'Stranger Things' Proves Hollywood Should Rip Off Instead Of Remake

>'Stranger Things' Proves Hollywood Should Rip Off Instead Of Remake

You and the guy who wrote this idiot, clueless article should both kill yourselves.

I enjoyed this show. Very talented cast.

Insightful.

Lucas and Dustin were the best kids.

agreed

Lucas is a whiny fuck. Dustin is best boy.

Lucas was terrible. What are you smoking?

puberty is really kickin millie over the hill

>not liking Lucas

Is this a meme? He went Rambo and half of Dustin's best scenes were their bickering double act.

>Art is subjective because my reaction to is is subjective

You seem to have gotten lost on the way to reddit.

Are you some kind of fucking retard? There is no objective measure for art. Craft? Yes. You can't "objectively" evaluate the merit of art because there is no way of removing your biases from the equation.

Fucking imbecile.

jfc, she has perfect arms. #jelly

> homage/rip off
>What's the difference?

The difference is success. If you don't like it, it's a rip off. If you like it it's an homage.

I worked with a girl who had a weird obsession with another girl's arms. What's that even about? They're just limbs, everyone has them.

I agree. That's all that's left to do anyway. There are no more original ideas. The best we can do is combine existing ideas in an interesting way.

>There is no objective measure for art
>What is form and content.

Stay mad kid.

>Lucas
Lolno

It's been that way for centuries.

>film
>art

it's a craft

You are an actual insane person. You're telling me that you can look at a piece of art and say it's objectively good or bad because of "content"? That it is either with or without merit because of "form"? Go ahead, give me some examples of films that are "objectively" bad and "objectively" good then.

she does

Okay so find me the movie in which a telekinetic / psychic girl breaks a barrier between dimensions and causes a flower headed monster to enter our world and eat / kidnap people. I'd love to see exactly what this show has ripped off?

Not disagreeing

Absolutely yes, he was great.

Elements of filmmaking are craft, film is art.

>formalist pleb

this is why no one takes film seriously except for pseuds

film isn't art. there's no reason to believe it is

>Okay so find me the movie in which a telekinetic / psychic girl breaks a barrier between dimensions and causes a flower headed monster to enter our world and eat / kidnap people. I'd love to see exactly what this show has ripped off?

It's an amalgam of a whole bunch of things, that's the point the article is making. It lifts liberally from several influences and isn't trapped by being a remake.

For arguments sake: imagine Jonah Nolan had been inspired by Westworld, but not remade it. He would be a liberty to do more than he is currently.

>Not understanding the concept of form and thinking it applies to a single philosophy of art.

/film/ when?

>Stranger Things will take its place beside its cinematic predecessors.

no it won't because it suffered in its execution. the writing was a big fat dump

If you're not trolling you're a complete fucktard.

Okay so they just used a shitty clickbait title then? Because this seems to be a very, very original storyline and to call the entire show a "rip-off" is ignorant and really shitty to do.

No, things should just be good. Derivative things like Stranger Things are good because they are good, not because its a rip off, just like there are many original shows that are good.

Everything is already a rip off. All those movies you listed were all rip offs of earlier work. It all goes back to Shakespeare

>objectively measure art by its form
>not formalism

good argument my man. i take it you're struggling to come up with a reason as to why film is supposedly an art

Try Gilgamesh.
Or pre written records.

Carrie and Pumpkinhead

It's not a direct rip off of anything, it's like a casserole of ideas plucked from various sources.

Personally, I liked it. But saying it doesn't drawn heavily from specific sources makes you either naive or dumb. Pick which one you prefer.

Film is an art and a business. They have sort of a yin and yang relationship. The business of film can't happen without creative artists making good product and the artists need the business to get their creations out to the world and supply the money to get the movie made.

is EAT SHIT the ultimate battlecry?

>they just used a shitty clickbait title then?

Pretty much, but I think from the author's POV ripping off moments is ripping off, even if it's an homage in the grand scheme of things.

