''Movies aren't Innovation''

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

If we follow your logic, as I don't normally post that, that would be a change in my posting patterns so it would be, according to your definitions, innovative.

It isn't, but that's what you implied.

It depends on what kind of justification you offer for the usefulness of this novel practice.

In the case of new movies though, its very easy. New movies are made every single year (and it could be any given innovation that makes them such a great artistic work... be it a very good script with sharp dialogue, the special effects, the characters, the interpretation of the actors etc).

An innovation doesn't have to be entirely new. But it does not need at least some element of novelty or new interpretation (but it CAN be largely recycled or borrowed but just re-arranged).

In the case of movies, the innovations would be done so that the story can be better told and better art can be created on film for the viewer's aesthetic and emotional senses.

I suspect... no, I have confirmation, that you do not know what ''innovation'' means.

[Frenequesta]

And Nana isn't the first to do so. Hence, not innovation.

Not even Lucas was innovative, if you come right down to it. All he did was mimic Japanese syntax, IIRC, but with English words.

Japanese is SOV, not OSV. But whatever.

At law school, you meet a LOT of very pragmatic (often very annoyingly so),very ambitious, and yet strange King's Landing type folks.

Anyhow, a recent conversation inspired this thread topic.

The subject of movies came out and one person said one of the most offensive things I've ever heard in my life. He said that streaming and downloading movies for free from the internet was...

''Okay because it doesn't do damage. It's not like it's real Innovation... like Viagra hahaha.''

I was silent for a whole minute.

...

WHAT DO YOU MEAN MOVIES AREN'T INNOVATION?!

...

What do you think? Are movies Innovation? Do you find the quote statement offensive?

Hold on, are you sure you interpreted his statement correctly? As I read it, he said downloading movies for free wasn't real innovation, not movies themselves.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Not even Lucas was innovative, if you come right down to it. All he did was mimic Japanese syntax, IIRC, but with English words.

Japanese is SOV, not OSV. But whatever.

I'm afraid I don't understand the reference.

[Infected Mushroom]

WHAT DO YOU MEAN MOVIES AREN'T INNOVATION?!

Do you have any idea how IMPOVERISHED humanity would be without the sacred art of movies?!

How can something so beautiful, that can make you grip the edge of your seat, install a sense of adventure, laugh, and cry rivers NOT be innovation?

Movies can be nice, but my goodness. Don't be so melodramatic. Humanity was just fine for millennia without movies. They are not so important as you think. And the vast majority, especially today, are not innovative.

If movies, along with television shows disappeared tomorrow... I would NOT be fine.

SOME elements of this overly-materialistic, grounded, and pragmatic society might be... I would not be fine.

The movies are an indispensable part of human civilisation now for the most us, I really don't approve of it when some people want to suggest some kind of a hierarchy where somehow they are a useless frivolity compared to the ''serious things'' like money, inventing medicine, and inventing chemicals.

Why is it that so many people don't pay the arts the respect they deserve? Why is it that in the eyes of some of these really ''grounded'' pragmatic scientific types, somehow the manufacturer, builder of machines, or traditional businessperson is somehow superior to the artist and writer?

I think it's a sign that our society has become overly-practical and fixated on money and a bizarre form of ''rationality.''

What do you think? Are movies Innovation? Do you find the quote statement offensive?

What makes you so sure this is an overall attack on the arts? Sounds to me like he just wants to download some movies for free.

Had he just said... ''In a capitalist society, I'm entitled to cut corners and I don't think the government has a right to regulate what I can or can't download.'' I would have been frowning a bit, but at least I would have understood it.

However... suggesting that movies are NOT innovation and that somehow they are inferior to Viagra.

No.

Not cool...

[Frenequesta]

Japanese is SOV, not OSV. But whatever.

I'm afraid I don't understand the reference.

And I'm afraid I might not have understood what you were referencing when you were talking about "Japanese syntax". I assumed you were talking about Yoda's speech patterns.

