Question(discussion?) about entertainment, art, and so on.

[Representing_Tromba]

I have to really question, what is “quality” when it comes to entertainment?

Production quality. The effort, time, and money was utilized to better the product as a whole. For example, in animation the higher the animation quality the better. Another example would be in writing, the amount of editing and lack of loopholes. Music quality depends on how good it sounds from a microphone. At the same time though, Monty Python has good quality content without spending a lot of money but they did spend a lot of time and effort into writing their jokes and acting quality.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

I have to really question, what is “quality” when it comes to entertainment?

I think everyone has to decide for themselves. That's one of the things that separates my and my friend's logic. In my opinion you should have some internal standards. One for manga, one for novels, one for movies, the lsit goes on. You shouldn't base it off anything if you don't want to, just make some that YOU think is fair. And use those standarads whenever you judge where to spend your allowance\entertainment budget. You can have more than one hobby, and you can have WAY more than one thing you want to buy, but you only have 10-50 spare dollars. How to spend them? Well, you have your criterias that won't allow you to use mental gymnastics and buy stuff of inferior quality.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

Production quality. The effort, time, and money was utilized to better the product as a whole. For example, in animation the higher the animation quality the better. Another example would be in writing, the amount of editing and lack of loopholes. Music quality depends on how good it sounds from a microphone. At the same time though, Monty Python has good quality content without spending a lot of money but they did spend a lot of time and effort into writing their jokes and acting quality.

Well, I disagree.
I say quality is dependent on how entertained you are.

As for what @SailusGebel mentioned about the Witcher, I’d say it’s a mediocre quality product.

Terrible casting (nothing against black people but their inclusion made it feel really off. Might has well have made geralt Asian if they wanted to be inclusive).

Only one good actor (the guy whose name I can’t remember who is going to do Warhammer now).
Poor plot line changes.

I’d say that the Witcher games >>>>>>>>>> Witcher on Netflix in quality and it’s like the difference between the sun and a grain of sand.

 

[Corty]

@SailusGebel I thought this was the norm. Spend your money on stuff you know you get your money's worth.

For personal example, I collect manga. I would love to collect all the ongoing stuff but I narrow it down to those titles that I personally enjoy because it isn't cheap. If a new series starts, I am not ashamed to look up chapters from the high seas, yarr-style, before starting to spend money on it for real. That way I can decide if the series is something that I would be satisfied spending money on.

I still collect titles that in others' eyes are shit or bad quality. Yet they entertain me. I get my money worth and that settles it.

I thought this was the basic thinking pattern in making financial decisions...

 

[Representing_Tromba]

Well, I disagree.
I say quality is dependent on how entertained you are.

As for what @SailusGebel mentioned about the Witcher, I’d say it’s a mediocre quality product.

Terrible casting (nothing against black people but their inclusion made it feel really off. Might has well have made geralt Asian if they wanted to be inclusive).

Only one good actor (the guy whose name I can’t remember who is going to do Warhammer now).
Poor plot line changes.

I’d say that the Witcher games >>>>>>>>>> Witcher on Netflix in quality and it’s like the difference between the sun and a grain of sand.

That's why I have an enjoyment rating. How entertained I am is the same as my enjoyment rating. Something could have terrible quality but be super entertaining and vise versa.

 

[greyblob]

I would rather give my 200k views and good ratings to @Hans.Trondheim who deserve it. His works are of better quality, yet he doesn't get nearly enough recognition. And I don't even like his stuff, but judging purely on technicalities, his works are superior. Yet people with their actions endorse me to write more shitty stuff, while Hans deleted his novel from SH. Those readers lower the overall quality of SH works. Toppling big corporations or oligarchy with such mindset is not my goal. I just think that such mindset helps people who want and tries to give you products of good quality.

doesn't work like that my friend. this is a bad thought process. the value is in the eye of the beholder. hans is a content machine. sh's audience did not agree with his writing. he decided the hassle wasnt worth it and went elsewhere. his work is of value. he's noticed and he's flourishing.

sh agrees with your work. you have people eager to see more of what you write. your work is valuable to them. do not belittle them (or yourself) by disregarding their interest and the time you've put in.

I've read well-written, polished, published novels that were generic and boring as shit. I've read dropped, barely edited web novels that stuck with me to this day. what is valuabe and what is of quality is almost entirely subjective.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

doesn't work like that my friend. this is a bad thought process. the value is in the eye of the beholder. hans is a content machine. sh's audience did not agree with his writing. he decided the hassle wasnt worth it and went elsewhere. his work is of value. he's noticed and he's flourishing.

sh agrees with your work. you have people eager to see more of what you write. your work is valuable to them. do not belittle them (or yourself) by disregarding their interest and the work you've put in.

