight writing and interesting scenarios. This is a shitty zoomer/millenial think from people with short attention spams that cannot distinguish literature from literally Tweets and Movie quips.Writing comes from big structures. It can be dry sometimes, it can be dense, and it can make you think, reflect or feel. It doesn't have to entertain you like dangling keys held over a stupid child.Your philosophy would work perfectly over at Marvel tho.

>>131048806Well now see, this just breaks down why your entire worldview on reviewing is steaming dogshit. You autistically over-analyzed a simple, working analogy, not even understanding the point or purpose of analogy, all the while making a pompous ass of yourself. You completely made shit up the author didn't even introduce and got mad about the shit you yourself fabricated. I wouldn't trust you to review cat food, your opinions are to be discarded.

>>131048900>You autistically over-analyzed a simple, working analogy, not even understanding the point or purpose of analogyNo, I pointed out that your attempt at an analogy doesn't work, because it's not similar at all. You still have yet to refute anything I've said instead of giving long winded seethe.

>>131048884>It doesn't have to entertain yousure, not all art has to be entertaining, but why is is bad for some of it to be?If I go outside and admire the scenery, am I wasting my time because there isn't some greater meaning about the human experience there.

>>131048984Stupid people don't understand they're stupid. They just make everyone around them miserable. You're wasting your time user.

>itt

Attached: 1622852392866.png (960x960, 103.05K)

Attached: the same threads over and over.png (800x600, 121.57K)

>>131048900Books, music, paintings, comics etc etc aren't food. Certain food can be an acquired taste. The problem however is that you can't eat a meal after you've eaten it to find new. The chef has to make a whole new meal which will have variations. You can listen to the same song or read the same book over and over again to gain deeper insight into it.If you want a steak done rare, you're supposed to get a steak done rare. If you want art to conform to exactly what you want, then it's predictable, and while there are worse things for art to be, predictable isn't good.

>>131047195>Mindlessly turning your brain off?Why not? If somebody just wants to enjoy something, what's so wrong with that?>It contributes to better creativitySome of the most creative people out there make stuff with no intended meaning at all, so I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that.>and critical thinking.If critical thinking was the end goal here, I think there'd be much better ways to do it than with comics or movies. Like maybe reading a book about epistemology or something. Should we ditch entertainment, then? No, there's a time for critical thinking and there's a time for fun. And sometimes those things can even overlap. But if the fun is just fun, I fail to see anything wrong with that.

>>131049059>Books, music, paintings, comics etc etc aren't food. I see special education DOES work. You figured that out at least.otherwise>the analogy about things we consume isn't perfect because you're comparing things that are made and consumed with another thing that's made and consumed!Analogies aren't supposed to be spot on 100.00%, if they were they wouldn't be analogies anymore. The more you drivel on, the dumber you sound. Stop wasting our time.

>>131049145You're the retard presenting a bullshit dichotomy. Not giving the audience what they want does not equate to making art everyone (or even most) would hate. Rather it's about giving them art that is creative and challenging and not shallow wish-fulfilment.

>>131047217People who make restaurant analogies should be publicly flagellated

>>131049079>Why not? If somebody just wants to enjoy something, what's so wrong with that?Enjoying something by mindlessly turning your brain off is bad. It kills any degree of fulfillment or any actual learning you could get out of media.>Some of the most creative people out there make stuff with no intended meaning at all, so I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that.This is a non sequitur >I think there'd be much better ways to do it than with comics or movies.This is always the same argument that people go down. "The entire medium is stupid for any actual learning because science books exist!" it's a retarded thought terminating cliche that negates any room for the medium to grow.

>>131049157You don't even know what a dichotomy is and you couldn't parse the obvious message of the original analogy. As I said, you just waste everyone's time. You're too stupid to have a productive conversation.

>>131049217You're too stupid to formulate an analogy.

>>131049217>>131049145I didn't realize food was entertainment. Analogies will never map 100%, but you should at least attempt to make a decent one. If you'd used damn near anything else that wasn't a good analogy. If we're going to stick with this stupid fucking food shit though, the chef at the orphanage isn't there to make what the orphans want. The chef is there to make what they NEED. A good and nutritious meal.

bazinga

>>131049214>It kills any degree of fulfillmentIf that was true, they wouldn't do it>or any actual learningre-read the last paragraph>>131049214>This is a non sequiturSo was your original statement. Creativity can manifest aesthetically and not just symbolically.>"The entire medium is stupid for any actual learning"Didn't say that. Just pointing out that there are much more educational things.>it's a retarded thought terminating cliche that negates any room for the medium to grow.>grow>by eliminating the entire aspect that makes people like the medium in the first place

>>131049592>If that was true, they wouldn't do itWouldn't do what? Most people don't have internal thought processes or creative processes>Re-read. Yeah, I've re-read it and that argument is retarded. It goes against the entirety of the history of storytelling. >by eliminating the entire aspect that makes people like the medium in the first placeMost people don't know dick about art in the first place.