...

>good argument

I stopped arguing when you ignored the facts here

so it's a craft?

What if instead of ripping off or remaking Hollywood just makes original content?

checked..
is that amanda wenk?

Easily.

i'm not the guy you were responding to initially. my first post was saying film is an art not a craft. craft can be measured objectively, according to you

Do you even know the meaning of the word you're using?

did Cred Forums like Stranger Things? I know there's no consensus on anything, but what seemed to be the majority opinion?

Yes all art is essentially based on form and content. Form is the how and content is the what. Formalism is simply the idea that form is more important than content.

do you know what art is?

>film is an art because it's an art

ok friend!

Thought the same. Lovely chest on that broad

>inspired

Yes when it premiered
No when it became popular

so if art has form and content it's objectively art?

keep teasing it out dude i think you'll make a post of substance within the next hour

when it first came out, yes. after it got popular, no.

when it was a bunch of tasteless retards circlejerking about the 'next big thing' it was good, when people saw others liked it, watched it themselves, and discovered for themselves how bad it was, they didn't like it

A product's first days and threads are the most representative. After a while the "what went wrong" baiters take over and you can't tell good from bad, it's the same with Cred Forums. As long as most people here liked it when it released, that's good enough for me. People will start liking it again when the second season comes out.

>my first post was saying film is an art not a craft

You said literally the opposite, and if anything is objectively wrong, it's the statement that film isn't art.

Art is quite simply anything created primarily to be a work of art.

When you realize that most universally acclaimed movies ripped off plot elements from even earlier movies as well as age old literature, it doesn't really become as big of a deal. I enjoyed it because I remixed things in a way I thought was entertaining. It found all the parts I liked about E.T. and the Goonies and Nightmare on Elm Street and Carrie and so on and somehow managed to make something cohesive out of it.

no that statement was an artistic one which can't be measured objectively. the statement that my statement is wrong is objectively wrong

i won't give any reason why my statement is art so you'll just have to believe me! that's how it works

You responded to someone saying the film industry is commodified art by saying it's a craft. That's like calling a recording artist a craftsperson because they sign to a label.

great artists steal

or as tarantino says, homage

I agree, totally. One of the major problems is that when you do a sequel, reboot, remake and so on, you're just feeding yourself with the hype of the previous thing, so you get to be more lazy. You know you'll draw crowds just because of the name. And then when it's released you have everyone comparing each movie and it hurts, not the comparisson itself, but that the directors and actors are constantly trying to balance that kind of expectation that they know will be there.

I didn't like Stranger Things, to be honest. I think it was just ok, I was not hooked by it and felt a bunch of shit was very silly. It's warm though, it's comfy and definitely miles better than if they were to remake ET or remake Goonies. But I think even if 90% is a rehash, there are certain things that are new, it creates something new (inevitably). If more people had that mindset when creating content, they'd exercise that combination of elements and learn how to write better stories.

I think Stranger Things is in the right direction, I just hope it keeps going that way: away from remaking. Until one day you have someone being inspired by "movies of the XX century, some art and music, mixed some books and historical content..." That is, at the end of the day, to create something unique that dialogues with all the rest, with the world.

just look up the definition of art you dunce

Is Finn Wolfhard the John Barrymore of his generation?

i hope you get the award for most meaningless and unfalsifiable post, you've tried really hard

i never said anything about commodification

>Doesn't understand what I said.
>Whines about how meaningless it is.

Seriously kid why are you so butthurt about this?

i know what art is. that's not the point

>business isn't commodification

This is getting dumber.

i can understand it but it's a tautology

>Art is ... art

the definition precedes the intention. no one intends to create a work of art without knowing what art actually is

The point is that film is art, and you're claiming it isn't, so you don't know what art is at all.

