Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9589032" data-attributes="member: 18">I don't entirely disagree, because there is a quite annoying tendency where everything in media, games, books, movies, TV has to be either &quot;GOAT'D&quot; or &quot;TRASH TIER&quot;, and like, most stuff isn't either. Mid being used insultingly is part of that.BUT - and I think this is a significant but - at the same time I think &quot;mid&quot; is very warranted for the intentionally mediocre junk that Disney particularly, but a lot of other companies in general put out, because we know they can do better, and we know that a lot of the reason they aren't is simply because it's easy to put out mediocre stuff, and not even try and just rely on guaranteed audiences. A lot of this comes down to things like director choice - Disney have been doing this weird triple combo of experienced and competent directors, useless Hollywood failsons (and the odd faildaughter) with connections (Hello Trevorrow), and random serious directors who have ABSOLUTELY ZERO experience making either big budget movies/shows or action movies/shows and then putting them on huge budget action.So I think it's more reasonable to deploy &quot;mid&quot; against bazillion-dollar budget Disney fare than say, some poor writer's slightly dodgy first novel.I dunno about that mate. I think the issue is almost none of them have been good.There's an awful lot of hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars being aggressively spent on mediocrity.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 9589032, member: 18"] I don't entirely disagree, because there is a quite annoying tendency where everything in media, games, books, movies, TV has to be either "GOAT'D" or "TRASH TIER", and like, most stuff isn't either. Mid being used insultingly is part of that. BUT - and I think this is a significant but - at the same time I think "mid" is very warranted for the intentionally mediocre junk that Disney particularly, but a lot of other companies in general put out, because we know they can do better, and we know that a lot of the reason they aren't is simply because it's easy to put out mediocre stuff, and not even try and just rely on guaranteed audiences. A lot of this comes down to things like director choice - Disney have been doing this weird triple combo of experienced and competent directors, useless Hollywood failsons (and the odd faildaughter) with connections (Hello Trevorrow), and random serious directors who have ABSOLUTELY ZERO experience making either big budget movies/shows or action movies/shows and then putting them on huge budget action. So I think it's more reasonable to deploy "mid" against bazillion-dollar budget Disney fare than say, some poor writer's slightly dodgy first novel. I dunno about that mate. I think the issue is almost none of them have been good. There's an awful lot of hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars being aggressively spent on mediocrity. [/QUOTE]

Verification