"Just turn off your brain and enjoy it."

There is a point to all those sayings, they just shouldn't be extremes.
Unfortunately the society we live in deals only in absolutes.

The general audience doesn't give a single damn about good writing. Popular modern works, up to a hundred years ago, are written at a seventh grade level. Movies are made for the lowest common denominator, and your average Joe that consumes it have no critical thought. Only things such as drama, suspense, theming, or what have you. Since art is made for profit, the best way to gain profit is to produce it for the masses.

You and I have a different understanding of good writing.
Writing should appeal to the masses, doing that doesn't make it bad.
Appealing to the masses isn't the same a listening to the masses.
The problem today is listening to the masses.

>Writing should appeal to the masses, doing that doesn't make it bad.
Popularity doesn't equal quality. Appealing to the most amount of people makes a mediocre and boring product. And just because you aren't the target audience doesn't mean that there isn't an audience sought.

>REEEEEEEE NOTHING CAN BE FUN EVERYTHING HAS TO BE SERIOUS AND DEEP AND UP ITS OWN ASS!
consider suicide

When your "fun" has already taken over the industry in every way that matters, maybe it's about time that "fun" took the wayside.

Plot holes don't matter.

How?

Wrong. You can make quality works that are also popular. Just look at this board still sucking ATLA's cock 15 years later, when it was one of the most popular cartoons of its decade.

We had this same thread yesterday

then go read a book then if you wanna use your brain so much

Themes, pacing and character arcs are indicative of good writing. Some autist retroactively thinking of some alternate path the plot could have taken that would have derailed the above three is irrelevant.

Overthinking won't make your writing better, not all plots jave to be serious, being always in tension is exhausting so it's reading the same tone. Now in the last sentence you showed what's the problem with bad writers, they don't have fun writing, they just type trying to reach the next big thing by corporate standards. You are the problem, the readers just show the symptoms.

>You are the problem
Wanting plots to be more than escapist fantasy wanks is a problem now?

A story needs to be logically consistent within itself, otherwise that's bad writing.

The thing about "Good" writing of the past is that it was tied to national/religious/philosophical destiny which made it an important part of one's cultural mythos. Beowulf is written like shit and all the Norse Myths are probably as trashy as any DC comic but they have a role in shaping the identities and thoughts of the people that they were told to.

The same cannot be said for Marvel Movies, Game of Thrones or Star Wars, or anything at all written today. Memorizing Lord of the Rings doesn't let you do your job or live your life better. People need to work service jobs and live in a thriving industry. Consuming more "Well written" geek media that takes itself too seriously does not shape them in a way that benefits society, and can even have some dangerous consequences if taken too seriously. People like Mark Twain and Kurt Vonnegut were well aware of this, so they chose satire to mock their readers and their relationship to literature.

Establishing this, the only role left for "writing" is to make people happy. Which doesn't require as much depth or put pressure on stories to be as complex or engaging, because that complexity itself serves no purpose/can be destructive.

>What is Donnie Darko
>What is Moby Dick
>What is Vincent Van Gogh paintings
>What is Blade Runner
>What is The Thing

>Some autist retroactively thinking of some alternate path the plot could have taken that would have derailed the above three is irrelevant.
That mindset sounds like an easy way for your writing to be stale, predictable, cliched and repetitive desu.

plots do, otherwise they're just escapist wanks. In the case you described with the murderer, they're actually unhealthy to consume because they invite retarded misassumptions of proper behavior and how the world is. If you've ever read Don Quixote or infinite jest, or seen comic book guy from the simpsons, you'd know that art without purpose can become degenerative. if you say you don't care then it's because you're an obnoxious chump in a bubble, that might aswell give up on plots and art and shoot black tar heroin, because there's no difference in how you abuse them.

How does having a better plot in a murder mystery, horror piece or anything make them better at their jobs or living their lives? You could argue it teaches them detective skills but at that point why even write stories and literature and why not just give detective manuals or something?
>If you've ever read Don Quixote or infinite jest, or seen comic book guy from the simpsons, you'd know that art without purpose can become degenerative.
Those aren't without purpose. They're critiquing society.

