Forum menu
When reading books are you not similarly constrained by the vision of the author?
no because i create a mental image from their words. with a film the image is created for you. also films are much simpler stories by and large. even the 3 films of lord of the rings misses out a lot of the story and takes what 8 or 9 hours. the book i can read in 3 for a richer denser story
As a graphic designer, I am however required by law to listen to 6 Music and compile playlists of Bolivian Speed Garage and South American Industrial Pan Pipe Techo, or we get struck off. Sometimes it becomes a chore...
Nah, that’s just on Saturday afternoons. I refuse to listen to any radio on a Saturday, or watch TV on a Saturday evening. I also refuse to pay any attention whatsoever to Traitors.
There does seem to be a subtle drive to try to persuade people that Traitors is absolutely required viewing so that they feel included in some sort of big social event.
Sorry if that’s the case, but they’re mistaking me for someone who gives a shit.
Caring what experts/critics have to say is where you went wrong
I don’t care, never did; I’ve always made my own decisions and choices based on my own personal opinion and tastes. My tastes in music show that to be the case.
When reading books are you not similarly constrained by the vision of the author?
No, how can I be? I’m reading words that describe certain things, but my own mind makes a visual reference that may be significantly different from what the author had in mind.
Sometimes an author describes a location in such a way that I get a vivid picture of the place, and in one particular instance a film that was made of the book actually used the place I imagined as the actual location in the film!
The book is Stardust, by Neil Gaiman, and when I first read it, and the description of the village of Wall, I instantly thought of Castle Combe, and I was in the village, which is only five miles from where I live, when they were setting up to film there. I later met Neil at a book signing, and I asked him if he knew of Castle Combe when he wrote the book, and he said no, it was pure coincidence!
So books simultaneously provide a richer more comprehensive experience and also leave more to the imagination compared with films?
Uh. Pick one?
I love music, i play instruments i have been a sound engineer.
But i detest radio 6.
Why, exactly? There’s no other radio station that I know of that plays such a wide and varied range of different types and styles of music in the U.K. Since it started over twenty five years ago, it’s introduced me to more bands and artists than any other single source, other than Uncut Magazine. 6Music, over the course of two or three years brought to my attention something like a dozen Canadian artists who I’d never heard of before, and apart from a couple that broke up, I saw them all when they came over to the U.K., and I still keep up to date with them and their music.
There are several 6Music presenters who I’ve seen playing with their original bands, and one who I’ve seen several times as a solo artist and even been on stage with!
Do people really waste "time and brainspace" opening a thread whose title is of no interest to them, reading the posts and then typing out a reply? Have YOU genuinely got nothing better to be doing or thinking about?
The thread title didn’t really encapsulate the OP, so yes, I opened it. Having read it, I was genuinely surprised that people “worry” enough about not liking what other people like to write a treatise on it hoping that there’re others who might validate them enough to comment.
I replied to a whole one, single post yesterday, so perhaps I’m just a little too busy to give the time and thought that it apparently deserves…
It's all subjective innit 👍 who knows in 10 years time people may look back with fondness at the Melania film and think " That was a cultural high point for the age " 🤔😉
I can grow to appreciate something that doesn't grab me straight away.
Surely this is all art, no? Our taste's change, we become different people who appreciate different things? As a teenager I couldn't abide Pink Floyd - too slow too booooring, but as I've aged, I've become more appreciative of some of their songs.
[Other sports don't get a look-in between the football and the other football. This isn't "sports news," it's practically religious propaganda.
The BBC sports news page this morning is a lot of football, and also darts, tennis, golf, snooker, boxing, cycling, netball, rugby, ice hockey, running, winter sports, motor car racing...
Is this one of these things you've convinced yourself of but doesn't actually exist in reality?
The fact remains that all egg-based games are shit, with the possible exception of egg and spoon races, which at least appear to have some form of rules that everyone understands.
Plus, egg and spooners don’t wear armour.
Quite the opposite, if it's critically acclaimed or universally liked but not immediately pleasing to me, I try hard to see what others see in it. Because I worry I may be missing out. I want to see if, with a deeper understanding, or knowledge of the back story I can grow to appreciate something that doesn't grab me straight away.
One comment to this above was 'understanding leads to appreciation' and it sounds like that's what you're trying to do. Perhaps for some it's more about the introduction or first experience that leads to interest, and that creates the appreciation?
I might find the subject or topic of art generally a bit dull but works of art in a gallery can move me, then I look out for more along those lines and find other aspects or styles that I like branching off my entry point.
Or it might be that the gallery someone was in Paris during a holiday and they were in a frame of mind that meant it was more emotive, and memory is about emotion more than most things. The memory and association might aid the interest.
We all perceive things in different ways and so much of art is an expression of experience and emotion. So appreciation can be circumstantial.
You not understanding a given game is a "you" failing. I can explain it to you if you like?
