• Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    27 days ago

    So basically in the distant future year of year 2000 movies mostly had it all?

    Like fast food (chains) - products topped with sugar, fats, and salt, so there is no need for actual quality?

    • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      27 days ago

      I’d argue that it’s more that pornography is easily accessible and there’s simply not a need or market to titillate audiences like that. You’re just alienating potential audience members who might have gone to see it with their kids, because obviously it’s okay that they see a city destroyed or people shot in the head fifty times, but who won’t buy a ticket because somebody is briefly showing boob.

      I’m curious about what, exactly, counts as violence and drugs for this graph though. Is it extreme gore? Any violence at all? Any weed use at all? Drinking?

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        27 days ago

        Pornography with good acting is not.

        I know that it’s a joke about it having a plot and all, but I’m personally not very interested in just looking at videos of all the orifices being methodically used as if it’s a factory mechanism during maintenance, unless the woman is very beautiful. But even then the effect from beauty is orders of magnitude less than if there were some real plot and acting.

        There are gradations of taste, ya knaw,

      • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        27 days ago

        I was saying that movies with all of the above are for pleasing the average viewer (which doesn’t exist), so something arising from financial pressure rather than art.