This had meaning for us at one point, but here's the problem with the INTERNET in modern life- everyone has a critique. Everyone blogs, comments tweets or posts as user nowadays and has their own speshul opinions. Satire is a dying art and that kind of critique doesn't matter as much nowadays because there's such a sewer of opinions and common place ideas, alongside people so entrenched in their views, that no work like that can penetrate the infosphere or influence anyone anymore.
>if you say you don't care then it's because you're an obnoxious chump in a bubbl
The problem is we're all kinda in bubbles and microcosms now. Good writing isn't universal, what one might enjoy for a webcomic or Sci-fi Serial might be different than another genre and its audience. And the audience for "Works that make people confront reality in some bleak non-escapist" is exceedingly small as to seem pretentious.

>How does having a better plot in a murder mystery, horror piece or anything make them better at their jobs or living their lives?
>thinking technical skills alone are enough to accomplish everything in life
Even the mere process of mastering technical skills can't be done with just technical skills, it requires a source of motivation and the willpower to resist distractions, which are both traits that can't be technically taught, only acquired through a combination of experience and imparted wisdom. Even a person who was magically born knowing all the "boring logistical details" could still be lazy, naive, impulsive, neurotic, selfish or any other number of bad traits stopping them from achieving success and/or changing the World for the better.

I'm just saying you won't do it these days with a good book lol. It's fun entertainment but the writing quality is irrelevant.

This is different because in like 200 BC the audience of playwrights would all be illiterate so the writing work was more sophisticated than them. But it's not the case now, production values are decided by budgets/machines and the ideas presented aren't bigger than the average person's perception.

And if they are they'll usually be ignored, or won't benefit the person interested much to begin with.

>It's fun entertainment but the writing quality is irrelevant.
In what way is writing quality irrelevant? If art is to be done, it should be done well.

It's irrelevant because Art is kind of irrelevant.
What is it relevant to?

Except art has had massive influence over all of human history?

Yes it has, but what's considered Art now is a product of capitalism and industry, making it's delineation vastly more complicated.

For instance, the quality of a works CGI, set design and production values (Budget) will matter more to a movie or work than it's writing will as far as what it influences. So Art if defined as "Influencing all over" here just becomes an amount of money poured in and a bigger marketing campaign.

This all just seems like an elaborate explanation for having no idea what art is.

Then you explain it. You just described Art's importance as "Massive influence all over."

More people saw Transformers Dark of the Moon than Citizen Kane, the Lighthouse, and Pulp Fiction combined. Twilight collectively sold more copies than Frank Herbert's work.

So if we're defining Art by influence and relevancy.. yeah. Give me a better definition here.

Historically, art was produced under the patronage of rich people to appeal to what rich people liked. Now it's produced by rich people to sell to everyone, so it has to appeal to everyone. If anything it's more pure now, unless you're a dumbass bootlicker. Which you probably are, posting this "middle schooler's first hot take" garbage.

Pop art is trash in any era for the reason you mentioned, the audience are dumb. High art is always above their level. You're looking at history selectively, as though Shakespeare premiering at the lower class theater was a normal thing.

Wrong. Modern people's lives are shaped by marvel. People in the past also had their lives shaped by consoomer bullshit that no one remembers, not just by serious myths and religion.

> High art is always above their level
Okay. What do you define as "High Art."
You're just getting into semantics here because tastes can quickly become subjective, and then you wonder why companies and people who create stuff don't meet up to your standards.

If they're autistic redditors or 4channers maybe.
The average person watches Endgame, says "Ah cool I guess", then goes back to work the next day or picks up their kids.
Would that be different if Marvel was trying to make "High Art" instead of "Pop Art?" Idunno, what do you think really?

What about these things that were all sleepers but are now popular? You just said appealing to the masses makes a mediocre product, but that isn't true. I just named a popular product that appeals to the masses, and you just named even more.
Couldn't disagree more. Focusing on eradicating at the cost of telling a meaningful, well paced story with dynamic characters is a recipe for bland, forgotten media.
To a certain extent. Obvious inconsistencies that undermine a message or force characters to act out of character to move the story are an issue. Nitpicky shit like the eagles in LOTR or the Holdo maneuver don't matter at all.

>Nitpicky shit like the eagles in LOTR or the Holdo maneuver don't matter at all.
How do you feel about the Sopranos ending, or the ending to LOST? Is that being nitpicky over a plothole?

Is funny because those aren't comments but answers, so first you have to be an obnoxious retard constantly complaining about people enjoying stuff to get them to say those things.

>As a writer myself,
Kill yourself.

Sopranos was great, Lost is Abrams' meaningless mystery box garbage reaching its logical conclusion.

>What about these things that were all sleepers but are now popular? You just said appealing to the masses makes a mediocre product, but that isn't true.
It's true by literally every metric. Countless movies, shows, games have become stale because they tried appealing to too many people. Fallout and other Bethesda "RPGs" are a good example

What makes them different as far as plotholes?

The Sopranos has no plot holes.

>Focusing on eradicating at the cost of telling a meaningful, well paced story with dynamic characters is a recipe for bland, forgotten media.
The thing with that is every single genre evolved and discovered itself by someone looking at the conventions of storytelling and going "Okay but what if different." If what you're focusing on something is solely traditionalist than the only writing that ever would've come into existence would be Pagan myths and ancient poets. New artforms of writing require people to disregard the norm to be "Meaningful".

The people I see say this around me are mostly middle-aged, and it's usually for something small like watching older cartoons or a coloring book. For that kind of thing, it's basically like turning your brain off-- but you still enjoy it. It's nothing more, nothing less. This does not apply to internet arguments.

It does. It doesn't offer a conclusion to Tony's arc or its storytelling.

>This had meaning for us at one point
Not true. Most people never have a sense of artistic purpose. In the past they just hung out in person rather than online. More people sit around making art than ever.

Social media is like a drug culture for the ego, but without it people would probably just play more video games. The sense of irrelevance is stronger in a bigger world, I guess - or is it a smaller world? These all feel like excuses, especially when great art is still being made.

I'll concede that plenty of mass market art sucks ass. But, plenty of niche material sucks too. For every The Thing or Donnie Darko there's a dozen forgotten arthouse indie horror flops. Some popular things are good, many are shit. Some niche limited market works are good, many are shit. You can't just say that popular automatically means bad when you can point to plenty of popular things that aren't shit.

That's not what a plothole.

A plothole is an inconsistency in the plot.
That's a clear inconsistency to me.

Which is a very long winded version of "popularity doesn't equal quality."

>That's a clear inconsistency to me.
lmao what? Sopranos left all kinds of things unanswered. It was a perfectly consistent ending.

You're so fucking stupid, dude. Go back to your fan wikis.

There is more of a sense of purpose in past works.
Great poems and literature were seen as similar to how some view the bible or holy books- they speak about "Their people" and their way of life, who they are, their identity and roots. To make art that was allowed to spread it had to meet these criteria.

But art (Mass media) today doesn't do that. It kind of numbs us and distracts us, because the media itself IS it's own micro-cosmic bubble and identity rather than the identity of a great collective. In a postmodern world, this means nothing to most. Like you could define your purpose as a Starwars fan and write deep literature or fanfic about it, but it would be completely meaningless to your neighbor or grocer, parents, even your roommate. That wasn't the case with national epics or ancient literature. At best, you can connect with a few random people elsewhere in the world you'll never meet.

The purpose found in commonality is prettymuch gone.

>WAAAAAAAAAAAH WHY ISN'T WRITING GOOD ANYMORE I MOAN THE DEATH
>What, you don't share my opinion? Lol you're fucking retarded all writing should be like I, the genius user say
lmao you're a real piece of work

Attached: Ebs2ZDCWsAAeyxC.jpg (695x1024, 209.37K)

>has never watched The Sopranos
>genuinely believes the ending was the first time a plot was left answered
>stinky weeb to boot
The pseud trifecta.

all of those are cringe except for the third one
fuck faggots who think, for example. capeshit should be sooper srs bsns guyz

Not everything has to be serious or deep.
You piss your pants every time you see a Loony Tunes Short, just because it doesn't ponder the existential dread of the human condition?

Sometimes I want psychological junk food.
youtube.com/watch?v=w3Wluvzoggg