Febbuary filosophizing

[CelticRambler]

Inspired by @Nate North 's numbers thread and @James Rogers ' what is an artist question, here's another in the same vein:

Are we all wasting our time?

By "we" I mean those of us trying to do things "right" - the quest for perfection, being "the best" we can be in our chosen field, aiming high, not settling, etc, etc. In the technical pages of this forum, many thousands of words have been written on the importance of good lighting, clean sound, well-crafted narratives ... and yet the Great All-Consuming Public doesn't really seem to give a damn about any of it.

At least not if one can judge by the apparently unquenchable appetite for YouTube "content" recorded in dire conditions, reality TV pseudo-contests that shoe-horn random "celebrities" (and others) into pre-packaged "drama" and 24-hour rolling news coverage that re-broadcasts the same shows-nothing blurry, shaky mobile phone footage of one event in one place three times a minute for two hours while ignoring everything else happening in the world.

At this stage in our species' adaptation to the use of webcams, is it not reasonable to expect supposedly professional contributors to know where the camera is on their phone or laptop, and to look into it?

And surely, so many years after 28.8k modems were rendered obsolete, the audio on a radio "phone-in" shouldn't sound like one of Alexander Graham Bell's early tests?

Given that I still receive invoices and professional correspondence formatted in Comic Sans, and the now-ubiquitous spell-checker is liberally blamed for an epidemic of recidivist orthgraphic inaccuracy, I suppose the answer is something along the lines of "yeah, wotever ... "

 

[Scoopicman]

many thousands of words have been written on the importance of good lighting, clean sound, well-crafted narratives ... and yet the Great All-Consuming Public doesn't really seem to give a damn about any of it.

Because that would require some effort. Of course, they all become critics when on the viewing end of things.

 

[James Rogers]

Wasting our time? I hope not. The desire to do better is a personal one. Sure, we don't hope for great success any longer but I believe our egos keep us trying to do better, for personal satisfaction if nothing more.

I'm from the last of the "boomers". I mention that only as a point of reference. Now, I can only speak for myself and I can echo the thoughts of friends I have from my era. We do appreciate quality. We notice when people and the things they do appear lazy. Unfortunately for me, I can't relate too heavily to the younger crowd. I see them staring at their cel phone videos and I just don't understand. I don't get the fascination with it. There is no way you can get the full scope of a movie on a cel phone. Youtube videos; I sometimes watch them on my 55 inch screen but I can not imagine watching them on a 4 inch screen. Do these people who have completely bought into cel phone delivered entertainment actually enjoy it? I don't know. It seems to me that if you widen the social lens a little you might come to the conclusion that cel phone people are using their device to escape the reality that is right in front of them.... My point is, maybe they too appreciate quality but have settled for something less because it is portable and always available, and fills another need. I hope they go home sometimes and pop on their favorite movie and watch it on a TV. They might not be conscious of it, but maybe they prefer it to the endless stream of funny little videos of cat's eating potato chips that were shot with no planning, whatever lights happened to be on in the house, and no attention to sound.

We aren't wasting our time if we do it for ourselves.

 

[AcousticAl]

In the technical pages of this forum, many thousands of words have been written on the importance of good lighting, clean sound, well-crafted narratives ... and yet the Great All-Consuming Public doesn't really seem to give a damn about any of it.

Two thoughts:

1) The average, everyday viewer may not notice or appreciate the effort that goes into crafting clean visuals and sound, but they sure as hell notice it when the effort wasn’t there. I still take pride in my craft and do everything I can to make it the best it can be because, while I may be invisible in the end-product if all goes according to plan, I’ll certainly be called to the carpet if things aren’t right. Plus, if I can’t take pride in my work and make a noble effort to do it well, I can’t justify the rates that I charge to do what I do.

2) The flip-side to that, sadly, is that it’s not the viewers and their lack of technical acumen that are to blame for the slipping of overall content quality. It’s the networks/studios/production companies. Everything has to be done cheaper, as far as they’re concerned. Especially where cable network programming is concerned (and that’s been on a downhill slope ever since the WGA strike in the 2000s and the rise in reality programming that resulted), there’s much less a sense of pride in the brand these days and much more an effort to plug holes between commercial blocks while maximizing the bottom line for shareholders and exec salaries and bonuses. Sure, viewers may be conditioned over time to accept a lower bar of production value, but it started with the productions themselves.

 

[Nate North]

Wasting our time? I hope not. The desire to do better is a personal one. Sure, we don't hope for great success any longer but I believe our egos keep us trying to do better, for personal satisfaction if nothing more.

