Nostalgia Fatique

[Keatah]

1 hour ago, CapitanClassic said:

During the crime epidemic of the 1980s, criminals would use frequency scanners to figure out the code to open your garage door. They would then either rob the garage, or if you were one of the many people who left your garage house door unlocked, rob your house too. This left garage door manufactures with an incentive to create rolling code remotes and receivers. So while it performs the same function, it has needed added security, requiring more than just electro-mechanical switches.

I totally get that and appreciate the added complexity that enables more secure wireless operation. Let me clarify, the switch I'm talking about is the one wired into the opener itself. It's the one in the garage - and easily accessed by anyone in the garage.

 

The only thing I can think of is that this complex switch assembly itself is a transmitter. And the door opener has a "simplified" singular way of being triggered, via RF only. Whereas the old one responded to RF and a hardwired push button - two different types of signaling. Is that the case here?

Edited February 28, 2023 by Keatah

[Keatah]

1 hour ago, zzip said:

do we even really need power windows?

Nice to have in their simple original form I suppose. We definitely don't need variable speed motors in them however.

 

1 hour ago, zzip said:

what's worse than adding computer modules to everything is the need to cloud-enable everything:  your thermostat, your doorbell, etc   Now they are hackable, and can be used to eavesdrop.

I still don't quite get why there is that burning need to make everything connected. I mean I see the data collection happening, the monetization, the strange desire of silicon valley wanting you to be cloud-enabled and all that. Makes for better advertisement, gives the madison avenue drones something to do. I just don't see how that's for the better however.

Edited February 28, 2023 by Keatah

[zzip]

52 minutes ago, Keatah said:

I still don't quite get why there is that burning need to make everything connected. I mean I see the data collection happening, the monetization, the strange desire of silicon valley wanting you to be cloud-enabled and all that. Makes for better advertisement, gives the madison avenue drones something to do. I just don't see how that's for the better however.

Well since I work in that area-  it's basically that you are always increasing the functionality of your product to stay a step ahead of the competition (or playing catch up to them) so that one day you can say "Alexa, open my garage door".   Why that's appealing or easier than pushing a button eludes me.

 

Of course there's always the tech dystopian fear that all this cool tech ends up enabling a tech tyranny where they can centrally shut off all your services if you aren't a good compliant citizen.

[randomcat2000]

4 hours ago, zzip said:

Always forward!  stopping to ask if we really need all this tech is unthinkable.  There is no wisdom in the process. 

[Insert Jurassic Park quote here]

3 hours ago, Keatah said:

Do we need a computer module to control power windows? What happened to the simple switch and fuse? Do we nee to route the signals and power for the rearview mirrors through 6 different modules? All those points of failure! My gosh!

The world needs more buttons. Simple switches and buttons keep getting replaced by shitty touchscreens that don't work half the time.

1 hour ago, Keatah said:

Nice to have in their simple original form I suppose. We definitely don't need variable speed motors in them however.

 

I still don't quite get why there is that burning need to make everything connected. I mean I see the data collection happening, the monetization, the strange desire of silicon valley wanting you to be cloud-enabled and all that. Makes for better advertisement, gives the madison avenue drones something to do. I just don't see how that's for the better however.

Keeps you in the ecosystem, if all your amazon devices work together, you'll probably be inclined to buy into the ecosystem more. From there they can sell you whatever subscriptions they make for these devices. Also makes it easier to implement planned obsolescence, at some point all those "cloud" devices will stop being supported and will stop receiving updates, at that point you need to buy the newer models so everything continues to work together. You don't own these devices anymore, people owning things isn't profitable. Instead, companies need people to be constantly buying in.

[Keatah]

2 hours ago, zzip said:

Of course there's always the tech dystopian fear that all this cool tech ends up enabling a tech tyranny where they can centrally shut off all your services if you aren't a good compliant citizen.

I'm not too concerned about that.. Unless I should be?

 

Another issue I have is with AI. There's always news articles and fearmongering about how it's unstoppable and how it's going to take over everything. Ok. Well if it's that bad then why not simply stop development on it.

 

OTH I would argue the internet is a sentient network, in a way that's more advanced and different than what we believe and recognize. And it already controls so many things and so many people. And most nodes have a biological being trapped in them.

[Keatah]

2 hours ago, randomcat2000 said:

The world needs more buttons. Simple switches and buttons keep getting replaced by shitty touchscreens that don't work half the time.

I would agree. I prefer a tactile response.

 

2 hours ago, randomcat2000 said:

 You don't own these devices anymore, people owning things isn't profitable. Instead, companies need people to be constantly buying in.

I don't mind being in the Microsoft ecosystem. I associate it with real computers that do real work. Blame it on my early exposure to the wonder of Windows in the early 1990's. At the same time I have a twisted sense of humor and quite thoroughly enjoy giving the man the finger by using XP in this day and age for real mission-critical productivity.

