TROR
Well-Known Member
I’m sorry growing up scares 20 to 40 year olds so much.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
The Miscellaneous Thought Thread
- Thread starter mickEblu
- Start date
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Yes, attacking some ill defined group of others is a true sign of maturity.
Curious Constance
Well-Known Member
Not all art has to be at the same level, does it? I hate Manga (like seriously hate it) but that doesn’t change that someone with more talent than I, or most average people, created it. And it’s art even though I hate it. Most people criticize Thomas Kinkaid’s art as bring garbage, but that doesn’t change the fact that very few can actually come close to replicating what he could. (Plus the guy peed in the backyard at dinner parties!!!!!)
Not all art is created equally, not everyone will appreciate all forms of art, and regardless of what you think about a group of people who enjoy a certain kind of art, it doesn’t change that it’s all in the general category of art.
And who cares if comic books don’t come
close to the same level of depth and talent as Shakespeare? It all can be appreciated for what it is by all sorts of people. Not just the comic book guy from The Simpson’s type guys. Sometimes you might want to pick up a book that will change that way you think about life, sometimes you might want to be entertained for a couple hours at the movies, it’s all relative, but it’s all art. Even the kind you don’t like. Besides bro, if comic book movies aren’t art, then most definitely neither is Star Wars!
TROR
Well-Known Member
I don't think I even said "comic books aren't art," just that they aren't legitimate or for adults. Which they aren't, and I'll say the same for theme parks, Disney classics, and for Star Wars. These are things designed for children that adults can also enjoy because they're good and share universal truths. I'm sure there are some Superman comics that can do this, as well, but nobody wants to admit they're actually for kids which results in disgusting displays of sexualization and violence to prove how "adult" they are, instead showcasing how childish the authors' and artists' brains actually are.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
You claimed they’re not art in your first post. And since you like Disneyland it sees you too are a baby in your 20s who refuses to grow up.
TROR
Well-Known Member
The difference is I don't pretend Disneyland is anything more than good children's content.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
So you’re just a cliche hipster being ironic. How sophisticated.
TROR
Well-Known Member
I’m a guy who hates immorality glorified and written off as being “adult” when that’s the most childish thing there is.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
You’re a guy who keeps changing his position because he attacked an entire medium and its consumers, something you rightfully identified as bigoted when rephrased towards something you like. But do go on about the inherent immorality of The Family Circus.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
No violent imagery played for laughs here.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
So is it just me or did a recent site update make Dark Mode so much better. I think so...
No Name
Well-Known Member
Firmly believing that something is objectively better or worse than something else is often times shallow-minded.
Someone could theoretically argue that Inside Out Emotional Whirlwind is better than Rise of the Resistance. I would heavily disagree, but arguments generally stem from the fact that different attributes hold different value to different people. If someone thinks that bright colors, outdoor kenetics, lack of faux weathering, lack of preshows, shorter time, easier to get on, etc. are very valuable to a good theme park attraction, and those outweigh the attributes of RotR, then they may think IOEW is better. They’re not wrong. This is an extreme example to demonstrate a point, and most things require less of a deviation in values. For example, I could probably find real people to argue that the IncrediCoaster is better than RotR.
If the CEO of the company values movie IP heavily in theme park attractions, well, that’s an opinion that may cause eons of discussion on a website somewhere.
If the CEO thinks that the majority of people value movie IP in attractions to a certain extent, he is either objectively right or wrong, and whether he’s right or wrong will also cause sons of discussion on that same site.
Someone could theoretically argue that Inside Out Emotional Whirlwind is better than Rise of the Resistance. I would heavily disagree, but arguments generally stem from the fact that different attributes hold different value to different people. If someone thinks that bright colors, outdoor kenetics, lack of faux weathering, lack of preshows, shorter time, easier to get on, etc. are very valuable to a good theme park attraction, and those outweigh the attributes of RotR, then they may think IOEW is better. They’re not wrong. This is an extreme example to demonstrate a point, and most things require less of a deviation in values. For example, I could probably find real people to argue that the IncrediCoaster is better than RotR.
