|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Jun 18, 2023 15:34:53 GMT
When something isn't working (a game, a show, a movie etc.) is it better if it's actively terrible (nonsensical, ugly, messy, incompetent), rather than just being 'fine' and unremarkable? The latter is less irritiating and painful, but then, at least the former can be called 'an experience', it can be said it did engage, on some level.
|
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Jun 18, 2023 16:55:20 GMT
Depends what's meant by engagement someone could think something's absolutely terrible and someone else thinks it brilliant which usually sparks a wider discussion, however the experience of something that someone found bad is unlikely to improve in spite of it.
I'm trying to think of something recent that knew that it was Bad that it was good Happy Death Day Films maybe.
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
|
Post by relativetime on Jun 18, 2023 17:04:21 GMT
I was originally going to say "fine and unremarkable" was better, but I'm not so sure. When something is terrible, it often sparks a lot of constructive criticism and discussion around what went wrong with it. I think terrible art can often inspire the creation of good art, whether it's because someone wants to prove that the same idea can be done better or because the discussion about the original sparked a new creative idea.
With pieces of art that are just fine or unremarkable, there isn't as much to talk about. I think you can still have compelling discussions about this kind of art, but it's a lot harder to find something to say. When I came out of the theater after seeing Batman v Superman, for instance, I was really, really angry and I'm still finding new things to say or articulate about why I don't think that movie worked. Conversely, there are several films I've seen that I thought were serviceable enough, but I couldn't tell you anything about them.
Also, I think terrible art with terrible messages is a lot easier to call out and take action against than art that is "fine" but has terrible messages. Though I guess that also sparks a conversation about what makes art "terrible" in the first place, since I would argue that art that is racist or anti-LGBTQ+ for instance is terrible art.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Wearer of Hats on Jun 18, 2023 20:47:54 GMT
When something isn't working (a game, a show, a movie etc.) is it better if it's actively terrible (nonsensical, ugly, messy, incompetent), rather than just being 'fine' and unremarkable? The latter is less irritiating and painful, but then, at least the former can be called 'an experience', it can be said it did engage, on some level. Bad is more acceptable because you can have fun taking the mickey, but “stolidly workmanlike” gives you nothing to work with. “Bad” also usually means they’ve shot for the moon and missed and ended up in a gravel quarry in Slough, they have HIGH IDEAS and GREAT HOPES and we’re desperately trying to do something novel to entertain. It’s Roger Corman versus (say) someone who works for the Asylum. Roger LOVES filmmaking. He respects his actors. He’ll work a budget seven ways to Sunday to get everything he can out of it and yeah … some of it is naff, some of it is derivative. But it’s never not entertaining, despite looking and feeling like each scene was the first and only take. The script Bots from the Asylum just produce scripts that exist. Someone is paid. Someone reads the words on the page. They are actively bad, and almost so intentionally bad they fail to be entertainingly so. we cannot deny that Horns of the Nimon is not a good story. But it is deeply entertaining. Can we say the same for Praxeus? I honestly cannot even remember if I’ve seen Praxeus. |
|