Come off it…. don't start pretending there’s rules
who knows in 10 years time people may look back with fondness at the Melania film and think " That was a cultural high point for the age "
I hope I’m dead before I have to live in such an age!
films are just dull in comparison as i am constrained by the vision of the filmmaker
So your vision is the only one of value? Ok. The rest of us are maybe less perfect.
The BBC sports news page this morning is a lot of football, and also darts, tennis, golf, snooker, boxing, cycling, netball, rugby, ice hockey, running, winter sports, motor car racing...
Exactly .. It's almost as if the percentage of coverage is based on popularity? : )
Football is a good example here, it's the same as art in that interest probably comes from making a lasting connection with the show somehow (since for most it's not about actually playing the game). Objectively it's a rules-based ball game like many others so the level of popularity is likely to be about the opportunities for emotive connections. Generational and social things.
The thread title didn’t really encapsulate the OP, so yes, I opened it. Having read it, I was genuinely surprised that people “worry” enough about not liking what other people like to write a treatise on it hoping that there’re others who might validate them enough to comment.
I replied to a whole one, single post yesterday, so perhaps I’m just a little too busy to give the time and thought that it apparently deserves…
Thanks. You've now posted twice on a thread you apparently have no interest in. And waded through dozens of posts to find the one you quoted above. Just to sneer. Seems your time isn't quite as valuable as you thought?
A selective quote which dodged the question I asked you. What were you doing yesterday which made you feel so superior to us time wasters chatting about random bollocks on here?
A chat btw which absolutely doesn't deserve any of your incredibly important and valuable time. Feel free to ignore it and carry on solving world hunger or whatever worthy stuff you get up to at the weekend. Which seemingly allows you to sneer at "tragic" people wasting their time on a cycle forum on a wet Sunday afternoon.
Or it might be that the gallery someone was in Paris during a holiday and they were in a frame of mind that meant it was more emotive, and memory is about emotion more than most things. The memory and association might aid the interest.
One of those occasions when the setting and crowd is more entertaining than the art. The people gawping at the Mona Losa are far more interesting than the painting. Same goes for many sporting events, take away the crowd and it's nothing. TDF mountain stage: people riding bikes up a hill, add a caravane and thousands of pissed up idiots and it's entertaining. Football match to empty stadium - nothing to see here.
As for films, series, music or whatever you have at home, I doubt you even like the same stuff as your partner let alone some randoms on a bike forum. You'd have to pay me a significant sum to get me to sit through most of the recommendations on the netflix and series thread, more than to watch the Melania shit because they go on for ever.
Each to his own eh ! And bear in mind the critics are just playing to an audience, they're no more objective about films than Clarkson was about cars.
Come off it…. don't start pretending there’s rules
Actually they are laws in rugby union not rules 🙂
One of those occasions when the setting and crowd is more entertaining than the art.
The setting and the crowd or people's reaction are part of the thing, without the art (or game) there is no pull or setting, less emotion. There are those additional things because the art or game has value, mainly emotional value.
Absolutely, Jameso. The emotional connection gets people there because they see value, whether objectively there is value is questionable. People find "value" in bizarre things, a good riot where they get to burn rubbish bins; a political rally where they hero worship a fascist dictoator who's just killed tens of thousands of their fellow citizens, a Grand prix in a Emirate to the glory of burning oil... .
One comment to this above was 'understanding leads to appreciation' and it sounds like that's what you're trying to do. Perhaps for some it's more about the introduction or first experience that leads to interest, and that creates the appreciation?
I think so. Despite me voicing an ambivalence to opera in the OP, I did once enjoy a performance of Carmen. It was at the Minack open air theatre in Cornwall. It was a combination of the people I was with and their reactions, stormy weather, the dramatic setting with waves crashing below and the performance that made it all quite memorable. I'm not sure I'd think about it in the same way if my first exposure to it was an am dram show in a village hall!
People find "value" in bizarre things,
I suppose it's often about belonging, esp for riots and political rallies. I like the idea that a crowd gathering round a burning bin in the street gives the bin art value : ) Suddenly some of the Turner prize work makes more sense.
It might just be that people like stuff you don't.
I don't like, or at least like enought to bother watching a lot of TV entertainment. I don't watch a lot of sport as I'd rather do than watch... the exception being some football. I don't watch a lot of films at all. I have a lot of other stuff to prioritise over things that don't interest me enough
I don't think about that at all. Not an issue. I do think about what I do like, which is a lot of music, and some comedies, and fairly dull lecture series on geology.
Or, viewpoint two, art. I like a lot of art.... or at least there's a lot I like, but there's also a lot more I'm not bothered, excited by. I've seen a fairly large amount, like to go galleries, have been to auction predisplays etc. My recommended approach is to go to a gallery , move past stuff that doesn't excite, and spend time with stuff that doesn't and what that is might surprise you. Certainly I look at a lot more modern art than I do pictures of horses or bishops in hats.
But that's my taste, I'm not embarrassed by it , but I'm not forcing it on you.