I'm from the last of the "boomers". I mention that only as a point of reference. Now, I can only speak for myself and I can echo the thoughts of friends I have from my era. We do appreciate quality. We notice when people and the things they do appear lazy. Unfortunately for me, I can't relate too heavily to the younger crowd. I see them staring at their cel phone videos and I just don't understand. I don't get the fascination with it. There is no way you can get the full scope of a movie on a cel phone. Youtube videos; I sometimes watch them on my 55 inch screen but I can not imagine watching them on a 4 inch screen. Do these people who have completely bought into cel phone delivered entertainment actually enjoy it? I don't know. It seems to me that if you widen the social lens a little you might come to the conclusion that cel phone people are using their device to escape the reality that is right in front of them.... My point is, maybe they too appreciate quality but have settled for something less because it is portable and always available, and fills another need. I hope they go home sometimes and pop on their favorite movie and watch it on a TV. They might not be conscious of it, but maybe they prefer it to the endless stream of funny little videos of cat's eating potato chips that were shot with no planning, whatever lights happened to be on in the house, and no attention to sound.

We aren't wasting our time if we do it for ourselves.

 

[Nate North]

Inspired by @Nate North 's numbers thread and @James Rogers ' what is an artist question, here's another in the same vein:

Are we all wasting our time?

By "we" I mean those of us trying to do things "right" - the quest for perfection, being "the best" we can be in our chosen field, aiming high, not settling, etc, etc. In the technical pages of this forum, many thousands of words have been written on the importance of good lighting, clean sound, well-crafted narratives ... and yet the Great All-Consuming Public doesn't really seem to give a damn about any of it.

At least not if one can judge by the apparently unquenchable appetite for YouTube "content" recorded in dire conditions, reality TV pseudo-contests that shoe-horn random "celebrities" (and others) into pre-packaged "drama" and 24-hour rolling news coverage that re-broadcasts the same shows-nothing blurry, shaky mobile phone footage of one event in one place three times a minute for two hours while ignoring everything else happening in the world.

At this stage in our species' adaptation to the use of webcams, is it not reasonable to expect supposedly professional contributors to know where the camera is on their phone or laptop, and to look into it?

And surely, so many years after 28.8k modems were rendered obsolete, the audio on a radio "phone-in" shouldn't sound like one of Alexander Graham Bell's early tests?

Given that I still receive invoices and professional correspondence formatted in Comic Sans, and the now-ubiquitous spell-checker is liberally blamed for an epidemic of recidivist orthgraphic inaccuracy, I suppose the answer is something along the lines of "yeah, wotever ... "

This is something I thought long and hard about in the early days. Things have changed somewhat since then, but my conclusion was this- People don't have the words to describe certain types of quality, so you never hear them talk about it, but if you look at other metrics, they absolutely care about quality. I don't think the average person understands the artistry Kubrick employs with what lenses he uses or how he has a room lit, but 10 years later, you can look back and see this elephant's graveyard of films that didn't last the way his films did.

Acoustic kind of nailed it with "They can't see quality, but they can instantly see the lack of quality"

Try to remember the first time you watched HDTV. I remember buying my first one, getting it home, making sure I had an HD program on, and then being totally unimpressed and apethetic about the difference. It looked a little better, so what. Nothing that amazing. Fast forward 2 years, and I've been watching a 1080p tv for a while. I go over to a friends house, and they still have an SD tv. Here's the thing, It now looks like a garbled mess of pixels to me. It's horrible compared to the HDTV I'm used to.

I think you don't actually get immediate success and recognition for raising the bar on quality, but if you are higher quality, and they get used to it, they don't want to go back.

As far as the aspect of why super low quality stuff that's shot on a 70 dollar cell phone using a paint shaker as a tripod, and filming a guy spilling a bowl of cereal? I don't know what's going on there. Same with the music world. It's almost like if someone knows how to tune their guitar the public looses interest. Gergo Borlai on drums, no thanks, we want to hear the dumbest person you can find hit the 808 kick drum like one of those drinking bird statues. There seems to be another aspect much different than the first effect I described, where people seem to find some type of admirable authenticity when presented with low cognitive functioning.

I remember some girl I asked out in high school, endless years ago. She wasn't interested at the time, I'd sit and try to impress her by playing difficult piano parts in the school's music room, flying across the keyboard with perfectly timed 4 octave arpeggios. You're so good at that! I don't care! I got a scholarship to a good college, I was getting great grades, I dressed well, but just no interest whatsoever.

Later that year, I think Jr year of high school, she finally picked out a boyfriend. You know nelson from the Simpsons. Just like the scummiest, stupidest person in town, his vacant eyes are always what I picture during the "Smash the beetles, smash, smash" scene in GOT. He dropped out of high school, I think managed to repair a stolen bicycle and buy a Cinderella cassette before wrapping his life accomplishments and heading off to prison for a while for beating her. She waited for him to get out, and they got married. He was dealing meth out of their trailer though, and got sent back to prison a few years later.

Years before, at the end of high school, I asked her what was so special about the dumbest, scuzziest guy in town, the guy who talked like Stallone in rocky after he got punched in the head 75 times, went to jail once a month for drinking mad dog 20/20 in front of the porn store while he was waiting to get another face tattoo of kid rock or whatever.

