The tagline for the review is: The last two sentences are: So, really, the title alone doesn't do the review justice.
The tagline for the review is:
Captain Marvel is just as formulaic as countless other superhero films. That’s a triumph.
The last two sentences are:
From what we’ve seen of her so far, Captain Marvel may not be the most complex or finely shaded of the MCU protagonists. But given that she’s the first woman to be charged with the duty of saving this cinematic universe, I for one totally support her avenging.
So, really, the title alone doesn't do the review justice.
It's not a recent thing and there are good reasons for it - the editor is often the final gatekeeper for the newspaper and is best situated to reflect its' values. That said, I felt like I could...
It's not a recent thing and there are good reasons for it - the editor is often the final gatekeeper for the newspaper and is best situated to reflect its' values. That said, I felt like I could often come up with better headlines...
It's the regrettable conclusion of the way the attention economy is set up: if a site wishes to remain afloat it has to harvest clicks, it has to grab people. But the most effective way remains to...
It's the regrettable conclusion of the way the attention economy is set up: if a site wishes to remain afloat it has to harvest clicks, it has to grab people. But the most effective way remains to use emotionally charged or arresting titles or images, and those sites who do not will inevitably find themselves not doing as well as those who do.
If your measure is clicks/day? Sure. There are other goals that a publication might have – healthier ones, inarguably – outside of the attention economy. Think about how Tildes takes the idea...
and those sites who do not will inevitably find themselves not doing as well as those who do.
If your measure is clicks/day? Sure. There are other goals that a publication might have – healthier ones, inarguably – outside of the attention economy.
Think about how Tildes takes the idea behind Reddit and applies human decency to it in order to make a healthy community. It may not be big – it may never become big – but that's alright, as long as it has the good culture to keep going in a manner that inspires care, critical thinking, honesty, and faithfulness to better ideals.
I'd argue that any new publication could make the same choice. I'm currently subscribed to an email newsletter Dense Discovery, which has its semi-official goal the promotion of ethical design. It mainly posts interesting materials, always of high quality. I'd pay $5/mo. to help it stay afloat. For now, it's sponsored by people the author, Kai Brach, chooses on his own. I'm okay with that, partly because it doesn't obscure my view of anything else in the newsletter, and partly because Kai has been transparent about his ideas on financing the newsletter so far. (Of course, you could take the SovietWomble approach and refuse to advertise anything, as to not signal that your apperciation could be bought – but then, I bet Kai isn't making as much as Womble does.)
Basically: you could choose not to participate in the nonsense of the geek-mainstream media, and carve your own path with tools such as empathy, honest debate, respect, and insight.
okay, but that's... not really profitable is the thing. you can do the most straightforward, clickbait-free reporting possible, but good luck monetizing that model in a way that allows you to pay...
If your measure is clicks/day? Sure. There are other goals that a publication might have – healthier ones, inarguably – outside of the attention economy.
...
Basically: you could choose not to participate in the nonsense of the geek-mainstream media, and carve your own path with tools such as empathy, honest debate, respect, and insight.
okay, but that's... not really profitable is the thing. you can do the most straightforward, clickbait-free reporting possible, but good luck monetizing that model in a way that allows you to pay staff and cover costs in really any way unless you intend to paywall the lot of it. there's a longstanding joke in the journalism community about how no outlet has ever made a profit off of shit like longform, because quality reporting is very time intensive and cost intensive for what will most likely be read by far fewer people than a typical news story. moreover, even if you do somehow successfully monetize a journalism model of that sort, that's not necessarily going to keep you from cutting staff and laying people off in the future--buzzfeed, which makes to the tune of 300 million dollars a year, still laid off like 200 people not even a month ago in what is probably the healthiest economic state we've been in over a decade.
the unfortunate reality is that there is no smoking gun, profitable form for most online media outside of clickbait (and even that is hit and miss, because for every buzzfeed there are probably ten failed ventures in the same vein). if there was, online media would have long since made the pivot to it, given the notoriety of clickbait at this point.
That, to me, sounds like saying "If there were a healthier lifestyle, people would've taken it up already, given how much junk food and lying on a couch all day has been flogged". Making healthier...
if there was, online media would have long since made the pivot to it, given the notoriety of clickbait at this point.
That, to me, sounds like saying "If there were a healthier lifestyle, people would've taken it up already, given how much junk food and lying on a couch all day has been flogged".
