←back to thread

231 points frogulis | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Duanemclemore ◴[] No.44567845[source]
I don't know if calling it a "New Literalism" is helpful. I just don't know that a penchant for literalism ever went away.

Now, what IS relatively new is the "ruined punchline" phenomena that they identify (without naming) on the movie recap podcast Kill James Bond, which is that contemporary movies always ruin jokes by telling one, say... "x" and then having another character chime in with "Did you just say 'x' !?"

I think there's a fear of losing attention because you're asking people to think about something other than the eyewash happening right in front of them by inviting them to have to -think- about a movie.

Anyway, to close: "No one in this world ... has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people..."

- HL Mencken

replies(3): >>44567959 #>>44568695 #>>44571341 #
woolion ◴[] No.44571341[source]
>No one in this world ... has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people...

I think you're disproving your own point. If you look the major flops in all industries (video-games, movies, ...) the general trend is contempt for the audience. This generally results in some form of uproar from the most involved fans, which is disregarded because of the assumption that the general public won't pick up on it. At the very least, I would say that for this to be true you need to have a very specific definition of intelligence that would exclude a lot of crowd behaviors.

replies(2): >>44573091 #>>44574021 #
1. marcosdumay ◴[] No.44573091[source]
> I would say that for this to be true you need to have a very specific definition of intelligence

That phrase is about conning people...