Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Best (& Worst) Films and Series of 2022
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9012172" data-attributes="member: 18"><p>The quality of what gets made isn't really chosen by the writers.</p><p></p><p>It's chosen by the companies who produce the films and TV shows.</p><p></p><p>So blaming the writers, as you appear to be doing, is pretty bizarre. You could argue audiences are part of the problem, because a lot of kind of dubiously-written shows have been very successful (looking at you, Stranger Things), but ultimately what gets on air is up to the executives, not the writers. Quite often executives will choose okay-but-not great writing which audiences will lap up due to the subject matter over good writing. But some audiences want genuinely good writing, so that's also a market you can aim at - and some companies/execs do.</p><p></p><p>We've had a lot of extremely good writing over the last decade, too. Also if we compare average writing quality from 2013 to 2023 with writing quality from 2003 to 2013, which do you think will come out better? If you think 2003 to 2013, you need to remove those ultra-thick rose-tinted spectacles. The baseline quality of writing in <em>TV shows </em>now is significantly higher than it has been at at point in the past. Literally any.</p><p></p><p>Movies, as [USER=90374]@payn[/USER] says, are in a weird place. Extremely well-written movies don't put butts in seats the way "cinematic universes" (particularly the MCU) do. Also big-name stars are kind of making a come back in that movies which are primarily intended to be streamed tend to be star vehicles, or at least are heavily reliant on the casting of the leads. A mediocre movie with an appealing premise and Ryan Reynolds in it is going to get far more views than something brilliantly written but with a less-popular actor. But I think this gradually shifting a bit - the magic of "cinematic universes" of all kinds is wearing off - so we may see improvement here.</p><p></p><p>Certainly the WGA's demands here do not seem unreasonable, either.</p><p></p><p>Which The Times? Neither the NYT nor the UK The Times said that. The NYT review was broadly positive but said it wasn't Garland at the top of his game - the UK The Times (aka The Thunderer) did two reviews of it, one of which was basically trolling/pandering the right-wing readership they have - I assume that's what you read - but was very unserious as a review. Even that didn't say it was "90 minutes of man hating" though. The other The Times review was a bit more serious and less pandering, and had similar feelings to the NYT, but there's no way you could have got that from the latter one.</p><p></p><p>Either way, Men is an extremely well-made movie, and your assumption about it is flatly wrong. You should not be questioning its place other people's lists of best movies when you both haven't seen the movie and are relying entirely on your own creative interpretation of a single review from a particularly right-wing and pander-y* newpaper.</p><p></p><p>* = I should note that The Times was not always thus. In the 1990s and earlier, it was practically the definition of centrist or centre-centre-right, and even stayed that way for some of the Blair era. But sometime around 2008-2010 (I read it from when I was a kid until about 2012), it clearly discovered or was directed by Murdoch that pandering to the more bigoted/stupid/ignorant feelings of some of its readers was the way of the future, and it started making pandering to those its business, together with promoting increasingly extremist ideas and adopting an increasingly anti-science stance on pretty much everything, even outside of stuff marked as opinion. Disappointing because when I grew up it had quite a lot of journalistic integrity and it had a good attitude to science (better than, say, The Guardian of that era), which it has since entirely abandoned. I still have a couple of friends who work there (one a quite senior journo) and even they are disappointed with the overall direction.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 9012172, member: 18"] The quality of what gets made isn't really chosen by the writers. It's chosen by the companies who produce the films and TV shows. So blaming the writers, as you appear to be doing, is pretty bizarre. You could argue audiences are part of the problem, because a lot of kind of dubiously-written shows have been very successful (looking at you, Stranger Things), but ultimately what gets on air is up to the executives, not the writers. Quite often executives will choose okay-but-not great writing which audiences will lap up due to the subject matter over good writing. But some audiences want genuinely good writing, so that's also a market you can aim at - and some companies/execs do. We've had a lot of extremely good writing over the last decade, too. Also if we compare average writing quality from 2013 to 2023 with writing quality from 2003 to 2013, which do you think will come out better? If you think 2003 to 2013, you need to remove those ultra-thick rose-tinted spectacles. The baseline quality of writing in [I]TV shows [/I]now is significantly higher than it has been at at point in the past. Literally any. Movies, as [USER=90374]@payn[/USER] says, are in a weird place. Extremely well-written movies don't put butts in seats the way "cinematic universes" (particularly the MCU) do. Also big-name stars are kind of making a come back in that movies which are primarily intended to be streamed tend to be star vehicles, or at least are heavily reliant on the casting of the leads. A mediocre movie with an appealing premise and Ryan Reynolds in it is going to get far more views than something brilliantly written but with a less-popular actor. But I think this gradually shifting a bit - the magic of "cinematic universes" of all kinds is wearing off - so we may see improvement here. Certainly the WGA's demands here do not seem unreasonable, either. Which The Times? Neither the NYT nor the UK The Times said that. The NYT review was broadly positive but said it wasn't Garland at the top of his game - the UK The Times (aka The Thunderer) did two reviews of it, one of which was basically trolling/pandering the right-wing readership they have - I assume that's what you read - but was very unserious as a review. Even that didn't say it was "90 minutes of man hating" though. The other The Times review was a bit more serious and less pandering, and had similar feelings to the NYT, but there's no way you could have got that from the latter one. Either way, Men is an extremely well-made movie, and your assumption about it is flatly wrong. You should not be questioning its place other people's lists of best movies when you both haven't seen the movie and are relying entirely on your own creative interpretation of a single review from a particularly right-wing and pander-y* newpaper. * = I should note that The Times was not always thus. In the 1990s and earlier, it was practically the definition of centrist or centre-centre-right, and even stayed that way for some of the Blair era. But sometime around 2008-2010 (I read it from when I was a kid until about 2012), it clearly discovered or was directed by Murdoch that pandering to the more bigoted/stupid/ignorant feelings of some of its readers was the way of the future, and it started making pandering to those its business, together with promoting increasingly extremist ideas and adopting an increasingly anti-science stance on pretty much everything, even outside of stuff marked as opinion. Disappointing because when I grew up it had quite a lot of journalistic integrity and it had a good attitude to science (better than, say, The Guardian of that era), which it has since entirely abandoned. I still have a couple of friends who work there (one a quite senior journo) and even they are disappointed with the overall direction. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Best (& Worst) Films and Series of 2022
Top