Maybe it's not that deep and you're just a secret hipster who dislikes anything thats mainstream or popular because it feels inauthentic to like something because loads of others like it, as opposed to discovering whatever it is independently.
Atleast thats the case with me and I've learned to just embrace it. Anything new or popular I'm suspicious of, unless I discovered it by accident and like it and then it's got popular or mainstream after.
Each to his own eh ! And bear in mind the critics are just playing to an audience, they're no more objective about films than Clarkson was about cars.
I think that's a bit reductive. There are examples in any type of media or entertainment that are objectively good or bad. Criticism is by no means perfect but I think most people appreciate that a film that has 10% on Rotten Tomatoes or 4.5 on IMDB isn't going to be objectively as good as one that get 95% or 8.2
I never got into Lord of the Rings or any "fantasy" type of show/movie/book despite really trying because I feel like as a nerd I should like them.
With the exception of Game of Thrones but even then I was turned off by the dragons and magic parts, much prefered the (historically innaccurate) medieval human parts.
Plus, egg and spooners don’t wear armour.
the shoulder pads arent armour, they're a weapon. watch how and where they tackle each other.
Unless I'm mistaken you're talking about members of the public leaving comments/notes and I'm talking about critics, richmtb.
and of course, football vs rugby.
That ones obvious. Rugby is a far superior game to soccer. soccer is just playacting and cheating
Spot on. Though 'wendyball' is my preferred word for describing overpaid cheats falling over like they had been shot because a breeze blew their hair gel out of alignment.
A few examples: The Beatles; Shakespeare; Bowie. There are many more. More widely: Opera; Ballet; Musical theatre.
Beatles - massively over rated cover band. Shakespeare - something you're forced to learn in school that has zero bearing on adult live. Bowie - outside of his famous songs, absolutely rubbish.
Like what you like and don't be ashamed of it. I'm off to a model railway show this weekend.
in 10 years time people may look back with fondness at the Melania film and think " That was a cultural high point for the age "
Now we're just being silly.
Beatles - massively over rated cover band. Shakespeare - something you're forced to learn in school that has zero bearing on adult live. Bowie - outside of his famous songs, absolutely rubbish.
Obvious troll is obvious.
Nothing wrong with liking what you like. More interesting than being a generic NPC.
Is this one of these things you've convinced yourself of but doesn't actually exist in reality?
To be fair, I don't exactly go out of my way to seek out more sport than I'm already oversaturated with.
Exactly .. It's almost as if the percentage of coverage is based on popularity? : )
Is this not circular to a degree? Ie things are popular, at least in part, because of the coverage? If this weren't the case then Coca-Cola and MacDonald's wouldn't spend billions on advertising.
Is this not circular to a degree?
Yes I'd say so. The current cultural familiarity mainstream part feeds the likelihood of experience and emotion (engagement). And most people will tend towards the mainstream and cultural norms won't they, it's how we're programmed.
If it's a chicken or egg Q I think there's ease of access, tribalisms, aspirations etc all feeding into it and saying football is popular because it has value to more people than other games or sports, it did long before TV and sport news sections. The media boost it now in a marketing / advertising way as you say, though I think the sport always had high relative value.
Unless I'm mistaken you're talking about members of the public leaving comments/notes and I'm talking about critics, richmtb.
Rotten Tomatoes is an aggregation of critics reviews. IMDB is user reviews. The point still stands, when you aggregate a large number of reviews you tend to get a fairly clear measure of what is objectively good and bad, ergo criticism often is objective.
Spot on. Though 'wendyball' is my preferred word for describing overpaid cheats falling over like they had been shot because a breeze blew their hair gel out of alignment.
People who use the word "wendyball" pictured yesterday
I feel like 'universally' in the thread title is possibly not correct?
Opera is generally accepted to be High Art, but I have never, in my 46 years on this planet, met anyone who or acclaims it, or likes it. It's acclaimed by those who Know About These Things, and gets a vast subsidies as a result, but it's not univerally acclaimed.
Unlike, say, the latest Latex Man Saves The World With His Magic Fireball superhero movie, which does nothing for me but I know loads of people that will be down the Odeon to watch it, and the box office takings suggest that it is acclaimed by a fairly high proportion of the public. If not critically acclaimed.
There used to be a great piss taking photo blog online called "look at my f***ing red trousers!
There used to be a great piss taking photo blog online called "look at my f***ing red trousers!
I'd imagine Guards and Cavalry officer were heavily represented on such a thing.
Well I've gathered my berries, tended my crops and milked my cow.... so yeah I've got a bit of free time to think about culture - what do you spend your free time thinking about?
Riding my bike or planning trips to places I would like to ride my bike.
I feel like 'universally' in the thread title is possibly not correct?
Like Opera
Agreed. Opera was more of an afterthought. I think it does apply to the examples in my preceding sentence in the OP.
There used to be a great piss taking photo blog online called "look at my f***ing red trousers!
Popular with Dutch men of a certain age 🤣