What's the Stranger Things of literature?

What's the Stranger Things of literature?

Unironically, Stephen King.

The experiment mixes elements of The Fury, Altered States, Fire Starter.

The kids are a mix of E.T., the Goonies, Stand By Me.

The mystery mixes It, Poltegeist, E.T., the short story The Mist.

The dreary small town/suburban angst is a mix of Stephen King and Steven Spielberg.

The score is a mix of John Carpenters early work and Tangerine Dreams soundtracks.

Netflix literally creates shows according to mathematical formula to appeal to certain demographics based on their subscribers' viewing and rating habits. They'll hire producers, directors, and casts, and hand them a computer-generated premise based on their algorithms, and say get to work. I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years all the human positions have been replaced with AI and they use virtual actors. Eventually the audience will just be bots as well.

you can't be serious
the setting, mood, little details, and everything outside of the algorithm, can not be done without an instance of a conscious author.

all shows would be the same if literally everything about them was simply outcomes of some formula. the unique composition of particularly fitting elements is a human choice, and it's what makes the mathematically-generated narrative worthwhile.

don't be such a pessimist user

Back to Goodreads, Pinkerton.

t. brainlet
www.glass-bead.org/article/a-theory-of-vibe/?lang=enview

Come on, man. You know this is wrong, even if partially. I'm pretty sure these entertainment moguls do have some algorithms analyzing how many cuts should you have in a span of time, how many parallel storylines can you put into your story, when to change from one plot line to the other etc. But this doesn't make a story a story, much less a series or a movie.

But which books?

A combo of IT, Carrie, Stand By Me and maybe Firestarter with a little Dead Zone thrown in

3 act structure is already the formula that all movies and serials use except arthouse stuff. You could write a program to generate a premise (Netflix has already done this. Google if you don't believe me.), then one to write a 3 act structure storyline based on that premise, then another to block out that storyline into scenes, then another to write dialogue and scene descriptions with the necessary quip density. It wouldn't be that hard. Human screenwriters are already regarded as disposable robots in the studio system. The next step will be eliminating them completely and replacing them with AI. The producer will simply plug in how much money they want a film to gross, and the AI will output a genre and premise and creative team and production cost range. If the producer likes what he sees the AI will generate a script, and the producer will send it to the specified director unread.

Don't think the shit even has to be good. That isn't how the film or publishing industries work.

The next step would be automating other positions in the creative team until only the producer is left to pull the trigger.

There are already computer-generated novels that have won awards. I see no reason why a screenplay couldn't be autogenerated. It might not be the best but trust me that isn't what Hollywood or audiences are looking for. They just want demographic and niche market appeal. Professional screenwriter here by the way.

>Professional screenwriter here by the way.

You showed your hand with that last line. But I can understand your jadedness if computer-generated story-lines/characters are the way of the future.

That being said, you can't program a machine to write as good as the greats. I doubt a machine can produce Ulysses, Gravity's Rainbow, Anna Karenina or even The Sun Also Rises. Or produce something like The Waste Land or Don Juan or Ozymandias.

i dunno look thru my trash can

You're missing my point. The machines don't need to write as good as Shakespeare. They need to write as good as Joss Whedon.

Then it will be reviewed and regarded by history the same way Joss Whedon is: as populist pop junk. A huge part of the reason ST is so good is because the kids in in are great and have chemistry ... and there's some spookiness

If you're actually a good screenwriter, you should have no concerns competing against an algorithm with no sense of humanity or capacity for creativity

Could I interview you for an essay I'd like to write? The emm I guess you could say uhh panicked defense, which seems very sincere, elicited from you-- just um, I guess it's like I just. Hm. It's like this: you were so sincere defending this, this uh, what I would call sort-of an abomination, like an abomination of insincerity. There's beauty in that, you know?

I didn't watch Stranger Things past the first episode. It seemed like just a pile of shit I've already walked past too many times to me. But if you enjoyed it that's fine.

Stranger Things uses Stephen King movies as pastiche/intertextuality

Give me money first, fucking weirdo.

>pastiche/intertextuality
easy cash grab, you mean?

Yeah, I think that's a part of it. Watched some of it with my gf who watched the two seasons. She doesn't get the hype either, but likes to binge TV shows since both of us are poorfags who just got good internet. There's still redeeming parts of it, and people always say intertextuality is lazy - because it does look like that from the surface level. Take a book like Foe, who the fuck would want to read Robinson Crusoe again? Well, when I actually read it, I found Coetzee was playing off the old discourse in Crusoe (and Roxanne), and I don't see Stranger Things as being starkly different. The cinematography is great, I love the pace, and the pastiche doesn't feel tacky like other people seem to think it is. I feel like it's building off Spielberg movies, and trying to find why they were so great for their time.