It’s too bad our motto isn’t something about “Fighting pretentious, psuedo-intellectual douchebaggery since Christ was a corporal.”
If it’s pretentious and pseudo-intellectual and douche-baggy to be surprised so many people here find Shakespeare “boring”, then I’m guilty.
What I don’t get: anti-intellectualism.
I’ve been seeing movies as early as possible in the past few years, but only because the rotation has gotten so fast that if I take my time, the movie might be out of the theatre before I get around to it. (And even if they were all available on DVD, 3-4 movies a year isn’t worth it to buy a 3-D TV).
It’s a good thing, then, that nobody here is anti-intellectual. It’s psuedo-intellectualism that it should be our mission to eradicate.
How do you define “pseudo-intellectualism”? Does having a PhD and having spending countless hours reading books and academic papers on a subject qualify as pseudo-intellectualism?
Note for future use: we have found the hot-button of yet another mesage board user. Fascinating.
deleted because it violates forum rules.
I think the distinction is this. To say a work of art bores you is a completely reasonable statement that does not require any defense. To say something is boring implies it is stupid and worthless. People sometimes say the latter when they mean the former. Other times “x is boring” is used by people who believe the world should conform to their tastes, and that’s a very irritating attitude to come across.
To say Shakespeare is boring is an ignorant statement, he was a pretty sharp observer of human nature. There are lot of valid reasons why many people don’t enjoy his work (style, archaic language, absurd plot points etc.). Personally, I’ve had more enjoyment reading about his work and the impact it’s had than I’d get from actually sitting through one of his plays.
Well explained. I love Fargo, but that scene always makes me cringe. It also has a great soundtrack that fits the style and mood of the film perfectly.
The Sims
raises hand By the end of winter, I do get a little tired of it, but seasons are important to me. I could not live in a climate without snow, and preferably, lots of it.
I don’t get the fascination with bacon. Now, I love bacon, I even cure and smoke my own bacon from time to time. I just don’t get the rapturous delight for bacon. Why not the same reaction for sausage, a far more versatile and varied pork item? And bacon does not make everything taste better. It makes everything taste more bacon-like, which isn’t always a good thing. I refuse to put bacon on my hamburgers, because, to me, it kills the beef flavor.
Oh, which reminds me, Angry Birds. I’ve played the free version of the game a number of times on my iPhone, and I simply don’t get the love for it. It’s boring. On the same note, those Facebook games like Mafia Wars and Farmville. I just don’t get them.
I’d say it’s more typical of the Coen’s. Their directorial approach has been less of one of tightly integrated plotting and more one of rambling tangents that don’t do much besides add background color to characters and environments. They are incredibly enjoyable tangents, but otherwise not a critical foundation of the movie.
I found the Marge scene technically unnecessary to the movie, but very enjoyable to watch and well written and performed.
I agree. I never connected that scene and Marge’s subsequent scepticism. I liked it mainly because it was an enjoyable irrelevant tangent. If it had not been interesting it wouldn’t have worked, but not enough people are talented enough to include little tangents like this and pull it off.
It adds realism to a story, sort of like saying “goodbye” when you hang up the phone, which isn’t technically necessary to telling a story but which does require you to suspend disbelief.
Another thing about this that I don’t get is that professional sportsmen/women usually have nothing whatsoever to do with the place that they’re representing and will move to any rival team when offered more money or the team has a higher status then their present one without a moments hesitation.
I am a huge Shakespeare fan. Shakespeare was a minor field for my Masters. I’ve published a paper on *Titus Andronicus *(even though I can’t spell it). That being said, it is not ignorant *per se *to find Shakespeare boring. It *may *display ignorance in that Shakespeare may be difficult for a 21st-century consumer to digest and, as such, finding his work boring may indicate a lack of background. Perhaps as likely, however, is that this is a matter of taste. I consider myself reasonably well-versed in film, for example, and I find most of David Lean’s work to be astonishingly boring. It’s not a matter of intelligence or even background; it’s a matter of taste (though I do concede it may reflect culture).
I can’t see where the Kubrick detractors in this thread are coming from, but that’s OK too, I guess.
Weighing in on Fargo: I’m sure most police officers, including one as seasoned as Marge, have plenty of background dealing with BS from perps. What Marge probably wasn’t looking for was criminal lying from someone like Jerry–middle class, educated, “responsible” as far as she knew. Dealing with offenders day in and day out may lead to a certain tendency to categorize people according to social standing. Being reminded that a successful, intelligent guy like Mike is entirely capable of weaving a boldfaced lie was a wake-up call: suspect everyone, even those who you find respectable. I thought it was a nice touch.
