woe for the next generation.

Following links while researching, and stumbled over what appeared to be the start of a good forum thread, archived somewhere in google’s depths. What are the qualities of a good visual-media (television, music video, movie) work? First respondent goes for the relativist approach: “a good video is measured by how large an effect it has on the audience.”

Whereupon a long thread ensued, arguing over whether or not special effects are really required, including naming plenty of editors & directors who’ve not used any effects. Scroll through all this to the entry at the bottom of the page, which says, “guys, I think he meant ‘effect’ as in impact, not CGI.”

Curious, that seemed to have stopped the conversation dead in its tracks.

Kids these days, I swear.

it's the little things that [yes, actually] count

Reading a great deal of visual-based stories these days -- manga, webcomics -- and sorting through how the format tells a story compared to the form/function of word-based storytelling. Since a great many of the manga have romantic plots (even when it’s not the focus, just like much of the published fiction I read does usually have some kind of romantic element, hell, even the Bourne series has a romantic subplot), I’ve been noticing more and more that it’s the tiniest things that make or break whether I ‘believe’ a romantic plotline actually works.

( The issue of emphasis... )

( ..and as a bonus: how to de-confuzzle those literary terms! )

( ...and then onto to detail usage in visual media... )

( ...and finally, other little things, like 'said' and punctuation. )

On the other hand, maybe it’s just me. Not an uncommon conclusion, but I remain hopeful that someday it won’t be.