Sports vs. Movies

Great Debates
1

And I say movies because to say FILM would require me to go get my black turtleneck out.

Anyway, this pit thread by one Mr. Redboss reminded me of a long and bloody war that I had with a 'film’maker friend of mine who hated sports like I hate olives. I, myself love sports AND movies (making me the well rounded genius that everyone knew I had the potential to be).

The film maker insisted that in the world there are far more rabid sports fans than there are rabid movie fans and I argued vehemently that there were far more movie fans than sports fans, a theory I think I proved with this simple question:

go up to a person on the street and ask: Who won the 1984 World Series? Then ask Who Was Luke Skywalkers Father?

I guarantee that B is going to get more answers.

I suppose ‘film’ maker wanted to feel like he was in the persecuted artistic minority, but I still maintain that sports can never hold a candle to movies as far as taking a grip on the populace.

Whatcha think? What are we debating? I suppose, “What is the driving force of popular culture…sport or art”

jarbaby

2

Neither. The driving force of popular culture is sex.

3

And then we have to argue about whether “film” is “art”.
And then we have to argue about whether “movies” is “art”.
And then we have to argue about the difference between “film” and “movies”.
And then we have to argue about whether “Star Wars” is “film” or “movies”.
And then we have to argue about whether “Star Wars” is “art”.

Bring on the black turtlenecks! :smiley:

[Eh, just because something “takes a grip on the populace” doesn’t make it a “driving force”. The McGwire/Sosa home run race “took a grip on the populace”. “Dances with Wolves” “took a grip on the populace”. J-Lo’s Grammy dress “took a grip on the populace”. But which one actually affected people’s lives? Answer–C. Suddenly nipples and extreme cleavage are fashionable.]

4

Ok duck, so just answer this:

What’s more popular…sports or movies? forget I even brought up art, I was just trying to sound smart about something.

100 people…how many will say “i prefer sports to movies”. I would say only 30 would say sports.

jarbaby

5

The Detroit Tigers! I remember watching and everything… :smiley:

Also, are we talking rabid movie and sports fans, or just plain old run-of-the-mill fans?

6

A particular movie has a greater potential to become universally recognized in popular culture than a particular sport does.

So, when a particular movie does catch on and become immensely popular, it makes sense that more people would know about it than would know about any one particular sport. But if a particular movie only enjoys modest success, its details will often be more obscure than those of any one sport. Of course more people know who was Luke Skywalker’s father than know who won the 1984 World Series – but how many people on the street could tell you who Logan 5 was, or how the Ghostbusters defeated the Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man?

And besides, 1984 wasn’t even the big year that the Red Sox played against the Reds in the World Series and won game 6 in spectacular extra innings. So there.

7

Well, how exactly are you defining “popular”? Strictly in terms of numbers of people who attend movies or sporting events? In terms of money spent on these events? Or in terms of “got it stuck in your head and can’t get it out”? I’ve got the sucky plot of Waterworld stuck in MY head and I can’t get it out, but the McGwire/Sosa thing disappeared from the DDG personal radar screen 10 minutes after whichever-one-it-was (see what I mean? :smiley: ) hit the winning run.

In terms of cultural impact, of asking people on the street about current events in pop culture, movies have it all over sport. Everybody knows that Tom dumped Nicole, but hardly anybody knows that [your choice of sports team] dumped [name of ailing and/or overly greedy athlete].

8

I think the key to your friends argument is the word “rabid.” Movies may hold broader appeal, but sports incites isolated peaks of fervor that movies can’t even approach. When was the last time your heard about a riot over the outcome of a movie?

One reason movies can get such wider saturation in the public psyche is that they are more universal. Even if you’re a sports fan, how invested do you get in a World Series or Super Bowl that doesn’t involve your favorite team? Sure, on national average more people know Luke’s father than the winner of the 1984 World Series, but in Detroit I suspect the numbers are a lot closer.

9

Nimune is right – define “rabid.”