Making healthier choices is difficult – in diet, in exercise, in entertainment, in reading habits, or in writing habits, among many other areas. It requires a conscious choice and a long, sustained effort to make it into a habit, and even more – to make the habit into a lifestyle. Then there's the issue of having good ethics along the way. Then there's the issue of the environment you find yourself in and its massive, underestimated influence on your own behavior...
Notice the little word snuck in among the rest: "conscious". If you want a better living, you have to be cognizant of what that means, and what may disguise itself as such. If you want a better business... well, I don't really know: I'm no businessman – but it seems to me that when combined, strong ethics, good understanding of the field, and the patience to endure the initial hardship, are far more likely to lead to a good business, rather than one that simply makes profit.
The "good understanding of the field" part means that your awareness of the issues in your target area mean you'll be able to make such a business that would address those in a productive, constructive manner. Abusing it via dark patterns – such is clickbait – is the exact opposite of what I've described. Does it work? Sure! – if by "work" you mean "make money".
The way I see it, profitability is secondary to making a good product. If it fails financially, but people enjoy it so much they remember it decades afterwards – that's progress on the human scale, and that's bigger than your wallet filling up. In the US, in particular, you can always try again if your expertise shows and the right people are looking.
Idealistic? Sure. We're discussing the issue of a forum made by an idealist. How 'bout that.
honestly the best option besides the current title as far as this goes might just be to jack the tagline "Captain Marvel is just as formulaic as countless other superhero films. That’s a triumph."...
honestly the best option besides the current title as far as this goes might just be to jack the tagline "Captain Marvel is just as formulaic as countless other superhero films. That’s a triumph." because the rest of article doesn't leave that much to work with and fabricating a new title for it entirely just feels like a bit much.
Here's the question: is it necessary, from Tildes' point of view? My thinking is: if the title is clickbait-y, is it on us, the users, to change it? We can certainly do so, and keep doing it...
Here's the question: is it necessary, from Tildes' point of view?
My thinking is: if the title is clickbait-y, is it on us, the users, to change it? We can certainly do so, and keep doing it forever. (By "we" I mean, of course, the community acting through the people with mod powers.) Sure feels like we might be fighting windmills here.
Look, I'm not trying to make a case for clickbait. There would be no clickbait if I were king. Clickbait reduces our capacity for critical thinking, which is essential for any group, in any...
Look, I'm not trying to make a case for clickbait. There would be no clickbait if I were king. Clickbait reduces our capacity for critical thinking, which is essential for any group, in any country, in the age of overwhelming amount of information.
That said: the practice of simply replacing the original, clickbait-y title with something more neutral seems off to me. It's a feeling more than an informed opinion, and the fact that I trust my gut shouldn't tell you anything, but – I don't think that's the solution. Doesn't it seem to you like erasing the truth, where using the truth to educate people would better employ the ideals of an informed Internet user? It seems like what you're shooting for by replacing the titles. It's like Tildes is trying to say "There's no clickbait here", when it is, just disguised.
Maybe indicate the original title underneath, in smaller font, when replacing it for "removing clickbait/controversial" purpose? People could start making better-educated decisions based on that information: how to identify a clickbait title, which sources post clickbait often...
Overall, there isn't really a solution. There's not a clear line between "clickbait" and "not clickbait". People are always going to react more strongly to certain types or styles of titles than...
Overall, there isn't really a solution. There's not a clear line between "clickbait" and "not clickbait". People are always going to react more strongly to certain types or styles of titles than other ones, and as long as sites gain traffic and money by getting more people to click on them, they'll always lean towards writing titles that encourage it.
Tildes isn't going to have a significant effect on the online media industry, we're not going to fix this issue. All we can do is try to reduce the impact of clickbait on Tildes itself, and about the only way to do that is to replace the titles in cases where it makes sense. That's not hiding anything, it's just trying to make sure that people approach a particular topic based on the content or quality of the article itself, not solely how tantalizing the title is. Displaying the original title somewhere seems reasonable too, but I'm not sure that it would really do much overall.
It doesn't need to. All Tildes has to do is set an example to the community at large that's impoverished from any. Word will get around: there's a place where this practice exists, and things are...
Tildes isn't going to have a significant effect on the online media industry
It doesn't need to. All Tildes has to do is set an example to the community at large that's impoverished from any. Word will get around: there's a place where this practice exists, and things are done that way, and it's better than what's been done before.
If it only works within the confines of Tildes – good. If others borrow it – even better.
It's not really worth another post, it's long-decided anyway. The site has had title-editing since it launched, the can of worms was opened long ago (really, it was never closed in the first...