If the CEO of the company values movie IP heavily in theme park attractions, well, that’s an opinion that may cause eons of discussion on a website somewhere.
If the CEO thinks that the majority of people value movie IP in attractions to a certain extent, he is either objectively right or wrong, and whether he’s right or wrong will also cause sons of discussion on that same site.
Practical Pig
Well-Known Member
The insistence that a personal subjective opinion is actually objective truth is a manifestation of extreme egotism.
Last edited:
No Name
Well-Known Member
The amount that people value a certain attribute follows a distribution, and at the peak (the mode) of that distribution is where common consensus lies. This then becomes a feedback loop as generations are raised in that society, further tightening that distribution (lowering the standard deviation), which essentially solidifies this stuff. That’s why humanity is not perfect and is seen to have improved over time.
Whether you think the point at which it ultimately should solidify has been pre-defined by a higher power that guides humanity through the process, well that’s getting into religion, and is better for a different section of the forum. But the above paragraph is generally accepted social science.
Either way, we’ve gone down a similar road before. Getting this across, on a discussion forum, to someone who is arguing an opinion in objectivity, is quite frankly something I’m not skilled enough or smart enough to do, if I even had the time. Oh well. If we are ever coworkers or friends or anything, I know not to give you comic books!
truecoat
Well-Known Member
Watchmen or The Dark Knight Returns.
truecoat
Well-Known Member
I'm wondering if someone jumped off the roof of the house with a towel around his neck only to find a broken ankle on the other side. On the way to the ER, comics were found to be dumb.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Both have violence and the Comedian is not a good guy so they’re out.
Rich T
Well-Known Member
Oh, Tror, stop being such a devil’s advocate!
Comic books, films, theme parks, pop music, television, and —yes—narrative-driven video games are all capable of telling stories that can touch people emotionally and even lead to a new avenue of interest and growth.
Are they Hamlet? No. But they generally touch more people than Hamlet. And no one except PR departments, Uber-nerds and George Lucas on PBS are claiming pop culture is on the same level as the literary greats.
Stephen King once compared his novels to Big Macs. And he’s fine with that.
200 years from now, Hamlet, Tom Sawyer and Oliver Twist will still be around. So will Wonderland and Oz. And, just maybe, Superman and Batman. Not on the same level, but all filling important roles. All are art, created by artists. People’s Imaginations like to be fed and awoken by many different forms of storytelling, and no medium should be considered unworthy.
The superhero genre does nothing for me, but I have many Intelligent family members who find the MCU thrilling. I understand the frustration of “serious” film makers, but the fault doesn’t lie with
genres or audiences; the fault lies with studios unwilling to take risks.
Phroobar
Well-Known Member
Totally agree.Oh, Tror, stop being such a devil’s advocate!
Comic books, films, theme parks, pop music, television, and —yes—narrative-driven video games are all capable of telling stories that can touch people emotionally and even lead to a new avenue of interest and growth.
Are they Hamlet? No. But they generally touch more people than Hamlet. And no one except PR departments, Uber-nerds and George Lucas on PBS are claiming pop culture is on the same level as the literary greats.
Stephen King once compared his novels to Big Macs. And he’s fine with that.
200 years from now, Hamlet, Tom Sawyer and Oliver Twist will still be around. So will Wonderland and Oz. And, just maybe, Superman and Batman. Not on the same level, but all filling important roles. All are art, created by artists. People’s Imaginations like to be fed and awoken by many different forms of storytelling, and no medium should be considered unworthy.
The superhero genre does nothing for me, but I have many Intelligent family members who find the MCU thrilling. I understand the frustration of “serious” film makers, but the fault doesn’t lie with
genres or audiences; the fault lies with studios unwilling to take risks.
What makes me mad is if superheroes and comic books are such a popular hip thing, why can't I find a comic book store anywhere? Why have all the comic book stores closed? You would think they would be packed with people. However, they are as hard to find as Star Wars figure at Walmart.
Most media today is the equivalent of fast food or maybe basic dinner time meals. Very little out there is filling and nourishing for the soul. That goes especially for theme parks.