Forum menu
There used to be a great piss taking photo blog online called "look at my f***ing red trousers!
The blog is still floating about the abyss of cyberspace.
To your point, I don't feel shame. Maybe sometimes a little perplexed as to why I may not like something 'popular' enjoyed by the masses. But its fleeting, plenty of things I do like and love for me to enjoy.
There used to be a great piss taking photo blog online called "look at my f***ing red trousers!
The blog is still floating about the abyss of cyberspace.
Brilliant! Good search skills. I'd forgotten that the blog host was "Monsieur Henri de Pantalon-Rouge"! 😆
I'd imagine Guards and Cavalry officer were heavily represented on such a thing.
I understand they discovered it, and then did their best to get included, which was the death knell of the site as far as I can remember. Was there not also a "Kim-Il-Yong points at things" and a "Chris Froome stares at his stem", or did I hallucinate them?
I understand they discovered it, and then did their best to get included,
#Standardofficerbehaviour.
Is that a young Boris Johnson in the background of the photo of the red trouser types? Probably, right kind of crowd.
Was there not also a "Kim-Il-Yong points at things" and a "Chris Froome stares at his stem", or did I hallucinate them?
There was. And there was the excellent BigRingRiding tumblr, and HBCutTheCourseIn1990 blog. Bike culture high points IMH critical O.
I'd imagine Guards and Cavalry officer were heavily represented on such a thing.
I understand they discovered it, and then did their best to get included, which was the death knell of the site as far as I can remember. Was there not also a "Kim-Il-Yong points at things" and a "Chris Froome stares at his stem", or did I hallucinate them?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that taking the global population as a whole (all 9 billion or whatever it is now) there is no such thing as "universally acclaimed culture". Good thing too in my opinion.
We all have our likes and dislikes, nothing to be ashamed of though 🤷♂️
I've read on here a number of "don't like ballet, classical music and opera" comments.
Neither do I, really, on TV. But at a live performance they can be stunning. Many years ago Mrs BigJohn and I did a bit of am dram and the sound of a full orchestra when you're on stage and they're banging out the (for example) overture to Oklahoma or Guys and Dolls is something you never forget.
We all have our likes and dislikes, nothing to be ashamed of though 🤷♂️
Agreed and I'm not. A poor choice of words on my behalf which I tried to qualify in the OP. It's more about FOMO really. Musing on why "Everybody seems to agree this thing is exceptional, why can't I see it". Of course the simple answer is just "because we all like different things" which is of course true. I was trying (badly) to say that whilst disagreement on most popular culture is common, there are a few national treasures which it seems are beyond that.
So your vision is the only one of value? Ok. The rest of us are maybe less perfect.
Wow! Talk about missing the point. What I got from TJ was that he loves creating his own "inner visual world" whilst reading, and that he gains pleasure from doing so, immersed and happy with that ability. I got the feeling from his explanation that he finds films would hinder his enjoyment, and as such the medium becomes irrelevant in terms of his enjoyment of storytelling. I don't think he was being critical, he was trying to get across how important his imagination is to his love of reading.
There are only a very few films where I have read a book before seeing the film and not been at least a little bit disappointed by the filmmaker's interpretation or depiction of characters, places or even worlds, so I absolutely get where he is coming from.
Going back to the films create the images for you part.
Thing is, films provide the images, the viewer has to provide much of the underlying motivations, emotions, back-story, socio-political context etc., as there simply isn't the screen time to elaborate on all that; a novel can be explicit about that (though it may not), but doesn't provide detailed imagery. Both leave stuff to be interpolated but it tends to be different stuff.
@tj - this point has probably been made, but have you tried so-called "arty" films, you know the pretentious high-brow type? Generally my favourite genre 'cos I am a bit like that (and no I don't like opera either). But then, given the choice of having to read a Dan Brown novel or having to sit through the film of one, I would choose the film, as I can't abide bad writing, even if it is telling a good story (I read half a chapter of "The Da Vinci Code" and thought "this is tripe" and stopped).
Wow! Talk about missing the point. What I got from TJ was that he loves creating his own "inner visual world" whilst reading, and that he gains pleasure from doing so, immersed and happy with that ability. I got the feeling from his explanation that he finds films would hinder his enjoyment, and as such the medium becomes irrelevant in terms of his enjoyment of storytelling. I don't think he was being critical, he was trying to get across how important his imagination is to his love of reading.
First point - reading a book and watching a film are two separate activities. A person can do (and enjoy) both (not at the same time, obvs.)
