Does today's generation "see/understand" TV and movies differently?

[Cephus]

I refer you back to my post #9 in this thread.

Which is why I said OBJECTIVE. Your feelings don't mean a damn thing.

 

[Paul Andrew]

Disagree. The problem that we see is that a lot of people lack the capacity to watch things IN THE CONTEXT of the time they were made. I just rewatched both Six Million Dollar Man and Bionic Woman and, IN THE CONTEXT of their time, both are still very enjoyable. You can't compare the writing or the effects to modern efforts because they weren't made in the modern era. They are 50 year old shows. You have to be able to look at them with 50 year old eyes and they're just as good as they ever were.

In another 50 years, people are going to look at what is considered good today and not be very appreciative. Just taking these shows and looking at the structure, they just don't stand up. "I like it now" isn't the same thing as "it's objectively good".

That's kind of the whole point of the thread. If this next generation lacks the context to view those older shows the way we do, we equally lack the context to view things the way they do. The whole of the premise is subjective right from the start, and where we as people and fans get into trouble is when we decide shows are objectively good or bad.

When we decide something is objectively good or bad, it puts your brain into a binary space where no other option is acceptable. After all, it's plainly good/bad. How can this other person not tell that it's good/bad? Are they somehow stupider than I am? They must be. It's clearly the best/worst thing ever made.

Frankly, the biggest problem we as fans have is our lead-footed stubbornness to accept that other people from different ages or demographics will have a different POV on the things we love/hate, and that it's not just fine that they do, but BETTER that we don't all see these things the same way.

 

[Captain Dunsel]

Which is why I said OBJECTIVE. Your feelings don't mean a damn thing.

“I reject your reality and substitute my own…”



In all seriousness; it’s all individual opinions, preferences, and tastes. Barking at each other (as these threads always turn into—and often are deliberately designed to turn into, by virtue of the questions posed to kick the thread off) isn’t going to change any of that for anyone. I leave it to everyone else in this thread who continues to want to debate these subjective factors.

I’ve stated my opinion, which really, in the end, matters only to me. It’s not my agenda to either change anyone else’s opinion or to adopt anyone else’s opinion.

Cheers, all!

 

[Cephus]

That's kind of the whole point of the thread. If this next generation lacks the context to view those older shows the way we do, we equally lack the context to view things the way they do. The whole of the premise is subjective right from the start, and where we as people and fans get into trouble is when we decide shows are objectively good or bad.

But that is the point. They don't seem to have a context, period. They don't seem to have a standard by which they judge anything, period. You can't have intelligent conversations with anyone whose entire viewpoint is based on fee-fees.

That's the entire problem!

 

[Paul Andrew]

But that is the point. They don't seem to have a context, period. They don't seem to have a standard by which they judge anything, period. You can't have intelligent conversations with anyone whose entire viewpoint is based on fee-fees.

That's the entire problem!

If media is art, and art is defined as a work that is designed to elicit emotions, then literally art is supposed to be viewed based on feelings.

Literally that is the purpose of all art, everywhere, ever, in the history of mankind.

I think the problem is that some folks want to divorce the technical processes (which can more easily be lumped into good/bad - done well/done poorly) that go into making these shows from the finished product, or perhaps they can't see the product beyond how they view those processes.

All that aside, they do have a context, and that context is that how art makes you feel after consuming it is important. Which makes sense, given that the purpose of art is to make you feel something.

 

[Lord Boron]

Movies are are just so disposable these days. They play in the theaters for a few weeks, then are repeated, ad nauseam, on TV until you can’t stand the sight of it. I remember when The Empire Strikes Back came out, it played in the theater here for a year. And it was a big event when it showed up on TV in it low-def, pan-and-scanned glory. It’s hard to view movies the same when they aren’t marketed the same.

 

[Axlotl]

If media is art, and art is defined as a work that is designed to elicit emotions, then literally art is supposed to be viewed based on feelings.

Literally that is the purpose of all art, everywhere, ever, in the history of mankind.

I think the problem is that some folks want to divorce the technical processes (which can more easily be lumped into good/bad - done well/done poorly) that go into making these shows from the finished product, or perhaps they can't see the product beyond how they view those processes.

All that aside, they do have a context, and that context is that how art makes you feel after consuming it is important. Which makes sense, given that the purpose of art is to make you feel something.

I would argue that all media is not art.
Some media is pure artistic expression, sure. But most of it is designed by committee to serve a purpose. That purpose being to make money. There's not much soul in something designed by a committee. It's not made to be art for art's sake, it's made to function.
I'm an artist and a designer, and while art and design may overlap at times, they're separate and distinct disciplines. I make art to test my talents and satisfy my whims, I design for committees who expect to make a profit.