I’m not even talking about just porn. Even just relationships. They refuse to even look at female characters. Every single new series they take in, they automatically slash the guys. These are the people who live slash/yaoi as a lifestyle, not just a preference.
Secretly, I think these are the people who would drop slash like a hot potato as soon as it fell out of style or became too mainstream. They are the lesbians until graduation of fandom.
Well, there’s reality TV and reality TV. Some of what passes for Reality TV is nothing of the sort. Survivor, The Apprentice, The Amazing Race, Fear Factor - these were all deemed “Reality TV” but really are nothing more than game shows. I mean, take a bunch of people competing for money and prizes - that’s a game show. Sure, they’re a bit more exotic than Wheel of Fortune, but the result is the same.
Versus the type of Reality TV that involve witnessing a day in the life of a person/group of people. It’s not about the outcome per se, it’s about the experiences they have. Something like The Osbornes, or The Kardashians, that show about Hefner and his girlfriends. Those are slightly more reality.
Then there are shows about particular industries, like the one about Alaskan crab fishing, or Ice Road Truckers, or whatever. The cover a particular set of people and the challenges they face, and the daily drama of their lives.
While these later elements rely on drawing on the parallels of standard fiction, the first set play on the emotions of watching something happen that you can’t control and guessing at the outcome. Actually, there is a connection between watching sports and watching game shows. Both involve watching somebody else compete, try to accomplish something. There is some element of vicarious experience in putting yourself in their place. The more you invest in the players, the more you care for the outcome, which is controlled by chance as well as the mutual trade off of skill. That’s what makes them interesting - not just the trade off of skill directly, but the element of chance. Sports wouldn’t be nearly as interesting if it were simply a matter of who was biggest or who had the most hours of training or other objective, measurable criteria. It’s the unmeasurables that allow variation, the lack of ability to predict the outcome, that makes the drama of the experience.
And since it relies investing an emotional attachment to the players, the more you watch a set of players, the more you become committed. So watching one game is one level of involvment, watching a tournament a bit more, a season a bit more. If you get invested in the team over a stretch of time, it becomes more important to you to stay with.
And like a lot of things, if the “team” is what you’re invested in rather than just the individual players, then the team keeps the loyalty even if the players change.
Kinda like the old adage about an old sailing ship. Sure, it’s been repaired numerous times, rebuilt a couple times, and there probably isn’t a board or plank in it that was original, but it’s still the same ship by the same name because it carries the chain of being of that original ship. A team is the same way.
I get your point, and perspective is a bit of this. From the executive’s standpoint, it is all about competition. They want a program that will get the biggest audience, and they want to put it in the slot it will get the biggest audience and hopefully outdo the competition, i.e. the other channels, in that time slot. That is “winning”. So they do things like move shows around willy nilly, moving time slots and nights, to try to fit their overall product to be the best they can create, as determined by market share. And if they see a program fall below their determination of appropriate market share, the show gets canceled, regardless of the quality of the show or the efforts of the cast and crew.
Joss Whedon could write the Best Show on Television, but if the Fox executive doesn’t like it because it was greenlighted by his predecessor, then Whedon’s show is going to be abused, not find a large enough audience, and then be canceled. Similarly, shows that have consistent but not quite up to standards level of following have been moved from the “flagship” channel to the cable “back room”, where market share to be competitive is much smaller. Such as Law and Order: Criminal Intent.
Because of the involvement of chance, and the elements of team investment I mentioned, and some people are suckers for the underdog.
People do that all the time, then give it a contemporary name. Can’t think of an example off hand. Well, I can, but can’t recall the name. Famous musical based on Romeo and Juliet.
Someone once commented that the reason the British were so fascinated with Indian food was because, have you ever tried British food? They set out to conquer and colonize the world to bring back something worth eating. So, “yeah it’s horrid, but at least it isn’t XXXX.” 
Along those lines, I’ve never understood getting drunk, especially the way many college age folk do. Go out drinking, get so drunk you don’t even remember what you did, then the next morning have a splitting headache and be sick to your stomach, and your friends make fun of you for what you did - woohoo, let’s do that again!
I have a few autographs from a few celebrities. But I only get them in person, not buy preautographed items. Having the signed photo is a bit of a momento of meeting them. But I don’t gather them as a collector, just as something that gets me a chance to talk to the person. And I only get them in appropriate situations, like signings at conventions and stuff. I’m not going to find my favorite star on the street and run up and demand they sign a random piece of trash because I don’t have anything else handy. Getting a picture with them would be nice, too, but you need a camera for that. Maybe that’s easier now with cameras on cell phones.
