Why can't critics make art?

>>213877103 (OP)
Because making art takes a certain amount of courage. And they pussied out and made it bad on purpose so that when people hate it they can tell themselves it's ok because they didn't REALLY try.

Because in order to participate in the creative industry, you have to turn off your critical thinking. You have to yesman a bunch of money-hungry fucktards, deal with egotistical nepobabies, marketing executives, focus groups, etc. just to have a chance at making a movie. You have to trade off your sould to get professional movie-making experience. Because of this, if you choose not to play the industry game, you never gain the experience necessary to create a professional movie, you don't have access to the collective years of experience and wisdom that a high-budget film crew would have. You can either be a professional, in which case you have to learn how to be banal and subservient, or you can be a critic, who maintains a strong sense of creativity but doesn't have the tools to mold it into a product.

>>213878227
C O P E

They're critics because they're interested in the medium but they don't have good ideas. No amount of education can teach creativity. They usually get degrees in the field but they still can't summon a good idea for an original film. It's not a matter of lacking practice, it's a matter of lacking talent. They've educated themselves to hell and back but they still can't learn talent.

>You can either be a professional, in which case you have to learn how to be banal and subservient, or you can be a critic, who maintains a strong sense of creativity but doesn't have the tools to mold it into a product.
Utterly pathetic, the creative equivalent of "WOMEN HATE NICE GUYS THEY ONLY LIKE ASSHOLES"

Because making anything good on an ultra low budget is nigh impossible today. Audiences are too used to professional film making.

Jay wants to be Zach from WKUK so so so badly I know he's dying inside but unfortunately you need talent and not be a regurgitating encyclopedia full of fun facts.

>>213878474
Also helps to have a drop of Testesterone. Jay is one of the biggest pussies on the internet

>>213878445
>Audiences are too used to professional film making.
I actually think it's the opposite

Audiences are too used to amateur filming from Youtube and everything else that it's become too easy to differentiate. Now all indie stuff just looks like Youtube shit.

>>213878488
What like AI reels and memes? Dont think anyones is watching serious on youtube

>>213878516
I mean all forms of video, from things shot on phones, to webcams, etc. We're too used to seeing amateur stuff and being able to recognize it as being amateur.

Just coming at the same point you were making but from the other side.

>>213878559
Yeah, that makes sense. I’m actually working on a horror script with a cave scene, and trying to avoid the cliché ‘actor with a flashlight in their face, breathing heavily’ shot is surprisingly difficult. I know that would come off as cringe. I’m thinking of going for more of a Slender Man game POV style instead.

>>213878445
To add to what the other anon is saying, it is SO much easier than it has ever been to make professional-looking content on a low budget that the market is pretty much flooded with forgettable indies and the hard part is standing out

A current-day phone camera and $50 worth of cheapass LED lighting gear off Amazon can achieve a comparable level of quality to a camera/lighting package that would've cost thousands and thousands of dollars to rent 15 or 20 years ago

>>213878608
Horror's not my thing so I'm fresh out of ideas for you, amigo. Good luck though, hope it works out.

>>213877103 (OP)
Those who can't do teach. Those who can't teach become critics.

>>213878608
Nothing wrong with established motifs. That's like saying "I want to avoid a character looking out of a window longingly" in my drama. It's all about how you use it/don't dwell on it

>>213877103 (OP)
they actually made a half decent b-movie creature feature called Feeding Frenzy
apparently they spent a decent amount of money on it and you could tell, it was fairly well made
they made no money off it and every time it's mentioned they get extremely butthurt
every movie they made afterward, they clearly don't want to make the mistake again of actually trying so they give them a budget of $100 and the vibe of "we're being shitty oN pURpOSE"
>>213877194
exactly
>>213878445
it's because a low budget movie shot with a film camera still looks better than an equally low budget movie shot on DV
consumer 4K workflows are starting to get to the point that they can equal the look with proper planning but every indie filmmaker falls for the meme that you can make a professional movie using a Sony Alpha with no extra accessories and edit in Final Cut Pro on a consumer MacBook

>>213878227
This is of course refuted by all the people who became successful by either going against the whims of industry insiders or who were independent of it.
Like Stanley Kubrick

>>213878630
And those who can't do all three drink beer while watching actual trash going "hohoho bad movie am bad and cringe"

>>213878687
Yeah i think I have a good plan for it but was chewing on it this morning. Probably just going to play on the audiences expectation for something to happen and then nothing does except when they leave have some shadowy shot revealing something waking up. It's pretty early on.

