Academic art wankery, and people with niche interests to a lesser extent. >The first hates things that don't try to achieve their ethereal, unappealing philosophic ideal of art >The second hates how their interests are lost among so much mainstream content, and hates when the stuff they like is adapted but loses some of it's uniqueness for the sake of mass appeal
>appeal to one specific niche >write the perfect story for that audience, doing things that would be unappealing to most people >that audience is left as satisfied as possible >everyone outside that audience will likely hate it
vs >appeal to as many people as possible >write a story that doesn’t contain anything that might be unappealing to anyone >final product is bland, leaving the entire audience slightly unsatisfied but not enough to hate it
Mass appeal is what you go for to make money, not to make a good product.
But they don't need to be expensive. 50 million is enough of a budget for any genre, especially if you use some new talent instead of hiring some jackass for 10 mil.
I know it's hard to imagine because as a Zoomer you grew up in this era, but there used to be a range of movies of various sizes that catered to various different audiences. There's been a lot written about the death of mid-range movies and the shift of the industry to almost total reliance on mass-appeal mega-budget blockbusters over the last two decades. It wasn't always like this.
But in the prologue of the first movie didn’t she look normal? Unless you’re saying she was so thirsty for Mr. Incredible that she completely changed her personality for him.
But in the prologue of the first movie didn’t she look normal? Unless you’re saying she was so thirsty for Mr. Incredible that she completely changed her personality for him.
Could be her punk look was in her early 20's and then she grew out of it
I always assumed it was a phase after she met, but before she was with Bob. When we see her first meet Bob, she feels like a country/small town gall who just moved to the big city. Maybe she tried to reinvent herself after that, having a country bumpkin complex, resulting in the punk look.
Do you not understand why or arguing the opposite or what?
They're considered bad because they are. Or rather, boring to be exact. The average person is an easily offended dumbass. So when a studio decides to make a product for the masses, they make it as simple and bland as possible. Since a ticket for a movie costs the same regardless of whether a person rates it highly or not, they will always make more money producing mass appeal shit (as long as it's not aggressively bad and word of mouth kills it). Their perfect sweet spot is a 5/10 movie that is a 5/10 for everyone. Rather than a movie that will polarize people and be a 10 for some and a 1 for others (those too offended or too confused, for example).
"bad" is a subjective term.
If a writer has a morel or pet message they want their work to convey, then mass appeal is the death of that. A good story should have a certain amount of clear focus on the subject, but something made with mass appeal will be cluttered with distractions that take up the valuable time and energy.
I don't like them dumbing down shit too much. It's condescending and often leads to awfulness.
Because there are eight billion people in the word and I care about like, twenty of them.
Twenty is a lot, anon. Good you care about so many. Connections are important to keep us going.
>packers shirt
Academic art wankery, and people with niche interests to a lesser extent.
>The first hates things that don't try to achieve their ethereal, unappealing philosophic ideal of art
>The second hates how their interests are lost among so much mainstream content, and hates when the stuff they like is adapted but loses some of it's uniqueness for the sake of mass appeal
>appeal to one specific niche
>write the perfect story for that audience, doing things that would be unappealing to most people
>that audience is left as satisfied as possible
>everyone outside that audience will likely hate it
vs
>appeal to as many people as possible
>write a story that doesn’t contain anything that might be unappealing to anyone
>final product is bland, leaving the entire audience slightly unsatisfied but not enough to hate it
Mass appeal is what you go for to make money, not to make a good product.
Movies are expensive as frick so they NEED to make a lot of money.
But they don't need to be expensive. 50 million is enough of a budget for any genre, especially if you use some new talent instead of hiring some jackass for 10 mil.
I know it's hard to imagine because as a Zoomer you grew up in this era, but there used to be a range of movies of various sizes that catered to various different audiences. There's been a lot written about the death of mid-range movies and the shift of the industry to almost total reliance on mass-appeal mega-budget blockbusters over the last two decades. It wasn't always like this.
Anyone got that pic of punk elastigirl getting weirded out about her own baby?
I thought it was kinda funny
I think it was a set pic too
Is this it?
God I love her young design
Fun
It's such a stupid retcon, we saw how she looked like young, punk doesn't fit her character
The punk look was before she met Bob.
But in the prologue of the first movie didn’t she look normal? Unless you’re saying she was so thirsty for Mr. Incredible that she completely changed her personality for him.
Could be her punk look was in her early 20's and then she grew out of it
I always assumed it was a phase after she met, but before she was with Bob. When we see her first meet Bob, she feels like a country/small town gall who just moved to the big city. Maybe she tried to reinvent herself after that, having a country bumpkin complex, resulting in the punk look.
Do you not understand why or arguing the opposite or what?
They're considered bad because they are. Or rather, boring to be exact. The average person is an easily offended dumbass. So when a studio decides to make a product for the masses, they make it as simple and bland as possible. Since a ticket for a movie costs the same regardless of whether a person rates it highly or not, they will always make more money producing mass appeal shit (as long as it's not aggressively bad and word of mouth kills it). Their perfect sweet spot is a 5/10 movie that is a 5/10 for everyone. Rather than a movie that will polarize people and be a 10 for some and a 1 for others (those too offended or too confused, for example).
Everyone thinks they're the smartest, most sophisticated guy in the room.
>Why are shows/movies made for mass appeal considered a bad thing?
Because lot of them end up being shit. Bam boom end of thread.
Most of them are fine, you're just a pretentious nerd with his head up his ass.
"bad" is a subjective term.
If a writer has a morel or pet message they want their work to convey, then mass appeal is the death of that. A good story should have a certain amount of clear focus on the subject, but something made with mass appeal will be cluttered with distractions that take up the valuable time and energy.
every story has a message
Bevause the "general audience" is a myth.
because mass appeal means men like it
and thats bad