There’s something to that. Another situation - why can you walk down the street in a Peyton Manning jersey or whatever and nobody thinks a thing, but you wear a Star Trek uniform once and you’re a nut? Why is your fandom mainstream and my fandom crazy?
I agree. I mean, I get interested in certain movies and want to see them as soon as possible, but that get’s countered by the craziness of standing in line, dealing with crowds, etc. I’d just as soon go the second weekend and have half the hassles.
As I said, the cummulative effect makes the overall experience less enjoyable. It’s the numbers effect. Five people wanting into the same movie theater is no problem. Fifty people is probably okay depending upon the theater. Five hundred is going to be a nuisance.
Except it doesn’t mean exactly the same thing. Sure, by denotation that is correct, but words carry connotation, too. And there are places where ignorant - or probably ignernt - is used as a replacement for stupid. If you come from there, it’s difficult to separate the knowledge of the words official meaning from the meaning it conveys in that subculture.
But why should I go off and invest time in learning why some particular thing is interesting to others on the assumption I’ll eventually find it interesting, if I don’t find it interesting enough in the first place to care? Why should I devote time and effort into trying to make something interesting when I find it boring? Can’t you accept that someone may not get it, and may not care enough to go learn enough to get it?
It depends. If your 12-year-old son tells you that “reading is boring”, do you tell him “that’s OK son, go back to your video games, I won’t suggest you try to read ever again.”? At a certain point, I think it is a genuine problem of character to not consider devoting time to something just because you find it boring at first. In the real world, you have to realize that some things take effort. No pain, no gain, as they say.
But that is a not really the point I was trying to make. I’m not particularly invested in whether or not you bother to devote time and effort into trying to make something interesting for yourself. But if you don’t put time and effort in, would you have the humility to refrain from calling it “boring?” I realize that you may simply mean “I am bored by it, possibly because I never put in the time and effort to appreciate it.” But if by calling it “boring” you are passing some sort of value judgment on it, then I hope you would only do so if you have put a lot of time and effort into trying to appreciate it and have come away with a coherent argument for why it is not worthy of appreciation.
I suppose their are horrible performers at their sport, but even on the worst teams there are individuals, or parts of the game in which they do very well. You could have a team that loses every game by a point - overall, they’re losers, but it’s not like they are completely talentless - and the game is entertaining. Professional, or even high level amateur athletes don’t suck at their jobs, generally. It’s just that there’s another professional they’re competing against that’s better. On that day.
My high school football team was terrible - usually won only 2 or 3 games a season - but we had individually good players, and usually were “in the game” at halftime. So if all you cared about was the score, you wouldn’t have found it interesting. But there’s a good play here… and a good one there… and that guy did a good job on that block… and so forth. And the refs are against us. 
I think the nuance lost here is in not understanding the game in multiple dimensions. I used to hate football as a kid, because I didn’t understand what was going on, what the strategy was. It’s like watching chess players in the park. I used to see people flocked around watching people play… and I was like, WTF? But I had to accept I have a very cursory understanding of chess. If I understood it better I could see why people were so interested.
Just for the record, I don’t get boxing (especially long fights that are decided by judges). Please, knock the guy out in the first three rounds so I can turn it off. I also don’t get televised poker… it seems boring beyond belief and a terrific waste of HD technology. But again, I don’t really have a complex understanding of these activities. If I did, I imagine I’d appreciate it on a deeper level.
I guess I would analogize to being a fan of a band… do you have a favorite band? I have many, and I play music too. I just really like how the bands I favor do it. And I love jamming with my friends, but I also like seeing really good musicians play. I admire it and enjoy it. What about when the band plays a favorite song or anthem? Everyone collectively feels something special. I don’t think it’s an either/or. In fact, I think potentially some of the fun and enjoyment of music, sports, etc. is diminished when you do the same things. I don’t think I’m any more of a Police fan than a fan who doesn’t play bass, for instance.
And I see that… but I think you have a basis from which it is very easy to understand why people get invested. How is a rabid Indianapolis Colts fan that can rattle off any stat imaginable any different from a Joss Whedon fan who has watched every episode of every show he’s created? The quality varies, some were hits, some were duds, but you like something about that writer. I guess I see fandom in all of its guises as pretty much the same.
If my 12 year old son doesn’t want to read because he thinks it is boring, I have a vested interest in teaching him that a) some things that are boring are nevertheless necessities, b) some things that seem boring at first become interesting if explored. But that doesn’t apply to random strangers.
But yeah, if I find something bores me, it is fair for me to think that activity is boring, and wonder why people find it interesting, in the same way people may thing thinks I do are boring and wonder why I find them interesting.
If you want to lament that people act that way, feel free, but don’t expect other people to care.