Second point - you can enjoy a book and enjoy a film of the same book.
Third point - a film director can create a vision from a book that is different from the one you might have thought of from the book. You can enjoy that vision more, or less, but you can get benefit from the different vision. Unless, of course, you consider that your vision is the only one of value.
Fourth point - Star Wars, Pulp Fiction, The Matrix, The Big Lebowski - how do you get a "vision" of these?
Fifth point - there is no fifth point. Yet.
when you aggregate a large number of reviews you tend to get a fairly clear measure of what is objectively good and bad,
Yet things like Star Wars get good reviews while the whole saga is farcical bollocks by any objective measure such how fast you can travel through space, how much use wings are in a vacuum, how you could limit the length of a lazer sword etc. It's laughable.
I can still cope with some modern films because they aren't ruined with CGI and nonsense plot but I can't think of a Hollywood production I've got through more than 15 minutes of since errr, I can't think of the last Hollywood production I watched to the end so can't give a date.
I quite like reading, but again there are whole sections of the library I don't bother with - crime, thriller, action etc. has no interest for me, But Madame Edukator loves it, we never ever read the same books. If I like it I know she won't and visa versa. I like books in which no-one or only very old people die. I don't contribute to the "what are you reading" thread on here, none of the stuff other people post inspires and I'm sure they'd have no interest in what I read.
The Beatles? I play guitar, the very early period can be dismissed as cover versions but the later albums are inventive and very clever.
Anyhow each to his own.
Re 'liking what we like' .. w/o meaning to focus on just books, there isn't enough time in life to read all the books so we have to filter things, but still, try something and put it down if it's no good, move on. I love phone box book stores. I ride through Hay on Wye on many of my tours in Wales and I like picking something up there. Usually chosen by size and ability to read it in 4-7 days more than by topic. I've been suprised by how good (enjoyable, thought-provoking, memorable etc) a book about a random subject can be, novel or non-fiction. Started to think that my own ideas or internal rambling about what I like and don't like is one of my hindrances. It's a bias based on my past and my limited experiences so far, that's all. Try it, you never know ..
Yet things like Star Wars get good reviews while the whole saga is farcical bollocks by any objective measure such how fast you can travel through space, how much use wings are in a vacuum, how you could limit the length of a lazer sword etc.
You're confusing a movie review with a physics feasibility study.
Yet things like Star Wars get good reviews while the whole saga is farcical bollocks by any objective measure such how fast you can travel through space, how much use wings are in a vacuum, how you could limit the length of a lazer sword etc. It's laughable.
It's a kid's movie. I loved it when I was 10. Andor is pretty decent though.
I completely agree that each to their own and different people will enjoy different things. THe bit that gets me is that some forms of entertainment are classed as culture and as such subsidised by taxpayers allegedly so more people can afford to participate and most arent. Who is the arbiter of what should be subsisidesed, and fundamentally why should anyone’s entertainment be subsidised by taxpayers?
Starwars is an odd one with me.
Half of me hates the total inconsistencies with the science/physics of it. I'd almost be happier with ignoring things making limited sense if they would at least be consistent about it.
And the other half of me is willing to accept it as a bit of fun and enjoy the story. As much as the prequel trilogy gets hate, it contains enough interesting plots and facts that help to explain the original trilogy.
oh there are plenty that i could list but definitely Shakespeare being a big one.
i can appreciate people who love his works and theatre and film productions of his plays etc but i just don't get it myself (maybe my own stupidity a reason perhaps?). i just don't connect with any of it tbh. i even bought his complete works on kindle for the grand sum of 99p but just cannot read more than the first paragraph (hangs head in shame).
although i have visited stratford upon avon twice and enjoyed seeing where he was born and passing the royal shalketc.
also any team sports i have no interest in.
I've read on here a number of "don't like ballet, classical music and opera" comments.
Neither do I, really, on TV. But at a live performance they can be stunning. Many years ago Mrs BigJohn and I did a bit of am dram and the sound of a full orchestra when you're on stage and they're banging out the (for example) overture to Oklahoma or Guys and Dolls is something you never forget.
A few Christmases ago Ms.RM wanted to go and see The Nutcracker. I got us tickets and off we went.
Now ballet is not my jam, but I've always held the opinion that they're supremely talented & commited individuals.
That opinion was further reinforced after a that performance, the physicality of the performers was breathtaking.
