Are The Standards Of Entertainment Dropping?

clikityclak

Adorno was right!

Spunge

If TV execs realised how much ratings you get from ****ty shows like x-factor and big brother for such little production costs, it would have been done a lot earlier.

krudler

jackiebaron wrote: »

Can't remember the last time I saw a really great movie. Seems that good plots and good acting (Shawshank Redemption, Usual Suspects, Good Will Hunting, etc.) all came out in the 1990's and now there's just drivel that relies too much purely and computer graphics e.g. Matrix, Avatar and all the Pixar ones.

Just compare all the Oscar nominations and winners for the 90's compared to the 2000's. The 90's had all great stuff like Silence of the Lambs, Goodfellas, Crying Game, Scent of a Woman, Schindler's List, English Patient, etc. 2000's gave us political sh!t because of Bush/War e.g. Munich, Good Night and Good Luck, Crash, etc., etc or all that graphics and animated nonsense e.g. All the Lord of the Rings and Matrix and Crouching Tiger, etc.

For action I did like the Bourne Trilogy but I'm a big Matt Damon fan. You could cast him in crap movie usually set aside for muppets like Kevin Costner or Harrison Ford and I would think it's good.

Pixar movies are great, they're the one movie production company who you know are going to deliver at least a good, possibly amazing movie, if you dint like stuff like Up, Wall-E and Toy Story theres clearly something wrong with you, they all have great stories and writing.

smokedeels

parker kent wrote: »

What about The Departed, True Grit, The Fighter, The Dark Knight/Batman Begins, Toy Story 3, Wall-E, Inception, Shutter Island, Kick Ass, Up In The Air, The Wrestler, Changeling, Waltz With Bashir, Brokeback Mountain, The Prestige, Mulholland Drive, Memento, No Country For Old Men, There Will Be Blood, Gladiator, Before Sunset, Kill Bill? And that's just a stream of consciousness list. There will be lots more.

....+American Splendour (sorry, but that movie needs props)

parker kent

smokedeels wrote: »

....+American Splendour (sorry, but that movie needs props)

Ah you could write all day. The last 10 years has had so many great movies.

Standman

It's funny how people often mention how great music was back in the old days, mentioning the Beatles and Dylan etc.. You really think there werent shíte acts around in those days too? Of course there was, only nobody remembers them now because they were absolute cack. If you can't find good music/films/tv then you arent looking hard enough. Cop the fúck on

The Waltzing Consumer

jackiebaron wrote: »

Just compare all the Oscar nominations and winners for the 90's compared to the 2000's. The 90's had all great stuff like Silence of the Lambs, Goodfellas, Crying Game, Scent of a Woman, Schindler's List, English Patient, etc. 2000's gave us political sh!t because of Bush/War e.g. Munich, Good Night and Good Luck, Crash, etc., etc or all that graphics and animated nonsense e.g. All the Lord of the Rings and Matrix and Crouching Tiger, etc.
.

You left out Titanic and Shakespeare in Love which both won best picture in 90s. Crying Game, Scent of a Woman and English Patient were all mediocre films at best and by no means the best of the 90s.

Likewise, you have given three mediocre films from 2000s, Munich, GNAGL and Crash. So yeah when you pick average films from decades, of course it does not look good.

Oh and the first Matrix was out in 1999 and Crouching Tiger came out early 2000, so I would nearly count both of those as 90s films since they were made in 90s.

eco2live

I don't think that standards are dropping. There is just much more of it. There is fantastic film, art and music as good as anything that has come before. Sometimes it takes time and history to be really appreciated as you reflect back on the past 10 or 20 years the stuff that stands out will stand the test of time and the crap (and yes there is a lot of it) will be forgotten.

Just look at the Oscar winners over the past 10 or 15 years. Some of the best films ever made. There is some great music also but I do think that this area is in crisis at the moment and only because there is no independent, valid and accepted source of information and music.

TV standards have got 10+ better in programming and there are some amazing series out there now. I am not into reality television and I don't watch it.

The things that I think is effecting entertainment of all sorts for me anyway are Marketing (direct and indirect) and access and supply.

This is penetrating our lives in so many ways it is just not funny and we are paying a huge price for so called free content. We are bombarded with brands, images, marketing, big business propaganda and even media and political marketing that it is creating sheep.

The ironic thing is that the only way to avoid most of this marketing is to go the illegal route and download films and music. No adds, pop ups, recorded information, trailers and other crap to deal with.

I think the inevitable solution to entertainment is to put the power back in the hands of the consumer so that they can choose how they spend their time.

The way to do that would be an add free global subscription based model. Consumers would pay a monthly fee to subscribe to a content service. Whatever the consumer watches or listens to would be recorded in a type of ratings system and TV company's, music artists and film company's would receive royalties based on the amount of people using their content. Marketing in this service would only be on request.