It's not really worth another post, it's long-decided anyway. The site has had title-editing since it launched, the can of worms was opened long ago (really, it was never closed in the first place) and it's fine. Adding labels like "misleading title" is strictly inferior when we can just fix it.
Isn't Wonder Woman a marvel movie? … or is it DC, to be honest I'm just waiting for this comic craze to be over. Not saying one movie is enough but pushing back against what feels like a marketing...
Finally, Women Have Their Own Mediocre Marvel Movie
Isn't Wonder Woman a marvel movie? … or is it DC, to be honest I'm just waiting for this comic craze to be over.
Not saying one movie is enough but pushing back against what feels like a marketing term. I suppose the commercialisation of feminism is a kind of victory?
Frankly I look forward to media were this stuff is just part of a regular story -- normal, as opposed to being the story. Though I have not seen this movie, so I'm really just talking out of my ass.
It's DC. This is the first female lead Marvel movie. I thought it was going to be Black Widow but whatever. Yeah I was a fan at the beginning but it feels like once a month I've got to come up...
It's DC. This is the first female lead Marvel movie. I thought it was going to be Black Widow but whatever.
to be honest I'm just waiting for this comic craze to be over.
Yeah I was a fan at the beginning but it feels like once a month I've got to come up with an excuse to not pay $20 to see the same-ish plot with different characters.
You have to look at this type of thing through the lens of business/investment. If you find someone that you can give $1000 to, they take it for a while and do something (legal) and then give you...
You have to look at this type of thing through the lens of business/investment. If you find someone that you can give $1000 to, they take it for a while and do something (legal) and then give you $1500 back, you're going to keep getting them to do it until it stops working.
Right now the "do something" is "make a comic book movie", and they're going to keep doing it until it stops being consistently profitable. "Haven't we already done that enough?" isn't really a factor, only whether it will be profitable, and so far they almost always are.
I wouldn't have such a problem with this if they were making better movies. I like all the new films, but they all have glaring issues resulting from a lack of communication between directors (new...
I wouldn't have such a problem with this if they were making better movies.
I like all the new films, but they all have glaring issues resulting from a lack of communication between directors (new trilogy) or the studio fucking with the directors (Solo). I like Rogue One best out of the four thus far, but even that had problems with characterization and dialogue.
You're right. I think a few people might've taken my comment to be more upset than I actually am. I just don't watch movies that I don't want to see, I don't see a lot of movies in theaters in...
You're right. I think a few people might've taken my comment to be more upset than I actually am. I just don't watch movies that I don't want to see, I don't see a lot of movies in theaters in general because of the high prices my city tends to have for tickets. I understand the need to make them. I was more just confirming his question about DC and agreeing with his statement about being burned out by the movies, like someone else said it's just the mediums overproducing to meet market demand. There's no doubt that the genre is just as popular as ever, if not even more so. And I'm not completely immune to the bug, I really enjoyed Into the Spiderverse, Polar, and I enjoyed the first couple episodes that I saw of Umbrella Academy.
Bill Maher had a bit about this recently. I had no idea comic fans were such thin-skinned children until he picked on Stan Lee and they came out of the woodwork wailing about it. There are plenty...
Bill Maher had a bit about this recently. I had no idea comic fans were such thin-skinned children until he picked on Stan Lee and they came out of the woodwork wailing about it.
There are plenty of comics I've enjoyed, but lately the medium is suffering from the mass market dilution that inevitably comes after a trend starts in the box office. It's taking forever to blow over, and it's bigger and longer-lasting than the cheap horror trend started by Scream in the 90s.
The only comic I've personally read that I'd hold up as 'great' literature is The Watchmen... and there, the art itself somehow had more to do with the story than the words on the page or the actions of the characters. It transcended the medium. It wouldn't have worked as anything other than a comic book, and that's why it's iconic.
That bit did seem particularly harsh. I know the demographic he's talking about and in some ways he is right. But the argument that an entire medium is childish and people need to grow up is so...
That bit did seem particularly harsh. I know the demographic he's talking about and in some ways he is right. But the argument that an entire medium is childish and people need to grow up is so loosely based it's worthless. He isn't making a convincing argument to people who are too childish or even informing people who agree with him. Just seemed like five minutes to circlejerk with people who agree with you.
For example, from what you've said about The Watchmen I get the impression you would be labeled a child unwilling to grow up. That you need to engage with sophisticated literature and ideas and put away the pictures. But as you mentioned there is actually valuable stuff in the medium, and being able to talk about that with nuance is valuable. A skill Bill Maher apparently never learned.
I'll simply say that a couple of great works don't save an entire medium on their own. Most of the comics and films/shows based on them are formulaic, repetitive, and often simplistic or childish....
I'll simply say that a couple of great works don't save an entire medium on their own. Most of the comics and films/shows based on them are formulaic, repetitive, and often simplistic or childish. Bill's criticism seems quite accurate for the majority of the medium. It seems to me like the best of the comics don't get picked up to be turned into shows or films, and when they do, it's usually your typical thoughtless hollywood treatment rather than a serious attempt to be faithful to the source material. That's just hollywood in general, most of what they produce by aping other mediums doesn't make the transition well, be it books, plays, or comics.
I'd say that applies to most mediums, almost everything out there is formulaic, repetitive, simple, and entertaining. Whether that's movies, anime, cartoons, TV, or even books. Books get a slight...
I'd say that applies to most mediums, almost everything out there is formulaic, repetitive, simple, and entertaining. Whether that's movies, anime, cartoons, TV, or even books. Books get a slight pass because they are the oldest. They've had time to accumulate great works where as everything else is still relatively new. But 90% of everything being derivative crap is how most mediums work.
It seems Bill wants to talk about people being too childish and refusing to grow up. He has issues surrounding the idea of people "adulting" as a term and doesn't approve of people labeling simple derivative works as great works. But instead of talking about those, things he's making a poor argument about comic books so he can indirectly talk about his real issues.
Also a point I'd personally like to make is that it's not wrong to like poorly made media of any kind. People can like whatever they like. What we should be concerning ourselves about is whether or not people are experiencing varied, good, and insightful media as well.
It's very similar to the argument for kids and screen time. You shouldn't concern yourself with how much screen time a kid gets. Instead focus on making sure they get enough exercise, socialize with their peers, and try new things.
Yeah my bad, I meant I need to come up with an excuse for my friends who want to go see it. Nobody is forcing me to watch the films and I frequently don't. In general movie ticket prices here are...
Yeah my bad, I meant I need to come up with an excuse for my friends who want to go see it. Nobody is forcing me to watch the films and I frequently don't. In general movie ticket prices here are really high so I tend not to watch a lot of any film in theaters. Like I said in an above reply, I'm ok with the logic behind producing this many super hero films. And I understand there's a huge mass appeal. I seem to be in a vocal minority right now, but many people are still enjoying these movies. Also I am enjoying some of them, primarily the ones I listed above. Hopefully I'm not coming off as too upset about the movies. They could come out with 50 every month and it wouldn't affect me too much other than wild bewilderment.
What makes you think that's going to happen? It's been going on for over half a century and is only getting stronger with the relatively new "cinematic universes".
to be honest I'm just waiting for this comic craze to be over.
What makes you think that's going to happen? It's been going on for over half a century and is only getting stronger with the relatively new "cinematic universes".
there's been a pretty distinct uptick in how superhero films are viewed since the cinematic universes took off, though. previously, superhero films were fairly once-in-an-occasion things (and...
What makes you think that's ever going to happen? It's been going on for over half a century and is only getting stronger with the relatively new "cinematic universes".
there's been a pretty distinct uptick in how superhero films are viewed since the cinematic universes took off, though. previously, superhero films were fairly once-in-an-occasion things (and pre-2000 or so, they tended to be much more campy than they are today), and they only started getting more frequent in the early 2000s. they were sorta-pop-culture, but nowhere near as pervasive and ubiquitous as they are nowadays and there certainly wasn't the "craze" that there is now for them back then. cinematic universes have basically entirely reshaped how superhero movies are marketed, and turned them from semi-novel, somewhat niche things to so mundane that even your aunt who has never read a superhero comic in her life can enjoy and understand with a bit of context.
Superhero movies didn't really take off until Raimi's Spider-Man and Singer's X-Men. Sure films based on comics existed since at least the '60s, but there was hardly a comic book adaptation craze...
Superhero movies didn't really take off until Raimi's Spider-Man and Singer's X-Men. Sure films based on comics existed since at least the '60s, but there was hardly a comic book adaptation craze until the '00s.
To people who didn't grow up reading comics, it's getting a bit exhausting.
So because it's not relevant to you specifically then it shouldn't exist at all? There is all kinds of media out there that I don't enjoy or look forward to, but I don't think we need to get rid...
So because it's not relevant to you specifically then it shouldn't exist at all? There is all kinds of media out there that I don't enjoy or look forward to, but I don't think we need to get rid of it because I don't like it. The world would be so boring. If it wasn't comic book movies it would be something else, and you'd be complaining about the homogeneity of that craze instead.
The problem with mainstream culture is that it is watered down and diluted by it's nature which allows for niche markets to develop more interesting ideas until some new formula is stumbled upon that starts to gain traction.
It is definitely an effort to look for unique and interesting media, but if you're tired of what's commonly touted as "good" or "popular" then start doing the legwork to find something else.
That is not at all what people are saying. Some people want more variety in the big action blockbuster space because they are tired of most of them being superhero movies. There are only so many...
So because it's not relevant to you specifically then it shouldn't exist at all?
That is not at all what people are saying. Some people want more variety in the big action blockbuster space because they are tired of most of them being superhero movies. There are only so many big budget action movies that get made every year and when more than half of them are comic book flicks it leaves not a whole lot of variety to choose from. That does not mean they think superhero films should cease to exist.
I just checked IMDB and Captain Marvel has a 5.6 rating! That is incredibly bad. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I wonder if the votes are from the "anti-feminism" movement or if the movie is...
I just checked IMDB and Captain Marvel has a 5.6 rating! That is incredibly bad. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I wonder if the votes are from the "anti-feminism" movement or if the movie is really that bad?
There has been a campaign from the typical crowd to destroy the film's ratings on these sites. Source: https://comicbook.com/marvel/2019/02/23/captain-marvel-rotten-tomatoes-review-bombing/ I...
There has been a campaign from the typical crowd to destroy the film's ratings on these sites.
I can't say I really understand "why" people do this - other than they're just disaffected men with no direction looking for someone/something else to blame for their lack of success in the world.
Critical reception for the film seems right in line with most Marvel films, so I'll chalk up the IMDB scores to incels upset that Brie Larson doesn't smile enough in the posters.
Critical reception for the film seems right in line with most Marvel films, so I'll chalk up the IMDB scores to incels upset that Brie Larson doesn't smile enough in the posters.
The tagline for the review is:
The last two sentences are:
So, really, the title alone doesn't do the review justice.
My short time as a journalist opened my eyes to the fact that the headline is typically chosen by the editor with little or no input from the author.
Superb. We need more clickbait.
It's not a recent thing and there are good reasons for it - the editor is often the final gatekeeper for the newspaper and is best situated to reflect its' values. That said, I felt like I could often come up with better headlines...
I'm not to devalue the work editors do. It's important.
My problem with it begins when titles like these start to appear in publication.
It's the regrettable conclusion of the way the attention economy is set up: if a site wishes to remain afloat it has to harvest clicks, it has to grab people. But the most effective way remains to use emotionally charged or arresting titles or images, and those sites who do not will inevitably find themselves not doing as well as those who do.
If your measure is clicks/day? Sure. There are other goals that a publication might have – healthier ones, inarguably – outside of the attention economy.
Think about how Tildes takes the idea behind Reddit and applies human decency to it in order to make a healthy community. It may not be big – it may never become big – but that's alright, as long as it has the good culture to keep going in a manner that inspires care, critical thinking, honesty, and faithfulness to better ideals.
I'd argue that any new publication could make the same choice. I'm currently subscribed to an email newsletter Dense Discovery, which has its semi-official goal the promotion of ethical design. It mainly posts interesting materials, always of high quality. I'd pay $5/mo. to help it stay afloat. For now, it's sponsored by people the author, Kai Brach, chooses on his own. I'm okay with that, partly because it doesn't obscure my view of anything else in the newsletter, and partly because Kai has been transparent about his ideas on financing the newsletter so far. (Of course, you could take the SovietWomble approach and refuse to advertise anything, as to not signal that your apperciation could be bought – but then, I bet Kai isn't making as much as Womble does.)
Basically: you could choose not to participate in the nonsense of the geek-mainstream media, and carve your own path with tools such as empathy, honest debate, respect, and insight.
okay, but that's... not really profitable is the thing. you can do the most straightforward, clickbait-free reporting possible, but good luck monetizing that model in a way that allows you to pay staff and cover costs in really any way unless you intend to paywall the lot of it. there's a longstanding joke in the journalism community about how no outlet has ever made a profit off of shit like longform, because quality reporting is very time intensive and cost intensive for what will most likely be read by far fewer people than a typical news story. moreover, even if you do somehow successfully monetize a journalism model of that sort, that's not necessarily going to keep you from cutting staff and laying people off in the future--buzzfeed, which makes to the tune of 300 million dollars a year, still laid off like 200 people not even a month ago in what is probably the healthiest economic state we've been in over a decade.
the unfortunate reality is that there is no smoking gun, profitable form for most online media outside of clickbait (and even that is hit and miss, because for every buzzfeed there are probably ten failed ventures in the same vein). if there was, online media would have long since made the pivot to it, given the notoriety of clickbait at this point.
