"The current obsession with nostalgia and remake culture is easy to understand when you realize that it's a symptom of a culture that isn't allowed to imagine a future."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 39 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

This is a real Im14AndThisIsDeep meme. More people have access to platforms where they can share their creative works than at any other point in human history, if you aren't seeing it then you're not really trying to find it. That point would be fair, too; its hard to find original content (even more so with the rise of AI-driven SEO). It's not the trend in hollywood, but hollywood doesn't define culture NEARLY as much as they'd like to think they do...)

[–] Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com 6 points 3 weeks ago

There is a baseline of quality that is hard for a plucky individual to match outside of mono-medium media.

While it is possible for good video games to be produced by a single indivudal or very small team, it is a lot of work on their part and hard to do if worried about paying for food, rent, etc.

Filmic media (is there a good noun that joins movies and fiction TV shows as a unified object?), a solid level of difficulty above that.

[–] Nexy@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

I think that lately people are taking refuge in things that made them happy in the past because not being able to see a clear future in their lives. Returning again and again to the things that made them happy in their day. And companies are only taking advantage of that. I'm not saying new thing don't exist, I'm saying people are not willing to search them because they only want to escape to the past.

Idk, I see more people that they live is something like pokemon that actually they family, career or they own projects or dreams.

[–] Klear@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 weeks ago

People have always done that.

[–] orrk@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

nah, Hollywood defines culture more than you seem to accept.

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

You've a winning argument, to be sure! Not sure where I quantified how much I think hollywood influences culture but okay.

FWIW, obviously popular media both is influential and responds to culture. "Hollywood" really shouldn't be treated as a singular entity if we're trying for a semblance of legitimacy. This is really quickly going to fall into a discussion of the role of the audience and how that's changed in the digital era (vs. when Aristotle first brought it up...), and neither of us care enough to suffer through thay. Suffice to say it's not cut and dry, and beyond that I dont know any better than you do what specific impact they have (and neither do they).

[–] emuspawn@orbiting.observer 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Is defining culture the same as advancing culture?

[–] orrk@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

fuck is "advancing culture" exactly? honest question, because the idea of culture advancing is a farce, it changes yes, but advancing is some constructionist idea that always draws from some authoritarian colonialist bullshit, example, the "advanced European culture" vs "the primitive non-Europeans"

[–] emuspawn@orbiting.observer 1 points 3 weeks ago

That's a pretty good question. I 💯 agree that it can fall into authoritarian colonial bullshit, and in fact that's probably what I was thinking of in terms of 'defining' vs 'advancing'. I'll invoke the case of the 'Sad Puppies', a bunch of lame ass white men who were super mad that the Hugos were overwhelmingly going to 'not white men' (read: interesting BIPOC voices everyone loves and gasp......women?!).

I would probably claim the Sad Puppies tried to define culture.

The rest of the attendees advanced it by telling them to fuck right off.