>>131049592>by eliminating the entire aspect that makes people like the medium in the first placeAnd what aspect is that exactly? Mindless entertainment with no thematic substance, or depth?

>>131049694yeah. entertainment.gonna call a /thread on this one, that alright with you guys?

>>131049803It's a piece of media, not a carnival ride.

>>131047694You're on the Comics and Cartoons board, you autistic potato. 99% of comics and cartoons aren't "art", they're a product, made for existent audience. You either produce something that audience is going to want, or your product gets cancelled and replaced with something the people like better.

>>131049873a carnival ride is a piece of media. the medium is the ride, the work is all the stuff you use to decorate it.

>>131049901Does the audience have say in how art is made by the artist unless done via commission? Yes or no, retard.

>>131046292No.

>>131049938In the case of comics and cartoons, yes, the audience is the driving force to what gets published. You're stupid if you can't get this.

>>131049938indirectly, yes. there's just a middle man, who I'll call the "network". the network pays the artist to make art the audience will enjoy. if the audience does not enjoy the art, the network will stop paying for it.so yes, the audience does have a say.

>>131050063>>131050076Patently false. The audience is no influence in the making of a piece of art. You're not telling the artist what to draw.

bait

>>131050111Yeah, you're stupid. Everyone else gets this but you.

>>131046292>intellectualism>media literacyDid you know that the smartest people are often the most depressed? And since you're on Holla Forums, I'm going to assume you're talking about cartoons. Consider that you are just not the target demographic for a lot of cartoons out there. I'm not saying that "it's okay for it to be le bad because it's for kids", but what I'm saying is that there are just some things that you're not going to like that others will like, and that's okay. Neither is objectively wrong because the artistic medium of animation and art is extremely subjective. Yeah, maybe Sing 2 for example wasn't an "intellectual" or "artistic" movie, but it doesn't have to be. If it was fun and entertaining for the people who wanted to watch it than that's all that really matters in the end. Not everything has to cater to what you desire out of media.

>>131046292>"As long as it's entertaining, it's good."The only thing that matters for entertainment. You can be good, you can be hilarious bad but the worst thing you can be is boring.

>>131050154>The only thing that matters for entertainment. What matters for art is if it's thematically compelling with tight writing, substance and interesting scenarios. Not if it's "Entertaining"

>>131049938In comics, readers' letters were able to let the books' editors know what they did and didn't like, and that's been a thing forever, the internet age and social media have allowed the audience to have direct contact with the people who actually make comics and cartoons. The people making them are more aware than ever before what the audience do and don't want, and if they choose to do things they know the audience doesn't want, and get cancelled, they got what they deserved.They're also well aware they're employees creating a product, not creating "art" with any actual merit at all.

>>131050138>>131050214There are plenty of excellent series that are not successful at allwhilst most of the really suscessful shows are normie garbage.And the audience does not have control of what gets made.

>>131050249>normie garbage.Yes stupid. The normie shit appeals to a larger consumer base, thus they controlled what the artist made. The artist that didn't appeal to the audiences "normie" tastes don't get the steady paycheck.

>>131050330Then you have no understanding of Where my point is coming from and should stick to normie garbage

>>131050488I understand fine. You're just a stupid cunt.

>>131046292You are on an anonymous comics and cartoons board. Your thoughts on art are invalid as a result of even knowing this place exists.

>>131050529Nothing to say or argue about. You've said something that goes against the entire history of art and actual legitimate artists like Alan Moore have said.

>alan whoreyou continually find new ways to disappoint me

>>131050203>What matters for art is if it's thematically compelling with tight writing, substance and interesting scenarios.None of that matters if you don't know how to express that in an entertaining way. Make a movie where you just film your own writing on a piece of paper for hour and a half and nobody gives a shit if its the best story in the history of writing.

>>131050799>you've said something that goes against the entire history of art and actual legitimate artistsMe calling you a stupid cunt did all that? I don't think so.

