You're viewing a single thread.
Not watching TV and Film is the equivalent of saying "I don't read" in the Victorian era. Good fiction explores the human condition. It poses questions to the reader / viewer to consider. It uses alternative settings to reframe real world events and forces you to re-evaluate things from different perspectives. It can break you out of rutted thinking.
Now there's an awful lot of shit out there too, but not watching Schindler's List because Love Island is crap is ludicrous.
but not watching Schindler's List because Love Island is crap is ludicrous.
There devinetively are films that a lot of people should watch (Schindlers list is one of them), but mostly people don't refer to these xclassic films" but one of the 6 trillion other films that I havent watched. The Marvel films are nothing that someone should watch (they aren't one of the classic films)
Kind of a shit take. Printed material was the only widely distributable/available vehicle for fiction in the Victorian era, which is absolutely not true of tv/film in the modern era. I generally avoid TV and movies as well; not because I don't like fiction, but because I don't like my fiction to be filtered by financial ghouls and focus groups clutching their pearls hard enough to turn their knuckles white.
You know theatre existed, right? That was the predominate medium for fiction before the explosion of published literature in the 18th/19th century. Publishing became a business. Big business. Some of the richest people around were publishers. "Financial ghouls" filtering what was produced.
Film/TV is the dominant narrative art form of our age. Print was the dominant narrative art form in that time. Hence my comparison.
I know theatre existed, which is why I specifically qualified it as widely available/distributable. You cant just ignore half of the words I used when rebutting my argument then act like you addressed my point. The "dominance" of film and TV compared to other internet shareable media does not remotely compare to the dominance of print a few centuries ago; nothing else from the era even fits the modern definition of media. Print was the dominant form of media in the 17th century in the same way that your eyeballs are your dominant means of gathering visual information; there is literally no competition to be dominant of.
I think you misunderstood my point about financial ghouls; I'm not saying that I think early printed media was free of their influence, I'm saying that today I can easily access a huge body of media that exists without their focus grouping and "safe bets only" style of publishing monotony. This is significantly less true if I limit my forms of fiction intake to films and tv.
I think i should back up a bit; i don't really care that you're wrong about the relative influence of different forms of media in different time periods. I'm upset that your first comment extends an elitist epithet about a person not reading indicating the lack of a rich inner life. Acting like people don't know fiction if they don't consume it the same way the majority does is shitty and ableist, and that's the message presented by your top level comment. So I guess like, if my interpretation of your first post is correct I think you suck and I'm no longer interested in speaking with you, and if not feel free to correct me and collect the apology I'll owe you for getting vitriolic on the internet over a misunderstanding.