Because he's "Real" was the only answer I got. Stupid and terrible = real person. Intelligence = fake person. I think this same idiotic perception of the world is to some degree what's behind all these effort haters. For future generations - Steven Hawking was just as "Real" as Dog the Bounty hunter. Stupid and authentic are not interchangeable words. Smart people are not "pretending" to be smart.

Joe went to prison on his third strike about 10 years later, Kathy is raising 3 kids alone in a trailer.

This is Gergo Borlai - none of you have ever heard of him. He's a virtuoso who spent decades achieving an incredible level of skill. He was not even invited to watch the Grammys from the cheap seats.

Here's someone who did win a huge prize for best musician, including being set for life, with millions of fans.

The one exception seems to be singing. People do actually know the difference between good and bad singing, most of the time.

 

[IvonV]

I think it started in the 60's with the questioning of authority and devolved from there. No one can tell us anything anymore. It doesn't matter if you studied and practiced singing for 40 years and sing at the Metropolitan Opera House. You can't tell a fan that Justin Bieber isn't a better singer. A person can have a 40-year movie career and created some of the great movies of the past 100 years, but whoa if that person makes a comment about superhero movies. No one can tell us anything. We are the ultimate curators. There are no authorities beyond our own understandings. People used to have a certain humility and a willingness to admit that there are people who have expertise and yes, even wisdom beyond our own opinions. This lack of respect for authority is all over our society, not just the arts. My opinion about disease spread and vaccinations is just as valid as the doctor that received a M.D. and acquired an expertise in immunology through 50 years of practice at one of the world's premiere agencies for infectious disease study. No need for me to study in medical school for years on end to question the pronouncements of that authority.

That said, there are still people in the entertainment industry who really do know what they are doing and have evolved the craft of filmmaking. It hasn't all gone downhill. What I see streaming these days blows away most of the tv I grew up with. I would say "The White Lotus" is far superior to its kin "Love Boat" or the original "Fantasy Island" from the writing to the cinematography to the acting. As much as I know many fans diss the latest Star Trek incarnation "Discovery", it's incredibly beautiful to watch in terms of its production design, cinematography and special effects. Far superior to my beloved TOS version. I never saw anything like "Game of Thrones" on tv. Most of the films I saw in movie theaters growing up weren't that good. I will occasionally watch old movies on TCM. As much bad content as there is on YouTube, there are also young filmmakers I see on YouTube whose lighting technique is superior to the studio craftsmen making those old movies.

So, yes the arts have devolved into a free-for-all. But, within the ranks are people whose writing, lighting, acting, costume design, makeup, etc. has evolved from the work that was done previously. Both have happened and there are audiences that appreciate the difference.

 

[Nate North]

I think it started in the 60's with the questioning of authority and devolved from there. No one can tell us anything anymore. It doesn't matter if you studied and practiced singing for 40 years and sing at the Metropolitan Opera House. You can't tell a fan that Justin Bieber isn't a better singer. A person can have a 40-year movie career and created some of the great movies of the past 100 years, but whoa if that person makes a comment about superhero movies. No one can tell us anything. We are the ultimate curators. There are no authorities beyond our own understandings. People used to have a certain humility and a willingness to admit that there are people who have expertise and yes, even wisdom beyond our own opinions. This lack of respect for authority is all over our society, not just the arts. My opinion about disease spread and vaccinations is just as valid as the doctor that received a M.D. and acquired an expertise in immunology through 50 years of practice at one of the world's premiere agencies for infectious disease study. No need for me to study in medical school for years on end to question the pronouncements of that authority.

That said, there are still people in the entertainment industry who really do know what they are doing and have evolved the craft of filmmaking. It hasn't all gone downhill. What I see streaming these days blows away most of the tv I grew up with. I would say "The White Lotus" is far superior to its kin "Love Boat" or the original "Fantasy Island" from the writing to the cinematography to the acting. As much as I know many fans diss the latest Star Trek incarnation "Discovery", it's incredibly beautiful to watch in terms of its production design, cinematography and special effects. Far superior to my beloved TOS version. I never saw anything like "Game of Thrones" on tv. Most of the films I saw in movie theaters growing up weren't that good. I will occasionally watch old movies on TCM. As much bad content as there is on YouTube, there are also young filmmakers I see on YouTube whose lighting technique is superior to the studio craftsmen making those old movies.

So, yes the arts have devolved into a free-for-all. But, within the ranks are people whose writing, lighting, acting, costume design, makeup, etc. has evolved from the work that was done previously. Both have happened and there are audiences that appreciate the difference.

I basically agree with all of this. I don't have much respect for authority myself, so I do understand that aspect. Sometimes I'm right and sometimes wrong when it comes to that, and if I see that an authority has earned respect, rather than just having it handed to them, my perception does change.

