''Movies aren't Innovation''

[Scyobayrynn]

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.

Entertainment can be achieved via many means. Cinema is hardly paramount to entertainment.
A sound mind can be entertained in a variety of ways, a sound mind can in point of fact, entertain itself.

[Scyobayrynn]

Important =/= innovative.

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

Except, cinema is 99% regurgitation of its own former trappings, which are themselves regurgitations of literary standards.
So while the media for presentation of the story is new, renaming a thing over and over again isnt innovation, its slight of hand for the dim witted.

[Scomagia]

Innovation is the act of making "changes in something established, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products". So when movies were first introduced, they were an innovation is storytelling. Now, there are new film techniques that could be considered innovation, but movies in general don't fit the definition.

Every single movie is an entirely different script with a different story, set of interpretation by actors and directors, slightly different camera work and effects etc even though they may borrow from common elements and some movies are more innovative than others.

That's innovation.

This is blatantly untrue. The vast majority of films are strictly formula and are more or less the same movie with different actors.

[Scomagia]

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.

I'm fairly certain that even if film and television disappeared, we'd still have books.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

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 used that example of Yoda 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.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

Meh, video games and any other interactive medium is better imo.

[Infected Mushroom]

Every single movie is an entirely different script with a different story, set of interpretation by actors and directors, slightly different camera work and effects etc even though they may borrow from common elements and some movies are more innovative than others.

That's innovation.

This is blatantly untrue. The vast majority of films are strictly formula and are more or less the same movie with different actors.

the scripts are always entirely different though

if two movies had the exact same script, there would be copyright infringement lawsuits

and there are always variations, even with remakes

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

This is blatantly untrue. The vast majority of films are strictly formula and are more or less the same movie with different actors.

the scripts are always entirely different though

if two movies had the exact same script, there would be copyright infringement lawsuits

and there are always variations, even with remakes

He's not saying that the movies have the EXACT SAME scripts. The underlying themes? Definitely. Many movies follow the same patterns, with the same topic with predictable outcomes. Only thing that changes is probably the cast, dialogue and music score.

Romantic comedies are a good example.

[Scomagia]

This is blatantly untrue. The vast majority of films are strictly formula and are more or less the same movie with different actors.

the scripts are always entirely different though

if two movies had the exact same script, there would be copyright infringement lawsuits

and there are always variations, even with remakes

You're mistaking trivial differences with fundamental ones. Structurally, most movies are the same as other movies from their genre. They tend to have the same outcomes, the same basic protagonist, the same romantic subplot, the same villain, etc. The only things that are different are things like character names, insignificant differences that obscure just how derivative Hollywood is.

[Ifreann]

This is blatantly untrue. The vast majority of films are strictly formula and are more or less the same movie with different actors.

the scripts are always entirely different though

if two movies had the exact same script, there would be copyright infringement lawsuits

and there are always variations, even with remakes

Different =/= innovative
Different =/= innovative
Different =/= innovative

[Mike the Progressive]

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

I know. But I don't really get what the question is in this thread.

I'm hoping when I start law school this fall, I won't start making GoT references. Don't get me wrong. I love GoT. But dude. Dude.

[Spoder]

the scripts are always entirely different though

if two movies had the exact same script, there would be copyright infringement lawsuits

and there are always variations, even with remakes

Different =/= innovative
Different =/= innovative
Different =/= innovative

Yelling at a wall louder doesn't mean it will listen or understand.

[Infected Mushroom]

the scripts are always entirely different though

if two movies had the exact same script, there would be copyright infringement lawsuits

and there are always variations, even with remakes

Different =/= innovative
Different =/= innovative
Different =/= innovative

If it hasn't been done before (in the EXACT combination) and if by that token of novelty (however de minimis) it can be in some way reasonably justified to bring about a new type of functional or aesthetic benefit (however de minimis), then I would say it meets the bare minimum requirement for Innovation.

That said, obviously some things are more innovative in their value then other things.

[Infected Mushroom]

the scripts are always entirely different though

if two movies had the exact same script, there would be copyright infringement lawsuits

and there are always variations, even with remakes

You're mistaking trivial differences with fundamental ones. Structurally, most movies are the same as other movies from their genre. They tend to have the same outcomes, the same basic protagonist, the same romantic subplot, the same villain, etc. The only things that are different are things like character names, insignificant differences that obscure just how derivative Hollywood is.