 

All this "buying-in" and subscription stuff is simply not for me. And I'm happy to expend more time and energy avoiding it than it saves me.

[roots.genoa]

10 hours ago, zzip said:

I'm not saying everything was great, but the number of movies that went on to become classics was insane,  don't like Platoon?  Fine I can easily rattle off a number of other classics to swap it with:  Raiders of the Lost Ark, Terminator, Goonies, Die Hard, Home Alone, Beetlejuice, The Shining, Christmas Story, Scarface.   All of these were released in the space of a few years,  they were either not part of a franchise, or the first in what would become a franchise.

 

Today almost everything is a franchise or a multiverse they tried to milk every last drop of cash out of.   Original ideas?  Too risky!

Yes, franchises are a lot more important than before, but probably because of the synergy it provides economically. To be fair, most of my favorite movies in recent years don't come from Hollywood, but then again, 40 years ago the independent movie scene was not that big. So most of the "risky" movies from the 80s are now independent movies (independent as in not made in Hollywood).

 

I just wish that people were a little more curious, and instead of only watching blockbusters and complain about them, try to actually do something about it by watching independent movies or movies from other countries. "But they're boring!" No, you're boring. 😉 More seriously, it will probably take time to find what you're looking for (or rather what you had no idea you were looking for), but if you don't search, you surely won't find. 🤷‍♂️ Yes, the real problem may be the enormous quantity of content we have to deal with nowadays, so people tend to get lazy and watch again and over again their favorite movies instead of trying to discover something new (and risk being disappointed, sure, but also being excited).

[zzip]

6 hours ago, roots.genoa said:

Yes, franchises are a lot more important than before, but probably because of the synergy it provides economically. To be fair, most of my favorite movies in recent years don't come from Hollywood, but then again, 40 years ago the independent movie scene was not that big. So most of the "risky" movies from the 80s are now independent movies (independent as in not made in Hollywood).

Yeah I am specifically talking about Hollywood even if may have said movie industry.   I do think independent films will be the future.    Especially now that everybody has sophisticated video editing tools at their fingertips.   I think we'll see small independent teams change movies the way Youtube changed TV.

[zzip]

15 hours ago, Keatah said:

18 hours ago, zzip said:

Of course there's always the tech dystopian fear that all this cool tech ends up enabling a tech tyranny where they can centrally shut off all your services if you aren't a good compliant citizen.

I'm not too concerned about that.. Unless I should be?

Well we have voice assistants everywhere listening now,  what's to stop them from reporting things to your bank, your boss, the police if you say the wrong thing,  sound like your're having an affair or doing some other unapproved activity?

We already had paypal try to take people's money for saying things they don't like.   See this thread:   

 

 

I'd say it's good be concerned but keep paranoia in check so you don't go down some crazy rabbit hole

 

16 hours ago, Keatah said:

Another issue I have is with AI. There's always news articles and fearmongering about how it's unstoppable and how it's going to take over everything. Ok. Well if it's that bad then why not simply stop development on it.

stopping it isn't quite so easy.  Companies invest in it to keep up with competition.   If there was a law banning it, you'd probably see research continue under a different name, or outsourced to a country where no such law exists..   I think the most frightening thing about AI is not the dangers we see, but the ones that we don't and will catch us off guard.  

 

16 hours ago, Keatah said:

OTH I would argue the internet is a sentient network, in a way that's more advanced and different than what we believe and recognize. And it already controls so many things and so many people. And most nodes have a biological being trapped in them.

There are some who say that social media or at least Twitter is the world's first malicious AI.  I don't think it's sentient though, it's simply doing what it's algorithms say, and that's to keep giving people dopamine hits from the tech so they stay engaged.

 

[jhd]

10 hours ago, roots.genoa said:

I just wish that people were a little more curious, and instead of only watching blockbusters and complain about them, try to actually do something about it by watching independent movies or movies from other countries. 

 

Or take it a step further and just boycott movies altogether. Spend that entertainment budget on something else!

 

Personally, I typically watch only two or three movies per year (at best). The last thing I saw in a theatre was "James Bond: No Time to Die" in October 2021. I was very disappointed, and I felt that it was the weakest entry in the whole series. 

 

There is nothing currently plaything that I want to see, and there is nothing forthcoming that I care about.

 

[roots.genoa]

2 hours ago, jhd said:

 

Or take it a step further and just boycott movies altogether. Spend that entertainment budget on something else!

 

Personally, I typically watch only two or three movies per year (at best). The last thing I saw in a theatre was "James Bond: No Time to Die" in October 2021. I was very disappointed, and I felt that it was the weakest entry in the whole series. 

 

There is nothing currently plaything that I want to see, and there is nothing forthcoming that I care about.

 

Or take it a step even further and commit suicide. Why wasting a life doing crap? 💡

 

More seriously, as a movie buff what you just said is completely depressing. I watch a movie almost every day. But yes, if you hate everything you watch, maybe movies are not for you indeed.