That moment when Trump shoved Fauchi off the side of the stage so he could explain virology science was really shocking to me. "Dumb scientists don't know nuthin. Says right here on the Lysol can, kills virus. Prolly every doctor at every hospital just forgot that there was Lysol available, and they just needed a real American to tell them how you fight a virus!"

I didn't automatically respect Faucchi because he was in a high office, MTG is in high office, but a quick google search reveals a long career of study and accomplishments where his knowledgeability on the topics was tested and verified 1000 times over. Trump used to be on a tv show where he repeatedly yelled the same catchphrase every episode. It's not the same thing. It's not even remotely close to the same thing. What really bothered me was the crowd watching. When two people were on stage side by side, one with immense knowledge, and one with no knowledge, it seemed like it was a toss up on which one they should listen to. That kind of blew a fuse in my brain. It's like if you asked who was more intelligent, Issac Asimov or the "Catch me outside" girl, and people just look confused and start flipping a coin. It's always this 50/50 split, no matter how different the options. Ok everybody, let's vote. Do you want to jump into an active volcano, or we can build you a free house? They would divide up into teams 50/50 and fight to the death.

You're not imagining things, White Lotus is way better than The Love Boat. lol. Star Trek Discovery, I agree that the production values are the best I've ever seen on any Star Trek series. If they had simply remembered to add in a few minutes of Star Trek into each 1 hour advertisement for their political ideologies, there might be a show there. I feel like they missed something important, which was that every single ST show did a good job teaching moral lessons and advancing towards a better world. Even TOS. None of them had to sacrifice story or characters in order to make a good point. I think the attitude now is that politics matters more than the show itself, and I've heard people at industry conventions say that directly. We don't have to make a good show, what's important is that we instruct them on our enlightenment, and the bigotry of anyone who thinks outside of the text of our new edition 2020 handbook. If I had to make a bowl of cereal, I would make it taste good, and then try to add some vitamin content without destroying the cereal. ST Discovery's design is just like a bowl of vitamins and the box cover just says "fuck you bigot" That's not the mature, thought provoking mentality that I saw on the excellent TNG or DS9.

And I think some of what you said leads into the topic of anti intellectualism, but that's another thread I think.

 

[James Rogers]

The people below the line are not the problem. Just like in a country, it's the people running the show who are fucking everything up. The artists, artisans, technicians, skilled laborers. I think they are doing great. Sets look real. Make-up has progressed to a point where you sometimes can't tell a person is wearing a half inch thick slab of rubber on their face. Lighting, sound, cinematography - all top notch. It's the people who decide on story edits, direction and the rest who make films suck for more than the past 10 years. They diminish the quality. Strangely, episodic shows have taken the reigns when it comes to quality. Some great stories supported by true talent, in front of and behind the camera.

 

[IvonV]

What really bothered me was the crowd watching. When two people were on stage side by side, one with immense knowledge, and one with no knowledge, it seemed like it was a toss up on which one they should listen to. That kind of blew a fuse in my brain. It's like if you asked who was more intelligent, Issac Asimov or the "Catch me outside" girl, and people just look confused and start flipping a coin. It's always this 50/50 split, no matter how different the options. Ok everybody, let's vote. Do you want to jump into an active volcano, or we can build you a free house? They would divide up into teams 50/50 and fight to the death.

Well that's a huge part of the problem. There is no consensus any more on who should be considered an authority. That used to be done by institutions. We no longer believe or trust those institutions. Very few of us trust those institutions that claim authority any more. Don't get me wrong, I think there are very good reasons why we can't trust the old institutions. Like anything that acquires power in society, institutions are subject to corruption and abuse. There's been plenty of that. My argument is that the very idea of authority is suspect. It seems anyone on the internet can claim authority these days. There needs to be a better way.

We don't have to make a good show, what's important is that we instruct them on our enlightenment, and the bigotry of anyone who thinks outside of the text of our new edition 2020 handbook. If I had to make a bowl of cereal, I would make it taste good, and then try to add some vitamin content without destroying the cereal.

Yes, another interesting aspect of "upside down world" is how many artists and entertainers have become the keepers of orthodoxy. Artists and entertainers used to be the challengers of orthodoxy. There were many in the film world that defended Roman Polanski after accusations were made that he had sex with a minor (including for a period of time, that very same minor). I can't imagine anyone publicly supporting Polanski these days. The only orthodoxy an artist can openly challenge is the patriarchy or structural racism. And I think in many ways, neither of those concepts -- thankfully -- is orthodoxy anymore. I think Ye is way off base in so many of his rants the past few years, but maybe he's showing us that all orthodoxy needs to be challenged?