We hear loads of bollix about money being lost from downloads etc and there is certainly some money lost but they are still trying to push the same old models. If I download some crappy film that I would never buy just to see what its like a company is not losing any money as I would never have bought it. If it is in the subscription based service and I watch it then at least the creator will get some revenue from it. A word of mouth ratings system would allow content that people have enjoyed to be pushed up in the users charts.

Well maybe that was OT but what I am saying is that the quality of entertainment is as good as its always been. The delivery and quantity of the content and the penetration of marketing has diluted it a bit.

Mr Benevolent

Ah come on, the Beatles had no talent. They were Oasis with different haircuts.

OP you're just rehashing the oft repeated myth that we're not as good as our parent's generation. By that definition, the entertainment in 1000BC must've been amazing.

krudler

smokedeels wrote: »

....+American Splendour (sorry, but that movie needs props)

Sure does, great little movie.

Dudess

I would say chart music is, yes, but there's also a "movement" that insists on defending the likes of Justin Bieber and Jedward, even though they know they're sh1te, and referring to their detractors as snobs. They're sh1te - it's really simple. And I'm sure Justin's a nice kid, Jedward probably are too, but that doesn't make their recorded output any better.

parker kent

Dudess wrote: »

I would say chart music is, yes, but there's also a "movement" that insists on defending the likes of Justin Bieber and Jedward, even though they know they're sh1te, and referring to their detractors as snobs. They're sh1te - it's really simple. And I'm sure Justin's a nice kid, Jedward probably are too, but that doesn't make their recorded output any better.

I think that has always been the way with chart music. It may have been before my time, but the 80s was the era of the Jive Bunny and other similar crap. Every era has novelty acts or cynical acts to take money from teens.

That being said, there are legitimate issues with the music industry at the moment.

UsernameInUse

Buceph wrote: »

Sorry, nope. Cream was one of the greatest bands of all times.

White Room.

AhSureTisGrand

Confab wrote: »

Ah come on, the Beatles had no talent. They were Oasis with different haircuts.

You've got it arseways

UsernameInUse

Confab wrote: »

Ah come on, the Beatles had no talent.

Let's see what music today lives for the next 60 years and beyond.
Everything today will be utterly irrelevant in five years.

bigmouth writes again

its more than ever a corporate machine which cogs should never be denied the permission to turn, as every new generation of youths are dependent on the the now for social means. however its now a business that improves / an industry that suffers more than ever. an already familiar regurgitating process of recycling but with immensely less effect originality. is it more PG, or less original? things lose the ability to shock over time.. buts its also due to the toning down of extremities that peaked in the latter stages of the 20st century.

lifes good; there is so much to uncover from the then. and some residue into the 21st maybe, last strains of what was left to invent - some remains, but... kudos for striking upon it. i would not have liked to have lived through only a portion of the past and i urge particularly young folk to respect and uncover for themselves as our elders have laid down a vast, vast wealth.

the cool will probably prefer the past (culture) nerds will probably prefer the future (technology) i am torn between

AhSureTisGrand

bigmouth writes again wrote: »

its more than ever a corporate machine which cogs should never be denied the permission to turn, as every new generation of youths are dependent on the the now for social means. however its now a business that improves / an industry that suffers more than ever. an already familiar regurgitating process of recycling but with immensely less effect originality. is it more PG, or less original? things lose the ability to shock over time.. buts its also due to the toning down of extremities that peaked in the latter stages of the 20st century.

lifes good; there is so much to uncover from the then. and some residue into the 21st maybe, last strains of what was left to invent - some remains, but... kudos for striking upon it. i would not have liked to have lived through only a portion of the past and i urge particularly young folk to respect and uncover for themselves as our elders have laid down a vast, vast wealth.

the cool will probably prefer the past (culture) nerds will probably prefer the future (technology) i am torn between

Ye wha?

rossie1977

jackiebaron wrote: »

Can't remember the last time I saw a really great movie. Seems that good plots and good acting (Shawshank Redemption, Usual Suspects, Good Will Hunting, etc.) all came out in the 1990's and now there's just drivel that relies too much purely and computer graphics e.g. Matrix, Avatar and all the Pixar ones

computer generated or not the pixar films especially wall-e and toy story and the first matrix are incredible films storyline wise. wall-e is the most heartwarming story i have seen on film for many a year

UsernameInUse

O' Rly?