EDIT: "SOV" is subject-object-verb for the word order of sentences, "OSV" is object-subject-verb.

[Risottia]

WHAT DO YOU MEAN MOVIES AREN'T INNOVATION?!
Do you have any idea how IMPOVERISHED humanity would be without the sacred art of movies?!

False equation.
Innovation =/= enrichment.

Do you find the quote statement offensive?

No. I find your rage pointless, misplaced and overall stupid.

[Infected Mushroom]

Not even Lucas was innovative, if you come right down to it. All he did was mimic Japanese syntax, IIRC, but with English words.

Japanese is SOV, not OSV. But whatever.

At law school, you meet a LOT of very pragmatic (often very annoyingly so),very ambitious, and yet strange King's Landing type folks.

Anyhow, a recent conversation inspired this thread topic.

The subject of movies came out and one person said one of the most offensive things I've ever heard in my life. He said that streaming and downloading movies for free from the internet was...

''Okay because it doesn't do damage. It's not like it's real Innovation... like Viagra hahaha.''

I was silent for a whole minute.

...

WHAT DO YOU MEAN MOVIES AREN'T INNOVATION?!

...

What do you think? Are movies Innovation? Do you find the quote statement offensive?

Hold on, are you sure you interpreted his statement correctly? As I read it, he said downloading movies for free wasn't real innovation, not movies themselves.

I think he meant.

''If I were getting newly-invented medicine for free instead of paying the patent-owner his rightful fees... I would be causing damage because I am dis-incentivizing Innovation.

If I were getting newly-invented cars for free instead of paying the patent-owner his rightful fees... I would be causing damage because I am dis-incentivising Innovation.

But if I steal from artists and film-makers... it's okay because they AREN'T REALLY contributing any kind of Innovation. Society can do without them. It can't however... exist without things like medicines, cars, and Viagra. So it's okay.''

[Imperializt Russia]

At law school, you meet a LOT of very pragmatic (often very annoyingly so),very ambitious, and yet strange King's Landing type folks.

Anyhow, a recent conversation inspired this thread topic.

The subject of movies came out and one person said one of the most offensive things I've ever heard in my life. He said that streaming and downloading movies for free from the internet was...

''Okay because it doesn't do damage. It's not like it's real Innovation... like Viagra hahaha.''

I was silent for a whole minute.

...

WHAT DO YOU MEAN MOVIES AREN'T INNOVATION?!

Do you have any idea how IMPOVERISHED humanity would be without the sacred art of movies?!

How can something so beautiful, that can make you grip the edge of your seat, install a sense of adventure, laugh, and cry rivers NOT be innovation?

Surely there's as much merit in writing a new story to be filmed and good dialogue as there is in other conventional areas of Innovation (building bridges, launching people into space... V... V.... Viagra).

Why is it that so many people don't pay the arts the respect they deserve? Why is it that in the eyes of some of these really ''grounded'' pragmatic scientific types, somehow the manufacturer, builder of machines, or traditional businessperson is somehow superior to the artist and writer?

I think it's a sign that our society has become overly-practical and fixated on money and a bizarre form of ''rationality.''

What do you think? Are movies Innovation? Do you find the quote statement offensive?

Culture is a sideshow by comparison to tangible achievements of society.
Culture is invaluable to society and its function, yes.

But a bridge is inherently more useful and more impressive than The Interview.
As is launching a person into space.
Or giving the Jews a tax-deductible novelty for Passover.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I'm afraid I don't understand the reference.

And I'm afraid I might not have understood what you were referencing when you were talking about "Japanese syntax". I assumed you were talking about Yoda's speech patterns.

Lucas is a noted Kurosawa fan. I'm sure you know this, if you're a fan of his. The way Yoda speaks mimics basic Japanese grammar and syntax, as in how words and verbs and adjectives are placed in a sentence.

My reference is in answer to this:

No, because you aren't necessarily introducing new techniques. Each post on NSG is different. That doesn't mean they're innovative.

if they are even a slightly different combination of words never before used on NSG... then theoretically, yes.

