Thread:Mesektet/@comment-24469175-20180305001935/@comment-3581997-20180428133650

There is a lot to unpack there, so I am going to hold myself off from ranting about separating personal narcissism from artistic vision in the internet age. I will say this, The Muses were idolized for a reason, inspiration is an important component in any work, whether it turns out good or bad.

Let me give you three movies to shake around in your head, Twilight, Shark Tale and The Hobbit. Now Twilight gets a lot of scorn, rightly so, it is awful. But at the very least Stephenie Meyer, wanted to make it. She was not forced into it, there were no studio notes - she wanted to write a fan-fiction about "vampires" and she did. Now she has very little talent but it was a work of passion. Now look at the Hobbit, Peter Jackson wanted ot make a movie of the Hobbit, but since the studio was footing the bill they wanted it extended to another trilogy, they didn't pay most of the extras, Smaug is killed at the beginning of the third movie and the part Tolkien deliberately built up and then let fizzle out to show the futility of war and greed - The battle of the Five Armies - became the main thrust of that third movie; Any passion involved was rung out of it by it's investors, but I think we can all agree having to sit through all the Hobbit movies is still better than having to sit through one of those Twilight movies. And now let us examine Shark Tale. No passion, no talent, setting it underwater was done solely cause a marketing group concluded under-water anthropomorphic movies with computer animation were in at the time, if the movie were set in L.A. it would be exactly the same movie.

Now weigh those three movies. Which is worse? The one with no talent but passion, The one with no passion but lots of talent; Or the one with no talent, no passion, but wearing it's shallowness on it's sleeve?