 

[Nate North]

The people below the line are not the problem. Just like in a country, it's the people running the show who are fucking everything up. The artists, artisans, technicians, skilled laborers. I think they are doing great. Sets look real. Make-up has progressed to a point where you sometimes can't tell a person is wearing a half in thick slab of rubber on their face. Lighting, sound, cinematography - all top notch. It's the people who decide on story edits, direction and the rest who make films suck for more than the past 10 years. They diminish the quality. Strangely, episodic shows have taken the reigns when it comes to quality. Some great stories supported by true talent, in front of and behind the camera.

I tend to agree, when it comes to tv and movies. The technical people are all nailing it, because that stuff is science, and science is something you can build on. Popular opinion and ideologies are like the surface of the ocean. It's always at the same level, but constantly changing, and unable to support anything built on top of it. The camera lens made today, the keying software, the lighting units, and the people behind the scenes are all way better than they were a few decades ago. You can measure it. With political ideologies, we do make progress (abolition of slavery worldwide) but it's always 5 steps forward and 4 steps back. Every thousand years human opinions evolve about as much as computers did between 1980 and 1990.

 

[Nate North]

Well that's a huge part of the problem. There is no consensus any more on who should be considered an authority. That used to be done by institutions. We no longer believe or trust those institutions. Very few of us trust those institutions that claim authority any more. Don't get me wrong, I think there are very good reasons why we can't trust the old institutions. Like anything that acquires power in society, institutions are subject to corruption and abuse. There's been plenty of that. My argument is that the very idea of authority is suspect. It seems anyone on the internet can claim authority these days. There needs to be a better way.


Yes, another interesting aspect of "upside down world" is how many artists and entertainers have become the keepers of orthodoxy. Artists and entertainers used to be the challengers of orthodoxy. There were many in the film world that defended Roman Polanski after accusations were made that he had sex with a minor (including for a period of time, that very same minor). I can't imagine anyone publicly supporting Polanski these days. The only orthodoxy an artist can openly challenge is the patriarchy or structural racism. And I think in many ways, neither of those concepts -- thankfully -- is orthodoxy anymore. I think Ye is way off base in so many of his rants the past few years, but maybe he's showing us that all orthodoxy needs to be challenged?

It's an interesting take. Kanye is, you know, obviously struggling a bit. I made this short film a couple years ago illustrating this.

Lol, "today it all changes" guess again Ye.

My dad was on something called the "ISO" committee, establishing international standards for computational techniques and advanced mathematics. This is what they did, they established standards, scientifically, and provided institutions worldwide with foundational information that eliminated the "tower of Babel" issues that slowed scientific cooperation.

Now I feel like institutions contribute to the TOB effect, each one confidently espousing it's own viewpoints, often baseless, as the law of the land. Faced with innumerable contradictions from supposedly verified sources, I think this breakdown of trust is the only result that was possible. Sadly, we needed that trust to progress and succeed as a society, and I feel like so many people have serially weakened the world in pursuit of short term selfish goals.

We can talk echo chambers, we can talk algorithms, and it's all valid, but the real question is, "where is the path back to sanity, and a perception of the world that's ubiquitous enough to at least provide functionality prioritized over the eternal churn of infighting"

It sounds nebulous, but what I mean is. Can we just limit the hyperbolic stances, the posturing, the self appointed heroism, at least long enough to rebuild the interstate highway system and do some commuter bridge maintenance? We all need roads to drive on, can we at least agree on that?

And about the "everybody is an expert on everything until you can't tell who's who" That is also a whole other thread, though I typically get pushback when I mention it. Hello, I worked 10 years at this and invested a quarter million dollars. I have tons of serious experience. Sorry, we just hired a 12 year old off of facebook. He has the same credentials as you do, it says movie director right here on his facebook page. You ask them, hey, how could a 12 year old have 10 years experience? They pause, momentary deer in headlights look, then they say, look it says right here that he is a super director, and your page only says director, so we just hired the one that the page said was better. Then I say, the page didn't tell you anything, that kid just wrote the words "super director" on the page. Then they say. I don't know Nate, maybe you're stupid, I mean facebook is the biggest company out there, and I think they know what they're talking about. Pretty soon I'm working as a grip for the 12 year old, and he's sawing his lenscap in half and putting it back on the camera. I'm asking him why, and he's saying "Oh, I guess you don't know much about film, this is called "setting the exposure, it's for when the movie that comes out of the camera is too bright"

I'm kidding about the lenscap thing, but you would be shocked at the stupidity I've seen working in indie film. Here's a breakdown of the budget from an actual project I was hired to direct. 75% money to parties and hotel rooms at film festivals, 25% for the film, and zero for marketing. They had 60 grand. The film was 7 minutes and got 300 views, for 60,000 dollars. When I worked with you guys on that 48 hour project., I was stunned that you were competent, logical, and reasonable. I just have not come to expect that from the general public. Congratulations!

 

[sfoster]

I basically agree with all of this. I don't have much respect for authority myself, so I do understand that aspect. Sometimes I'm right and sometimes wrong when it comes to that, and if I see that an authority has earned respect, rather than just having it handed to them, my perception does change.