[Keatah]

What I do like in recent times are the shorter indie films with a running time of about 30 minutes or so. I just don't have the patience for the same hollywood-flavored rehasments that run in commercial cinemas.

 

1 hour ago, jhd said:

Or take it a step further and just boycott movies altogether. Spend that entertainment budget on something else!

We've been doing that for years now. Not a pandemic thing or anything. Just because there's so much shoveling and so many movies' effects are way over the top to the point of fatigue. Instead of leaving the theater with a sense of awe and wonder, we're like fwheww! It's finally over!

 

1 hour ago, jhd said:

Personally, I typically watch only two or three movies per year (at best). The last thing I saw in a theatre was "James Bond: No Time to Die" in October 2021. I was very disappointed, and I felt that it was the weakest entry in the whole series.

I haven't seen Avatar Way of Water yet. We were going to see it but I didn't feel like sitting in a chair for 3 hours without the ability to pause for a bathroom break. Be just like it 4me to take that piss or shit and miss something important.

 

Last movie I saw was the new Top Gun. I was underwhelmed, the action was intense for sure. But the hype surrounding it seemed force-fed by hollywood. Advertisements and trailers didn't create a thrill like it did in the 1986 release. Remember me and my biddies all getting together to make it an event back then. Today, with the hundreds of entertainment options, it was almost a chore to fit it in. A non-even that seemed like it "had to be done". A going through the motions.

 

1 hour ago, jhd said:

There is nothing currently plaything that I want to see, and there is nothing forthcoming that I care about.

I'm not sure what's out there presently. I'm sure there's some superhero stuff, but I've long burned out on the genre. The scope of them just keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger. Way past the point of believability even in a fantasy world.

[Creamhoven]

On 2/27/2023 at 2:27 PM, zzip said:

I think Hollywood and the Music industry are clearly in decline and are dying.   

It is hard for me to believe that an emperial power like the USA is leaving such a vacuum. Have they given up or will they try to reinvent? How will the proceed?

On 2/27/2023 at 2:27 PM, zzip said:

It's not for the lack of talent out there, but the way they are structured--   Hollywood seems like it can do nothing but crank out reboots and rehashes that nobody wants. 

Yes, I hear this frequently and I share this point of view. Is it so hard to crank something out that is apealing. The top gun reboot was okay, I've heard...

On 2/27/2023 at 2:27 PM, zzip said:

 

I think we'll start to see more and more movies made by small teams using home tools that compete with major studios (at least on the storytelling front).  We've already seen this with Music and Youtube videos.

I've heard that Star Trek the next generation was quite low bugdet and had episodes that were intellectually stimmulating to make up for the lack of production value. I don't think there needs to be high budgets, but there must be room for free expression. Maybe the industry was calculating on making up for the lack of free expression with budgets and CGI etc. It doesnt work if thats the case.

On 2/27/2023 at 3:35 PM, CapitanClassic said:

Creativity won’t see much of a comeback until copyright gets reduced to its normal length of 14 years (plus 14 year renewal).

14 years after the authors death?

On 2/27/2023 at 7:41 PM, Warmsignal said:

I blame the downfall of most cultural things on the Internet itself. It breeds lazy, jaded, hateful attitudes, and I think people honestly loose more inspiration in this kind of environment that we've all grown so accustom to.

Interesting point. There is more feedback out there that influences creators. This kind of awareness certainly has an impact on the culture. There is alot of negativity yes, but curiously there is also alot of positivity around things that are old that I am sceptical about. For example the first Star Wars trilogy. They are good movies don't get me wrong, but that it is still held up to such a degree makes me think that we have not progressed culturally for quite a while. It is a fun fantasy/action trilogy. If there was strong cultural output then this would be one of many good things, that wouldn't have so much presence in the current day.

 

On 2/28/2023 at 1:54 AM, Keatah said:

I think this started when online gaming happened. Once I saw the immaturity of the scene I left it and never looked back.

What about CS 1.6, that was pretty fun and innovative I think.

On 2/28/2023 at 5:33 AM, Steven Pendleton said:

I don't know anything about movies since I don't watch movies, I don't know anything about TV since I don't watch TV unless it's pre-DS9 Star Trek (I will get to DS9 soon, though!), and I don't know anything about music that isn't BUMP OF CHICKEN or in video games since I otherwise don't listen to it, but I can say that after playing so many old games that I'd never even heard of until 2~3 years ago that yes, games really were better as a collective whole 25~30 years ago than they are now.

On 2/28/2023 at 1:54 AM, Keatah said:

 

That's like, SNES/PS1 era? What do you enjoy more about older titles, and how do you explain the change?

 

I want to push back on the idea that there is still great things to be found that just needs to be dug up a little bit. While this is certainly true, there is something about funding talent like composers from childhood on, having them compose music and performing it with orchestras around the world. This is nothing small operations can realize and needs to happen on a larger scale. I think it is important to differentiate between projects of various sizes and culture on a higher level (not necessarily better in every case) like operas (like Wagner), great movie productions, great paitings (like Rembrandt) etc. We are at the point where most popular music productions couldn't even pay for a string section, not to speak of musicians who work outside of any industry.