Even if it is the SAME script with the SAME dialogue and the SAME set of special effects, camera angles etc...

the mere fact that they could be using new actors to film the same thing (and each actor, being artist, will inevitably bring his own nuanced slightly or very different interpretation of the characters into the game)... it's essentially an innovation.

Only ONE thing has to be SLIGHTLY different for the outcome to be substantially different.

[Nazi Flower Power]

I agree with IM. This is very disturbing.

[Wisconsin9]

What the fuck is going on here? Kefka starting a thread with a fairly reasonable (if not particularly reasonably presented) premise? Did LSD get into the water source?

[New Werpland]

Well, you can have innovation in film. But movies as a whole, right now, aren't really innovation.

What are you talking about? Have you not seen the trailer for the next Jurrasic Park Movie? It's so innovative!!!

(sarc)

[Natapoc]

Generally speaking, no. Movies are not innovation. This does not mean that movies can't be innovative (Pushing the state of the art in new techniques, ect) but there is nothing inherently innovative about movies.

[Natapoc]

Reading more of the thread it seems you don't understand the word innovation. As someone in law school it's very important that you understand the difference between creative expression, invention, and innovation.

Think of innovation or invention as something you could reasonably expect to obtain a patent on.

Think of creative expression as something that is inherently protected by copyright (as opposed to patent) law.

All movies (even the most stupid, ill planned, duds) fall under the category of creative expression and are protected by copyright law and I think this is what you are wanting to say.

That is to say, they are all creative to some degree but not necessarily innovative.

[Mike the Progressive]

What the fuck is going on here? Kefka starting a thread with a fairly reasonable (if not particularly reasonably presented) premise? Did LSD get into the water source?

Don't be knocking LSD. Or coke.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Reading more of the thread it seems you don't understand the word innovation. As someone in law school it's very important that you understand the difference between creative expression, invention, and innovation.

Think of innovation or invention as something you could reasonably expect to obtain a patent on.

Think of creative expression as something that is inherently protected by copyright (as opposed to patent) law.

All movies (even the most stupid, ill planned, duds) fall under the category of creative expression and are protected by copyright law and I think this is what you are wanting to say.

That is to say, they are all creative to some degree but not necessarily innovative.

That's precisely it. I don't think he understands the meaning of ''innovation''.

I'll be the first to admit that yes, back when they were started to be shown, circa 19th century, movies were indeed an innovation. No one had done anything similar before with or without a camera. But right now? I would call certain producers/special effects artists/actors innovative, but the movie industry itself isn't innovative.

[Infected Mushroom]

Reading more of the thread it seems you don't understand the word innovation. As someone in law school it's very important that you understand the difference between creative expression, invention, and innovation.

Think of innovation or invention as something you could reasonably expect to obtain a patent on.

Think of creative expression as something that is inherently protected by copyright (as opposed to patent) law.

All movies (even the most stupid, ill planned, duds) fall under the category of creative expression and are protected by copyright law and I think this is what you are wanting to say.

That is to say, they are all creative to some degree but not necessarily innovative.

That's precisely it. I don't think he understands the meaning of ''innovation''.

I'll be the first to admit that yes, back when they were started to be shown, circa 19th century, movies were indeed an innovation. No one had done anything similar before with or without a camera. But right now? I would call certain producers/special effects artists/actors innovative, but the movie industry itself isn't innovative.

you're arbitrarily excluding a huge part of the movie industry

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

That's precisely it. I don't think he understands the meaning of ''innovation''.

I'll be the first to admit that yes, back when they were started to be shown, circa 19th century, movies were indeed an innovation. No one had done anything similar before with or without a camera. But right now? I would call certain producers/special effects artists/actors innovative, but the movie industry itself isn't innovative.

you're arbitrarily excluding a huge part of the movie industry

Why would I bother including anything when it is obvious you, yourself, do not even understand what ''innovation'' means?

I think Iffy said it best:
Difference =/= innovation

[Infected Mushroom]

you're arbitrarily excluding a huge part of the movie industry

Why would I bother including anything when it is obvious you, yourself, do not even understand what ''innovation'' means?

I think Iffy said it best:
Difference =/= innovation

if there is even the remotest bit of novelty and the remotest bit of added benefit/value, its innovation (at the de minimis level)

innovation doesn't have to be technological

it can also be a re-arrangement or re-interpretation

[Gauthier]

It's fascinating, watching Mushroom rant about an alleged freeloading classmate dismissing movies as an innovation. Apart from me pointing out movies literally created an industry, why is he trying to defend movies here instead of at law school?