>no one intends to create a work of art without knowing what art actually is

what is outsider art for 500 alex

Kek

it's only getting dumber because you keep talking about shit i never mentioned. you brought up business and commodification, not me

no i do know what art is and film is not art. it's a craft

i'm not going to bother continuing until you explain why film is art, but you can't do that so i guess this is the end of the conversation

I DIDN'T

THAT WAS SOMEONE ELSE

I WAS TALKING ABOUT YOUR RESPONSE

YOU

FUCKING

DIMWIT

he could argue that outsider artists are still intending to create art. like i said, it's meaningless and unfalsifiable

Ok I'll simplify this as best I can. Art is any item created with the purpose to be experienced on a sensory level as art as opposed to some other function.

IF you can't figure that one out then you're a simpleton who should just stick to posting about capeshit.

i never responded to anything about business or commodification because it had nothing to do with my point

>Art is any item created with the purpose to be experienced ... as art

>Art is art

try again

>i never responded to anything about business

art 1 |ɑːt|
noun
1 [ mass noun ] the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power: the art of the Renaissance | great art is concerned with moral imperfections | she studied art in Paris.
• works produced by human creative skill and imagination: his collection of modern art | [ as modifier ] : an art critic.
• creative activity resulting in the production of paintings, drawings, or sculpture: she's good at art.
2 (the arts) the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance: the visual arts | [ in sing. ] : the art of photography.
3 (arts) subjects of study primarily concerned with human creativity and social life, such as languages, literature, and history (as contrasted with scientific or technical subjects): the belief that the arts and sciences were incompatible | the Faculty of Arts.
4 a skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice: the art of conversation.

sorry where is the evidence here? you misunderstood what i meant by craft, assuming i was talking about business and commodification? sounds about right

No see you actually have to make a specific counter argument saying why my definition is art is not right and provide the definition that you believe is correct. If you can't do that you're just being a retarded prick.

i like how this conversation has moved further and further away from you trying to say art can be objectively measured by form and content to you sperging out because you can't define art and trying to teach me about something i already know

Okay, what part of that comment were you responding to?

the argument is that your definition is a tautology. would you find it convincing if you asked me what a tree was and i said:

>A tree is any object that is a tree

>you trying to say art can be objectively measured by form and content

That was a different person. I said film is art and art is subjective. Fuck.

So how do you define art?

the disconnect between me saying it's a craft and you talking about art and business because you think i think art is just non-business craft or something

homage I hardly know her

You guys all suck ass

why is film art?

it's just art bro

You weren't responding to me. You were responding to someone else. And you're borderline incoherent now.

see

I guess I agree. Regardless of your opinion of the show, people will remember a well-done ripoff/homage more than the nth installment in some random franchise.

But, you know, influence doesn't have to be as obvious as Stranger Things. Most movies aren't completely original. The idea of new movies with influences of old movies being better than reboots and sequels is common sense, not worthy of an article.

/thread

Wow, this thread is a mess. Actual artist here, also art/educator.

Art itself is the whole deal, the making, the object, the experience, etc. Nevermind that. Now, art objects (ie a film, a painting etc) are neither objective nor subjective, they are crafted objects. These objects are then subjected to someone's experience (aesthetics -> feeling). This experience itself is subjective, that is, they depend on a subject to experience them.

When you talk about art, it's a subjective process. That doesn't mean to say you cannot speak of the object of art through technical ways, which is not an objective way, but a subjective way that is broad and we can all get by. If the camera is shaking and you can't see shit, we all agree it's good. Then again, shaky cam is a thing and produces a given desirable effect, so you can see how volatile this can be.

The user who said art is item created with the purpose to be art is not far off and it's not a tautology. The problem is that it is not the purpose that defines it, but the other end most of all. That is so because objects which are not originally artistic can be seen as art, for example ancient artworks, ready made, etc. And something that as made to be art may not be perceived as such either.

