View Single Post
Old
11-16-2012, 11:36 AM
  #253
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 20,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazerbullet View Post
And how are modern movie makers worse? Are they not "genius" enough for you? I don't see how Shakespeare is more "genius" than some of them. So whole your theory that we are still waiting for the next Shakespeare is simply false. Just like musicians... modern Shakespeare most probably doesn't write classical dramas, but does something else which is similar (movies). Again, you don't see them and keep waiting for the next Shakespeare.



And back in the day players were geniuses, artists, and superheros?
One thing that I would point out about modern movie makers is the amount of compromise they are willing to make in order to appeal to different audiences, and make their product as "consumable" as possible in the corporate profit structure of Hollywood. I think additions of characters like Jar Jar Binks to the Star Wars saga, and every modern protagonist character group assembled with representations of "target ethnic/social groups" in mind (hero group must include a female, a black actor, and a little person, or whatever), show the increasing willingness to shoehorn in as much "appeal" into movies as possible, with the quality of story/acting/production coming second, or believed alterable at a later stage.

Essentially, marketing, merchandising, and the dependence on drawing large audiences repeatedly and reliably, has created almost a corporate formula that must be followed to ensure competitive revenue levels/profits. Part of this formula involves removing/mitigating risks/unknowns, and actually discourages going "outside the box" if there's no "proven" mechanism for profiting from that. One could argue that creativity in the modern era has been stifled (from arts to sports) because of the tunnel vision on getting the largest share of consumers' "disposable" entertainment funds, and that too many people in all related fields take the "easy" way would by copying a formula, and only slightly tweaking it to their tastes before being made available for consumption.

And I don't think it's necessarily a weak argument to suggest that compromise is the enemy of quality. It seems to me that the artists that continue to be acclaimed (or gain consideration) as genius were/are typically unwilling to compromise their ideas with the beliefs/values/goals of others in mind, venture outside "the box", and go on to success/fame, regardless - unfiltered, and not tailored with a demographic or target audience's propensity to spend money on related articles necessarily in mind. I'd even argue that artists motivated primarily by profit, no matter how many there are, will almost all fail to produce something that holds up to the label "genius".

That's my communist propaganda for the day, lol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lazerbullet View Post
And how exactly is athletic genius distributed across population? Make a strong case, please.

I'm saying it's pretty easily by random chance, because most of the things in life are in fact just this... random.
Considering the sheer number of bloodlines examples in the game of hockey, and the lack of "surprise" super talents coming out of areas without either winter, or the ability to maintain winter conditions inside a rink-sized structure, I'm going to say there's a strong case to be made for cultivation of talent/genius over pure "randomness". Surely it's not just coincidence that Dougie Hamilton is considered one of the very best hockey players in his age group and has Olympians for parents, for example. Also, have you seen how many familiar names have started popping up in NHL drafts recently? Reinhart, Domi, Samuelsson, Matteau, for example. Mark Howe also obviously had bloodline pedigree. Countless other names have less obvious connections because they are cousins/nephews (not sons, brothers), but are close to those talents and often "cultivated" in the hockey culture from a young age.

I'd argue that genius requires inspiration, and those closest to the "scene" are often privy to fairly exclusive kinds of inspiration. Hard for an average 5 year old to get the chance to enter an pro sports dressing room, look across the room, see plaques of distinguished members on one wall, living legends sitting in the stalls next to them, and be in awe of the whole scene. And yet, just about every child of a current NHLer probably enjoys that kind of setting, sitting beside their dad as he laces them up, soaking it all in with wide eyes.


Last edited by Ohashi_Jouzu: 11-16-2012 at 11:52 AM.
Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote