The scourge of science fiction/fantasy/horror franchises and geek culture?

[Robert Adam Gilmour]

I just seen the awful title Tekken 7: Fated Retribution and it reminded me of this post I made on other forums.
It's kind of funny but unpleasant to imagine the people who think this trend is cool.

=======================
Something I used to associate with comics when they were attempting to make a storyline seem important but loads of games and blockbuster films do it now. It basically looks like a hackish attempt at gravity or awe. I'm not saying everything with these subtitles are bad, but better writers dont tend to use them.
You may want to dispute some of my examples or point out why you think they make something sound the way they do.

Requiem (the worst, I'd say)
Retribution (almost as bad)
Revenge
Revelation(s)
Ressurrection
Redemption
Revolution
Reborn
Rebirth
New Beginning
Awakening
Evolution
Insurrection
One More Day
Brand New Day
Aftermath
Exodus
Ultimatum
Convergence
Osmosis
Legacy (or Legacies)
Origin(s)
Big Time
Last Stand
Tipping Point
Crisis
Extinction
Extermination
Inception
Deception
Rising
Risen
Reckoning
Wrath
Unbound
Vengeance
Judgement
Defiance
Devastation
Absolution
Desperation
xtreme
x-treme
eXtreme

Terminator: Salvation is a perfect example.

Aliens Vs Predator: Requiem sounds especially dumb.

Yahtzee in particular made fun of them and when Amnesia: A Machine For Pigs came out he joked that the publisher probably said "can't we just call it Amnesia: Revelations?"
=========

Some other forum members made contributions to the list.

Another one I feel is similarly annoying but not nearly as bad is country and city names in titles, like American Sniper. It must be to sound like a story is a bold statement about a place. There is plenty of great stories with titles like that though, Tokyo Fist is one of my favourites.

[Ibrahim]

What a great list. I think Hollywood is very close to the point where they just combine any two words from that list ( Hollywood Tipping Point).
Resurrection:Osmosis
Wrath: Exodus
Retribution: the last stand
&c &c

[Robert Adam Gilmour]

Someone on another forum suggested American Requiem.

[Justin Isis]

I think Doctor Who has used at least half that list by now on the Daleks alone? Speaking of that, you forgot Genesis, which has been done now by Terminator and several hundred other things. Although Exodus and Revelation(s) are on there. I'm surprised more of the Bible hasn't been whored out by this point, although to be fair, Deuteronomy of the Daleks and Terminator: Leviticus don't quite have the same ring. Much less Star Trek: Acts of the Apostles.

Quote Originally Posted by Robert Adam Gilmour

Would there be many franchises within socialism?

This question is particularly interesting to me, because, I feel, it could easily go either way.

On the one hand, resistance to the concept of a franchise would probably be the dominant stance, as the invention of the franchise is responsible for producing a good chunk of the useless, non-biodegradable, slave-wage-labor-produced, planned-obsolete bull#### which capitalism champions.

On the other hand, franchises may still exist, as there would probably be entertainment/arts collectives; but they would exist as a beast wholly different than what capitalism has spawned. Since the franchise would be collectively owned by the workers and not corporatists, the franchise could, hypothetically, be more artistically and productively refined.

[Professor Nobody]

Quote Originally Posted by James Sucellus

Most geeks I know are fans of corporations meeting their expectations (with said expectations having been predetermined by these corporations) rather than artists or art challenging their expectations. I know people who gained personal enjoyment when Star Wars broke box office records and the amount of money Disney stood to make was revealed. Personally, I found the latest Star Wars film to be a box ticking exercise in living up to its own trailer, reminding people what the previous Star Wars films were like and not doing anything controversial. I don't sneer at all people who like some corporate stage-managed stuff, as I think corporations through their power have managed to get hold of many, many talented people. In terms of superhero movies, I'm bored by Marvel's throwaway fluff, but I love Tim Burton's two Batman films and think Suicide Squad may be good. My own TLO avatars recently have been from Korean girl group pop music, in which the general message is one of rampant consumerism, though I suppose I would argue there's something somewhat somewhat socially transgressive about a man being a fan of these things, as I'm not really supposed to be and have sought them out. My issue isn't that people like this corporate stuff. It's that people exclusively like the stuff they're initially told to like without looking outside that sphere at all, so they aren't receiving artistic nourishment outside of the most beige level. It's fine to enjoy some Hollywood blockbuster films, but people should be looking to always stretch themselves in terms of the art they consume. My biggest grievance with humanity in general is that few people take time to really think about what they like and why they like it, when to me these are hugely important questions that reveal much of the soul.

Much of this is peculiar to me. On the one hand, there seems to be an anti-capitalist (presumably anti-classist) sentiment. This is certainly understandable. As you say, most people appreciate little beyond what they're told to appreciate by those busy profiting off of them. But on the other hand, the normative statements of how art "should" be appreciated are high-brow classism of the highest order, suggesting somehow that there is a right and proper way to consume art-- or even proper art to consume! This sort of distinction-creation is the daily fare of the cultural elite, as many late Marxists (most notably Bourdieu) have observed.

Very odd, indeed. But far more troubling is the notion of artistic feeding of the soul-- a strange idea to be sure! What soul? What food? To abuse the metaphor of our apparently-favored author, is it not strange to speak of the essential nourishments of a puppet? Are we not all devouring our delusions by distracting ourselves from our days? Whether it's with Star Wars tripe or advanced analyses of Ozu, why would one puppet's dance be more proper than another?

I don't mean to pick on you, just jumping in here. Cheers.

	TLO THOMAS LIGOTTI ONLINE

[Robert Adam Gilmour]

Dawn Of Justice is another for the titles list.

Quote Originally Posted by Professor Nobody

But on the other hand, the normative statements of how art "should" be appreciated are high-brow classism of the highest order, suggesting somehow that there is a right and proper way to consume art

I didn't say that, although for the sake of argument even if I did it wouldn't be classism (??). Absolutely nothing in my post was about there being a proper or improper way to view art. I said it was a shame people didn't cast their nets wider and sample from more cultural areas than franchise instalments, which isn't the same thing at all as telling people how to enjoy something. There are as many – or more – ways to appreciate art than there are pieces of art.

[Professor Nobody]

Quote Originally Posted by James Sucellus

Quote Originally Posted by Professor Nobody But on the other hand, the normative statements of how art "should" be appreciated are high-brow classism of the highest order, suggesting somehow that there is a right and proper way to consume art I didn't say that, although for the sake of argument even if I did it wouldn't be classism (??). Absolutely nothing in my post was about there being a proper or improper way to view art. I said it was a shame people didn't cast their nets wider and sample from more cultural areas than franchise instalments, which isn't the same thing at all as telling people how to enjoy something. There are as many – or more – ways to appreciate art than there are pieces of art.

"It's that people exclusively like the stuff they're initially told to like without looking outside that sphere at all, so they aren't receiving artistic nourishment outside of the most beige level. It's fine to enjoy some Hollywood blockbuster films, but people should be looking to always stretch themselves in terms of the art they consume."

This is what threw me; apologies for the misunderstanding. As for the classism, the argument is basically thus:
-social class is more than economic class
-social class is defined by taste
-taste is revealed by appreciation of things beyond the "beige level"
-appreciation thus has a good and bad version, good for beyond the beige and bad for the beige

But like I said, that was really the veneer on the odd part to me-- namely, that a beyond-the-beige consumption of art is proper nourishment for the soul, and that its absence is the most lamentable aspect of humanity! The soul. One shudders to think of anything more horrifying than consciousness in perpetuity.

At any rate, though, very interesting reading, this thread.

[Pharpetron]

After spending years reading Western superhero comics and watching Western superhero films I can sympathize quite easily with James' lament about the 'beige' quality of the products of present-day geek culture. The problem with the art being produced by geek-culture, that which makes it 'beige', is what I'd call its conservative traditionalism. In geek culture, formulas and endless repetition of formulas reign supreme. As imaginative works, the superhero comic and the superhero film are situated in a virtual realm of nearly infinite possibilities. Yet instead of opening itself to and exploring these possibilities, the products of present-day geek culture tend to endlessly rehash the same tired tropes over and over again. This extreme privileging of the repetition of tried and true formulas found in contemporary geek-culture is such that there has been a kind of foreclosure of the imaginative realm itself, of the open and free realm of the possible, which like all foreclosures of the imaginative realm, of the possible, of the future, constitute an assault on the human 'soul'.

The 'soul' that James was referring to was surely not the immortal consciousness one of traditional metaphysics, as Professor Nobody seems to believe. Rather it was the aspect of the human subject that is situated beyond the actual present; the soul is that which inhabits the imaginative realm, the realm of possibilities, the realm of true creativity rather than stagnant repetition. For me, present-day geek culture's emphasis on repetition and adherence to traditional formulas is negative in the same way that the rigid conservatism of the current Catholic Church and the rigid conservatism of Americans like Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan is negative. Like these forms of cultural and political conservatism, it closes itself off from the future and from the possible and is therefore aesthetically inferior.

But how dare I invoke something so oppressive as a hierarchy in matters of art! How elitist! And truly, I am an elitist when it comes to art as to everything else. I would suggest -- scandalous! -- that some artworks and aesthetic regimes are superior and some are inferior. I would suggest that some artworks provide nourishment to the soul, to the human subject that seeks to be a site of possibilities, of a dynamic future rather than a site of stagnation and endless repetition of the same. The absence of openness to the possible, to the new, the unexpected, the future -- this to me truly is the most lamentable aspect of humanity.