That, to me, sounds like saying "If there were a healthier lifestyle, people would've taken it up already, given how much junk food and lying on a couch all day has been flogged".
Making healthier choices is difficult – in diet, in exercise, in entertainment, in reading habits, or in writing habits, among many other areas. It requires a conscious choice and a long, sustained effort to make it into a habit, and even more – to make the habit into a lifestyle. Then there's the issue of having good ethics along the way. Then there's the issue of the environment you find yourself in and its massive, underestimated influence on your own behavior...
Notice the little word snuck in among the rest: "conscious". If you want a better living, you have to be cognizant of what that means, and what may disguise itself as such. If you want a better business... well, I don't really know: I'm no businessman – but it seems to me that when combined, strong ethics, good understanding of the field, and the patience to endure the initial hardship, are far more likely to lead to a good business, rather than one that simply makes profit.
The "good understanding of the field" part means that your awareness of the issues in your target area mean you'll be able to make such a business that would address those in a productive, constructive manner. Abusing it via dark patterns – such is clickbait – is the exact opposite of what I've described. Does it work? Sure! – if by "work" you mean "make money".
The way I see it, profitability is secondary to making a good product. If it fails financially, but people enjoy it so much they remember it decades afterwards – that's progress on the human scale, and that's bigger than your wallet filling up. In the US, in particular, you can always try again if your expertise shows and the right people are looking.
Idealistic? Sure. We're discussing the issue of a forum made by an idealist. How 'bout that.
Oh sure. Couldn't agree more.
Happy to change the title to something more neutral/representative - any suggestions?
honestly the best option besides the current title as far as this goes might just be to jack the tagline "Captain Marvel is just as formulaic as countless other superhero films. That’s a triumph." because the rest of article doesn't leave that much to work with and fabricating a new title for it entirely just feels like a bit much.
Here's the question: is it necessary, from Tildes' point of view?
My thinking is: if the title is clickbait-y, is it on us, the users, to change it? We can certainly do so, and keep doing it forever. (By "we" I mean, of course, the community acting through the people with mod powers.) Sure feels like we might be fighting windmills here.
I'm curious about your pespective on this.
As opposed to what, just removing posts with bad titles? Leaving them with their "official" title, regardless of how bad it is?
Look, I'm not trying to make a case for clickbait. There would be no clickbait if I were king. Clickbait reduces our capacity for critical thinking, which is essential for any group, in any country, in the age of overwhelming amount of information.
That said: the practice of simply replacing the original, clickbait-y title with something more neutral seems off to me. It's a feeling more than an informed opinion, and the fact that I trust my gut shouldn't tell you anything, but – I don't think that's the solution. Doesn't it seem to you like erasing the truth, where using the truth to educate people would better employ the ideals of an informed Internet user? It seems like what you're shooting for by replacing the titles. It's like Tildes is trying to say "There's no clickbait here", when it is, just disguised.
Maybe indicate the original title underneath, in smaller font, when replacing it for "removing clickbait/controversial" purpose? People could start making better-educated decisions based on that information: how to identify a clickbait title, which sources post clickbait often...
What do you think?
Overall, there isn't really a solution. There's not a clear line between "clickbait" and "not clickbait". People are always going to react more strongly to certain types or styles of titles than other ones, and as long as sites gain traffic and money by getting more people to click on them, they'll always lean towards writing titles that encourage it.
Tildes isn't going to have a significant effect on the online media industry, we're not going to fix this issue. All we can do is try to reduce the impact of clickbait on Tildes itself, and about the only way to do that is to replace the titles in cases where it makes sense. That's not hiding anything, it's just trying to make sure that people approach a particular topic based on the content or quality of the article itself, not solely how tantalizing the title is. Displaying the original title somewhere seems reasonable too, but I'm not sure that it would really do much overall.
It doesn't need to. All Tildes has to do is set an example to the community at large that's impoverished from any. Word will get around: there's a place where this practice exists, and things are done that way, and it's better than what's been done before.
If it only works within the confines of Tildes – good. If others borrow it – even better.
this discussion might be better suited for a full fledged post in ~tildes at this point, seeing as it's a not insignificant policy decision
It's not really worth another post, it's long-decided anyway. The site has had title-editing since it launched, the can of worms was opened long ago (really, it was never closed in the first place) and it's fine. Adding labels like "misleading title" is strictly inferior when we can just fix it.
(@Yugioh_Mishima)
Isn't Wonder Woman a marvel movie? … or is it DC, to be honest I'm just waiting for this comic craze to be over.
Not saying one movie is enough but pushing back against what feels like a marketing term. I suppose the commercialisation of feminism is a kind of victory?
Frankly I look forward to media were this stuff is just part of a regular story -- normal, as opposed to being the story. Though I have not seen this movie, so I'm really just talking out of my ass.
It's DC. This is the first female lead Marvel movie. I thought it was going to be Black Widow but whatever.
Yeah I was a fan at the beginning but it feels like once a month I've got to come up with an excuse to not pay $20 to see the same-ish plot with different characters.
You have to look at this type of thing through the lens of business/investment. If you find someone that you can give $1000 to, they take it for a while and do something (legal) and then give you $1500 back, you're going to keep getting them to do it until it stops working.
Right now the "do something" is "make a comic book movie", and they're going to keep doing it until it stops being consistently profitable. "Haven't we already done that enough?" isn't really a factor, only whether it will be profitable, and so far they almost always are.
Disney will do the same with Star Wars.
I wouldn't have such a problem with this if they were making better movies.
I like all the new films, but they all have glaring issues resulting from a lack of communication between directors (new trilogy) or the studio fucking with the directors (Solo). I like Rogue One best out of the four thus far, but even that had problems with characterization and dialogue.
I just hope we haven't already peaked.
You're right. I think a few people might've taken my comment to be more upset than I actually am. I just don't watch movies that I don't want to see, I don't see a lot of movies in theaters in general because of the high prices my city tends to have for tickets. I understand the need to make them. I was more just confirming his question about DC and agreeing with his statement about being burned out by the movies, like someone else said it's just the mediums overproducing to meet market demand. There's no doubt that the genre is just as popular as ever, if not even more so. And I'm not completely immune to the bug, I really enjoyed Into the Spiderverse, Polar, and I enjoyed the first couple episodes that I saw of Umbrella Academy.
Bill Maher had a bit about this recently. I had no idea comic fans were such thin-skinned children until he picked on Stan Lee and they came out of the woodwork wailing about it.
There are plenty of comics I've enjoyed, but lately the medium is suffering from the mass market dilution that inevitably comes after a trend starts in the box office. It's taking forever to blow over, and it's bigger and longer-lasting than the cheap horror trend started by Scream in the 90s.
The only comic I've personally read that I'd hold up as 'great' literature is The Watchmen... and there, the art itself somehow had more to do with the story than the words on the page or the actions of the characters. It transcended the medium. It wouldn't have worked as anything other than a comic book, and that's why it's iconic.
That bit did seem particularly harsh. I know the demographic he's talking about and in some ways he is right. But the argument that an entire medium is childish and people need to grow up is so loosely based it's worthless. He isn't making a convincing argument to people who are too childish or even informing people who agree with him. Just seemed like five minutes to circlejerk with people who agree with you.
For example, from what you've said about The Watchmen I get the impression you would be labeled a child unwilling to grow up. That you need to engage with sophisticated literature and ideas and put away the pictures. But as you mentioned there is actually valuable stuff in the medium, and being able to talk about that with nuance is valuable. A skill Bill Maher apparently never learned.
I'll simply say that a couple of great works don't save an entire medium on their own. Most of the comics and films/shows based on them are formulaic, repetitive, and often simplistic or childish. Bill's criticism seems quite accurate for the majority of the medium. It seems to me like the best of the comics don't get picked up to be turned into shows or films, and when they do, it's usually your typical thoughtless hollywood treatment rather than a serious attempt to be faithful to the source material. That's just hollywood in general, most of what they produce by aping other mediums doesn't make the transition well, be it books, plays, or comics.
I'd say that applies to most mediums, almost everything out there is formulaic, repetitive, simple, and entertaining. Whether that's movies, anime, cartoons, TV, or even books. Books get a slight pass because they are the oldest. They've had time to accumulate great works where as everything else is still relatively new. But 90% of everything being derivative crap is how most mediums work.
