This is where the comparison with the NBA falls short

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: This is where the comparison with the NBA falls short

    Originally posted by MJ Scribe View Post
    And, not to be forgotten one of the funniest explanations of the process I've ever read. From DD Pro's very own, WC Martell... Sex in a Submarine. If you haven't seen it you have to check it out.

    http://sex-in-a-sub.blogspot.com/200...e-to-blog.html

    hope this is OK to post....
    Thnx for the link! Always enjoy Martell's blog, even if it is white text over black.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: This is where the comparison with the NBA falls short

      Originally posted by keithcalder View Post
      Alternate theory: you value different things than the huge portion of the global population that loves Twilight and Hunger Games. Because of this, you lack the critical ability to look at a large set of teenage love stories and identify which stories will have mass cultural appeal to that audience and which won't. As a writer, you don't like the feeling of not having any meaningful insight into an entire segment of pop culture, so you just label it all as crap that's easy to write if someone wanted to. Someone such as yourself, who is clearly more talented (by your own definition, naturally) than the hacks who are making millions.
      As a writer with the perfect ability to understand my own feelings, and dare I say feel them myself as well, don't try to get personal by projecting what you think they might be. Apparently, you are upset about the use of the term crap? Crap is what is immediately thrown away after digestion. Crap IS pop culture. McDonald's makes the best selling hamburger, is it really the best hamburger out there? Is that the best a hamburger can do? You really want money to be your judge? Do you pick the next movie you see based simply on how much it made over the weekend? Or you just care about who it's be sold to? Since money is your game.

      Franz Kafka died penniless and unknown, an amateur, he didn't make a dime off his writing. Who today hasn't heard of Kafka? Why does it persist? Tell me, who will remember Stephanie Meyer in five years? Ten? Twenty? Pop is what it is, it pops and then it's gone. Big deal.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: This is where the comparison with the NBA falls short

        But in any case, that and hunger games are children's books...they ain't supposed to last and they're movies that only got made because of an already established fanbase.

        Back to the topic...

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: This is where the comparison with the NBA falls short

          Originally posted by keithcalder View Post
          Alternate theory: you value different things than the huge portion of the global population that loves Twilight and Hunger Games. Because of this, you lack the critical ability to look at a large set of teenage love stories and identify which stories will have mass cultural appeal to that audience and which won't. As a writer, you don't like the feeling of not having any meaningful insight into an entire segment of pop culture, so you just label it all as crap that's easy to write if someone wanted to. Someone such as yourself, who is clearly more talented (by your own definition, naturally) than the hacks who are making millions.
          Very well put.

          Gets my goat when people take pops at writers like Stephenie Meyer, E.L James and Suzanne Collins.

          They are writers like us, I'm pretty sure none of them felt entitled to huge success, they've shown humility in receiving it, the former two never even wrote with publishing in mind.
          Script Revolution - A free to use script hosting website that offers screenwriters a platform to promote their scripts and a way for filmmakers to search through them.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: This is where the comparison with the NBA falls short

            I'm with mossbraker. Writers who have wide popular appeal, but are mocked by critics in their time, tend to be forgotten. Charles Dickens springs to mind as an obvious example.

            As a contemporary of Dickens, George Meredith, said:

            Not much of Dickens will live, because it has so little correspondence to life. He was the incarnation of cockneydom, a caricaturist who aped the moralist; he should have kept to short stories. If his novels are read at all in the future, people will wonder what we saw in them.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: This is where the comparison with the NBA falls short

              Originally posted by Mossbraker View Post
              Franz Kafka died penniless and unknown, an amateur, he didn't make a dime off his writing.
              You know why don't you? It's because he didn't have a memorable domain name. I also heard he missed his flights when meeting his NY publisher.

              In this modern tech age where a cop hitting a girl will be seen by millions in a matter of hours, I believe it's very difficult to be a genius and not be spotted by someone who wants to exploit you.

              The problem is, we're all raised to believe we're all geniuses and everyone/thing around us to be stupid, gutter level trash -- then cite Van Gogh's life as an example why our genius will remain undiscovered.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: This is where the comparison with the NBA falls short

                It's eminently easy to see how a movie can turn out bad - even with good material and intentions.

                Now having seen one made up close, the only thing I can liken it to is what it must be like fighting a battle. You have a plan, you put it into action, then reality and chance of all different kinds fights you back. Little setbacks can have a snowball effect, relationships can sour, things that seemed feasible can prove to be the opposite and suddenly you're overrun by "the enemy". But it's pretty bloody hard to push the pause button - the juggernaut is in motion and can't be stopped easily.

                I'm not saying I'll never criticise a movie again, but I will understand that bringing it all together is a tightrope walk. It's made me appreciate the brilliant ones even more.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: This is where the comparison with the NBA falls short

                  Originally posted by Reg Thorpe
                  Thank you for proving my point, a55hole.