>>213878486
idk if he's a pussy, he's just a forever little boy
he's like mike matei

>>213878700
>Kubrick
>independent

Fucking lol. Also it's funny that you bring up a director from the 60s. How about you try and name somebody from the past two and a half decades

>>213878804
NTA but the Backrooms kid is directing a movie becuase he made apopular online video

>>213877194
No they didn't, they made it as well as they could, and that's not a compliment. It's idiotic to try to make a sci-fi special effects adventure with the budget they had, anyway. I bet most of it went to Colin making the 2 decent CGI shots in the movie.

>>213878486
You can't even spell "testosterone" and you sound like an old lady over the phone anyway.

>>213877103 (OP)
wrong
It's not that they can't make art because they're critics, they can't make art because they're literal subhuman retards

>>213878939
>Spell checking is high T

>>213878619
From a shooting standpoint? Sure, even your phone has a somewhat decent camera. You still have to script, light, composite your shots, color correct, edit. None of that shit is easy to do correctly.

>>213878690
>every time it's mentioned they get extremely butthurt
They mention it constantly themselves, and continue selling it on their site.

>>213878823
"Directing" in the way that Kevin Smith directs movies. He just kind of hangs out there and a large crew does everything for him.

>>213878984
I didn't say it doesn't require effort and talent to make something good, I said it doesn't cost as much money. That's what "ultra low budget" means

>>213878804
>Kubrick
>independent
>Fucking lol.
That's my point though.
He started as an independent filmmaker and became successful in the industry.
Nobody remembers Fear and Desire and his first handful of Noir films, but he was independent before he became an industry darling.
And he became an industry icon not by sucking up to it either; he was notorious, and ruffled feathers politically.

report eceleb threads as off topic

>>213879110
I don't necessarily disagree with you in this case
But at some point culture as a whole is going to have to reckon with ecelebs being a new reality of the era.

>>213877103 (OP)
They are not true aesthetes.

>>213879110
Then why did the plinkett reviews get a fucking sticky every time Mike shat one out? I think you're lost and need to leave.

>>213879151
That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

>>213879110
The thread is about a movie

>>213879184
I said what I meant.

>>213879001
that's what I mean, whenever they mention it themselves it's always in a joking "look at this fucking flop" context, like they're a living version of pic related

>>213877194
You can make something bad on purpose and not have it be shit.

>>213879399
Pic related btw

>>213879399
What is even the point of making something bad on purpose? I've never seen it done effectively.

>>213879151
>>213877103 (OP)

>>213877103 (OP)
They can

>>213879429
If you know what you're doing it can actually be funny. If you're not good at what you're doing it isn't funny. Everyone working on Darkplace for example is actually capable of being funny and can make actual TV shows that aren't shit. RLM literally can't make actually movies. They werent creating anything that could've in theory been good with Spacecop. Darkplace could in theory have been a decent comedy miniseries even without the deliberately bad elements.

>>213878823
Kane?

>>213877103 (OP)
Even toddlers can destroy things. It's literally the easiest thing to do. Making things in the other hand... Not so easy.

Many cahiers du cinema critics became film makers themselves, as based autist Godard was posted above.

iirc Paul Schrader was a critic at some point.

making a quality product requires oversight, external pressure, checks and balances. i realised this today because i watched a Disney stage play and thought about the logistics behind it. if you're just going to make some backyard movie with your friends that's what you're gonna get

>>213877103 (OP)
They lack the will to force their vision upon reality and thus end up shitting out insincere shit that hides behind a mask of being tongue in cheek.

stuckman won

>>213877103 (OP)
It’s many issues but one of the most under-discussed is their inability to squeeze slightly better performances out of *okay* actors. That will make your film stand out. You gotta be a particular type to do that. Dorks with Star Wars action figure and Criterion collections usually don't have that. Passive cattiness vs active.

>>213878939
You're a faggot Jay.

>>213879890
I should add to this that someone who might be a critic nonetheless has a lot of knowledge about film to draw upon, a sort of fallback to supplement imagination (or a lack of it).

Mike sadly has almost no knowledge about the wider world of movies, has little insight into film as a medium (see how he gets frustrated every time he reviews a movie that doesn't have a 3 act structure), and goes about making stuff as if he doesn't really care.

I'm not saying Mike should be name dropping Ozu in his hitb reviews, but it honestly seems like to me that Mike doesn't even know how Ozu is, let alone his movies.

>>213879422
That's not "bad on purpose" that's parodying many things. I think you tend to confuse comedy and satire with "bad on purpose" because you're a fucking idiot.

>>213880400