It seems Bill wants to talk about people being too childish and refusing to grow up. He has issues surrounding the idea of people "adulting" as a term and doesn't approve of people labeling simple derivative works as great works. But instead of talking about those, things he's making a poor argument about comic books so he can indirectly talk about his real issues.
Also a point I'd personally like to make is that it's not wrong to like poorly made media of any kind. People can like whatever they like. What we should be concerning ourselves about is whether or not people are experiencing varied, good, and insightful media as well.
It's very similar to the argument for kids and screen time. You shouldn't concern yourself with how much screen time a kid gets. Instead focus on making sure they get enough exercise, socialize with their peers, and try new things.
I'm okay with formulaic movies. If I wanted to think, I wouldn't be watching TV -- I'm here to turn off my brain and enjoy the CGI.
Have you checked out Umbrella Academy on Netflix? I feel similarly about it to how you feel about Watchmen (but have never read the comic of either).
No one's forcing you to watch those films. You're gonna have to choose between having cake and eating it.
Yeah my bad, I meant I need to come up with an excuse for my friends who want to go see it. Nobody is forcing me to watch the films and I frequently don't. In general movie ticket prices here are really high so I tend not to watch a lot of any film in theaters. Like I said in an above reply, I'm ok with the logic behind producing this many super hero films. And I understand there's a huge mass appeal. I seem to be in a vocal minority right now, but many people are still enjoying these movies. Also I am enjoying some of them, primarily the ones I listed above. Hopefully I'm not coming off as too upset about the movies. They could come out with 50 every month and it wouldn't affect me too much other than wild bewilderment.
What makes you think that's going to happen? It's been going on for over half a century and is only getting stronger with the relatively new "cinematic universes".
there's been a pretty distinct uptick in how superhero films are viewed since the cinematic universes took off, though. previously, superhero films were fairly once-in-an-occasion things (and pre-2000 or so, they tended to be much more campy than they are today), and they only started getting more frequent in the early 2000s. they were sorta-pop-culture, but nowhere near as pervasive and ubiquitous as they are nowadays and there certainly wasn't the "craze" that there is now for them back then. cinematic universes have basically entirely reshaped how superhero movies are marketed, and turned them from semi-novel, somewhat niche things to so mundane that even your aunt who has never read a superhero comic in her life can enjoy and understand with a bit of context.
Superhero movies didn't really take off until Raimi's Spider-Man and Singer's X-Men. Sure films based on comics existed since at least the '60s, but there was hardly a comic book adaptation craze until the '00s.
To people who didn't grow up reading comics, it's getting a bit exhausting.
So because it's not relevant to you specifically then it shouldn't exist at all? There is all kinds of media out there that I don't enjoy or look forward to, but I don't think we need to get rid of it because I don't like it. The world would be so boring. If it wasn't comic book movies it would be something else, and you'd be complaining about the homogeneity of that craze instead.
The problem with mainstream culture is that it is watered down and diluted by it's nature which allows for niche markets to develop more interesting ideas until some new formula is stumbled upon that starts to gain traction.
It is definitely an effort to look for unique and interesting media, but if you're tired of what's commonly touted as "good" or "popular" then start doing the legwork to find something else.
That is not at all what people are saying. Some people want more variety in the big action blockbuster space because they are tired of most of them being superhero movies. There are only so many big budget action movies that get made every year and when more than half of them are comic book flicks it leaves not a whole lot of variety to choose from. That does not mean they think superhero films should cease to exist.
I just checked IMDB and Captain Marvel has a 5.6 rating! That is incredibly bad. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I wonder if the votes are from the "anti-feminism" movement or if the movie is really that bad?
There has been a campaign from the typical crowd to destroy the film's ratings on these sites.
Source: https://comicbook.com/marvel/2019/02/23/captain-marvel-rotten-tomatoes-review-bombing/
I can't say I really understand "why" people do this - other than they're just disaffected men with no direction looking for someone/something else to blame for their lack of success in the world.
user rating, or critic rating? if it's user, most likely it has been brigaded, although usually movies of this sort have 70s or so for user ratings.
Spot on.
Source: https://comicbook.com/marvel/2019/02/23/captain-marvel-rotten-tomatoes-review-bombing/
5.6 from user rating on IMDB.
Critical reception for the film seems right in line with most Marvel films, so I'll chalk up the IMDB scores to incels upset that Brie Larson doesn't smile enough in the posters.
I don't know. I have not seen it yet. Is it mediocre because people don't like the message of the movie?