AMA

so you replied why? because you needed to share your irrelevant thoughts about business and commodification?

i like how you had to look up the definition of art to try and make an argument about why film is art, and you haven't even made an argument, you've just linked the definition

it's also funny how the definition lists a lot of different media except film and television. even photography gets mentioned

anyway i guess soap operas are an art

Christopher Nolan has known this for years.

>art objects (ie a film
>When you talk about art, it's a subjective process

Literally all I'm saying and this fucking imbecile is talking about "no, it's a craft" and some art being "objectively" bad, which is straight up bullshit.

>If the camera is shaking and you can't see shit, we all agree it's good
Bad. I meant bad!

>i like how you had to look up the definition of art

That was for your benefit, not mine.

Photography is film and soap operas are art.

i've never said anything about art being objectively bad lol. i think "it's subjective" is a cop-out response because the mona lisa can't be argued to express the plight of 19th-century factory workers. but i was also arguing with the user who said art can be objectively measured on its form and content

You literally just used the word literally wrong and you're angry that someone used objectively in the same fashion.

Is this what the inside of a Starbucks sounds like?

I know you did, but it's an interesting example of why art is subjective, because I often disagree with people saying this. Paul Greengrass shaking the camera so that it's difficult to comprehend what you're seeing is done purposefully and elicits a desired response, it's not accidental or a sloppy attempt to do something different. It's to disorient and engage the viewer.

no it was for your benefit because you struggled to make a point and you eventually just gave up once you lost what you were initially trying to say. can't believe i wasted something like an hour trying to get you to qualify your statements with something more than "IT'S SUBJECTIVE!!!!"

equivocation. photography isn't film in the same way that movies are film. Cred Forums doesn't talk about photography and /p/ doesn't talk about the cinema

>i think "it's subjective" is a cop-out response because the mona lisa can't be argued to express the plight of 19th-century factory workers

What the FUCK are you TALKING about?!

nope but go to an undergrad gallery opening. after a few beers and some shitty art all the conversations sound like this

then you have one to many beers and throw out some freud, and find some sexy art chick

art isn't wishy-washy subjectivity. there is more to art than your response and whether you like it or not

something can be bad and you can like it, for example. 'guilty pleasure'

I used the word literally correctly. It is literally what I was saying, albeit not verbatim,

>rip off
Literally only ripped off IT in the end.

To be successful you need to rip-off multiple movies instead of just one. That's the key.

>It's an author writes an opinion piece for an article

>albeit not verbatim,

So not literally.

Art has no purpose other than itself (the only definition everyone agrees on). You make something useful with a craft, something with a purpose other than its own existence. Films have no ulterior purpose, not unlike paintings, hence films are art.

Consider suicide for not getting something this simple and acting smug in your ignorance.

It was said this was started out as the IT remake miniseries.

> i think "it's subjective" is a cop-out response because the mona lisa can't be argued to express the plight of 19th-century factory workers.
I can totally understand your reasoning, but there is a misconception hidden in a deeper place in what you're saying.

It has to do with the fact that art works both ways through the spectator and the artist. Of course Da Vinci did not intend to express 19th century workers, that would be an objectively wrong reading (objective because I'm comparing two very clear things: Da Vinci's intentions and 19th century workers, which do not match because time). But since I am a subject, with my own previous knowledge and experience of the world, I take this wherever I go experience art. If my mind is thinking about 19th century workers and then I see the Mona Lisa, in spite of Da Vinci, I may draw some connections and associations. These connections themselves are what makes for what we talk about art. Even technical issues, I can only talk about them because I know. Or how a comic book fan will have a very different opinion about a comic book movie. The connections are between us and the artwork and the intentions of the artist pale in front of it.

Let's be clear, when you talk about art, you are not talking about what you think the artist is talking about, but you are talking about what that artwork communicated to you. And in this sense, only in this sense, Mona Lisa can be about 19th cent. workers to someone somewhere.