That moment when Trump shoved Fauchi off the side of the stage so he could explain virology science was really shocking to me. "Dumb scientists don't know nuthin. Says right here on the Lysol can, kills virus. Prolly every doctor at every hospital just forgot that there was Lysol available, and they just needed a real American to tell them how you fight a virus!"

I didn't automatically respect Faucchi because he was in a high office, MTG is in high office, but a quick google search reveals a long career of study and accomplishments where his knowledgeability on the topics was tested and verified 1000 times over. Trump used to be on a tv show where he repeatedly yelled the same catchphrase every episode. It's not the same thing. It's not even remotely close to the same thing. What really bothered me was the crowd watching. When two people were on stage side by side, one with immense knowledge, and one with no knowledge, it seemed like it was a toss up on which one they should listen to. That kind of blew a fuse in my brain. It's like if you asked who was more intelligent, Issac Asimov or the "Catch me outside" girl, and people just look confused and start flipping a coin. It's always this 50/50 split, no matter how different the options. Ok everybody, let's vote. Do you want to jump into an active volcano, or we can build you a free house? They would divide up into teams 50/50 and fight to the death.

You're not imagining things, White Lotus is way better than The Love Boat. lol. Star Trek Discovery, I agree that the production values are the best I've ever seen on any Star Trek series. If they had simply remembered to add in a few minutes of Star Trek into each 1 hour advertisement for their political ideologies, there might be a show there. I feel like they missed something important, which was that every single ST show did a good job teaching moral lessons and advancing towards a better world. Even TOS. None of them had to sacrifice story or characters in order to make a good point. I think the attitude now is that politics matters more than the show itself, and I've heard people at industry conventions say that directly. We don't have to make a good show, what's important is that we instruct them on our enlightenment, and the bigotry of anyone who thinks outside of the text of our new edition 2020 handbook. If I had to make a bowl of cereal, I would make it taste good, and then try to add some vitamin content without destroying the cereal. ST Discovery's design is just like a bowl of vitamins and the box cover just says "fuck you bigot" That's not the mature, thought provoking mentality that I saw on the excellent TNG or DS9.

And I think some of what you said leads into the topic of anti intellectualism, but that's another thread I think.

Fuckin Fauci.
Dude was in a respected position of authority and used that to repeatedly lie to the american public.

First this dude went on television and said that masks wouldn't help slow the spread of covid..
When ask WHY he lied? he said this "“Well, the reason for that is that we were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N-95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply,” Fauci said. “And we wanted to make sure that the people, namely the health care workers, who were brave enough to put themselves in a harm way, to take care of people who you know were infected with the coronavirus and the danger of them getting infected.”"

So yeah he lied and manipulated the american public because he thinks we're a bunch of dumb fucks that need to be lied to and manipulated.
how many people died because this trusted dr told them that a mask wouldn't provide any protection?

And then whats even worse?
He lied AGAIN and said that the vaccine would stop the spread of infection, stop you from infection your family, fucking ridiculous.

Here is a clip of our president biden and of fauci (time stamped) both lying to the american people about what the mRNA vaccine does in order to push their political agenda

Not trying to get into politics but it's this thing like you're talking about these days the truth doesn't mean shit anymore.
When our leaders and scientist both conspire together to lie to the american people who the fuck can you trust? for real?

The age of facts and trust is behind us, it's dead. it died with shit lke this with biden and fauci lying to us.
At least when trump lied to everyone it was obvious and people with have a brain could pick up on it, but these people lying are actually FOOLING everyone and for that reason it's actually worse in some ways

So yeah just cause people are intelligent and seem well intentioned doesn't mean they can be trusted.
I knew a dude that was really fun at parties, quick witted, would break up fights, and drug and raped like 30 guys, nobody suspected him, people didn't even know he was gay. It's literally impossible to judge the character of cunning talented liar.

 

[Nate North]

Well, you make some fair points. I'm not defending them, but I will say this. I wasn't always wise. Now that I'm older, I'm a bit wiser, and one of the things I file under that category is this. Almost everything you hear in your life is some type of lie. White lies, partial truths, intentional lies told for gain, but the single most common type of lie you will hear comes from a person who does not believe that they are lying to you. They believe something, and are trying to tell you what they believe to be true, but it's not. People trust and love their families, and they "know" that a person who loves and protects them would "never lie to them" but they forget that the person they trusted might have also been lied to by someone they trusted and so on. I think some chains like this have passed through millions of people.

