Nick Coons Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Most entertainment that I'm aware of (TV shows, movies, etc) are typically considered interesting because they undertake some form of conflict, a conflict which typically arises from subjective, whim-based moral opinions. There is often not a clear "good guy" or clear "bad guy", but rather both morally justify their actions to oppose the other. The characters usuaiing can't/don't resolve their conflict in a mutually-beneficial agreement, but rather resolve the problem by force or some form of deception. The audience, also having a morality that is subjective and whim-based, is in awe trying to determine how the characters can resolve the problem, and feels the entire scenario is a gray area so that a proper resolution isn't possible. It seems that with an objective basis for morality, resolving the issue is much less complicated, but if that were to happen, the movie would be over in five minutes, and no one would pay to see it. When we achieve a rational and free society, identifying these will be second nature for the mainstream. Given that it seems that entertainment is based on seemingly unresolvable conflict given today's understanding of morality, I'm wondering, what are others' thoughts on what entertainment would look like in a rational society? I'm having difficulty formulating an intriguing plot for a story without the above requirement, but that could very easily be my lack of imagination.. I'm certainly no writer or story-creator.
shirgall Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 While we're at it, why is it that most science fiction has to have some military or quasi-military organization (and therefore war and lasers) in it, even if it's just to be the bad guy? Why is it that most romantic comedies tropes turn into exaggerated responses to simple miscommunications? Ever get the sense that people want the apocalypse (esp. the zombie one) because such worlds are easier to understand, especially motivations? All of these seem like it's easier to make an interesting story this way, and that such spectacles draw people to a show when they channel-surf.
AynRand Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 I think the reason I can't think of a plot for a free society because their would be no conflict. Peace and negotiation would dominate the world, and violence and coercion would have been eliminated. Maybe a plot could be a struggling person tries to make his way in the world, but isn't very good at anything, and has no skills, but he is a likable character that the audience roots for to be successful. That way their would be a conflict, and the protagonist could entertain audiences with his incredible underdog abilities.
NotDarkYet Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Interesting question: Ayn Rand said that there can be no conflict of interest between two rational people. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, any realistic conflict (taking place in a highly rational society) would have to be Man vs Nature. But, of course, people enjoy watching drama, so I think writer will always create 'irrational' characters, even in a rational society.
tasmlab Posted January 13, 2015 Posted January 13, 2015 There's lot of fiction about things that don't exist. Superheros, Jurassic Park, Hobbits. The undead. History. I wouldn't see why there couldn't be a rich amount of fiction with loads of conflict. Tom and Jerry could still endlessly hack away at each other on TV, even in a free and rational society. IMO.
Nick Coons Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 I think the reason I can't think of a plot for a free society because their would be no conflict. That's kind of where I was at with this. Interesting question: Ayn Rand said that there can be no conflict of interest between two rational people. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, any realistic conflict (taking place in a highly rational society) would have to be Man vs Nature. But, of course, people enjoy watching drama, so I think writer will always create 'irrational' characters, even in a rational society. Man vs. Nature could work, but even those (the ones I can think of off-hand) have their major plot lines based in conflict among people. In 2012, while the instigator was the coming end of the world, the conflict was among who would survive, which ended up being the politically connected. I'm not usually a fan of dramas as I typically find them predictable, or I find myself thinking about what the characters should have done to avoid the drama. I do like sitcoms though simply for the humor, despite the drama though, not because of it. There's lot of fiction about things that don't exist. Superheros, Jurassic Park, Hobbits. The undead. History. I wouldn't see why there couldn't be a rich amount of fiction with loads of conflict. Tom and Jerry could still endlessly hack away at each other on TV, even in a free and rational society. IMO. The superhero entertainment often times falls into the same drama-based categories though. I do enjoy Iron Man a bit though, because of Tony Stark and his technological prowess.. not a big fan of the other ones though. I've never seen any of the Hobbits or Lord of the Rings or any of that, so I can't comment on whether I think that would be viable in a rational society. I saw jurassic Park once when it first came out, and other than the overall plot that they genetically recreate dinosaurs, I remember nothing about it.