I've read well-written, polished, published novels that were generic and boring as shit. I've read dropped, barely edited web novels that stuck with me to this day. what is valuabe and what is of quality is almost entirely subjective.

 

[CheertheSecond]

Won't such approach be detrimental in the long term?

We can make the argument that inbreeding while feeling great is detrimental in the long run. However, we can not convince the rest of the human race about arts and entertainment since our (the entire society’s) understanding of arts and entertainment isn’t deep enough to differentiate artistic value and enjoyment.

 

[Corty]

We can make the argument that inbreeding while feeling great is detrimental in the long run.

You try to tell me that my boy's jawline is not chad-like?

 

[RepresentingWrath]

Thank you all for replying(except for you Cipiteca396, go and assume things in different thread ). With your help (you didn't help Cipiteca396), I think I understand where I was wrong.

 

[georgelee5786]

I'm with you

 

[greyblob]

I'm with you

you've been awfully ඞ lately georgeee

 

[Lloyd]

You try to tell me that my boy's jawline is not chad-like?

This nibba been mewwing. DAMN!

A few days ago I was talking with my friend. We had a small argument about TV adaptation of Witcher and different types of entertainment, art, goods and services in general. He said, as long as you like something(anything), you can go ahead and support it with your money. My stance is that like\dislike isn't enough. You should also look at the quality of the product. If it's good and you like it, go ahead and support it with money. However, if you like something of a bad quality, you should try to avoid supporting it with money. What are your thoughts?

I don't support anyone just in case it comes out that they touch kids or something. Creative people are usually sickos.

 

[CheertheSecond]

Anyway, we can’t even define what is quality.

First of all, efforts and time and money invested do not guarantee its success or quality. Only a product can be judged based on those parameters. Many entertainment such as Arts, games, movies are not products and should not be treated as such.

These things are like food. While rare ingredients will be general expensive due to its rarity, just putting the most expensive ingredients together does not qualify as cooking a good meal. Food as well as arts require a perfect mix of its components to create a masterpiece.

What is the perfect ratio? How to put them together? What should be put together?

These questions are more objective than subjective.

Hence, the notion that is quality, to me, can not be defined.

After that, we even have to talk about another headache. Quality is not equal to enjoyment.

Games these days are much more graphically beautiful than in the past but I must say I play barely any game published after 2008. I’ve stopped watching any new tv shows and movies for a decade now. I just don’t find any enjoyment in any of those despite some of them are decent in quality.

You can not tell someone to only pay for something only when they like it and it is of good quality. That’s just impossible.

However, if you like something of a bad quality, you should try to avoid supporting it with money.

This is just impossible. Narcotic, gambling, and mobile games are proofs that this is impossible.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

Anyway, we can’t even define what is quality.

First of all, efforts and time and money invested do not guarantee its success or quality. Only a product can be judged based on those parameters. Many entertainment such as Arts, games, movies are not products and should not be treated as such.

These things are like food. While rare ingredients will be general expensive due to its rarity, just putting the most expensive ingredients together does not qualify as cooking a good meal. Food as well as arts require a perfect mix of its components to create a masterpiece.

What is the perfect ratio? How to put them together? What should be put together?

These questions are more objective than subjective.

Hence, the notion that is quality, to me, can not be defined.

After that, we even have to talk about another headache. Quality is not equal to enjoyment.

Games these days are much more graphically beautiful than in the past but I must say I play barely any game published after 2008. I’ve stopped watching any new tv shows and movies for a decade now. I just don’t find any enjoyment in any of those despite some of them are decent in quality.

You can not tell someone to only pay for something only when they like it and it is of good quality. That’s just impossible.



This is just impossible. Narcotic, gambling, and mobile games are proofs that this is impossible.

Bruh.

Thank you all for replying(except for you Cipiteca396, go and assume things in different thread ). With your help (you didn't help Cipiteca396), I think I understand where I was wrong.

 

[Deleted member 54065]

That is precisely the problem here, friend.

You CAN'T do something like that without inevitably forcing every work out there into an extremely orthodox little box where eventually every new book, movie and game will need to follow similar standards and guidelines, to the point they'll end up all looking and feeling the exact same.
Sound familiar?

Besides, many enjoyable works could likely be punished simply for not adhering to the hivemind, or common Hollywood social justice and 'beauty' standards.