At the dawn of Mormonism, a guy lied to one other guy. He said, I found a magic tablet that says I should get free money and sleep with as many women as I want. His friend trusted him, and believed him. The two of them told someone else, who trusted them both. Then they went to a stranger. They seemed like good people to the stranger, and all 3 of them agreed on this tablet story. He might not have believed just one guy saying it, but 3 people saying it at the same time seemed like evidence. The next person was approached by 4 people that were certain about the tablet. Then 16, then 64, and so on, until a kid born in Utah was surrounded by people talking about a magic tablet. How could this be a lie? Everyone I trust tells me this, and what's more likely, that I'm wrong, or that all these people are wrong. It's an illusion, they think they see a consensus, but it's really just one persons word, copy pasted until it takes on the veneer of fact. Today the Mormon church has more money in the bank than almost any other organization on earth, without even the tiniest shred of proof to support their initial "Fact". You know what people say? They would say, I don't know Nate, Mormonism seems pretty legitimate, I mean they have all these buildings and followers and money. It just couldn't have happened based purely on bullshit. But it did.

Yeah, looks like Faucchi lied, about that, though you can at least follow his logic. It was more critical for hospital workers to have the N95 masks. But I bought one anyway, lol. I think Biden just isn't very bright. That's not a defense, I'm just saying I doubt there was any more cunning or malice in the lies he told than the ones Trump told. I'm just going to throw this out there, maybe one day, we should hire one of the over 1 million Americans with a near genius IQ on record. It's not a personal judgement, it just means that when their problem solving abilities were tested, they performed well. Is is too much to ask that we measure competence in at least some way before handing someone control of the world? They want 8 years of daily proof before they will let you edit a studio film. Is the job of president so much less important or difficult that we don't need to have standards in place for it? To this day I don't believe Trump or Biden could pass an 8th grade final.

I think there might be some semantics at play here also. Something I never managed to communicate to anyone successfully during the entire pandemic was this. Other than the n95 masks, the other ones only protected other people from you, and did not protect you at all. That's why I wore one, because it wasn't about me. It's the same reason I don't drive drunk. I have the right to put myself in danger, but I don't have the right to endanger others.

Some of the above video does seem like intentional deception. I'm actually a bit surprised to hear Faucchi saying some of this, which isn't true, but I also see him maybe trying to manage panic. Long story short, I agree with you, and there is no acceptable reason for any politician to lie to the public. Reasons don't matter. People don't need to be herded, even if it looks that way from certain perspectives at certain times. I think at least a small component of the solution would be better education at a high school level. Fallacies and logic should be taught along side history and geography. Teach people HOW to think independently and correctly, (do your research, test your hypothesis, check your sources, etc) and we might find ourselves facing fewer problems and less dissonance. Obviously character is an even more important metric, but you CAN find people with both.

As far as, can you just instantly trust anyone that's intelligent, no I don't think that. 3% of the population is psychopathic, many of them are highly intelligent, but if you offered them 10 grand to let a stranger die, they would take it. (healthcare for dying people is unpatriotic, what we need is to help Rupert Murdock add another billion dollars to his trillion dollar pile, and if you disagree, you're a commie) I'm only making the point that out of 300 million people, it is possible to find a leader that's both well educated and moral.

 

[sfoster]

I understand his rationality for being a chronic liar and abusing his position of trust and authority, I get why he did it, but I don't agree with it at all.

We expect politicians to lie to us, but when our scientists to lie to us too it erodes a trust that can never be regained.
Now when people reference an article with a top scientist, an expert, telling us some 'truth', we all know that it's completely bullshit, it's not truth, it's political propaganda and the truth is NOBODIES priority.

These people will sacrifice your life because youre not important to them, they'll tell you masks dont help and then watch you die.

What happens if there's another pandemic now?
That trust has been undermined and eliminated. intelligent people know better than to listen to government scientists now.

Fuck their authority. Fuck their expertise, it doesn't matter if they're gonna lie to your face about it anyway.

 

[James Rogers]

I'm just saying I doubt there was any more cunning or malice in the lies he told than the ones Trump told

You've got to be kidding.

 

[CelticRambler]

Well ...

I'm not going to go too far down the Covid rabbit hole, but for sure there is some crossover with my "general public's tolerance of crap standards in the performing arts" starting point. Poor old Fauci comes in for a lot of stick, but he was placed in an impossible position - and not by Trump or anyone else in the White House, but by an electorate that didn't (still doesn't) want to be governed for its own good. There were many variations on the theme, but the same scenario was played out all across the Western world, with the one common denominator: no country followed the epidemic control rules that had been carefully considered and set down in writing to deal with this exact situation.

I know this for a fact, because it's a big part of my professional mission; and also because, back at the beginning of December 2019 I discussed the situation with a friend and asked him "what do you think would happen to Varadkar [Ireland's Prime Minister at the time] if he announced that all flights into and out of Ireland were cancelled because some Chinese people had a bad dose of the 'flu?" That's what should have been done, but it wasn't; and from then on, the political establishment in every country I could follow was making one reactionary mis-step after another, and all of them tearing up the rule-book because ... reasons. Political reasons, not disease-control reasons.

