Should artistic works with specific executions be illegal and put the creative vision and writers in a mental hospital or in jail, just like anti-governmental political messages like Alice in Wonderland? Except in this case we tackle the entire execution and context, not just a few life lessons and moral messages.
Yes we'd have to jail the Canadians and everyone who ever worked on Cartoonnetwork and Nickledeon for promoting dumb shock writing. We'd absolutely jail people like John K and the faggot behind Fritz the Cat.
1) We'd have better cartoons depending on what standards are set
2) It highly depends on what standards are set.
You're still allowed to make dumb high school cartoons with awful teenager stereotypes, but you're not allowed any longer to create straightman buttmonkey loser characters UNLESS they're a DeeDee stereotype.
You're no longer allowed to create insane child masterminds, endless abuse of main characters and probably some very specific but very easy to detect executions like hypocritical contradicting messages and characters.
You're no longer allowed to create untouchable hysterically hateable characters like Q, Discord,Lizzie, Dolores Umbridge, Glimmer, Trixie/smug anime character #56,043 1) Because they're based on real people 2) Because they're genuinely disgusting people that should be sent to a mental asylum 3) They are self inserts by the writer or creative vision who thinks, believes, talks just like his self insert.
You are however allowed to create said characters if they get 24/7 their ass kicked, called out and are not treating as an intangible force of nature nobody can ever criticize.
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): 32F2F1507CD10CB96FCC6137E32D8B06-1578626.jpg (1.5 MB, 1261x1045, 1574204130933.jpg)
File (): 62CD38661666366693A68D66C2970D3D-79921.jpg (78.0 KB, 650x650, xoPR7ykM6W.jpg)
>>251309
>Should artistic works with specific executions be illegal...
No. In my personal opinion no, that would stagnate the industry. Too much worry about the law making the process take even more time, and money. With the inevitability of being abused to censor anyone, much like how it is now.
You write something that (((they))) disagree with, then who knows what happens to you.
>1) We'd have better cartoons depending on what standards are set
The standards would meet the bare minimum of what is required of it.
Creative innovations would grind to a hault.
An awards ceremony is still able to be abused, but doesn't have the power to remove anything the current masters disagree with. (One day even if we do implement such a think, death still looms over each and everyone of us. Some fucker out there will attempt to overtake the well intentioned operation.)
An award for being absolutely shit in specific categories would be fine. Letting the public know something is utterly trash (I'm thinking Darwin awards). That should be self evident, but with advanced warning.
That would spoil the creative work which could be a problem. Such as an opposing creative could have the awards bribed to effect sales ect.
I do believe that all messages in all mediums should be carefully constructed to actually know what messages they are creating, and if those messages negatively impact society.
The Glow niggers know about creating such a thing.
I wouldn't trust any of this as far as I could throw it, be it governmental, independent organizations, independent organizations, or subsidiaries of any of the above.
Grassroots are... less of a worry, but at least 40% of the population are idiots, (but they aren't dumb) that's not even considering that people make human mistakes all the time.
Going about this through that way would negatively impact the future. What I think should be done is to raise the quality of consumers. Thereby raising the lowest common denominator.
A population that thinks is a far more formidable force for any challenges that they (by that extension we) face.
The content would have a higher bar to speak to those audiences, and the works in poor taste would still exist, but then a higher derivative work based on those failings could be made to further explore themes the original work could, or did, not.
>1) Because they're based on real people
Suppose we'll have to stop taking about goblins, or the batshit insane golems.
Welp looks like Greek mythology about the dickery of the gods won't be told.
>Should artistic works with specific executions be illegal...
No. In my personal opinion no, that would stagnate the industry. Too much worry about the law making the process take even more time, and money. With the inevitability of being abused to censor anyone, much like how it is now.
You write something that (((they))) disagree with, then who knows what happens to you.
>1) We'd have better cartoons depending on what standards are set
The standards would meet the bare minimum of what is required of it.
Creative innovations would grind to a hault.
An awards ceremony is still able to be abused, but doesn't have the power to remove anything the current masters disagree with. (One day even if we do implement such a think, death still looms over each and everyone of us. Some fucker out there will attempt to overtake the well intentioned operation.)
An award for being absolutely shit in specific categories would be fine. Letting the public know something is utterly trash (I'm thinking Darwin awards). That should be self evident, but with advanced warning.
That would spoil the creative work which could be a problem. Such as an opposing creative could have the awards bribed to effect sales ect.
I do believe that all messages in all mediums should be carefully constructed to actually know what messages they are creating, and if those messages negatively impact society.
The Glow niggers know about creating such a thing.
I wouldn't trust any of this as far as I could throw it, be it governmental, independent organizations, independent organizations, or subsidiaries of any of the above.
Grassroots are... less of a worry, but at least 40% of the population are idiots, (but they aren't dumb) that's not even considering that people make human mistakes all the time.
Going about this through that way would negatively impact the future. What I think should be done is to raise the quality of consumers. Thereby raising the lowest common denominator.
A population that thinks is a far more formidable force for any challenges that they (by that extension we) face.
The content would have a higher bar to speak to those audiences, and the works in poor taste would still exist, but then a higher derivative work based on those failings could be made to further explore themes the original work could, or did, not.
>1) Because they're based on real people
Suppose we'll have to stop taking about goblins, or the batshit insane golems.
Welp looks like Greek mythology about the dickery of the gods won't be told.
The obvious retcon, and the one they should make is that they are simply putting them on ice until they can deal with them.
>>251309
The problem with any sort of direct controls in media production, besides that it can and will be abused, is that the controller is unlikely to be a creative mind and more likely to be a bureaucratic busybody. Because of this the rules are likely to be too stringently applied in some areas and writers will look for ways to sneak things in under the radar anyway (as they've done in the past). It also does nothing to actually improve the quality of production, it'll just be dumb schlock B rather than dumb schlock A. It does little to improve anything because you're not improving overall quality (which is hard to measure anyway) resulting in the same old producers finding ways to game the new system.
This really is the Mr. Enter way of addressing bad cartoon writing.
>Q
>Discord
They're actually good characters and were popular for a reason. The main problem with Discord was not the concept of his character but his premature taming by the writers and their (probably not the same people but still) 180º reversal in regards to other villainous characters. John de Lancie as an actor pulls off the chaotic neutral character archetype really well, just as Wes Johnson does for Sheogorath.
The problem with any sort of direct controls in media production, besides that it can and will be abused, is that the controller is unlikely to be a creative mind and more likely to be a bureaucratic busybody. Because of this the rules are likely to be too stringently applied in some areas and writers will look for ways to sneak things in under the radar anyway (as they've done in the past). It also does nothing to actually improve the quality of production, it'll just be dumb schlock B rather than dumb schlock A. It does little to improve anything because you're not improving overall quality (which is hard to measure anyway) resulting in the same old producers finding ways to game the new system.
This really is the Mr. Enter way of addressing bad cartoon writing.
>Q
>Discord
They're actually good characters and were popular for a reason. The main problem with Discord was not the concept of his character but his premature taming by the writers and their (probably not the same people but still) 180º reversal in regards to other villainous characters. John de Lancie as an actor pulls off the chaotic neutral character archetype really well, just as Wes Johnson does for Sheogorath.
The arts flourished under Hitler because he encouraged them to produce beautiful works of art promoting strong values. He didn't legislate anything.
4 replies | 2 files | 5 UUIDs | Archived