It might not be high innovation, but its innovation nevertheless.

[Ifreann]

Movies can be nice, but my goodness. Don't be so melodramatic. Humanity was just fine for millennia without movies. They are not so important as you think. And the vast majority, especially today, are not innovative.

If movies, along with television shows disappeared tomorrow... I would NOT be fine.

Which is probably something you should look into getting help with.

[Imperializt Russia]

If movies, along with television shows disappeared tomorrow... I would NOT be fine.

Which is probably something you should look into getting help with.

I think many of us would struggle in a world with no entertainment media.

[Ifreann]

Which is probably something you should look into getting help with.

I think many of us would struggle in a world with no entertainment media.

Many people would find their lives more boring without their preferred source of entertainment, and that could be detrimental to people's mental health, sure. I'm not aware of anyone other than Godfected Shroomka who talks about their preferred source of entertainment being a sacred art and other such glorifying shite.

[Frenequesta]

And I'm afraid I might not have understood what you were referencing when you were talking about "Japanese syntax". I assumed you were talking about Yoda's speech patterns.

Lucas is a noted Kurosawa fan. I'm sure you know this, if you're a fan of his. The way Yoda speaks mimics basic Japanese grammar and syntax, as in how words and verbs and adjectives are placed in a sentence.

Fair enough. Japanese syntax actually does allow OSV, but SOV is preferred.

I think he meant.

''If I were getting newly-invented medicine for free instead of paying the patent-owner his rightful fees... I would be causing damage because I am dis-incentivizing Innovation.

If I were getting newly-invented cars for free instead of paying the patent-owner his rightful fees... I would be causing damage because I am dis-incentivising Innovation.

But if I steal from artists and film-makers... it's okay because they AREN'T REALLY contributing any kind of Innovation. Society can do without them. It can't however... exist without things like medicines, cars, and Viagra. So it's okay.''

Plenty of cars and pills aren't innovative. I also wonder what he would say about hundreds of pulp fiction novels that are churned out every year.

[Aggicificicerous]

If movies, along with television shows disappeared tomorrow... I would NOT be fine.

SOME elements of this overly-materialistic, grounded, and pragmatic society might be... I would not be fine.

The movies are an indispensable part of human civilisation now for the most us, I really don't approve of it when some people want to suggest some kind of a hierarchy where somehow they are a useless frivolity compared to the ''serious things'' like money, inventing medicine, and inventing chemicals.

Um, ok. That seems largely irrelevant to this discussion. Nobody has suggested movies will or should be eliminated.

Had he just said... ''In a capitalist society, I'm entitled to cut corners and I don't think the government has a right to regulate what I can or can't download.'' I would have been frowning a bit, but at least I would have understood it.

However... suggesting that movies are NOT innovation and that somehow they are inferior to Viagra.

No.

Not cool...

Most movies aren't innovative. And it sounds like the Viagra thing was a joke. Either way, it's not a big deal. You act like he just spat on your idol, not made slightly disparaging remarks against a popular form of entertainment.

[Scyobayrynn]

At law school, you meet a LOT of very pragmatic (often very annoyingly so),very ambitious, and yet strange King's Landing type folks.

Anyhow, a recent conversation inspired this thread topic.

The subject of movies came out and one person said one of the most offensive things I've ever heard in my life. He said that streaming and downloading movies for free from the internet was...

''Okay because it doesn't do damage. It's not like it's real Innovation... like Viagra hahaha.''

I was silent for a whole minute.

...

WHAT DO YOU MEAN MOVIES AREN'T INNOVATION?!

Do you have any idea how IMPOVERISHED humanity would be without the sacred art of movies?!

How can something so beautiful, that can make you grip the edge of your seat, install a sense of adventure, laugh, and cry rivers NOT be innovation?

Surely there's as much merit in writing a new story to be filmed and good dialogue as there is in other conventional areas of Innovation (building bridges, launching people into space... V... V.... Viagra).

