Capitalism is the most effective means to distribute resources. Under capitalism, creativity and innovation are rewarded
this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2024
45 points (100.0% liked)
movies
22542 readers
42 users here now
Rules for Movies & TV Discussion
-
Any discussion of Disney properties should contain a (cw: imperialism) tag. If your post isn't tagged appropriately it will be removed.
-
Anti-Bong Joon-ho trolling will result in an immediate ban from c/movies and submitted to the site administrators for review.
-
On Star Trek Sunday only posts discussing how we might achieve space communism are permitted. Non-Star Trek related content will be removed and you will be temporarily banned until the following Sunday.
Here's a list of tons of leftist movies.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
But in return you get five more 90 Day Fiance spinoffs!
I think about how reality television has totally perverted the already deranged minds of Hollywood. I think due to the sheer cost-benefit of a reality show. They are dirt cheap to make, and you can get advertisers. It cost like $12 to make an episodes and they can get like $250 worth of ad buy-ins. Also all the labor is non-union, "unskilled" talent on screen, and you can probably edit and mix them in an afternoon.
Reality TV I would say is the "Capitalist's art". if that makes sense.
(Your analysis is correct but i am special interestdly compelled to protest weakly that Survivor is cool and would still exist under socialism. Ok proceed)
(I have never seen an episode of Survivor (and similar shows), but I would imagine game-shows/challenge shows would probably still exist under socialism. People can and should have fun, and would imagine that sort of television would be still be made for people who want to partake. Though I imagine it would be better cause the people who know how to make good TV would ideally be more involved with the process rather than the suits)
It just seems like ideal show format from a Producer's standpoint. You don't have to pay for anything. You get the subjects to sign some weavers and everything else is just getting cameras, microphones, and locations setup. All of which they don't have to pay for, and can profit off of. They take zero risk get all the reward, like true slimeball capitalists do. Then they pat themselves on the back for their "revolution" in television.
There is really no "creative" vision for a reality show, they is no authorship or intent, it's really an exercise in "framing" which capitalists are sadly rather good at. They simply control what the eye of the camera looks at (because they own it) and they let the subjects do whatever its is the camera wants them to do. Reality shows are the "content" of television.
There is really no "creative" vision for a reality show
Not as much as with scripted television of course but I will make the small objection that there is some degree of art to rtv.
Editing the raw footage down to followable storylines is a big part of the creation of a Survivor, Big Brother, TAR, The Challenge, The Mole, The Traitors ect episode. And i think theres an art to that.
Casting too, and game and challenge design, has an art to that. And the best rtv shows have featured some really fascinating moments of human psychology and drama. Its sort of like pro wrestling to me where its lowest points are terrible, it tends to have a low base average, but its highest points can transcend the medium. Pro graps is more easily defensible as an art though.
Youre otherwise correct though. Rtv exists and is sucessful largely because it is cheap to make. And theres really not much redeemable about Discovery stuff.
And im not going to pretend Im above stuff that is just outright trash TV and wont defend it as high art. I loved the Flavor of Love era of VH1 lol.
In the race to produce the cheapest possible bilge, I suspect a lot of the professionalism that makes rtv shows good is getting thrown out the window right along with the higher production value art. Sort of like how every iteration of "Walking Dead" (plus the eighty hours of "Talking Dead" and associated behind-the-camera filler) got incrementally worse as they just tried to reanimate the corpse of a popular original.
It all just become a copy-of-a-copy-of-a-copy assembly line crap, because the producers thought they could squeeze a bit more blood out of the stone.
This is largely true yes. The spark of originality that made the original Survivor so special is mostly dead. They dont even change locations anymore. Its just Fiji every single year because thats cheaper. I still enjoy the show, but yeah its much more of a product now.
it wouldnt be survivor, it'd be an experimental archaeology/ecology show where they build a sustainable "primitive" village and we get to cheer for the ripening tomatos, and watch ducks eat slugs.
you can give it a polynesian theme. pretend the group just arrived on a new island.
The social strategy game of Survivor would exist, even if not with that brand. Ill make sure of it.
My folks consume that garbage like Halloween candy, it's so infuriating 
The fact you can get a tax break for just deleting art is insane. I don't understand how anyone would want to work with WBD if their hard work can just get deleted from the world.
Lets just hope someone leaks it for the hell of it. I don't care if it is a good movie or not.
Not just a tax break from deducting the costs of completed films but a lot of these movies were partly produced with state and federal tax breaks for which they often receive credits which in turn can be sold to other parties.
Hexbear, looking at the Marvel Cinematic Universe: "Its absolute shit and if they make another of these awful movies every last one of these fuckers should be 
"
Hexbear, looking at the Bug Bunny Cinematic Universe: "Can't believe they threw away perfectly good slop".
I think throwing away a movie thats already been made into the garbage so it never sees the light of day is different then the initial decision to greenlight a movie in the first place. One is destroying art that already exists, the other is preventing a project from being made in the first place.
But yeah honestly the former has always been incorrect lol and Ive never been one to say that! Im an art maximalist. Plus I'm like probably the biggest MCU enjoyer on Hexbear. So...
I think throwing away a movie thats already been made into the garbage so it never sees the light of day is different then the initial decision to greenlight a movie in the first place.
I agree. And the "throw away a movie to claim the tax write-off" trick only really works when you're a new CEO with a bunch of old media in the hopper. WB can't do this for very long.
I just find it silly to be a fanboi for a movie you're never going to see. If Disney had trashed The Marvels or Quantumanium, this community would have been ecstatic.
Im an art maximalist.
I mean, the Hollywood model has been absolutely poisonous for the arts for ages. Losing a courtroom dramady about a cartoon character is ice cubes on the glacier.
the main difference is that when you trash a movie that's already complete, you're throwing away thousands upon thousands of labor hours
if a marvel movie got cancelled before production started i'd celebrate, if it got thrown out after it was completed, I'd feel really fuckin bad for all of the VFX artists, actors, and camera/sound folks that spent a chunk of their lives making the movie and now won't get any meaningful accreditation for it to help them move onto better projects than "buddy cop courthouse looney toons dramedy"
I dont think saying a movie being shitcanned is a bad thing is fanboing.
If Disney had trashed The Marvels or Quantumanium, this community would have been ecstatic.
I dont think they would have actually. We were mad about Batgirl iirc. Or I certianly was. And I didnt even think that movie was going to be good.
I think the difference is that they haven't been churning out multiple boilerplate Looney Tunes movies every year, and also the Wile E. Coyote movie is (presumably) not propaganda for the military-industrial complex.
Yeah "wile e coyote stars in a buddy comedy set in a courtroom" is such a thoroughly unique idea that I want to see it even if it's bad.
we should be very critical about how capitalism shapes the production of movies and art in general, and this is an example of the 'capitalist art creation machine' working against its stated purpose - according to capitalists, capitalism is supposed to breed innovation, not waste. it is supposed to create art, not cancel it. by pointing out when the capitalist's promises fail to manifest, we reveal the underlying contradictions of forces involved.
I disagree with your post but would like to acknowledge that WB hasn't done anything good with Looney Tunes since the 90s at least, probably longer.
I'm a sucker for a funny premise. You got me. It was almost enough to get me to watch space jam 2.