>>131049676>Wouldn't do what?Turn their brain off when watching stuff.>Yeah, I've re-read it and that argument is retarded. It goes against the entirety of the history of storytelling.Hard to say, I'm not sure we can know the exact intention of whoever wrote Beowulf. It wouldn't really matter, though, since we live in an age where academic literature is highly accessible and so the only reason to go to something else is because you're after entertainment.

>>131046292"Intellectuals" are a tumor that need to be purged

>>131050979>Turn their brain off when watching stuffThen how about don't. Actually engage with media and get standards. >It wouldn't really matter, though, since we live in an age where academic literature is highly accessible and so the only reason to go to something else is because you're after entertainment.First of all, no we're not. There's plenty of places around the world in where academic literature isn't highly accessible. I don't even know how sheltered you'd have to be think this. You're just making excuses for your favorite medium to not develop any semblance of quality. Art used to be about life lessons, political views and future predictions. Why aren't you asking for anything better?

>>131050930It doesn't need to "entertain" you. It's a fucking piece of art. Not some carnival ride. This is why Scorsese laughs at you, you stupid manchild.

>>131051297>Then how about don't. Actually engage with media and get standards.They have standards, just different ones than yours.>There's plenty of places around the world in where academic literature isn't highly accessible.I'm talking about the U.S.>Art used to be about life lessons, political views and future predictions.Still is. But sometimes there's stuff that's just meant to be cool or fun and there's nothing wrong with that.

Who are you even quoting. People here care more if something is "pozzed" than if it's entertaining.

>>131051496>Scorsese didn't made those movies to entertain peopleImagine being this much of a retard

>>131051496aahahaha you're repeating the thing i said earlier but you changed the words because i outsmarted youtesticle ball nuts

>>131046292>"It's fun."Valid and legitimate.>"As long as it's entertaining, it's good."Invalid and illegitimate.You can like or enjoy things that aren't good.

>>131051653incorrect because really you just aren't allowed to enjoy things that I don't. Something something faggot "art" shit.

>>131051564>They have standards, just different ones than yours.If you turn your brain off, you don't have standards.>I'm talking about the U.S.Typical sheltered burger. >But sometimes there's stuff that's just meant to be cool or fun and there's nothing wrong with that.There is. It lowers the standards for everyone. When your "fun and entertaining" stuff has already taken over the industry in every way that matters, maybe it's about time "fun and entertaining" took the wayside.

>>131046292You are wrong. That is all this thread needs said.

>>131051709Godfather is fun and entertainingThe Birds is fun and entertainingSilence of the Lambs is fun and entertaining

>>131051709>maybe it's about time "fun and entertaining" took the wayside.Look at this fucking wet blanket. He's like some kind of goofy villain you'd make up for a low-budget kids tv show. Like here he is folks, Downo the Clowno and his night-school art theory degree.

>>131051796>He can't even argue anymore

>>131051709much of what is released today, especially for a normalfag audience, is neither fun nor entertainingyou know, a lot of work needs to go into something to even get to the point of "fun and entertaining". I write as a hobby, and I'd say about 80% of learning how to write is learning how to make it fun and entertaining. and that's to say nothing of every other aspect of production.

>>131051854Argue what? You have no clue what you're talking about. You're literally arguing for comics and cartoons to not be fun or entertaining, to put that to the "wayside"Come now, Downo the Clowno. Pitch us your pilot episode and make sure to tell the suits in charge how you don't plan on putting entertainment first, that it's about "art". Go on now, sell that to a network.

>>131051929>You're literally arguing for comics and cartoons to not be fun or entertaining, to put that to the "wayside" Strawman.

>>131051881Most people think marvel movies are "fun and entertaining".

>>131051980>When your "fun and entertaining" stuff has already taken over the industry in every way that matters, maybe it's about time "fun and entertaining" took the wayside.That's not you? Now now, you can't convince me there are two posters here with single digit iq. That's you my simple friend, shoving your foot right into your slack-jawed mouth.

>>131052037Yes. "Fun and entertaining" shouldn't be your only metric as to what makes something good. Nor should entertainment value. You have to be retarded to not understand.

>>131052036and a lot of work goes into them, even if they are shat out via assembly line

>>131052120Work doesn't equal quality. If something sucks it sucks.

>>131046470The group of people you're describing is very small

>>131052053Well, the part you can't get, is a simple objective fact. If your shit isn't "fun and entertaining", you might as well not bother. It literally comes first, whether you accept that or not doesn't change a thing. It's not going to the "wayside" there Downo.

>>131047195Yes but sometimes people want to watch trash and nothing is worse than some snarky midwit who thinks their smarter and more cultured than everyone else go off about how you shouldn't enjoy a fart joke or find some entertainment in a clearly average movie.

