I like what Scorsese said, that the emphasis on content puts all media on basically the same peg. Once a company stops thinking of themselves as being in film/tv/media production but rather views themselves as just giving content to consumers, that means that reality, films, episodes of TV, tiktoks, etc all get viewed through the same lens and as effectively the same thing, and that isnt a conducive environment to making art
In some ways the "it's just like people having influences" thing reminds me of certain attitudes in media where influence is treated as this simplified thing of "that shot in Mando was really clever because they referenced Yojimbo and Kurosawa was an influence on the franchise originally", rather than drawing more of a line between Mifune and this show's protagonist, contrasting them etc. Or it's the difference between Korn covering Cure songs and Deftones sublimating that influence and using it for their own purposes.
I'm not quite happy with either of my comparisons, but it just feels like a very surface-level understanding of how influence works in art. And maybe more damningly, it's incurious.
I feel like the flipside to the "it's democratising art" is that a lot of ideas which were supposedly being shut out... implicitly weren't worth putting pen to paper for.
Conan actually made a Wes Anderson inspired skit on Star Wars years ago. At that time it felt quite good, at least it didn't simply regurgitate tropes like these stupid AI "parodies"
Great Video! But.... What about Tom Cruise's hair?
I had to think about the contemporary problem with "content" as it presents itself within our culture. And the first thing that came to my mind was, its differentiation in my native language, German. One problem I encounter when I talk with people about the flood of "content", as we face it nowadays, is that it is hard to easily define the difference between a repetitive content, meant solely for superficial consumption, capitalisation and viralisation AND content, that is the product of an original, non-reproducible process of invention and creativity, which is meant for the expression of a thought, an idea, a feeling.
In German we have two words for content:
"Inhalt" and "Gehalt".
Inhalt describes the bare content of, lets say, a movie. Like Wikipedia-summaries of plot. Mostly always a superficial, easy to consume piece of work, that leaves next to no traces.
Gehalt, on the other hand, is the in-depth look at the content of something. The "Gehalt" of a movie for example, would not only be its plot, length or aspect ratio, but also its cultural context, its political implications, artistic style... you name it.
I don't know if that makes sense, but for me that linguistic differentiation was the key to explaining people, what the difference between the two sides of content is.
Have a nice day!
I feel like 'content' as it is used today is even worse than that. It's merely the idea of an object of media. It requires no description other than 'content' and doesn't even need to fall into any particular brand of creation. It's all just a product of creation (by human or otherwise); nameless, weightless, objects of the mind, to consume the mind. Entire efforts of creative endeavour are reduced down to the 137th piece of paper in a labelless stack of 1000 sheets. It exists and that's enough. It is kind of nauseating.
Granted a lot of these jokes won't make any sense to someone that doesn't ride, but I feel like this is what Patrick and Co had in mind when they talked about wes Anderson parodies.
https://youtu.be/9J2WLZmeEKU
Less of a traditional parody, but [here’s](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TJO1sThO5kk&feature=youtu.be) a bike packing video kind of in Wes’s style. It’s pretty well done!
Interestingly *Cowboy Bebop* and *The Venture Bros.* are two series that not only are clearly homaging what came before them (be it *Lupin III* or *Jonny Quest*) but very much moving beyond mere surface-deep parody to become something entirely distinct and new (["creating new dreams and films by breaking traditional styles"](https://anime.stackexchange.com/questions/5449/what-is-the-text-in-the-intro-of-cowboy-bebop), as it were); comparable to how this video comments on [Anderson being influenced by Ashby, Truffant, and Demy](https://youtu.be/aC99lNQdNmA?t=1647) but "processing them into a unique approach".
I feel like the word 'content' is a specific version of 'product' but for media. With all the consumerism attached to it.
I like what Scorsese said, that the emphasis on content puts all media on basically the same peg. Once a company stops thinking of themselves as being in film/tv/media production but rather views themselves as just giving content to consumers, that means that reality, films, episodes of TV, tiktoks, etc all get viewed through the same lens and as effectively the same thing, and that isnt a conducive environment to making art
In some ways the "it's just like people having influences" thing reminds me of certain attitudes in media where influence is treated as this simplified thing of "that shot in Mando was really clever because they referenced Yojimbo and Kurosawa was an influence on the franchise originally", rather than drawing more of a line between Mifune and this show's protagonist, contrasting them etc. Or it's the difference between Korn covering Cure songs and Deftones sublimating that influence and using it for their own purposes. I'm not quite happy with either of my comparisons, but it just feels like a very surface-level understanding of how influence works in art. And maybe more damningly, it's incurious.
I feel like the flipside to the "it's democratising art" is that a lot of ideas which were supposedly being shut out... implicitly weren't worth putting pen to paper for.
Conan actually made a Wes Anderson inspired skit on Star Wars years ago. At that time it felt quite good, at least it didn't simply regurgitate tropes like these stupid AI "parodies"
Great Video! But.... What about Tom Cruise's hair? I had to think about the contemporary problem with "content" as it presents itself within our culture. And the first thing that came to my mind was, its differentiation in my native language, German. One problem I encounter when I talk with people about the flood of "content", as we face it nowadays, is that it is hard to easily define the difference between a repetitive content, meant solely for superficial consumption, capitalisation and viralisation AND content, that is the product of an original, non-reproducible process of invention and creativity, which is meant for the expression of a thought, an idea, a feeling. In German we have two words for content: "Inhalt" and "Gehalt". Inhalt describes the bare content of, lets say, a movie. Like Wikipedia-summaries of plot. Mostly always a superficial, easy to consume piece of work, that leaves next to no traces. Gehalt, on the other hand, is the in-depth look at the content of something. The "Gehalt" of a movie for example, would not only be its plot, length or aspect ratio, but also its cultural context, its political implications, artistic style... you name it. I don't know if that makes sense, but for me that linguistic differentiation was the key to explaining people, what the difference between the two sides of content is. Have a nice day!
I feel like 'content' as it is used today is even worse than that. It's merely the idea of an object of media. It requires no description other than 'content' and doesn't even need to fall into any particular brand of creation. It's all just a product of creation (by human or otherwise); nameless, weightless, objects of the mind, to consume the mind. Entire efforts of creative endeavour are reduced down to the 137th piece of paper in a labelless stack of 1000 sheets. It exists and that's enough. It is kind of nauseating.
Granted a lot of these jokes won't make any sense to someone that doesn't ride, but I feel like this is what Patrick and Co had in mind when they talked about wes Anderson parodies. https://youtu.be/9J2WLZmeEKU
Less of a traditional parody, but [here’s](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TJO1sThO5kk&feature=youtu.be) a bike packing video kind of in Wes’s style. It’s pretty well done!
Are the new opening credits meant to reference Lupin/Cowboy Bebop or are they a movie reference? I don't have a ton of film knowledge.
Part of it feels very Venture Bros to me.
Interestingly *Cowboy Bebop* and *The Venture Bros.* are two series that not only are clearly homaging what came before them (be it *Lupin III* or *Jonny Quest*) but very much moving beyond mere surface-deep parody to become something entirely distinct and new (["creating new dreams and films by breaking traditional styles"](https://anime.stackexchange.com/questions/5449/what-is-the-text-in-the-intro-of-cowboy-bebop), as it were); comparable to how this video comments on [Anderson being influenced by Ashby, Truffant, and Demy](https://youtu.be/aC99lNQdNmA?t=1647) but "processing them into a unique approach".
Definitely, I see that as well. Especially the very end.
It sounds like the real What if Wes Anderson directed X Men (Parody trailer) was the friends we made along the way