site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   32279 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Maybe Jennifer Lawrence is actually worth $25 million dollars, but I don't think so. A more sustainable model for Hollywood would be to pay more actors a more moderate sum, creating more things on a smaller budget to appeal to more groups and sub-genres.

A movie without a big star is risky, making it very difficult to get the right mix of stakeholders on board (director, financing, producers, executive producers, studio execs).

It is interesting that other mediums (eg TV, music) have gone somewhat the opposite direction. Reality TV is cheap to make. You just find some randos who are willing to whore themselves out for some fame and broadcast it. Sure, your audience might be less compared to a good TV show BUT the cost is so low you still come out ahead.

Streaming has allowed musicians to more easily “publish” their music. The labels are much less important.

One wonders why Hollywood has remained insulated from the above? Is the nature of movies just different? Is it union rules?

Streaming has allowed musicians to more easily “publish” their music. The labels are much less important.

From what I understand there are two caveats to this so large as to destroy the point:

  1. Streaming ends up following a power law and most of the benefits accrue to the top anyway. Perhaps moreso since streaming giants have more incentive to cater to the biggest stars that bring in the most streams as opposed to anyone who can sell a record for $10.
  2. From what I understand Spotify basically just had to cut deals with all of the labels who owned all of the old music they needed on their service. And it gave them stock in the now central locations we listen to music. Even the studios didn't get that with Netflix.

The sound of freedom had a $15 million dollar budget, which is still very expensive even if not by movie standards. It’s probably just a medium that it’s hard to do cheap enough to be worth trying.

Counterpoints: The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity are two of the most profitable films ever made because their production costs were in the five to six figure range. These are particularly pronounced examples of the general tendency for horror films to be cheap as chips to make (audiences don't expect big stars, casts tend to be small, geographic isolation is usually a necessity for story reasons which limits the amount of locations you need to use etc.) - the most beloved slasher films from the 70s and 80s were made for small budgets. More recently, Unfriended was made for $1 million and shot entirely in the director's house. Blumhouse's entire business model is "find directors who seem creative and enthusiastic, give them $1-4 million, almost all of the resulting projects will break even and a few will be whales".

See also Kevin Smith, who launched a successful directing career by making an indie comedy, Clerks, for $27,000 (half of which went to licensing the soundtrack) which he funded by selling off his comic book collection. Or Shane Carruth, who created one of the most critically acclaimed sci-fi movies of this century (Primer) for $7,000. Or just take a look at this list: you may be surprised to find that at least one film you love cost less than a house (or even a new car) to make.

"Yeah, making a movie used to be cheap but now it's more expensive."

Bullshit. Digital cameras are the norm now, so you don't even need to pay for film stock (as at least 3 of the 5 examples above did). Non-specialist consumer electronics are good enough that at least two critically acclaimed and profitable movies that I know of (Tangerine and Unsane) were entirely shot on iPhones, and editing an entire feature film on a standard laptop is perfectly feasible (and you'll probably be using the exact same NLE that the editor for Marvel 36: Electric Boogaloo used).

Sound of Freedom is a poor example of how cheap movies can get insofar as a) it was filmed in two countries and b) it features a bankable movie star who probably was unwilling to work for scale. It would not surprise me one iota if Jim Caviezel's fee cost more than the rest of the production combined. This has precedent: Glass was a nominally $20 million film that looked like it cost one-tenth of that because it had Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson.

I do wonder if a winning strategy is filming 10 movies with budgets if 15m hoping to find one hit. If 9 make 10m but one makes 100m you have a net profit of 40m.

This is the received wisdom, but it seems like adding tens of millions to your budget in the hopes of drawing in JLaw fans is the bigger risk. Maybe it's a smaller risk only in the 'nobody gets fired for buying IBM' sense

It seems like JLaw adds some value. Query whether the marginal benefit is worth the marginal cost.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats