“It is not the job of artists to give the audience what the audience want. If the audience knew what they needed...

>“It is not the job of artists to give the audience what the audience want. If the audience knew what they needed, then they wouldn’t be the audience. They would be the artist. It is the job of artists to give the audience what they need.”

He's correct. Writers are writers. They aren't servers.

Attached: Alan-Moore-credit-Mitch-Jenkins.jpg (680x680, 665.38K)

Other urls found in this thread:



>write something the audience doesn’t want
>nobody buys it


Popularity and money doesn't equal quality. Just because you aren't the target audience doesn't mean that you aren't the audience sought.

>Popularity and money are what makes something good

It does.
Else they are just masturbating to a mirror.

>Micheal bay Transformers is now top quality apparently
>McDonald's is now the best food in the world apparently


user, art thats unloved by the masses is mere masturbation made for the artist.

Moore is full of shit. And he knows it.

By the way, abrams ran star wars into the ground and it was manipulative derivative trash. Transforners manages to actually breathe life i to the dying ip and get buts i to the seats.

>it is not the job of chefs to give hungry people what they want

>user, art thats unloved by the masses is mere masturbation made for the artist.
>Appeal to popularity.

Popularity doesn't mean that somethings good, retard.
It's the job of the chef to make good food. Not give hungry people what they want.

Youre right.
Inorganic popularity is a form of controlled mass hypnosis.

Organic popularity always tells the tale of what is good or not.

except the best artists of all time always played to the crowd. shakespeare was massively popular with the masses, dante wrote in vernacular etc. you can be a pretentious faggot all you want, a true wordsmith can fit high concept intellectual stuff into a story everyone can enjoy

So are Marvel movies the best movies? Is McDonald's the best food?

>It is the job of artists to give the audience what they need
and apparently what they needed was... fishrape?

Shakespeare is a hack

say what you want he knew how to please a crowd to the point where intellectuals and normies have loved him for 400 years. I doubt anyone’s going to be reading the killing joke after that long

Moore simplifies his comics for the average reader too.

People would give a standing ovation after 10 hours of a fork scratching a plate if it had a post credit sequence with Spiderman in it. Nobody is obligated to care about what a general audience thinks.

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.

Imagine ordering at a restaurant and afterwards the chef just decides to make you "what you need" and it's an unpalatable dish you despise. Who would go to this restaurant? The chef would soon be out of a job.
If you can't get your message through while giving the audience the entertainment they crave, you aren't fit to call yourself an artist/writer.

>the audience
Which audience? I'm not going to cater to the retarded masses

>*is better than the killing joke while appealing to the masses and being hated by critics*
>Moore says he hates it because it’s based on the killing joke and he disowned it. And then says he hasn’t seen the movie even though he hates it

Eat shit Moore

Attached: 598A5933-C114-4158-8AF5-7CAC5E5E864E.jpg (1280x720, 141.08K)

Attached: 2919295_original.jpg (797x377, 213.95K)


Actually, popularity just says how many people bought or viewed something and absolutely nothing more than that.

user, buddy.
Captain marvel made a billion dollars.

Marvel movies popularity is sus as fuck.

Also makes me call into question how popular the WW and Aquaman movie actually were.

Okay. Garfield is the best peter parker and spiderman in all of the live action movies.
Emma Stone was wasted as Gwen Stacey.

Current spiderman is a twink flamer and mj was a massive bitch/strong girl not normie girl but it's a bit too late.

Yes they do.
Good writing good cinematography good music good directing respecting the audience.
That makes magic.

Self important wastes of of a perfectly good human egg fisting their assholes on the page and screaming that they are not intelligent or spiritual or emotionally wisened to know.

He's been wrong about almost everything lately, Has he been tested for cognitive decline. Pretty soon he's going to be giving statements about how all cats are female and all dogs are male or some other babble.

>Yes they do.
>Good writing good cinematography good music good directing respecting the audience.
If they did, then marvel wouldn't be popular.

This is a valid goal but keep your day job too.

Art has to be entertaining to get people to pay attention. What you have to say doesn't fucking matter if you can't get anyone to listen to you. So you have to make some compromises or your work will leave no impact on the world.

The issue isn’t about popularity or giving people what they want. The issue is that this is the mindset that produces both genius and garbage and typically produces garbage.
The biggest problem is “how does the artist know what people need?”
This is where the pretentious hack part comes in. Following this line of logic, someone could produce piece of garbage after piece of garbage, then turn around and say it’s the audience’s fault for not getting it.
This is what happens all the time on the indie scene in movies, video games, and comics. Now give this to an established IP, that means someone’s investing in it, you’re handling beloved characters, and you’re dealing with an audience who already know what they’re coming for. Nothing will be wholly original.
You can’t just pull the “I’m an artist!” excuse out of your ass, because the audience will easily pick up on it and call you out for it.

Attached: B502B5E7-AA09-4850-A038-DE791199C06B.jpg (386x605, 113.75K)

>”Pretty soon he's going to be giving statements about how all cats are female and all dogs are male. Only socialism can sage us from the bloody tories bankers bonuses”

“Wow. Alan Moore is a genius!” - Yea Forums

Attached: 9B646FD2-E002-4735-88CB-0B3284D7FD2C.jpg (1024x1001, 223.08K)

Popularity literally only means how many people saw a thing. It has nothing to do with quality.

Nobody knew they wanted a Harry Potter book until it came out.
Then there were a lot of books "adapted" into the harry Potter formula, without success.
They were like "look, it's like harry Potter! and it's a movie! like a harry Potter movie, so you don't need to read a book. Hell, it's even more like harry Potter that its own source material, so it means it's even more fun!". And yet they failed. Miserably. So maybe people liked the harry Potter books for being harry Potter books.

It's not as popular as you think it is user.
Not anymore.

The mass hypnosis induced popularity and giving them the benefit of the doubt died a long time ago.
Now they have to be good or it's over.

The disaster multiverse movie, the god awful infinity movies, they stupid last thor movie, and now the disney+ debacles has baasically killed the IP.

They don't get a good serious yet fun movie without the "marvel movie" touch then it's over.
They had a CHANCE with moon knight but they had to push the marvel shit into it now it's a disaster.
And the netflix versions of the marvel characters are all....NETFLIX as fuck and are on Disney+.
I litterally don't know how they expect this to not be a disaster.

Everyone breathes oxygen but I wouldn’t call oxygen popular

How many people willingly saw and liked it is popularity.

You're talking about exposure.
And forced exposure as well as co-opting things people like to expose it to them is a way that inorganic popularity is created for a product. It's a major reason why the shared universe exists.
I mean, the "trinity" exists to prop up WW.
Hell the batman loves WW thing exists for this reason too.

The red pill is bitter. Go get a cup of juice to wash the taste out of your mouth.

People are willingly going to see marvel movies. Nobody is forcing them to.

I would take him more seriously but he literally made two good comics and everything else he did was shit

And even if I give you that, popularity still has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of a work and nothing is going to change that.

How does this prove that popularity equals quality?

It´s embarassing when hacks try this with well know IPs

Art isn't consumable nor is it content.

This is a false equivalence because you order food, you don't order art. If you commissioned Moore for art and he didn't deliver what you ordered, that would be closer to your analogy.
A closer analogy would be restaurants. You don't decide what restaurants are in the area but you can decide which one to go to.
You're also assuming that Moore is saying his work sucks, because YOU don't like his work. That's not what he's saying.
Following the restaurant analogy, it's the same as how most people will choose McDonald's or Taco Bell, even though restaurants with better food exists. It's not a perfect analogy, but I think it fixes problems with yours.

If physical force is the bar you want to set then a good chunk of the PR and Advertisement trash pushed on people would be met with a ton of overt open pushback and violence.


1.Not as many people as claimed actually go to see marvel movies. The movie boom is mostly an embezzlement scheme.

2.Social coercion and media induced hypnosis are time tested and powerful mind control tools. We have laws on the books and organizations who are charged to protect people from this.

Can you prove your assertion that popularity equals quality?

I think this is right, but up to a point. A writer can be firm, but they shouldn't resort to pettiness and outright mock/insult their audience. When it gets to that, I think it's going too far.

Then who says the work is quality?
And why should we give a fuck what they think?
Your arrogant self important prattle is ego masturbation and nothing but.

This is why critics are not trusted. They live cut off from normal human beings and are easily and almost always bought off.

Organic popularity means it's good.
Critics who bitch then have nothing else to put said work up against as a superior version nor can they explain why it's better are just contrarian fucktards who want to be oh so better then mere normals.

It means that any shit I mean ANYSHIT can be made popular through a handful of well known always used means.

Organic popularity means that enough people like it based on it's own merits and that is good.

Then it's not art.
It's masturbation with an external medium.

When art stopped being a way to tell a story or make people feel things that aren't just shock and awe and please look at me....
Then it' stopped being art.

This is good art to you people.

>They aren't servers.
Bitch, their job is to give the god story I asked for. They answer to the customer. The customer is the one giving them money to keep working. Get the fuck out of here, spoiled authors need to learn their place.

Okay, quality and exposure have a connection.

The more it's exposed and pushed the more popular it is.
The higher quality is more popular it is compared to poor quality with the same exposure.

High quality doesn't need as much pushing as poor quality does.
High quality stands for itself and lasts unless it's litterally fought against.

Like....Cardi B. She's trash. Absolute ass ugly bottom barrel trash.
Katy Perry and Gaga are much the same

Without pushing and constant pr and whoring of themselves they will quickly fall into nothing.

A quality songstress needs very little pr to maintain popularity. Just pop out with a new song or something and stay with her fans.

Moore's statement seems profound up until you start realizing the problems

How does a writer know what the audience needs? If the last twenty years of comics and even film/TV is any indication, I'm not sure writers even know what the audience needs.
Moore is way more talented than them which means he would know what the audience needs better than those hacks, but for every Moore there's like 30 writers who whine about how franchise fans got upset at their "art".

You really think people were only watching Iron Man in 2008 because of how popular the character was? And then they willingly kept watching in droves despite your claim they were tricked because reasons?
Marvel's popularity is absolutely real, it's just brand popularity rather than individual movie (which isn't a new thing). Sorry it pokes holes at your retarded theory that what you think is good is what becomes popular.

No one gave ironman 2008 a chance.
Want to know what made it take off?
Giving it away for free AND IT BEING GOOD!
And yeah, the dude being fucking jebediah stane really pushed it over the top.
Still don't like pepper pots. That reporter should have taken her place, but old hollywood takes care of their own.

And let's be honest.
Nortons hulk was better then IM 2008 and it had far more impact on the MCU then the IM movie.

In that instance, quality met exposure and it took off.

See. IM having NOTHING going for it and no god awful ang lee hulk to make up for helped it immesurably. It being RDJs last chance made it great.

As for the rest of your post....yeah. I'm afraid it's true. Lot of the MCU is trash or barely mediocre.
Thor shuld have been lord of the rings...but it was demoted to terrible romantic comedy with fat wimp simp thor.
BP was just a deep dissapointment all around and reeked of muh female empowerment and simp fem male bullshit.
Let's not forget CM making a billion with empty movie theatres.

It's...well WAS very popular. But that popularity and good will was spent with a serious of bafflingly RETARDED narrative decisions and stupid stories.
It's now a zombie IP that sees it's popularity chip away under it's own stupidity before finally dying painfully.

Look at the disaster of the disney plush shows.

Moore needs to understand the difference between fine art and commercial art. That's where he fails.

No, he was a self-righteous communist faggot who made a career off of the most mainstream characters possible in one of the most mainstream genres possible. Self-aggrandizing, childless, weirdo who cares more about his own ideology than the books he worked which were mediocre at best and offensively bad at worst, remember all-star Batman?

He has a gay son named Kneel.

I’m coming to find the running theme is they either read Watchmen or see Unforgiven and think “That, but for franchise I’m working on!”
Yet they never really understand what made either of those work.

This but unironically

Because he looks like some century defining philosopher doesn't mean he is one retard.

Attached: 1650774934930.png (700x700, 837.3K)

A lot of anons here obviously view art as a commodity to be bought and sold. If you view being an artist as primarily a job, you're wrong and have no frame of reference for what Moore is talking about in OP

Only because within the context of Yea Forums, these artists want to use established characters with established lore and established characterization while having the financial backing of huge corporations and have no ability to differentiate between “new and interesting ideas” and “completely disregarding what has been well established for years so I can go nuts.”

If you don't already know what's good, you can't want it yet. If an author delivers something good, the audience will want more of it after they've had a taste. Alan Moore's actually a great example of this because of how different the work he created was, but after audiences read his books, they wanted more like that, to the point that imitators came along to fill the demand that he created. The most pivotal works that affect the course of a medium are usually ones that gave the audience something good that they didn't already want.