 

[Paul Andrew]

I would argue that all media is not art.
Some media is pure artistic expression, sure. But most of it is designed by committee to serve a purpose. That purpose being to make money. There's not much soul in something designed by a committee. It's not made to be art for art's sake, it's made to function.
I'm an artist and a designer, and while art and design may overlap at times, they're separate and distinct disciplines. I make art to test my talents and satisfy my whims, I design for committees who expect to make a profit.

You're not wrong, but for every show out there, good or bad, somebody poured a lot of time and effort into their own area of passion to make it happen, whether its a VFX artist or model maker or whathaveyou, every show needs artists to make it go. You're not going to want to hang each show in a museum, but they're all art of one degree or another.

 

[pengbuzz]

Ah, so you're a HHGTTG fan!

Was my Babel Fish sticking out of my ear or something? lol

 

[pengbuzz]

One honest thing I have noticed is:

• Movie quality has severely sunk over the past 15 years or so as studios must market more expensive films to the lowest common denominator: the global market. Thus sequels, reboots, endlessly repetitive MCU movies, etc. that have universal appeal and recognizable branding. No risks are happening at the cinema.
• Non-Network Television Quality—overall--has never been better than it is now. Anyone who honestly believes that we had a lot more quality TV shows over the past 40-50 years is dramatically mis-remembering things. Go back and try to re-watch Lost in Space, The A-Team, Knight Rider, Airwolf, The Bionic Man, The Bionic Woman, Starsky and Hutch, Chips, Riptide, Alice, Gilligan’s Island, Happy Days, The Fall Guy, Mork and Mindy, Three’s Company, The Love Boat…most of these shows are utter crap and we know it. Only a few decades-old shows are still watchable , have stood the test of time, and are designated as true “Classics” such as I love Lucy, The Honeymooners, Mission: Impossible, Star Trek, Twilight Zone, Star Trek: TNG, Star Trek: DS9, M*A*S*H, The Outer Limits, Night Gallery, etc.

People complain that TV is utter crap now and was soooo much better years ago, but I have to disagree. There is a lot of great television out there, made within the past decade or so, with excellent writing, acting, production quality, etc.: Nu-Battlestar Galactica, Mad Men, For All Mankind, Severance, Stranger Things, Handmaid’s Tale, The Sinner, Ozark, etc. These shows blow most of the television made in the prior 40-50 years out of the water and I’m not just talking about production quality…I’m talking about writing, acting, and just overall quality.

Movies on the other hand…they are definitely in terrible shape. I have only seen ONE excellent and memorable movie in the past 2 years, and that was the most recent version of Dune.

Actually, I like watching the A-Team and Knight Rider! The cheesiness and 80's feel is what attract me to them, and I get endless laughs from seeing the good guys and bad guys not being able to hit each other with gunfire, even though they're only 5 feet apart! :rofl:

 

[Cephus]

I would argue that all media is not art.
Some media is pure artistic expression, sure. But most of it is designed by committee to serve a purpose. That purpose being to make money. There's not much soul in something designed by a committee. It's not made to be art for art's sake, it's made to function.
I'm an artist and a designer, and while art and design may overlap at times, they're separate and distinct disciplines. I make art to test my talents and satisfy my whims, I design for committees who expect to make a profit.

In fact, I would argue that most media has no artistic merit these days, nor is it intended to. It's all about making a buck, which is fine, but that's commercial, not artistic. It can be both, but certainly, the overwhelming majority of TV shows aren't artistic in the least and it's absurd to react to them that way.

 

[Cephus]

You're not wrong, but for every show out there, good or bad, somebody poured a lot of time and effort into their own area of passion to make it happen, whether its a VFX artist or model maker or whathaveyou, every show needs artists to make it go. You're not going to want to hang each show in a museum, but they're all art of one degree or another.

So what? If it doesn't get viewers and ratings, it gets canceled nonetheless. In fact, I'd argue that there is a dead minimum of effort put into these shows, most of them have no clue what they'll do if they get a second season. They cared so little that they didn't even bother to think about an overall story arc!

 

[Paul Andrew]

So what? If it doesn't get viewers and ratings, it gets canceled nonetheless. In fact, I'd argue that there is a dead minimum of effort put into these shows, most of them have no clue what they'll do if they get a second season. They cared so little that they didn't even bother to think about an overall story arc!

None of that determines whether a thing is or isn't art. Those things determine whether it will be successful at hitting it's target audience, increasing viewership, getting ad money, etc.