Yes, I can see why people say that. Personally I don't like the effect, but nevertheless I can see it HAS an effect and therefore can be experienced and if it can be experienced, it can be appreciated aesthetically

The whole subjective/objective debate is pretty much just hindered by the possibility of one retard liking something everyone else doesn't.

I could release a feature length film of me counting grains of sand in my birthday suit and some people would argue against it being "objectively bad" even though it certainly would be.

Literally =/= exactly, word for word. It was literally the sense or sentiment. It's what I was literally expressing. I didn't fucking figuratively say it, did I? God.

no, portraiture is art and it does more than 'be itself' by depicting status etc, decorative arts are decorative not just 'art objects' in a gallery, art often is political i.e. propagandising or revolutionary (especially in the modern period), art can be metaphysical, some kind of contention with reality and a consideration of what is reality, constructivism is obviously trying to create usable objects, performance art isn't an object

>(the only definition everyone agrees on)

total bullshit. you won't find a definition 'everyone agrees on' if you read any art historical lit at all

>Films have no ulterior purpose

also untrue

Someone somewhere will like sand, your nude body, and non-narrative art movies, so...

but the way "art is subjective" is used is to disqualify any judgment of whether the work is good or bad, based on ahistorical and personal reasoning, even if the theoretical context of its time would have said it was good art. yes there is good art, yes there is bad art

the only thing 'subjective' about art criticism is that the 'objective criteria' by which one judges a work changes depending on socio-historical and theoretical contexts. in this way there is no single objective standard by which to measure the quality of an art but there is still a coherent system of meaning that appears as an objective standard that often the unread reader isn't aware. those who bring a coherent, internally consistent reading to art have a better time of judging whether art is good or bad

user, what happends is that you can set standards and you can talk to fellow people who are on a similar level as you do. In this way, there can be some consensus, you can agree with each other to the point that you don't have to explain it.

Art critics, even renowed ones, are still talking about it subjectively. But on a side note, since they are so competitive and bitchy about each other and intellectuals and academics, they can hide that pretty well and just be dropping technical concepts at you that you can't refute. Subjectivity is what permits you to love and to hate a movie in spite of what critics, imdb, Cred Forums, rt, etc say to you. That is so because, essentially, you don't even get to choose what you love and hate as much as you think you do. Guilty pleasures shouldn't be guilty, they are just not socially adjusted, but they are pleasures nevertheless.

The role and difficulty of criticizing art has more to do in how to give voice to what you have perceived and so to chance the experience of the next person. You may feel a scene is cool, but do you know why? Is it the editing? The music? What is it? The good critic puts that all into words and help you see it through his eyes.

There's a higher chance it will flop

here
To conclude on that last sentence, that's why it is important to get to know technical stuff, historical stuff, and so on to make good criticism. It doesn't make it objective, but it gives me tools that make me identify in the object what is that which I have perceived subjectively.

They won't make any money because people only pay for franchise names they recognize.

i agree, my main point is basically that instead of any refutation, insight, personal experience given, "art is subjective" is thrown in to shut down a conversation (probably because the opinions differ) rather than add to it.

Ah yes, that I can get by. People say various stupid shit just to shut down opposing opinions, that would be one of them. I do see a similar attempt to end discussion when people say something is objectively good or bad as well.

god yes
she was a gift from god

would've married her on the first date

That's not very accurate. It's not a matter of personal preference but execution.

Lucas is the worst. Dustin was the man of reason

Yes I would rather see a "ripoff" than a reboot.

To reboot something people liked all you have to do is buy the rights to the character names. To rip it off you would copy the themes and character styles from something people liked, and by doing that you might come up with something good instead of a turd that has a familiar label on it.

>ppl whining about originality
There is nothing new under the sun.

based froggo

can this be a /stg/ please
How long do you think Eleven will be gone for? I think they won't be reunited until the last few episodes of season 2.
When will Steve/Nancy/Jonathan become canon?