 

Edited March 1, 2023 by Creamhoven

[CapitanClassic]

1 hour ago, Creamhoven said:

On 2/27/2023 at 3:35 PM, CapitanClassic said:

Creativity won’t see much of a comeback until copyright gets reduced to its normal length of 14 years (plus 14 year renewal).

14 years after the authors death?

No, 14 years from the creation, plus 14 more if you chose to renew it (Original 1790 Copyright Act). If it was in place today, all games/movies/plays/books created before 1995 would be in the public domain. 
 

Nintendo Online wouldn’t be making nearly as much off of their SNES library of games.

 

Pulp Fiction / Shawshank Redemption / Apollo 13 could be streamed anywhere for free.
 

(And derivative works could be made for any of them)

This 95 - 120 year term is stifling creativity. But if companies couldn’t make money from nostalgia berries, because anyone could make a rerelease/derivative work at 28 years later, they would be forced to release something new and original. (Do you really need more than 28 years to make money off your creative work?)

 

[randomcat2000]

4 hours ago, jhd said:

 

Or take it a step further and just boycott movies altogether. Spend that entertainment budget on something else!

 

Personally, I typically watch only two or three movies per year (at best). The last thing I saw in a theatre was "James Bond: No Time to Die" in October 2021. I was very disappointed, and I felt that it was the weakest entry in the whole series. 

 

There is nothing currently plaything that I want to see, and there is nothing forthcoming that I care about.

 

I don't watch movies often, but the last one i watched in a theatre was Evangelion 3.0+1.0 and I loved it! Maybe the true solution is to avoid American cinema. Hollywood is dead, time to look beyond.

1 hour ago, Creamhoven said:

It is hard for me to believe that an emperial power like the USA is leaving such a vacuum. Have they given up or will they try to reinvent? How will the proceed?

Most people don't see it that way though. They just see American movies making lots of money.

1 hour ago, Creamhoven said:

I want to push back on the idea that there is still great things to be found that just needs to be dug up a little bit. While this is certainly true, there is something about funding talent like composers from childhood on, having them compose music and performing it with orchestras around the world. This is nothing small operations can realize and needs to happen on a larger scale. I think it is important to differentiate between projects of various sizes and culture on a higher level (not necessarily better in every case) like operas (like Wagner), great movie productions, great paitings (like Rembrandt) etc. We are at the point where most popular music productions couldn't even pay for a string section, not to speak of musicians who work outside of any industry.

Entertainment is entertainment. You talk about "High culture" and reference artists such as Mozart and Rembrandt, what does this actually mean? What makes Rembrandt paintings "higher" than an abstract painter like Rothko, or even digital art posted online? You talk about "funding talent like composers from childhood on", why specifically orchestras? Why wouldn't someone who takes interest in music at an early age go on to make rock or Jazz or any other type of music? What makes this "High culture" any more important or worth any more than any other kind of art?

Edited March 1, 2023 by randomcat2000
typo

[Creamhoven]

15 hours ago, CapitanClassic said:

No, 14 years from the creation, plus 14 more if you chose to renew it (Original 1790 Copyright Act). If it was in place today, all games/movies/plays/books created before 1995 would be in the public domain.

Okay, but Wagner spent basically most of his life to write the Ring der Nibelungen and only having 14 years of copyright on work like this does not make it worth the effort.

15 hours ago, CapitanClassic said:

Nintendo Online wouldn’t be making nearly as much off of their SNES library of games.

But alot of nintendos work builds from work that is 20-40 years old.

15 hours ago, CapitanClassic said:

Pulp Fiction / Shawshank Redemption / Apollo 13 could be streamed anywhere for free.

Okay, but you will lower insentive to produce classics

15 hours ago, CapitanClassic said:

This 95 - 120 year term is stifling creativity. But if companies couldn’t make money from nostalgia berries, because anyone could make a rerelease/derivative work at 28 years later, they would be forced to release something new and original. (Do you really need more than 28 years to make money off your creative work)

 

I agree that current copyright highly favours big investors. However if you cut it this short you will force creators to abandon greater projects.

 

14 hours ago, randomcat2000 said:

I don't watch movies often, but the last one i watched in a theatre was Evangelion 3.0+1.0 and I loved it! Maybe the true solution is to avoid American cinema. Hollywood is dead, time to look beyond.

Could it be said that hollywood was liquidated in order to jump onto the videogame industry?

14 hours ago, randomcat2000 said:

Entertainment is entertainment. You talk about "High culture" and reference artists such as Mozart and Rembrandt, what does this actually mean? What makes Rembrandt paintings "higher" than an abstract painter like Rothko, or even digital art posted online?

The point is whether the cultural artefacts are expressions of a high civilisational state.