nathanm Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 There is so much good art that is about or motivated by terrible behavior and hideous violence. I suspect in a better world entertainment will be more childlike and stories will be more pure fantasy and not have so many metaphorical ties to the real world. Media actually will actually be proper fiction, and not just fiction that's talking about real life with a costume and mask. So like, more Tom Bombadil, Treebeard, Barrow Wights and Trolls and less human soldiers cutting each other up with swords and horses and politically plotting against each other. Whimsy, people, a goram truckload of whimsy is what we could potentially have in the future. 1
luxfelix Posted January 19, 2015 Posted January 19, 2015 The examples I've read so far have been narrative-specific entertainment. If we zoom out a bit to entertainments in general, we may find other mediums and activities taking precedence over narrative and/or passive mediums. I imagine individuals in a free society would be more likely to take up learning instruments, travelling, and building/designing with one another. (My personal bias is toward games.)
Omegahero09 Posted January 27, 2015 Posted January 27, 2015 Most entertainment that I'm aware of (TV shows, movies, etc) are typically considered interesting because they undertake some form of conflict, a conflict which typically arises from subjective, whim-based moral opinions. There is often not a clear "good guy" or clear "bad guy", but rather both morally justify their actions to oppose the other. The characters usuaiing can't/don't resolve their conflict in a mutually-beneficial agreement, but rather resolve the problem by force or some form of deception. The audience, also having a morality that is subjective and whim-based, is in awe trying to determine how the characters can resolve the problem, and feels the entire scenario is a gray area so that a proper resolution isn't possible. It seems that with an objective basis for morality, resolving the issue is much less complicated, but if that were to happen, the movie would be over in five minutes, and no one would pay to see it. When we achieve a rational and free society, identifying these will be second nature for the mainstream. Given that it seems that entertainment is based on seemingly unresolvable conflict given today's understanding of morality, I'm wondering, what are others' thoughts on what entertainment would look like in a rational society? I'm having difficulty formulating an intriguing plot for a story without the above requirement, but that could very easily be my lack of imagination.. I'm certainly no writer or story-creator. Allow me to add some somethings to your position on entertainment, I think that interest in film based entertainment begins largely with empathy. If the audience doesn't connect with the characters (or even settings or locations, and oh! oh! violence in general) then the film has lost their consumers. Without memorable characters, then the conflicts as you accurately described above become too abstract and will fail as art. If you understand where the protagonists and antagonists are coming from, then you have already experinced empathy for the characters- and if the piece was put together well, you will probably be very invested in the story and will wonder how it will all resolve. Much like humor, stories have the challenge of surprising the mind by coming up with original ideas or pleasant arrangements of already existing themes, settings, character tropes etc to entertain the viewer. Otherwise it's just plain boring. This is one reason why I love foreign entertainment, and specifically anime, since animes tend to go balls-deep into crazy ideas, settings, and fantastical concepts that you'd never see in the west, and would never work in any other media form. Not to mention the characters tend to be deeper than western characters, and because of the animation style- are easier to empathize with. In the free society we are all aiming to build for our children, I think film will be similar to what we have- only better. Way better. They won't be bogged down with crazy propoganda. Actors will have to actually act, because empathy will be widespread and people will have higher emotional intelligence. Writers will actually have to write good scripts because most people won't be sociopaths, and you need more than rank pornographic violence to keep your audience in the theatre.
Matt Zeeie Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 I find that the more growth and experience I garner, the less screen centered entertainment I enjoy. I do still enjoy quality like The Americans and Portlandia. I have trouble imagining an answer to this question because the majority of the audience is so dumbed down, that's what is catered to. I find Louis CK's show to be one that avoids traditional rules for what works.
Recommended Posts