Once a show hits the airwaves and is available for consumption it becomes art. It doesn't mean it's worthy of being a classic, but it does and should also be judged as art rather than just an an empty business vehicle.

 

[Psab keel]

But that's how commitees view art. They only see profits. They may like the ideas presented but they often aren't artists themselves. They know how to assemble creatives but often mistake themselves as artists when they are anything but. It's the misguided idea that anyone can be creative when some people simply aren't. There's nothing wrong with being proficient at different things outside the arts but let's not pretend that studio heads necessarily have the capacity to understand what works in a story and why. Perhaps some do, but most don't.

 

[Paul Andrew]

But that's how commitees view art. They only see profits. They may like the ideas presented but they often aren't artists themselves. They know how to assemble creatives but often mistake themselves as artists when they are anything but. It's the misguided idea that anyone can be creative when some people simply aren't. There's nothing wrong with being proficient at different things outside the arts but let's not pretend that studio heads necessarily have the capacity to understand what works in a story and why. Perhaps some do, but most don't.

None of that changes the fact that they still have to hire artists to make the things. I'm not saying that every piece of shlock out there should be judged like Citizen Kane, but if a thing is made by artists and then consumed as entertainment, it is art.

Art doesn't mean a starving person in a hut outside of a manor had to sweat and cry into his oil painting in order for it to truly be art, and art doesn't stop being art when it is exchanged for money. Money is the only reason that we continue to get new art. Yes, most suits are more concerned with the quantity of dollars versus the quality of the art, but that doesn't make the art not art.

 

[Picard102]

But that is the point. They don't seem to have a context, period. They don't seem to have a standard by which they judge anything, period. You can't have intelligent conversations with anyone whose entire viewpoint is based on fee-fees.

That's the entire problem!

The entire problem is people substituting words like feelings, with "context" to assume a position of superiority. There is no essential context people are missing if they don't enjoy the A-Team, and if they need to have grown up watching it to appreciate it, then it isn't context that's the issue.

 

[Captain Dunsel]

… I get endless laughs from seeing the good guys and bad guys not being able to hit each other with gunfire, even though they're only 5 feet apart! :rofl:

The same actors portrayed OT Imperial Stormtroopers, I believe.

This example of a typical “A-Team Fight” is hilarious …complete with an “Outta-Shape / In-Shape Tough Bad Guy”…

And, yes, I absolutely did love the show, when I was a kid.

 

[Psab keel]

The entire problem is people substituting words like feelings, with "context" to assume a position of superiority. There is no essential context people are missing if they don't enjoy the A-Team, and if they need to have grown up watching it to appreciate it, then it isn't context that's the issue.

I can agree that not every show or movie from the past needs to have a history lesson attached to it for a younger person to make up their mind about it. That said, context means understanding that the sensibilities of certain stories, meaning the attitudes of the characters may not line up with the current culture. That has nothing to do with the "feelings" of older audiences and everything to do with younger audience getting offended with older movies instead of trying to understand that a movie is a time capsule of the era in which it was made, whether for good or ill. Take Gone with the Wind for example. No one is assuming every audience grew up on classic films. No one here was alive when my above example was released, yet some older viewers love it. They also can separate their own feelings on the controversial subject matter and recall the history behind it, something many young people (not all, but some) clearly can't do.

 

[Picard102]

I can agree that not every show or movie from the past needs to have a history lesson attached to it for a younger person to make up their mind about it. That said, context means understanding that the sensibilities of certain stories, meaning the attitudes of the characters may not meet the current culture. That has nothing to do with the "feelings" of older audiences and everything to do with younger audience getting offended with older movies instead of trying to understand that a movie is a time capsule of the era in which it was made, whether for good or ill. Take Gone with the Wind for example.

I don't think that is representative of the overall "younger audience" at all, and a bit like saying all older audiences can't appreciate today's television because they get easily upset at seeing non-white people being included.

While both do happen, it's a case of the loudest being the most noticeable.

 

[Cephus]

None of that changes the fact that they still have to hire artists to make the things. I'm not saying that every piece of shlock out there should be judged like Citizen Kane, but if a thing is made by artists and then consumed as entertainment, it is art.

Art doesn't mean a starving person in a hut outside of a manor had to sweat and cry into his oil painting in order for it to truly be art, and art doesn't stop being art when it is exchanged for money. Money is the only reason that we continue to get new art. Yes, most suits are more concerned with the quantity of dollars versus the quality of the art, but that doesn't make the art not art.

I think you're reading way too much into it. This isn't art, it's disposable entertainment. When the show is over, the cast and crew just move on to something else.