14 hours ago, randomcat2000 said:

 

You talk about "funding talent like composers from childhood on", why specifically orchestras?

Because orchestras are an expression of a civilisational achivement. You can make enjoyable music by smashing stones at eachother but thats a more primitivistic approach.

14 hours ago, randomcat2000 said:

Why wouldn't someone who takes interest in music at an early age go on to make rock or Jazz or any other type of music?

Thats perfectly fine and might be even better as a artistical expression.

14 hours ago, randomcat2000 said:

What makes this "High culture" any more important or worth any more than any other kind of art?

Because it indicates the state of civilisation. If you cannot uphold certain standards or in fact improve on them, it indicates decline. Not every production needs to be a surpassing of the roman empire, but if it does not happen at all, I would argue civilisation is in an unhealthy state as a whole.

 

On the question of art I want to add that most of entertainment these days does not qualify as art in my view. A critical aspect of art is innovation. Rock music for example is derivative of baroque music or at the very least contemporary rock is highly derivative of earlier forms of rock. It is an ever increasing cultural degression.

Edited March 2, 2023 by Creamhoven

[+swlovinist]

Interesting topic, and something that I do see a little bit from the perspective of a content creator for the past 16 years.   Some of our perspectives here are possibly molded by our age and demographic, which is not the target audience of many categories of media these days.   I can just speak for myself that it makes me sad having so many things that I grew up go away, being replaced by things that I am less interested in.   Agree with some of the statements posted here.   As for gaming, I do find that there are some amazing indie titles being released in the current market, and I try to gravitate to those gems and also appreciate the homebrew and aftermarket for consoles and computers of yesteryear.   

[CapitanClassic]

32 minutes ago, Creamhoven said:

Okay, but Wagner spent basically most of his life to write the Ring der Nibelungen and only having 14 years of copyright on work like this does not make it worth the effort.

…

 

But alot of nintendos work builds from work that is 20-40 years old

...

 

Okay, but you will lower incentive to produce classics

Copyright lasts from the moment it is first copied down in a tangible way, so Wagner‘s first pieces  (1848 to 1874) would be covered until 1876 and his last piece would be covered until 1902 if he considered it was worth extending.

 

It doesn’t matter if Nintendo builds on previous work, those derivative works are also covered for 14/28 additional years, so while anyone could make a Mario game, and anyone could release SMB3….when Nintendo makes Super Mario All Stars and recodes the SMB3 game for SNES (1993), that game cannot be distributed by anyone else until likely 2021. It becomes a new unique expression of SMB3.

 

I highly doubt game / movie / book developers will have lower incentives to create classics. Instead, they will be forced to create new classics, because they can no longer milk the old ones (these days companies just sit on IPs). Even something like The Princess Bride (1987) made a modest profit at the box office, got send to home video and became a classic through word of mouth.  Newline Cinema could keep milking it though 2015 if they extend it, and keep rereleasing it on DVD, BlueRay, etc. Do you think they really need to extend it longer than 28 years to make back their money? 

 

Are there really these “greater projects” that take longer than 14 years to produce?

[zzip]

16 hours ago, Creamhoven said:

It is hard for me to believe that an emperial power like the USA is leaving such a vacuum. Have they given up or will they try to reinvent? How will the proceed?

I don't think the existing entertainment industry is capable of reforming itself.  It's beholden to big investment, everything needs to have big returns given the money on the line, so they'll only deal with "safe" known properties which they are rapidly milking dry and reboots of hit franchises.  Stories crafted by committee,  not much room for real creativity or original ideas.   I don't see how this is sustainable.

 More likely the way forward is creators from the internet shape a new entertainment industry while the old one death spirals.

 

16 hours ago, Creamhoven said:

Yes, I hear this frequently and I share this point of view. Is it so hard to crank something out that is apealing. The top gun reboot was okay, I've heard...

Yeah, the fact that the biggest hit of the year is a sequel to a nearly 30 year old film it a symptom that the industry is not in a good place.

 

17 hours ago, Creamhoven said:

I've heard that Star Trek the next generation was quite low bugdet and had episodes that were intellectually stimmulating to make up for the lack of production value. I don't think there needs to be high budgets, but there must be room for free expression. Maybe the industry was calculating on making up for the lack of free expression with budgets and CGI etc. It doesnt work if thats the case.

No idea about the TNG budget, but the fact that they could reuse the same Enterprise sets and costumes every episode probably means it was cheaper than you'd expect for a Sci-Fi series. The original Dr. Who was even cheaper.   You definitely don't need a lot of money to tell a good story.

 

17 hours ago, Creamhoven said:

For example the first Star Wars trilogy. They are good movies don't get me wrong, but that it is still held up to such a degree makes me think that we have not progressed culturally for quite a while. It is a fun fantasy/action trilogy. If there was strong cultural output then this would be one of many good things, that wouldn't have so much presence in the current day.