Like so, big established entertainment industries & corporations and NPC consoomers would thrive forever all while indie creators and less orthodox customers would end up shoved into a corner of the internet to soak pitifully in their own degeneracy for all eternity.

Yep, that's why I'm aware it's impossible. Besides, I'm not an advocate of orthodoxy, especially in the creative side of things.

Art is something you 'feel', not categorize too much.

Hope this clarifies my stand on this issue.

I don't have any mindset that is set in stone and would never change. That's the reason for making this thread, to see flaws in my logic. Also, every person, unless you are a sheikh, have limited funds. You can choose to support bad stuff, or you can support good stuff. And I think it does make a difference.

I would rather give my 200k views and good ratings to @Hans.Trondheim who deserve it. His works are of better quality, yet he doesn't get nearly enough recognition. And I don't even like his stuff, but judging purely on technicalities, his works are superior. Yet people with their actions endorse me to write more shitty stuff, while Hans deleted his novel from SH. Those readers lower the overall quality of SH works. Toppling big corporations or oligarchy with such mindset is not my goal. I just think that such mindset helps people who want and tries to give you products of good quality.

They hated harem with unreasonable bias. Hence I removed my works; between chance of popularity and peace of mind, I'd choose peace of mind anytime. But thanks for the compliment.

 

[georgelee5786]

you've been awfully ඞ lately georgeee

I'm getting closerrrrrr

 

[Daitengu]

I'ma disagree. I love me some trash sometimes. Like Rocky Horror Picture Show. Objectively a terrible movie. Subjectively, highly entertaining to experience at a theater. Ya haven't experienced the movie right till the crowd yells "F**k! That! Chin!"

Things like visual quality are dictated heavily by budget. If it's got Disney or Netflix money sure I expect that to be high. So when they do things like Modock I'd be upset. While youtube solo animators get huge leeway in quality of animation cause they are usually not millionaires. In a perfect world, we would have had a hand drawn Berserk anime by now, not the CG abominations we got, but that's all budget.

Then there's writing quality, no amount of money fixes that, just good humble writers, unless you have a good production manager who's paid enough to not get you crap writers. Unlike what the Witcher show got, which is egotistical writers that hated the source material and fans. Actively lied about sticking to the source material, and pissed of Henry Cavil so bad that he leaves mid season.

Not much to say about sound and music. A good budget is what allowed Guardians of the Galaxy to have a banger of a soundtrack. Enough sense to add in effects even if they aren't realistic to add to the action and drama. Like any space movie where explosions and laser fire happens. Realistically you'd hear nothing, but the sounds add 'weight' to them.

Proper management keeps people on task, and their goal straight, with out proper ones, you get a gay Iceman, Velma, and all the other activist tumblr fanfic trash we've been getting for the past few years. Management is OFTEN overlooked as important, so we get alot of trash gettin hired and shows made.

Visuals, writing, sound, music, managers. You got five sliders which are all capped by a singular budget. Often some things lose out to lower the price. If you keep budget in mind, you'll find that "quality" is a very fluid goal post with a 10/10 can go to a single person indie game like undertale, and a 4/10 can go to something expensive like The Witcher Netflix series.

 

[KrakenRiderEmma]

Quality is subjective, as everyone keeps saying. People have different taste.

However, your taste changes throughout your life. Kids like certain flavors, certain kind of entertainment. Other tastes develop as you get older, or your friends and your life experience expose you to different ideas. There are some "acquired tastes" that not many people have, but if you try it, and figure out what's good or interesting about that kind of entertainment, or book, or food... eventually you realize it and you've got a taste that not many other people have, you've figured something else out and expanded your possibilities of enjoyment. It might even be difficult at first, but then it pays off!

Those kinds of tastes are never going to be popular as big-budget money-makers. For a business interest trying to invest money and make profits, it's always going to be easier to go for the "lowest common denominator," whatever already has the most gravity. That "black hole of taste" effect reduces the amount of creative exploration we can do as a culture, a species. Only the lonely deep-space probes go off into the areas that aren't "already popular and everyone likes them" to find something new.

For me, that's the reason to care about some other idea of "quality" beyond "hey I just like to consume this stuff." Like almost everybody, I have entertainment (or food, for that matter) which I just like to consume because it's familiar, fun, I know what it is and what I'm getting, etc. The comfort food of TV, anime, books, whatever. But I know there are other reasons to like and be interested in things, so I also try to support work that I think is interesting, pushing in new directions, doing something that seems worth exploring but might be underappreciated, a weird experiment that might fail (but that's how we learn from experiments!) and so on and so forth. Quality: the thing not everyone's doing.

 

[BlackKnightX]

No.