                  May I have another?
                  Let's be honest. You kinda asked for it...

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: This is where the comparison with the NBA falls short

                    You're seriously comparing Meyer to Dickens? Seriously? I mean...really?

                    Every writer is mocked at one point or another, nice cherry picking, but Dickens was pretty well received at the time. Paradoxically, The Tale of Two Cities was the one novel that was attacked by his readers and critics for its lack of humor and being too dark. It is now one of the best selling novels of all time.

                    Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
                    I'm with mossbraker. Writers who have wide popular appeal, but are mocked by critics in their time, tend to be forgotten. Charles Dickens springs to mind as an obvious example.

                    As a contemporary of Dickens, George Meredith, said:

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: This is where the comparison with the NBA falls short

                      Dickens was largely viewed as populist twaddle, especially at the end of his career and after his death.

                      My point is that those critics were just as sure that he was pablum as you are that Meyer is. Who's wrong? Who's to say?

                      Yes, McDonalds makes the most popular burger of all time. And The Beatles are the most popular band of all time. Popularity is no infallible indicator of quality, or lack thereof.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: This is where the comparison with the NBA falls short

                        Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
                        Dickens was largely viewed as populist twaddle, especially at the end of his career and after his death.

                        My point is that those critics were just as sure that he was pablum as you are that Meyer is. Who's wrong? Who's to say?

                        Yes, McDonalds makes the most popular burger of all time. And The Beatles are the most popular band of all time. Popularity is no infallible indicator of quality, or lack thereof.
                        This is off topic, but your post got me thinking:

                        It's my understanding that the critical reception of Dickens (in his time) was decidedly mixed, with some heaping near-hyperbolic praise and others being dismissive. From what I've read in CD biographies, the modern-day critical appraisal of J.K. Rowling would probably be a decent parallel to that of CD.*

                        I'm less sure about the comparison to Meyer, who is pretty roundly dismissed by critics.

                        There's this romantic idea that authors who are dismissed by contemporary critics may one day have their genius recognized, but I'm not sure if there are any true examples of that. There were certainly *controversial* authors whose admirers finally won out over their detractors, and there were critically-praised-but-unpopular authors who are now more widely read. There are also once-hugely-esteemed authors now largely forgotten (does anyone read Edna Furber anymore?).

                        But this populistic idea that the masses can be better judges of quality than the stuffy academics who would be villains in a Robin Williams movie-- I'm not sure if history truly supports that. (I'm being purposefully equivocal here, as I'm genuinely not fully certain-- but I suspect that work generally regarded as dreck in its time doesn't de-dreckify much with age.)


                        *At the end of Dickens' life, sure, he was dismissed by a younger generation who considered his work hoary and old-fashioned-- but I think that's in the same way that Einstein was dismissed at the end of his life by emerging quantum physicists; that is, every generation has to, in some ways, reject what came before, but with the (often unspoken) knowledge that the work they're rejecting is nevertheless fine in its way and will almost certainly last.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: This is where the comparison with the NBA falls short

                          A 7-footer trying to get in NBA is competing against other 7-footers who might play same position.--Not much competition therefore most 7-footers are almost guaranteed a shot even without being very skilled. Hell, in terms of basic b.ball skills (shooting,dribbling) most 7-footers suck worse than average high school baller. there are exceptions and those bigmen with skills usually become all time greats.

                          As height decreases the amount of competition increases and it requires more skill to make the team.

                          Height is a built in filter to reduce the amount of competition for getting into the NBA, making it easier for certain body types.

                          Screenwriting has no such filter to reduce amount of competition. all that is requied is basic reading/writing skills and a writing instrument. That means there are going to be way too many applying for very few jobs. Unfortunately there is no quick eye test like height or a painting to tell if someone has talent in screenwriting. the only way to find out is to crack open the pages (which takes way too long).

                          Imagine if NBA scouts had to give every 5'9" man or woman who wanted to play center a tryout. The numbers would be both astronomical and unmanageable, which is the current problem with screenwriting, way too many people trying out for positions they're not suited for. Some of those 5'9" people might have mad skills, even better than a 7-footer, but they're just not right for the position, which I think also happens in screenwriting. Some aspiring writers have talent but they are writing stuff that just won't sell/doesn't have mass appeal.