 

Star Wars tells a very ancient archetypal story dressed up in modern sci-fi trappings.   It's not something likely top be topped at best you can match it.

 

1 hour ago, Creamhoven said:

Because orchestras are an expression of a civilisational achivement. You can make enjoyable music by smashing stones at eachother but thats a more primitivistic approach.

I would just say it doesn't necessarily need to be an orchestra as we know it,  but an orchestra requires input from a lot of talented people, it's complex music that's difficult to compose.  It usually strives for beauty.    Contrast that with modern pop music that can be completely composed on a laptop in a matter of minutes, you don't even need a vocalist that can sing, apply autotune--  (well just apply autotune anyway because the kids seem to dig it).   And we pretend the two are equivalent.   "The quality of music isn't decreasing! what are you talking about old man?"

[CapitanClassic]

3 minutes ago, zzip said:

 

17 hours ago, Creamhoven said:

For example the first Star Wars trilogy. They are good movies don't get me wrong, but that it is still held up to such a degree makes me think that we have not progressed culturally for quite a while. It is a fun fantasy/action trilogy. If there was strong cultural output then this would be one of many good things, that wouldn't have so much presence in the current day.

 

Star Wars tells a very ancient archetypal story dressed up in modern sci-fi trappings.   It's not something likely top be topped at best you can match it.

The Star Wars “universe” isn’t as vast as people think it is. It’s just laser swords, wizards, dog-fighting, and small rebels versus the big empire. As a kid I liked SW more than Star Trek (NG, since original series was pulp written in the 50s), because I figured the grungy universe was a Wild West, more realistic than the super clean non-violent Federation (might just have been STNG S1:S2 which seemed to have super genius Wesley Crusher solving all the problems) Not that all SW was bad, I remember Splinter of the Minds Eye being decent, but with Disney owning it the chance was of a new story (not run through committee*) being created is about zilch.
 

* Leia Organa would like to note that she is not a committee.

[zzip]

34 minutes ago, CapitanClassic said:

The Star Wars “universe” isn’t as vast as people think it is. It’s just laser swords, wizards, dog-fighting, and small rebels versus the big empire.

It's as potentially vast as any other franchise,  George Lucas gave every alien character a name and back story, as well as the planets,  but it's been hard to get away from the major characters everyone knows and loves

 

42 minutes ago, CapitanClassic said:

As a kid I liked SW more than Star Trek (NG, since original series was pulp written in the 50s), because I figured the grungy universe was a Wild West, more realistic than the super clean non-violent Federation (might just have been STNG S1:S2 which seemed to have super genius Wesley Crusher solving all the problems)

Yeah I've always had an aversion to Star Trek when I was a kid,  could never really put my finger on it.    I think it is the utopian squeaky clean environment, everyone wears the same clothes,  the smug "we're so smart, we've figured everything out" attitude.   A lot of sci-fi was like that,  everything is streamlined and white (the only color that exists in the future apparently) everyone dresses the same and talks the same.  Either that or the sci-fi is completely dark and dystopian. 

 

Star Wars kind of sits in the middle of both extremes.   And instead of imagining a future world,  it takes our world and the world of fantasy and wraps it with a high-tech coat of paint which I think makes is much more relatable.   Plus visually Lucas worked with Ralph McQuarrie to create some truly memorable worlds and visual design.   I think this is something Disney SW has not done well,  every world in Disney SW feels like a drab derivative or worlds in Lucas era SW.

[CatPix]

Interesting topic. I tried to read it all but lots of answers came up. I think someone touched an important thing of what may make our current culture feel so bland, repetitive and overwhelming; That we make more culture.

 

But it's hard to even start to fathom HOW MUCH.

For the book industry, for example, more books have been printed between 1950 and now than between 1950 and 1450.

 

For the media industry; France has a public service of sort, called INA (National Institute of Audiovisual); their main mission is to record every movie, video and music released in France (and for the past 20 years, video games. And if I recall right they ponder about saving French Youtuber video content as well).

 

In 2010, they said that at this point, after 60 years of French television archives, they had accumulated the equivalent of 100 YEARS of continuous (24/7, that is) video archives.

And this is only for video broadcast in France.

Now imagine how much centuries of video, music and reading is produced every year. (not even counting Youtube and streaming).

This is plain amazing. It's hard to even wrap your head around.

 

And yes, most of that is garbage. It make sense; the reason we produce so much media is that today it cost almost nothing. More stuff in the hands of more people, which in turn lead people hoping to make it. More fresh meat for the industry to toss in the grinder... and kick out once they start to get famous and ask for more money.

 

But on the other hand, it mean there's a treasure trove of stuff to discover over Internet.

 

I have played more indie games in the past 5 years than in the past 15 years since I herd of indie studios.

Getting in touch with people from all over the world made me find about different medias, music, cartoons. Many old, some recent.

Culture has never been so rich and so accessible... but as roots.genoa said, it requires you to do mroe than just sit in your random cinema megaplex and complain about always being served the same stale soup.