Helix

people still watch tv? why on earth would you do that when youve got the internet to watch what you want, when you want, without having to put up with stuff like x factor

Helix

jackiebaron wrote: »

Can't remember the last time I saw a really great movie

stop going to see crappy movies then?

what youve just done is akin to claiming there is no good music any more because you only hear justin bieber on the radio

theres plenty of good reading, listening and watching available if you actually bother enough to look

so the real question is why are people too lazy to look for high quality products?

bigmouth writes again

Helix wrote: »

so the real question is why are people too lazy to look for high quality products?

far as audio goes, which i only referred to here i've always cherished the '80s underground and its obscene levels of productivity, and originality, but its mostly now either just repeating itself only with a too polished production, which makes it feel mainstream, or saccharine or something.. or just plain non-existant

there was always an alternative to the alternative, but its damn hard to find now.

markesmith

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Ye wha?

An appropriate username.

Entertainment has cottoned on to marketing, and high sales are achieved by appealing to the lowest common denominator. Hence Crystal Swing, Rebecca Black, Rihanna, Westlife, Michael Bay movies, tabloid newspapers, Harry Hill, etc.

Nothingbetter2d

UsernameInUse wrote: »

The internet is wonderful - it allows billions of people to spread their talents and their opinions but has this new influx of "talent" discredited the real abilities of the few? I mean, take music for example - the Bob Dylans, Beatles, Eric Claptons, Michael Jacksons and countless others are substituted for Justin Beibers and Rebecca Blacks...wtf?

The same with entertainment in general - everything is gone PG kinda. Now we have crap like X-Factor on every ten minutes and as soon as it ends, Britains Got Talent starts. Then it's on every magazine and newspaper front page..

The standards of entertainment is severely slipping - or are we going backwards in our evolution to the point that anything literally entertains us...

i totally agree...... i'd love to see an new x factor comp where the following rules had to be met before you could enter.

1. Must be able to play a musical instrument competently
2. Must be able to write your own lyrics or chords
3. Must have at least one member in your band able to sing those lyrics.
4. Must have made a cd on their own without professional help (reason for this is so Louis Walsh or Simon Cowell cannot simply assemble a mix match bunch of lads especially for the x factor comp to form yet another boy band)
5. Must have played at least 10 live gigs in public. (reason for this is so Louis Walsh or Simon Cowell cannot simply assemble a mix match bunch of lads especially for the x factor comp to form yet another boy band)

OPENROAD

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

i totally agree...... i'd love to see an new x factor comp where the following rules had to be met before you could enter.

1. Must be able to play a musical instrument competently
2. Must be able to write your own lyrics or chords
3. Must have at least one member in your band able to sing those lyrics.
4. Must have made a cd on their own without professional help
5. Must have played at least 10 live gigs in public.

+1

bigmouth writes again

lets not forget how we won't be able to differentiate which era something came from now on anymore outside what it is, or who it is but its been like that for a number of years now already. particularly in music every sound in the book has been discovered and utilized amidst whats overly polished re-hashes for the most part - there's no real improvements to be made in sound technology or original concept, even subgenre wise, adding to previous ones so this is going to be one well oiled, samey century. the past is mine but the future's yours.. if you want it

anyhow, that's entertainment.

UsernameInUse

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

i totally agree...... i'd love to see an new x factor comp where the following rules had to be met before you could enter.

1. Must be able to play a musical instrument competently
2. Must be able to write your own lyrics or chords
3. Must have at least one member in your band able to sing those lyrics.
4. Must have made a cd on their own without professional help
5. Must have played at least 10 live gigs in public.

Great ideas.

Simple things like this would raise standards tenfold. I hope people can see that such an approach would pay dividends for our species in the long run.

AhSureTisGrand

markesmith wrote: »

An appropriate username.

Entertainment has cottoned on to marketing, and high sales are achieved by appealing to the lowest common denominator. Hence Crystal Swing, Rebecca Black, Rihanna, Westlife, Michael Bay movies, tabloid newspapers, Harry Hill, etc.

This is new is it?

Edit: it's odd that you should mention Rebecca Black and Crystal Swing, seeing as they both shot to fame by accident, with very little marketing, and were largely consumed on a "so-bad-it's-good" basis

In fairness, standards for women are dropping.. Lads still listen to more decent music, get far far more out of the internet and generally don't watch X Factor. On average.

Helix

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

i totally agree...... i'd love to see an new x factor comp where the following rules had to be met before you could enter.

1. Must be able to play a musical instrument competently
2. Must be able to write your own lyrics or chords
3. Must have at least one member in your band able to sing those lyrics.
4. Must have made a cd on their own without professional help (reason for this is so Louis Walsh or Simon Cowell cannot simply assemble a mix match bunch of lads especially for the x factor comp to form yet another boy band)
5. Must have played at least 10 live gigs in public. (reason for this is so Louis Walsh or Simon Cowell cannot simply assemble a mix match bunch of lads especially for the x factor comp to form yet another boy band)

i hope the irony isnt lost on you that in a thread complaining about how bad mainstream tv has gotten, youre making suggestions to make the single biggest offender better in your view.