                          But most aspiring screenwriters need to go do something else, plain and simple. They need to look in the mirror and honestly judge what their "screenwriting height" is. Am I a 7-foot screenwriter or more of a 5'9" writer, which are a dime a dozen. 7-foot screenwriters are those with built-in connections, those who can succeed without all that much talent. 5'9" screenwriters are those with no built-in advantages and must outshine solely on their skills and talent. Look at how much better Iverson, Nate Robinson, or Spud Webb are than others of their same height. Is your screenwriting standing out on that level, or is it just another script in the sea of average height players displaying only a pretty good talent level?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: This is where the comparison with the NBA falls short

                            Originally posted by AnyOtherName View Post
                            There's this romantic idea that authors who are dismissed by contemporary critics may one day have their genius recognized, but I'm not sure if there are any true examples of that.
                            John Kennedy Toole? Couldn't even get his work published to get criticized. The aforementioned Kafka? Attracted very little attention for his writing during his life.

                            It happens in music all the time - Pinkerton, anyone?

                            It happens with movies as well. Duck Soup bombed so badly it got the Marx Brothers fired from their studio. Vertigo bombed and was tepidly received.

                            I think examples don't spring to mind because if a movie is remembered positively, people don't think "oh, but critics didn't like it in the day." That fact is usually lost to history, or at least it doesn't become part of the public consciousness...

                            But this populistic idea that the masses can be better judges of quality than the stuffy academics who would be villains in a Robin Williams movie-- I'm not sure if history truly supports that.
                            I'm just saying that popularity is no perfect indicator of quality. People love stuff that critics hate. People love stuff that critics love. You can't look at something popular and say "popular = pop = McDonalds = dreck." IMHO.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: This is where the comparison with the NBA falls short

                              Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
                              John Kennedy Toole? Couldn't even get his work published to get criticized. The aforementioned Kafka? Attracted very little attention for his writing during his life.

                              It happens in music all the time - Pinkerton, anyone?

                              It happens with movies as well. Duck Soup bombed so badly it got the Marx Brothers fired from their studio. Vertigo bombed and was tepidly received.

                              I think examples don't spring to mind because if a movie is remembered positively, people don't think "oh, but critics didn't like it in the day." That fact is usually lost to history, or at least it doesn't become part of the public consciousness...



                              I'm just saying that popularity is no perfect indicator of quality. People love stuff that critics hate. People love stuff that critics love. You can't look at something popular and say "popular = pop = McDonalds = dreck." IMHO.

                              Oh, I didn't mean to suggest I was taking issue with the (obviously correct) point that popularity doesn't in-itself say much about a work's long-term prospects.

                              I think what I meant to say was that the unique combination of "public likes/critics hate" doesn't tend to evolve into "public likes/critics like" (or at least, no examples of that immediately spring to mind).

                              I don't know why the combination of "public hates/critics hate" seems to bode better for the long-term prospects of a work (relative to "public likes/critics hate"), but, as in the examples you cited, it does.

                              Two possible explanations: a) perhaps critics, for all their strong-mindedness, don't tend to enjoy being on the "wrong" side of overwhelming popular opinion and adjust their opinions accordingly; or b) perhaps there are simply multiple reasons for things to be popular, and the things that keep, say, "The Lord of the Rings" popular are simply better (from a critical perspective) and thus more lasting than the things that make, say, "Fifty Shades of Grey" popular.

                              My point was, people sometimes make the argument that critics are a bunch of fuddy-duddies whose views will have less predictive power about the longevity of a work than will its popular reception-- and I'm not sure that that argument is well-founded in history. When critics get it wrong (and they do), the public tends to be complicit, but when the public and critics are out-of-sync, I propose that historically, the critics tend to be proved "right."

                              (I know this is all academic and of little consequence; I'm just trying to test the theory, and I appreciate your playing along.)


                              EDIT 4:07 p.m.: I should note that there are, obviously, an overwhelming number of examples of "critics like/public hates" works sinking into obscurity. So when I wrote that public-critics dissonances tend to resolve in favor of critics, I was biting off more than I intended to chew-- it's only in instances of "critics hate/public likes" that I see the critical consensus as proving more predictive of a work's longevity. [I sense this argument becoming more and more a) depressing, and b) remote.]
                              Last edited by AnyOtherName; 02-11-2013, 04:12 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: This is where the comparison with the NBA falls short

                                Hindsight is 20-20.

                                When something lasts the test of time, and you're looking at it from the future, then yeah it's becomes clear why they have became classics. And the people who were right -- their opinions become crystal.

                                I doubt the critics of the Dickens era predicted that his works would be read in schools and spawn movies that are shown in the holidays every. fucking. year.

                                I don't know what the exact feelings are of around that time since I wasn't born then, but who's to say they weren't similar to the way people feel about TWILIGHT now.

                                Who knows, maybe readers in 2100 might say, "Oh yeah, TWILIGHT, the story that changed the vampire genre by romanticizing it for the mainstream. I can see why teenagers today still love it." And this very debate is repeated, with "TWILIGHT" being drawn comparatively and why the very popular "SUPER ROBOT LOVER MASOCHIST YEAH!" won't last.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X