Holding a static pose which was essentially a stress position while observing the main performers, then immediately leaping into performance, the strength, conditioning and discipline required was incredible.
I also found myself absolutely glued to musicians, specifically the Harpist. Were do you even begin to learn that thing and then make coherent ethereal sound?
So while Ballet is still not my jam, I can appreciate it as an art form, and try to imagine the levels of commitment and passion to get to a level where people pay to see you, regardless if they genuinely like what you do or are pretending.
although i have visited stratford upon avon twice and enjoyed seeing where he was born and passing the royal shalketc.
Fun fact - According to the CIA it was after a visit to Stratford on Avon 1970s that young Osama Bin Laden developed his hatred of the west. And yet to this day - no Blue Plaque.
But as you've been there twice we'll be keeping an eye on you from now on.
i even bought his complete works on kindle for the grand sum of 99p but just cannot read more than the first paragraph (hangs head in shame).
There's no shame in that. It's not exactly accessible, and plays rarely benefit from being read. I only started to "get" Shakespeare when I tried to act it. Even then it takes a lot of work, going through it line by line.
However once you do that that, you realise just how many phrases, that are still in common usage, have their roots in Shakespeare, and the themes that he covers are still relevant today.
That opinion was further reinforced after a that performance, the physicality of the performers was breathtaking.
Holding a static pose which was essentially a stress position while observing the main performers, then immediately leaping into performance, the strength, conditioning and discipline required was incredible.
That's what I got from seeing the ballet too. The athleticism is gobsmacking, especially in the petite women. I'm glad I've seen it live, wouldn't mind going again, but it's not something that I'd say other people must see.
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.
There's probably a study to be had in this. If interest creates coverage and coverage creates interest then we have a paradox, where did it come from? Chicken and egg as you say.
I rather suspect that a large driver is social; kids get into football because their dad watches it, then it's with them for life to pass on to their kids (see also: religion). I got into American football at school because that's what my little group of mates were into.
Because,
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that taking the global population as a whole (all 9 billion or whatever it is now) there is no such thing as "universally acclaimed culture".
In the UK, football is a national obsession. You can see it in action on this thread even, people talk about it with a degree of irrational passion normally the domain of religious types and Linux users. Meanwhile, over in the US soccer has been a niche interest at best for years and is only relatively recently gaining popularity. Why is that? Demonstrably then, one cannot be objectively "better" than the other.
We could argue that our pondside friends prefer full-contact sportage and that probably has merit, but then their Big Four includes baseball, a sport so exciting that it makes cricket look like the Isle of Man TT. So what gives?
Is it perhaps the case that things are popular today merely because they are popular? Who here started watching (say) Lost or Game Of Thrones or Traitors because people were talking about it at work? And, did you do it because it sounded interesting, or so that you could fit in and join the conversations?
I never used to get the fuss about Pink Floyd, until I went to see Roger Waters tour "The Wall". It was one of the most mind blowing experiences I've ever had. I now think that they're brilliant.
I was never a Pink Floyd fan. I'm still not. But I got tickets to see them one time and went because I could and figured I might regret it if I didn't. It was an astonishing experience, one of the best gigs of my life and I've been to a lot. The music may not be to someone's taste but, objectively, "shit" they are not.
I wonder if we went to the same gig?
First point - reading a book and watching a film are two separate activities. A person can do (and enjoy) both (not at the same time, obvs.)
You'd probably be able to do both at the same time more easily now. Where in an era where streaming companies driving the commissioning of film and TV. Producers are being told to treat their show as the 'second screen' and assume that the viewer is giving at least part of their attention to something else while its on.
kids get into football because their dad watches it, then it's with them for life to pass on to their kids (see also: religion).
There's a geographical link between football and previous mass employment in industry.
We could argue that our pondside friends prefer full-contact sportage and that probably has merit, but then their Big Four includes baseball, a sport so exciting that it makes cricket look like the Isle of Man TT. So what gives?
I think their "running and passing and shooting at a goal team sport" interest gets split between ice hockey and basketball. plus lacrosse as a distant third. which will dilute the stats a bit.
I think things can be "Universally Acclaimed" (ok universal among say the Anglosphere) but its okay to not personally like anything in particular. But personal preference doesn't override objective quality, which definitely exists for most "culture".
Its fine to not like Star Wars or any other film in the "Space Opera" genre. Just the same way its fine not to really like opera or ballet. But even if its not your jam, most people would still recognise thar Star Wars is objectively better that Star Trek V or Battle Beyond the Stars.