 

I'm probably missing about lots of stuff that would tickly my fancy. I barely started recently to read mangas. I hardly watch animes. There's no time for everything. Yet if I wait for culture to get served to me without looking for it, yes, that's like going in a city I never been to :

- Either I go to names I recognize like McDonald's and complain about them serving the same selection

- Or I got in the city, losing some time to look for restaurants until I try one. I may be dissapointed; but I also found some great dishes made by a talented chef.

 

It is a choice ;one that is not wrong either. If you like McDo, if you like the current pop culture, enjoy it. But if you don't like it... There is something for you out there. It just require you to look for it.

 

 

 

So many things that even 15 years ago wouldn't be available, or perhaps on some cultural channel at 3 am.

Edited March 2, 2023 by CatPix

[Creamhoven]

5 hours ago, swlovinist said:

As for gaming, I do find that there are some amazing indie titles being released in the current market, and I try to gravitate to those gems and also appreciate the homebrew and aftermarket for consoles and computers of yesteryear.   

Thank you for your content! Is it fair to say that old school gaming was developed in a hombrew/indie type of fashion anyway? Small studios or developers working at their homes.

5 hours ago, CapitanClassic said:

Copyright lasts from the moment it is first copied down in a tangible way, so Wagner‘s first pieces  (1848 to 1874) would be covered until 1876 and his last piece would be covered until 1902 if he considered it was worth extending.

 

It doesn’t matter if Nintendo builds on previous work, those derivative works are also covered for 14/28 additional years, so while anyone could make a Mario game, and anyone could release SMB3….when Nintendo makes Super Mario All Stars and recodes the SMB3 game for SNES (1993), that game cannot be distributed by anyone else until likely 2021. It becomes a new unique expression of SMB3.

 

I highly doubt game / movie / book developers will have lower incentives to create classics. Instead, they will be forced to create new classics, because they can no longer milk the old ones (these days companies just sit on IPs). Even something like The Princess Bride (1987) made a modest profit at the box office, got send to home video and became a classic through word of mouth.  Newline Cinema could keep milking it though 2015 if they extend it, and keep rereleasing it on DVD, BlueRay, etc. Do you think they really need to extend it longer than 28 years to make back their money? 

 

Are there really these “greater projects” that take longer than 14 years to produce?

I see your point, and I do think it has a benefits. I personally would feel better as a creator that my media is mine throuout my lifespan and that there is something I can leave behind for family and loved ones. I would be fine with your proposal if it would be not from the point of the release but from the authors death on.

 

4 hours ago, zzip said:

I don't think the existing entertainment industry is capable of reforming itself.  It's beholden to big investment, everything needs to have big returns given the money on the line, so they'll only deal with "safe" known properties which they are rapidly milking dry and reboots of hit franchises.  Stories crafted by committee,  not much room for real creativity or original ideas.   I don't see how this is sustainable.

But what are the consequences on a societal level?

4 hours ago, zzip said:

 More likely the way forward is creators from the internet shape a new entertainment industry while the old one death spirals.

I think if the internet is able to build something like that it will get banned, destroyed or corrupted.

4 hours ago, zzip said:

 

Yeah, the fact that the biggest hit of the year is a sequel to a nearly 30 year old film it a symptom that the industry is not in a good place.

Yes, its pretty sad.

4 hours ago, zzip said:

 

No idea about the TNG budget, but the fact that they could reuse the same Enterprise sets and costumes every episode probably means it was cheaper than you'd expect for a Sci-Fi series. The original Dr. Who was even cheaper.   You definitely don't need a lot of money to tell a good story.

Yes. It might be the controlfreakish censorious industry that is the main obsticale for greatness.

4 hours ago, zzip said:

Star Wars tells a very ancient archetypal story dressed up in modern sci-fi trappings.   It's not something likely top be topped at best you can match it.

I tried to watch it but when R2D2 and 3CPO walk through the desert I had to turn it off. It is in my opinion not as timeless as others seem to think, but I can respect the movies for what they are, even if they are not for me.

4 hours ago, zzip said:

 

I would just say it doesn't necessarily need to be an orchestra as we know it,  but an orchestra requires input from a lot of talented people, it's complex music that's difficult to compose.  It usually strives for beauty.    Contrast that with modern pop music that can be completely composed on a laptop in a matter of minutes, you don't even need a vocalist that can sing, apply autotune--  (well just apply autotune anyway because the kids seem to dig it).   And we pretend the two are equivalent.   "The quality of music isn't decreasing! what are you talking about old man?"

I absolutly agree. It doesnt have to be orchestral, if an empire builds an epic building that has the proporties of a huge set of percussion instruments designed by genious architects and played by brilliant musicians that would work as an expression of high art as well. Making something work on a computer like the modern industry or even chip tune music can be very compelling but it is not high art.