>>131051709>If you turn your brain off, you don't have standards.That doesn't follow.>Typical sheltered burger.America is the biggest movie country and second biggest comic country in the world, the country which most Holla Forumsntent originates from, and you're critiquing me for limiting the scope of my commentary on movies and comics to that one country?>When your "fun and entertaining" stuff has already taken over the industry in every way that matters, maybe it's about time "fun and entertaining" took the wayside.>NOOOOOOO PEOPLE CANT JUST ENJOY WHAT THEY WANT, YOU HAVE TO WATCH LE HECCIN DEEP AND SAD FRENCH MOVIES

>>131052159No it doesn't. Something doesn't have to "entertain" you like dangling the keys over a retarded toddler. Although i can imagine having a media diet consisting of nothing but mass produced slop would lead you to that conclusion.

>>131052140okay but that's not what we're talking about here.

hey you wanna know what happens when you watch your arthouse films or whatever you're into?you're entertained

>>131052187>Something doesn't have to "entertain" youIt does in entertainment industries you dolt. Go make a coffee-table book or maybe get a hobby you can actually understand.

>>131052208You want to know what happened to the player that hit a creeper?He blew up!

>>131052181>That doesn't follow. It does, you're just a retard if you can't follow that simple logic. >America is the biggest movie country and second biggest comic country in the world, the country which most Holla Forumsntent originates from, and you're critiquing me for limiting the scope of my commentary on movies and comics to that one country?Yes. Expand your horizons retard. >>NOOOOOOO PEOPLE CANT JUST ENJOY WHAT THEY WANT, YOU HAVE TO WATCH LE HECCIN DEEP AND SAD FRENCH MOVIESUnironically yes. It's also because Disney pushes other indie movies from actually talented film makers. It lowers the standards and the bar for the artform and for everyone.

>>131052228So your metrics for what makes something good is determined by corporate trends and an industry? You're corporately brain rotted.

>>131052243>Expand your horizons retardGive examples thenGive us recommendations that aren't "fun or entertaining"

>>131052260Strawman. I clearly explained it already, but I understand you're stupid and getting worse each post. Soon your tard wrangler will take away your device and put you down for a nap.

>>131052296>"The industry dictates that this is how movies should be, so I'll follow it!"That's not what you said, downie?

>>131052318No fool, that's why you couldn't directly quote me and instead you just followed up with yet another strawman. Try again, be a little less of a cunt.

>>131047217>>131049079>>131052336>“It is not the job of artists to give the audience what the audience want. If the audience knew what they needed, then they wouldn’t be the audience. They would be the artist. It is the job of artists to give the audience what they need.”lead by comparing art to food you'd eat at a restaurant>thereby immediately ruling out all art that seeks to challenge, discomfort, revolt, and speak to emotional and psychological fulfilment beyond the superficial instant gratification>i.e. most great art ever made in any mediumGood job illustrating his point genius.Great creative work comes from artists being inspired, not from the audience having the ideas and saying "make this for me, I can't be arsed". Audiences come to art because they want a look into another world that isn't just the inside of their own heads. And guess what OP - sometimes "masturbation made for the artist" ends up being widely loved anyway, or even just a cult favorite, if the artist has an interesting vision. Plenty of great film, literature, music, even some TV fits that description.As usual Moore is talking about something very straightforward and fundamental to the idea of self-expression, and massive tards are getting offended because they're stuck on whatever hollywood flick upset them last.

Attached: Alan Moore.jpg (1070x1119, 528.19K)

>>131052336>In the entertainment industry that's what matters. Did you not say this?

>>131052243>It doesNo, it literally doesn't. If it did then you could put anything on a screen, even something really philosophical, and they'd be glued for the whole thing. But they don't. Because they do have standards. Not better or worse than yours, but just different.>Yes. Expand your horizons retard.The fact that I'm talking about a subject as it pertains to America, when the subject itself is largely American, is only logical. Outside this conversation, I'd say my horizons are indeed quite broad.>Unironically yes.Seethe and cope, then.

Okay, but critic snobs need to understand that stories and storytelling aren't as clear-cut as their equally-snobby film teachers tell them it is. Media can be fun. Media can be disposable and pretty. Not everything needs to be Scorcesse-levels of crafting.

