What's a genre that's experiencing a golden age right now?

Amassing a staff of several hundred to make a genius movie is not necessarily easier than writing a 1000-page genius book by yourself. On the individual level? Maybe. Altogether as enterprises? No.

>Whereas cinema, even bad cinema, overwhelms the viewer from the get go.
No idea what you are talking about. Are you so stupid that you can't tell a shit movie when you see one, or so clueless that you think movie critics don't exist?

lol no. Television goldenage ended with Mad Men

I'd recommend reading cinema theorist like Andre Bazin, Rudolf Arnheim and Jean Epstein if you want to be convinced that cinema is just as difficult an art as any other.

in any medium, it's rap by far

this is not the meaning of 'easy' i'm using and if you don't get the nuance you're just stupid. i'm pitiful so ill give you an example. last week i had an exam in riemannian geometry, it's a somewhat advanced topic in maths. i did well, solved all the exercises. but it would be very difficult for me to solve the maths olympiads' problem in euclidean geometry because. so, is modern differential geometry easier as a subject than triangles and shit? of course not you piece of shit you. get what i'm saying

I don't mean easier to make, I mean easier as a medium by which an artist can successfully tell a story that commands an audience.

The quality of the story in the movie itself doesn't necessarily matter. Have you ever tried to read in a room with a movie playing? Eventually the movie wins out. Why? Because cinema requires no mental investment from the viewer; rather, it is a barrage on the viewers' senses. It doesn't rely on your imagination to create the thoughts in your head; instead it flashes interesting images and make interesting sounds. The story the movie tells might be significantly worse than that of the book you're reading, you might even think it's crap and wish you could go back to your book, but for some reason or other, its hold on your attention is stronger

For that reason, cinema is "easier." A film can make slip ups with characters and narrative and style and dialogue that a book never would, but it doesn't matter--you'll keep watching. You might not enjoy it, but you'll keep watching. Sometimes a film will make it back up; other times it won't. But it'll dominate you either way, regardless of quality

Bugs...

DUDE

Are you incapable of properly articulating yourself? Why the need for a stupid analogy?

>I don't mean easier to make, I mean easier as a medium by which an artist can successfully tell a story that commands an audience.
It's easy to command an audience in any medium. Are you saying there are no audiences in cinema with higher taste?

>The quality of the story in the movie itself doesn't necessarily matter.
Not true. Movies are also more than the stories.

>Have you ever tried to read in a room with a movie playing? Eventually the movie wins out. Why? Because cinema requires no mental investment from the viewer
This doesn't follow AT ALL and makes ZERO sense. What the fuck, dude?

>It doesn't rely on your imagination to create the thoughts in your head
Who cares?

>instead it flashes interesting images and make interesting sounds
You sound mentally ill.

>For that reason, cinema is "easier."
So when you say "easier" you're talking about getting engrossed in a movie (which is not true at all, unless you're a retard with ADHD), since it involves multiple senses (which is not a negative except in your world). What a bizarre takeaway from this original sentence:
> 2bh i'm rater scared that in the future all the artists will flock to movie making as it's much easier both as an art form and commercially speaking.

Forgive me for assuming you were referring to something actually relevant to the arts like craftsmanship and complexity.

Probably leftist academic papers on why everything about whites, heteros, males, discipline, self-respect, self-reliance, self-control, family, etc. is evil and everything else (especially State control over every little detail possible in human life and purely random redistributions of capital and profit by said State) is superior, written, of course, in a subjective, petty, narrowminded, self-gratifying, intellectually self-masturbatory, stylistically poor and horribally absolutistic way.

And yes I mean this. I finished Law School with two master degrees and the amount of non-sensical trash written by Law, social, "Liberal" arts and economy students, phd researchers and professors I found on the various data banks was astounding.

In stead of focussing on actual academic research based on factual information, all these faggots do is write strongly opiniated, vague and "value based" pieces using zero reason and lots of emotional sauce about the same useless subjects that only concerns other faggots who write the same shite over and over again by paraphrasing eachothers faggot shit.

So yea, that "genre" is having its Golden Era, but hopefully not for long anymore since its merely based on inefficiënt, government subsidies which will eventually run out once the actual tax payers for this shite see how their sacrifices of time and energy are spend on this propaganda which merely amounts to get more financial aid to universities and other marginal groups of people of society that dont even pay taxes overall.

because you proved too stupid to get me when i speak. also the analogy is fine

You are way too sullen and immature for a serious talk about this subject. I don't know why you took the time to quote individual sentences I wrote only to add resentful and lazy commentary like "What the fuck, dude?" and "Who cares?" You also have confused me with another poster despite me beginning my first replies to you by explicitly announcing I was not the first replier, indicating that you are not reading these posts very closely, perhaps because of your intense rage

bruv u stoopid i give up

Ra-rappu?

Sorry. Your post just seemed too full of bizarre notions to me.

Ultimately I disagree because it is NOT easier for artists to tell a story that commands an audience through movies, because it is just as easy to LOSE an audience's attention in movies. Not being able to focus when reading because you have a movie playing behind you is not the same as seriously grabbing your attention.

crackpots.

freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2018/01/04/weve-been-building-kook-magnets/

"Creationists often have bizarre ideas about Christianity and space and electromagnetism and how the Pope isn’t the true Pope and Jesus is connected to the Masons and the Rosicrucians and the Hebrews colonized Mars and Nazis possessed the Spear of Destiny and used the Holy Grail to power their flying saucers that were used to shuttle slaves to the gold mines at the center of the Hollow Earth and did you know the Nephilim built the pyramids."

- P.Z. Myers

you mean where the bix nood grabs the crotch of the pants that are hanging down off his waist, and tells us in free verse how big his dick is?

indeed. stirring, thought-provoking work there, Tyrone.

...Rappaya?

...

you don't disagree, you miss the point

Shitposting, for sure.

>Have you ever tried to read in a room with a movie playing? Eventually the movie wins out. Why? Because cinema requires no mental investment from the viewer; rather, it is a barrage on the viewers' senses.

The movie wins out because it utilizes volume in its expression. Explain how the utilization of volume means "cinema requires no mental investment from the viewer" — further, explain how that is the case, when if you have a movie on in the background but you aren't watching it, you won't know what the movie was like (and to know this, you must have been paying attention entirely to the movie: to the cinematography of each scene, every single brushstroke of timing, lighting, angle, and other effects, and the overall narrative which merge together with all of these elements to create the 'movie'). At best, if you were paying attention to the audio (which is a type of mental investment, by the way, an instant negation to your statement) you may have some idea of the events of the movie's narrative, but most likely you'll have missed some things, or get some things wrong, and you absolutely will not understand the full experience of the movie, i.e. you will not understand the artist's cinematic creation.

And the "easiness" of commanding attention depends entirely on what type of attention you are referring to. The attention of your ears? In your example, then yes. The attention of your eyes? Perhaps. The attention of your mind? I don't see how it's easier to do this in a movie than in a book; and based on your post, you don't think cinema requires any mental investment at all. So what WAS your point?

you're replying to the wrong user yet again, for real how stupid can one mothefucker get

Explicitly pro-white literature that exposes the jewish problem is the upcoming wave of literature. Anyone who wants to be a potential writer must understand these emerging currents unless they think they can make it in the current LGBTQN paradigm the jewish publishing industry has set up.

you must go back

Neat posts, famalam. The other guy's a faggot.

I wait for a proper refutation regardless.

Hit the shift key and use a fucking period when you address me, hapaboy.

>mad men
>good

I want plebs to leave

This isn't /Pol/ go away

But cinema requires you to have a certain amount of capital to get your project going, then convince several other people, hopefully talented, to participate for a long period of time. With literature, all you need is something to write on.