If they think the shit they're getting over the casting of more white ppl is bad, they won't survive the army of girls and boys that will literally march down to wherever netfix HQ is at and burn it down if they don't put enough of /theirgirl/ 11 in. So to answer yor first ?, I don't think she'll be in every ep, but is she's not in at least 10% of the screen time, then I forsee a dark and bloody future for the producers and their social media accounts.

As for the second, personally I'm fence sitter on all the teen stuff. Don't really care who gets doll face since its not me.

On that note, supposedly natalia dyer is or will be in some movie called unicorn? does anyone know anything more about this? I must see if she gets any more naked in future works.

Yeah she was the breakout character on the show. I think they might put her in more even if they didn't intend her to be in very much of the second season.
Don't know about that movie, I thought she did pretty well and she is a qt, wouldn't mind seeing her in more.

I read a week or so ago that the duffers wrote all summer long on s2 since netflix aparently bought it before even s1 aired. This means that their original script indeed might not have had too much 11 in it. We already know they have GRRM like balls in their ability to kill off characters. Although barb was obviously set up to be a sacrificial uggo lamb. But now that millie is 'the next natalie portman/ emma watson' I think, hope even, that they'll go back and revise. Its one of the first times I've ever wanted writers to revise based on outside influence.
Ok I found pic related about the movie but nothing more.

CUTE

an hommage is a self-admitted ripoff. either the dude who made it talks about his direct inspiration honestly in interviews or he even put some direct references to the original thing within his thing

so ripoffs are vile and hommages are useless nerdy wanks

>Rip off
They didn't rip anything off. They did things their own way with a variety of influences. Why the fuck is that hard to comprehend? Writers just trying to stir shit, get clicks.

totally agree

I think that movie came out in 2014

Finn's a bretty gud acter. I like him a lot.

ya I've since found that out myself. Thanks for the info though. I'll try and find a torrent of it later unless anyone can tell me if it sucks.
And by sucks I mean fanservice-wise. I don't care about the story, its looks hipster. Although even good close ups of her would be enough.

years later when hes old and near death, he'll think back to that con, that moment, and realize it was the greatest of his entire life. And he was a lucky man who can die happy. I'm glad. He's a based dude, on and off camera.

No, the only reason you don't see people bitching about this shit even more is because the show's primary demographic (kids, niggers and women) haven't seen/heard about the shit this so blatantly rips off from.

I am little hesitant to call it "homage" when it is this blatant. Just look at the sequence they ripped off from Under the Skin. This isn't "homage", it's two hack writers without a single original thought of their own. Not that any of this really bothers me because the show, Stranger Things, is pretty mediocre, what bothers me is that such unoriginality is actually being praised nowadays.

>costars with Winona on a kino show
>father figure to MBB
>is probably swimming in offers

The second part is what matters
MBB is so lovely

Wow. It is amazing the rhetorical marathons people will run just to defend using "objectively" to mean "very".

His AMA had nothing but glowing words for MBB. It was great.

Uhh Hollywood already tried this with 8mm. Didn't work because the cast of kids was all white. Audiences want diversity, at least one token black kid.

Super 8 was a rip-off. This is a tribute.

>taking a scientific masturbatory approach to define the value of art
Ok cucks I'll play your game. The only objective thing to exist are facts, and you can't disagree. A Da Vinci painting exists, this is objective. Anything else is subjective, any opinion about its value, meaning, "form and content" is man made, if there were no men to talk about this then all these qualities would be gone. There isn't some "quality" molecule floating around, so you can stop touching yourselves over this. Hint: You literally can't refute this

They should have gone more Event Horizon with the evil dimension, the faceless monster was lame.

What did they copy from under the skin exactly?
Its been a while since i watched those but im not remembering any big similarities

>is a DILF with a nice butt

Homage is using what was previously done for new material in a well done and non-shitty way.

Rip off is literally creating a situation to directly copy a scene in a poor way, or just copying the scene because you can't come up with your own version or own way.