You might think films with sharks in them are a load of unrealistic toot. But that doesn't stop Jaws being the best one.
I hate Oasis, but I still know that Morning Glory is objectively a good album and Be Here Now is a lot of tat.
Likewise I love Radiohead, but know that King of Limbs is objectively worse than OK Computer or In Rainbows.
Producers are being told to treat their show as the 'second screen' and assume that the viewer is giving at least part of their attention to something else while its on.
Don't get me started on that. MrsJ asking me what happened in something we were both "watching".
"If you'd put your phone down you wouldn't need to ask!!"
So while Ballet is still not my jam, I can appreciate it as an art form, and try to imagine the levels of commitment and passion to get to a level where people pay to see you, regardless if they genuinely like what you do or are pretending.
We used to live down the street from the theatre which was the home of Nederlands Dans Theater. I was persuaded to go by MrsJ, and as it was close, and there were free drinks at the interval, it was an easy way to curry favour. I was absolutely hooked. It's hard to put into words why. It was like watching a fluid sculpture, shapes co-ordinated with sounds, like a dream, or some sort of kaleidoscope. I'm not expressing it well at all, but it was mesmerising and since then I've been many many times to see NDT and similar companies. As a fat old bloke with two left feet I can only marvel at the physical abilities of the performers, and since then I've got to know quite a lot of dancers personally and up close they are more athletic than they look on stage. All of which is to say, if you haven't tried, give it a go, without preconceptions and just let yourself be affected. Maybe you'll be pleasantly surprised!!
Meanwhile, over in the US soccer has been a niche interest at best for years and is only relatively recently gaining popularity. Why is that? Demonstrably then, one cannot be objectively "better" than the other.
Not sure about that. In the US C&W music is more popular than Mongolian throat singing, yet is objectively "worse".
I never feel "shame" about it but there's been times I've suddenly had a lightbulb moment and really come to appreciate something I had either dismissed or bounced off, which makes me want to be more open to things even if I don't think I like them
Like, opera, I still think a lot of it is basically caterwauling but I came weirdly to listen to a lot more, especially bel canto stuff as a result of reading a novel set in that era and suddenly it clicked and I was hearing these incredible sounds that I'd just never have heard but also listening with a bit more tolerance and understanding to things I'd previously just disliked.
(actually the exact same thing happened for jazz, again tons I am never going to like but I started listening to bossa nova while reading an sf novel that featured a load of bossa nova and now I love it. Not the way i love metal or punk, you can't really get a pit going for Joao Gilberto)
It's good to like what you like but also not to be closed off, and it's way too easy to be closed off. You might die having never heard your favourite song.
Gravel bikes can **** off though
Is it perhaps the case that things are popular today merely because they are popular? Who here started watching (say) Lost or Game Of Thrones or Traitors because people were talking about it at work? And, did you do it because it sounded interesting, or so that you could fit in and join the conversations?
I think popularity and quality aren't the same thing and things can be popular because of their flaws rather dispite them - Football and 'The Traitors' are two good examples from your list perhaps. Both of them are talking points beyond the bounds of the actual 'thing'. Football causes endless debate becuase the actual gameplay is broken - the score rarely reflects which team played best on the day. In fact if you just look a list results on a pools coupon from a week's matches and be forgiven for thinking neither team turned up to some matches. What sort of completion routinely has '0-0' as an outcome - did their buses both break down? Nobody scored a goal in a game where scoring a goal is the only goal?
Does everyone get their ticket money refunded when that happens?
The disparity between performance and outcome means theres loads to talk about. A nil-nil outcome doesn't mean both teams were rubbish, but it doesn't even mean both teams were even equally matched - one team can run rings round the other and the score way well not reflect that. But it means the moment the match ends the debate about meaning of the results starts. The media has screeds of football coverage every day of the week - regardless of whether any matches have actually been played the day before, regardless of whether its even the football season- it generates so much to talk about. Which is amazing if you like football and absolutely gruesome of you don't 🙂
And The Traitors might have something the same going on - as a game show format its actually broken. The gameplay doesn't actually work. But it seemingly doesn't matter and may actually make it better. It might be why its become some popular.
The Traitors seems to have brought back 'have to talk about it' television which is incredibly admirable really. Shared experiences - don't get many of them anymore.
I don't watch it though - been in the Traitors castle and everything too - even know some of the production team 🙂
Don't get me started on that. MrsJ asking me what happened in something we were both "watching".