1 hour ago, CatPix said:

Interesting topic. I tried to read it all but lots of answers came up. I think someone touched an important thing of what may make our current culture feel so bland, repetitive and overwhelming; That we make more culture.

 

But it's hard to even start to fathom HOW MUCH.

For the book industry, for example, more books have been printed between 1950 and now than between 1950 and 1450.

Interesting. This indicates that the market is flooded with repetition and low grade work. The cost of releasing a book in past centuries filtered out alot of things, making it easier to find works worth reading, perhaps?

1 hour ago, CatPix said:

 

In 2010, they said that at this point, after 60 years of French television archives, they had accumulated the equivalent of 100 YEARS of continuous (24/7, that is) video archives.

And this is only for video broadcast in France.

Now imagine how much centuries of video, music and reading is produced every year. (not even counting Youtube and streaming).

This is plain amazing. It's hard to even wrap your head around.

It is amazing on a technical level, but practically speaking what use does this quantity have?

1 hour ago, CatPix said:

I have played more indie games in the past 5 years than in the past 15 years since I herd of indie studios.

Getting in touch with people from all over the world made me find about different medias, music, cartoons. Many old, some recent.

Culture has never been so rich and so accessible... but as roots.genoa said, it requires you to do mroe than just sit in your random cinema megaplex and complain about always being served the same stale soup.

Culture is certainly rich in quantity, and if you dig deep and long enough you will find alot of great things for sure.

 

I think culture is a living thing, and old stuff is part of that in terms of classics, nostalgia, tradition etc. But an important component is contemporary art on a high level.

 

If you ask someone to name a great composer you might hear names like Vivaldi. The gaming equivalent to that would be if a usual answer asking for great videogames would be Space Invaders and Missle command. While those are great classics no doubt, alot of people will name something more contemporary like Elden Ring. While gaming is not as innovative as in the 70s to 90s it is still in great shape compared to painting, music and literature. Anyways, even though there is a certain richness to the experience of digitized/digital media, there is something missing.

1 hour ago, CatPix said:

 

I'm probably missing about lots of stuff that would tickly my fancy. I barely started recently to read mangas. I hardly watch animes. There's no time for everything. Yet if I wait for culture to get served to me without looking for it, yes, that's like going in a city I never been to :

- Either I go to names I recognize like McDonald's and complain about them serving the same selection

- Or I got in the city, losing some time to look for restaurants until I try one. I may be dissapointed; but I also found some great dishes made by a talented chef.

Interesting point. I think our preferance for McDonalds culture has contributed in the decline of richer culture. It takes the spot were nutritious and complex food culture should be, and destroys the structures that once were there.

1 hour ago, CatPix said:

It is a choice ;one that is not wrong either. If you like McDo, if you like the current pop culture, enjoy it. But if you don't like it... There is something for you out there. It just require you to look for it.

I agree to a point, certain things you should have in a developed civilisation are just gone.

1 hour ago, CatPix said:

 

 

 

 

 

So many things that even 15 years ago wouldn't be available, or perhaps on some cultural channel at 3 am.

 

[CapitanClassic]

59 minutes ago, Creamhoven said:

I see your point, and I do think it has a benefits. I personally would feel better as a creator that my media is mine throuout my lifespan and that there is something I can leave behind for family and loved ones. I would be fine with your proposal if it would be not from the point of the release but from the authors death on.

I wouldn’t care so much, except that most creations these days are works-for-hire anyway. If those works had a copyright of only 14/28 years, but author owned ones had a lifetime time limit, my guess is that big companies would just find a way to get exclusive licenses for many authors works, or software developers would suddenly all become independent contractors who require giving exclusive licenses to the companies that hire them for their contracts.

 

I personally see the IP minefield as more detrimental to creativity than a much shorter copyright. If Tolkien wasn’t so scared of the taxman, maybe we wouldn’t have had that abomination Rings of Power.

[Creamhoven]

10 minutes ago, CapitanClassic said:

I wouldn’t care so much, except that most creations these days are works-for-hire anyway. If those works had a copyright of only 14/28 years, but author owned ones had a lifetime time limit, my guess is that big companies would just find a way to get exclusive licenses for many authors works, or software developers would suddenly all become independent contractors who require giving exclusive licenses to the companies that hire them for their contracts.

I agree. Companies have too much power and are in many cases just plain parasitic. The rights of the people and their culture, tradition and ways of life need to be upheld. Capitalism and money shouldnt be an excuse to screw with people. There need to be mechanisms to force companies to behave in a decent manner. By reducing copyright to 28 years after release, it hurts the creator and his loved ones/family. I totally agree that companies must be regulated with an iron fist.

10 minutes ago, CapitanClassic said:

 

I personally see the IP minefield as more detrimental to creativity than a much shorter copyright. If Tolkien wasn’t so scared of the taxman, maybe we wouldn’t have had that abomination Rings of Power.

I don't know about that one, but I have no trouble imagening it as extremly nasty and obnoxiously offensive.