>>281767348
What does "deep" even mean? Dense with themes and/or references? Esoteric? That's what "going beyond the basics, the surface, the obvious" presumably means, but that doesn't have much to do with messaging, which the original post seems really focused on. Assuming it really is about being dense, do these references and themes even have to add up to anything that can be considered impactful, or is pure aesthetic value enough to be "deep" if there's enough there to dig into and unravel? Is it supposed to be subjective, or is it somehow objectively quantifiable, and if yes, then how? Is it supposed to be an intentional quality, or can some works just accidentally stumble into being deep by chance or even out of ineptitude? And, like, you can go on and on with questions like this. OP, if you want a discussion thread, you have to define the term you're discussing.