The aforementioned common denominator is that public policy is increasingly driven by a public that's saturated with "information" but has never been adequately trained to filter out what's (ir)relevant to their particular situation, or accurately identify snake-oil when it's sold to them.

 

[CelticRambler]

Anyway,

Wasting our time? I hope not. The desire to do better is a personal one. Sure, we don't hope for great success any longer but I believe our egos keep us trying to do better, for personal satisfaction if nothing more.

Oh, I agree with you on that - personal satisfaction is (and rightly should be) the most important motivation; and

As much bad content as there is on YouTube, there are also young filmmakers I see on YouTube whose lighting technique is superior to the studio craftsmen making those old movies.

yes, this too is very true. Thankfully.

However,

The average, everyday viewer may not notice or appreciate the effort that goes into crafting clean visuals and sound, but they sure as hell notice it when the effort wasn’t there. I still take pride in my craft and do everything I can to make it the best it can be because, while I may be invisible in the end-product if all goes according to plan, I’ll certainly be called to the carpet if things aren’t right.

Way back in the last century, when I studied theatre lighting I was particularly taken by one lighting technician saying "you'll know you've lit the stage perfectly when nobody notice the lighting." And I fully appreciate that the same thing goes for a good great soundtrack.

it’s not the viewers and their lack of technical acumen that are to blame for the slipping of overall content quality. ... Sure, viewers may be conditioned over time to accept a lower bar of production value, but it started with the productions themselves.

What I'm seeing, though - or at least wondering about - is that it is the viewers that are accepting a low bar. There's no need for production houses to spend quite as much as the scene demands when the public is only half-watching, half-listening to whatever is on the screen.

People don't have the words to describe certain types of quality, so you never hear them talk about it, but if you look at other metrics, they absolutely care about quality.

But do they, really? I follow one particular YT channel for very specific reasons (and ulterior motive!), one that revolves around a French chateau renovation project. There are about a dozen other chateau renovation channels linked, and the comments reveal that hundreds, maybe even thousands, of people watch all of these, despite the desperately bad production values. Given amount of padding on each of these videos, when do these people find the time to watch "real" movies? From what I've observed amongst family and friends, the closest they come to it is a group excursion to the local multiplex to "enjoy" the lastest blockbuster to the sound of popcorn, random belching, and illicit phone conversations.

 

[James Rogers]

We need to also remember that we, film people. view movies through different eyes than the general public. I don't think most people watch a movie and pay attention to such things as lighting, sound, camera work, editing, make-up, etc... Watching movies for us is an extension of our quest for quality. We want to see how others do things. I always study the movies I'm watching. I concentrate on things like the use of Foley. The way a character can be running across a gravel road during a rain storm with a bag of groceries in their arms but you might only hear the rain, crumpling of the bag and splashing of water as the person steps through puddles of water. What happened to the sound of the gravel? It's not there, but it still sounds right. I notice those things and I learn. In Jean Claude's movie Kick Boxer, there's a scene where Van Damme is dealing with a situation on the sidewalk teaming with people doing all sorts of things. The dialog track in that scene is a mess. They production chose to use the production sound instead of proper ADR, probably to save money. They used a clean background track with all the sounds of the busy street activity then simply cut the dialog on top of it. They tried to fade it in and out to mask the discontinuity in the dialog background sounds but it was still unsettling. That showed a lack of quality. Maybe nobody else noticed it but since I was studying the film, I did... If you want to check for yourself, I'm talking about the scene after Tong po breaks Van Damme's brother's back. They put him on a stretcher and set him out on the sidewalk...

Did you ever see the movie Laser Blast? It has very low production value. It's a Charles Band production. By all measurable matrix you'd say this film sucks, yet for some reason it still has a fan base. People have been clamoring for year for a sequel.. It's one of my favorite films! It has no quality.

Ticket to Paradise has A list actors. It has beautifully lit and filmed scenes. Nothing wrong with it. There is no lack of quality on the screen, yet somehow it was not a good film. I think it's because of the editing and some bad directing. Just my opinion. The point is that everyone 'below the line' did their jobs and did them well. The failures had to come from the producers and director.

I think there is something that trumps quality. I don't know exactly what it is but it probably has something to do with originality.

 

[James Rogers]

... So, what is originality? Is it simply the rearranging of existing pieces into something that appears unique (original). To me, there is a difference between theme and originality- between story type and originality. Simply telling a story that is a combination of science fiction and comedy with a touch of drama doesn't mean anything. Are you telling an original story? Are you presenting your story in an original way? Is it visually original?

Rob Bottin was an incredible make-up FX guy back in the 80s and part of the 90s. There were people, myself included, who would see ANY movie released if Rob did the make-up. The reason being that his work was so incredibly different than all other FX guys. There were FX guys who were arguably better than him but his work was so original; over the top yet still believable. Rob did Robo Cop, Total recall, The Thing, Tanya's Island, The Fog, The Howling, Witches of Eastwick, and more...

I think originality is the key.