If you mean people who were aware of The Mummy Returns opening a couple of weeks back, and who made a point of seeing it within the first few days of release and/or made a mental note to rent it shortly after its video release, and you also include people who intend to see at least two-thirds of the following this summer – Planet of the Apes, A.I., Pearl Harbor, Tomb Raider, Swordfish, Shrek, Rush Hour 2, Jurassic Park III, Rollerball, Atlantis (um, what else is coming out?), Evolution, Final Fantasy, hmmm, Moulin Rouge, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back) – then maybe you could make a case. The equivalent, I think, would be people who are aware of who played the last few World Series, the last few Superbowls, maybe the last couple of Stanley Cups. In other words, higher than average participation and awareness, but not quite the extreme – say the 25th percentile for the category.

But if you mean people whose videotape and DVD collections include the entire available canon of Sayles, Altman, Coppola, Lean, Campion, Kurosawa, Cronenberg, Anders, and Fellini, people who know Kenneth Anger’s short films, who are familiar with Monsieur Hulot as well as the One-Armed Swordsman, who rush out to see the latest Jan Svankmajer when it plays at a repertory house an hour away, and who (not coincidentally, like me) are planning to see 52 movies in 24 days at the local film festival… and then you compare them to sports fans who can hold forth at length about the merits of the designated hitter and the height of the mound, who can explain the illegal defense rules in basketball, who can name not just the top ten tennis players in the world, men and women, but also the winners of the last five or six Kentucky Derbies…

…I suspect the movie fans would be in the minority. But like I said, it all comes down to your definition of “rabid.”

10

Well, rabid. hmm. I guess the thing is this. I love the ins and outs and all aspects of movies AND sports, so I can argue both sides…

But rabid would be someone who would prefer to go to the movies or watch movies more than anything else, who has an extensive DVD collection, goes to ‘art’ films, follows careers, gets ‘Premeire’ magazine…blah blah blah… in other words, someone who puts more work into it than just going to the movies on Friday night.

A rabid sports fan of course, would play in fantasy leagues, go to games live, follow stats, watch sportscenter everynight…drive by Kerry Wood’s house and sigh…

what?

in other words, something beyond just waking up and saying “go cubs” to your co-worker.

I still say there are more people in this world with a VHS collection than a baseball card collection…more people tape movies than sporting events…I think.

jarbaby

11

Yeah, they beat the San Diego Padres.
Hey, what about sports movies?? Like baseball movies? ‘Bull Durham’, ‘It happens every spring’, ‘Fear strikes out’, Field of dreams’, ‘Bang the drum slowly’, ‘The Natural’…
There may be more sports fans overall, but there are a lot of different sports(and golf) out there. I mean, I love baseball but don’t give a rats patooty about the other sports. And I love the movies. How would you catagorize me?

12

I’m not sure if the definition of rabid insofar as it applies to either sports fans or movie-goers applies. Most people aren’t rapid about either team sports or movies. Both are just a means of entertainment.

I’m also not sure how to measure which form of entertainment is more popular. Does the fact that people have their favorite movies on tape and not their favorite ball games mean that movies are more popular than spectator sports, or just that watching tapes of old spectator sports events aren’t as satisfying as watching the event live, whereas a favorite film can be watched repeatedly without losing its flavor?

I am a big sports fan, but I would say, without having any empirical evidence, that movies are a more popular form of entertainment than sports is, because I estimate that more sports fans are also movie fans than visa-versa.

13

Movies.
Sports are for playing. ( Why the hell would I want to watch somebody else play a game?)
Movies are for watching.

14

Nimune wrote:

Well, there were those picketers protesting the scene in The Last Temptation of Christ where Jesus shagged Mary Magdalene…

15

Jarbabyj wrote:
“in other words, something beyond just waking up and saying “go cubs” to your co-worker.”

So, uh, how long you been sleeping with your co-workers? :slight_smile:

16

Sports will draw more repeat customers because each event is different and there is always some element of surprise.

However, there are only a select few films that draw people in for repeat viewings. But those that do get a lot of repeat business are treated as cultural phenomena (e.g. Titanic, Star Wars, It’s a Wonderful Life.) And the reasons for the repeat viewings are different.