"If you'd put your phone down you wouldn't need to ask!!"
Just keep asking her how many bars she's got 🙂
American football = rugby with body armor.
Baseball = rounders with body armor.
Baseball = rounders with body armor.
At least baseball is over on a shorter-than-geological time scale:-)
If interest creates coverage and coverage creates interest then we have a paradox, where did it come from? Chicken and egg as you say.
Seems like it. I think it's about ease of access, a kickabout is simple and cheap. It's an old game and it's had time to grow, a long period of being a generational everyman thing. Easy to get into at a very basic level, get some skills and you can be a local hero or a national legend if you're really good, it's more meritocratic and open now than most sports. I see why kids aspire to be top players and why people are into it.
There are only a very few films where I have read a book before seeing the film and not been at least a little bit disappointed by the filmmaker's interpretation or depiction of characters, places or even worlds, so I absolutely get where he is coming from.
Indeed. There is a reason we call these "adaptations." The Lord of the Rings movies run to like 11-12 hours and they still left out some of the book.
Yet things like Star Wars get good reviews while the whole saga is farcical bollocks by any objective measure such how fast you can travel through space, how much use wings are in a vacuum, how you could limit the length of a lazer sword etc. It's laughable.
A couple of points here.
A lot of 'zeitgeist' phenomena occurred because they were new, groundbreaking. The Beatles discussed here for instance, looking back today they were just another boy band. But they were one of the first boy bands, nothing had sounded like The Beatles prior to The Beatles. By way of a slightly more recent comparison, look at Nirvana. We could consider The Lord of the Rings to be derivative toss but we forget, our whole idea of elves and dwarves that we have today was created (or at least, first widely popularised) by Tolkien.
Star Wars is no different here. Contemporary sci-fi was rare and family-friendly outings non-existent. 2001: A Space Odyssey was late 60s and hardly a seat-of-your-pants thrill ride. The 70s gave us things like Logan's Run and Westworld, not really things you're going to gather the kids round to watch. Then Star Wars blasted, somewhat literally, onto our screens. There was nothing else like it, it was truly revolutionary and a generation was enthralled. Today sure, it's dated, but it's nearly 50 years old. What other 1977 films are on the family watch list, Herbie in Monte Carlo? Star Wars (along with Star Trek) made sci-fi financially viable again.
As for "farcical":
It is set a "galaxy far, far away" so our rules need not apply. Light speed would get us to the Sun in ~8 minutes, is that any more fantastical than a jet engine would be to the Wright Brothers? Wings would be useless in a vacuum yes, but fighters like the X-Wing also operate within atmospheres. The lightsaber is not a laser sword (and there is no such word as "lazer"), it is focused plasma; real world versions exist, go look on Youtube. In any case, this could be handwaved with "Jedi masters use The Force to control it." Laugh away, after you've googled what the "fi" means in sci-fi.
I read the OP’s post and leapt to page 3 (popular 20th century culture?) to say … opera is magnificent!
When I moved to Leeds in the early 90s I bought an opera north season ticket with my then ‘partner’. We saw several operas over the season. Including the ‘scratch & sniff’ Love for Three Oranges. Opera is like theatre plus an orchestra with the most OTT presentation. Since then I’ve been to a few opera performances and even when the production is weird or lacklustre the combination of story, performance, singing, and orchestra has overcome any individual weakness. It is an amazing experience.
YMMV, other experiences are available.
now, would I listen to opera on my hifi? Not really. Would I spend hours watching opera performances on Blu-Ray? Not so much. But live, or ‘live’ in cinema, it can be great!
I've read quite a lot of science fiction, I have some Asimov on the bookshelf, the level of plausibility is high enough for me to be taken in by th estory and ignore any minor discrepancies. Then there's spoof sci-fi such as 5th element which is a great comic romp. Star Wars I can't take seriously enough to watch.
1977 films? Saturday Night Fever and I had to Google to check that was 77. I couldn't afford the cinema in the late 70s, I needed the money for tyres and bits for the bike. 🙂 At uni the cinema club was cheap and I kept going even when I started work. I sometimes wonder if I'd be living in France, fairly fluent in German and a fan of European cinema if I hadn't been inspired by some of the foreign films they used to screen. My mate was a Saudi abasador's son who'd lived in Paris and had a thing about Adjani with a VHS collection to prove it.
Culture eh ! Get's you into things that change your life. Along with the films I also blame the songs of the House Martins and Jean Jacques Goldman.