Why is it that so many people don't pay the arts the respect they deserve? Why is it that in the eyes of some of these really ''grounded'' pragmatic scientific types, somehow the manufacturer, builder of machines, or traditional businessperson is somehow superior to the artist and writer?

I think it's a sign that our society has become overly-practical and fixated on money and a bizarre form of ''rationality.''

What do you think? Are movies Innovation? Do you find the quote statement offensive?

I find his statement to be objectively factual given the current information.
I find yours to be offensive.


What exactly do you believe movies are innovating?

Certain films in the history of cinema have indeed offered innovation to the specific media, but beyond that, no movies are not themselves innovating to anything. They are movies.
For that matter Art itself is not innovating, you do art a great disservice by your misuse of the language,

[Spoder]

Depends on the movie. There are many uninnovative films.

[Scyobayrynn]

I think many of us would struggle in a world with no entertainment media.

Many people would find their lives more boring without their preferred source of entertainment, and that could be detrimental to people's mental health, sure. I'm not aware of anyone other than Godfected Shroomka who talks about their preferred source of entertainment being a sacred art and other such glorifying shite.

Indeed.

And lets not forget, humanity did pretty damned well before the advent of cinema.

Cracking a book wouldnt hurt many here.

[Infected Mushroom]

I think many of us would struggle in a world with no entertainment media.

Many people would find their lives more boring without their preferred source of entertainment, and that could be detrimental to people's mental health, sure. I'm not aware of anyone other than Godfected Shroomka who talks about their preferred source of entertainment being a sacred art and other such glorifying shite.

Most people are not aware of how important movies and entertainment are to human civilisation and to their own existence.

[Spoder]

Many people would find their lives more boring without their preferred source of entertainment, and that could be detrimental to people's mental health, sure. I'm not aware of anyone other than Godfected Shroomka who talks about their preferred source of entertainment being a sacred art and other such glorifying shite.

Most people are not aware of how important movies and entertainment are to human civilisation and to their own existence.

Important =/= innovative.

[The Arctic Congregation]

Perhaps by saying movies aren't innovative, he was referring to the typical Michael Bay blockbuster/million-dollar cash grab, rife with explosions and mindless sex appeal. Why should a free-thinking consumer buy into the obvious corporate sludge that the typical Hollywood movie is when it's already grossed twice its budget?

Indie films are another matter.

[Infected Mushroom]

Most people are not aware of how important movies and entertainment are to human civilisation and to their own existence.

Important =/= innovative.

New characters. New actors. New plot. New directorial interpretation/presentation. Innovation.

[Spoder]

Important =/= innovative.

New characters. New actors. New plot. New directorial interpretation/presentation. Innovation.

1 dimensional characters. Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise. Stupid guy with stupid idea for a movie.

[Ifreann]

Many people would find their lives more boring without their preferred source of entertainment, and that could be detrimental to people's mental health, sure. I'm not aware of anyone other than Godfected Shroomka who talks about their preferred source of entertainment being a sacred art and other such glorifying shite.

Most people are not aware of how important movies and entertainment are to human civilisation and to their own existence.

I would expect most, if not all people to realise that one needs some source of entertainment to remain sane. But movies are simply one possible source of entertainment. Most humans never experienced them. Even today many probably don't. So they're clearly not that important. Except to you, apparently.

---

Most people are not aware of how important movies and entertainment are to human civilisation and to their own existence.

Important =/= innovative.

This too.

---

Important =/= innovative.

New characters. New actors. New plot. New directorial interpretation/presentation. Innovation.

Not innovation, because different =/= innovative.

[Liberty and Linguistics]

Someone needs a blog. Google offers them for free, y'know.

[Infected Mushroom]

New characters. New actors. New plot. New directorial interpretation/presentation. Innovation.

1 dimensional characters. Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise. Stupid guy with stupid idea for a movie.

Is that a reference to Interview with the Vampire? That movie had anything but one-dimensional characters, and I am quite sure it was a very innovative interpretation on Rice’s novel on film for its time.