Attached: 1603890176521.jpg (1018x1018, 127.84K)

>>131052421>Because they do have standards. Not better or worse than yours, but just different.Worse standards, yes. Capeshit is the mark of someone with no standards. Funny how you equate being philosophical with boring, tells me a lot about your mental age. >American blah blah blah blah Comics aren't just American, retard. Expand your horizons outside of America. >Seethe and cope, then Over what? Having standards

>>131052378If you're going to make something for the entertainment industry, it should be entertaining. Is this some radical notion? Are you so dim you can't accept this? It's not that things OUGHT to be this way, it simply IS. Accept it. But more importantly, you should want your message or vision to also be entertaining, otherwise nobody is going to care!

>>131051881>you know, a lot of work needs to go into something to even get to the point of "fun and entertaining". I write as a hobby, and I'd say about 80% of learning how to write is learning how to make it fun and entertaining. and that's to say nothing of every other aspect of production.I'm a writer myself and this is nothing more than a pathetic thought terminating cliche and an ultra reductive view on writing.

>>131052553>I'm a writer myselfleather bar bathroom stalls don't count.

>>131052497>Worse standards, yes.To you.>Capeshit is the mark of someone with no standards.I don't think you know what a standard even is.>Funny how you equate being philosophical with boringWhen did I ever do that?>Comics aren't just American, retard.I said LARGELY American, which is LITERALLY true YOU ACTUAL FUCKING BRAINDEAD MONKEY AT A KEYBOARD.>Over what?The fact that le sad deep movies will never be as possible as superheroes punching each other.

>>131052547>He has no arguments left now except "BAAH JUST ACCEPT IT! THIS IS THE WAY IT IS!!" Fucking lol.

>>131052620Popular*

>>131046292This shit again?Entertainment's purpose is to ENTERTAIN. It's an added bonus if it gets you to think about life or consider things. There is nothing wrong with liking something just because it's fun.I think about Reggie Fils-Aime said once. Something like: "If it's not fun, then what's the point?"

>>131052553do elaborate

>>131052633I'll take that as a concession since you failed provide a proper rebuttal. I understand your weak will won't allow you to admit defeat properly, as a man would.

>>131052547>>131052692Because you're retarded. You're conflating engaging with entertaining.

>>131052664Because engaging doesn't equal entertaining. It's a reductive mindset.

>>131052662If your reaction to a background drawing is entertainment, you're a glue huffed.

>>131052707Well, there's your problem mouth-breather. You should go partake in the engagement industry instead. Swallow a cock you pedantic loser.

>>131052756What? I meant in terms of movies or tv shows. Not paintings or sculptures, which are meant to be enjoyed while also being thought about.

OP is intellectually bankrupt. How this board can complain about comics writers not being original when the same handful of threads are up every single day is beyond me. Where's the quote from Alan Moore for the twentieth time? Where's that stupid catgirl who's up to no good? Today we've got that moron dragging up his sick obsession with Baby Huey one more time. Holla Forums is dead.

Intellectualism is dead and has been for some time.

>>131052770You are the reason why Reddit is unironically much better than this board. No wonder 4chan is up for sale.

>>131052770Engage: to hold the attention of; to induce to participateEntertain: to provide entertainment (amusement or diversion provided especially by performers)Not exactly pedantic.

>>131052739>engaging doesn't equal entertainingyes, it does. when you are engaged and invested in a work, you are being entertained by it. unless you think "entertaining" means "constantly pumping dopamine through your head", in which case you have no business calling my post reductive.

>>131052828It is though. How do you plan on engaging your audience without entertaining or vice versa?

>>131052827>Reddit is unironically much better than this board.Then fuck off to there where you'll just be another tard looking for back pats.

>>131046292Most people who hate those views are pseudo intellectuals who think that all clever people do is endlessly dissect pop culture. Reality is such that not everyone wants to view high art. People who constantly point out that some culture is bad think they are clever for pointing out the obvious. People who dissect pop culture like to pretend to be clever because of social media and identity politics to feel better about themselves.

>>131052860OP is making a distinction without a difference. He'll never understand the mistake, no matter how you explain it.

>>131052847>>131052860Who's playing pedantic now? Engaging doesn't have to mean entertainment. People can enjoy things for a wide variety of reasons beyond the bare minimum

>>131052896If you enjoy something, it's entertaining you. You've hit peak stupid.

>>131052881Nah, watching your posts is like witnessing a multi-car pile up on an icy highway. It's fun in a morbid way.

>>131052896Enjoyment IS entertainment.

>>131052896>Who's playing pedantic now?you. I said "you have to put a lot of thought into something just to make it fun, it's far from mindless" and you said "no" and I said "why not" and then you starting splitting hairs over entertainment and engagement.