|
Hbomberguy posted:There's a massive difference between feeling a certain way and actually being it. One isn't real. What's the difference between feeling sad and being sad? This is a linguistic trick, but it's also perfectly illustrative.
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 11:55 |
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:There's a massive difference between feeling a certain way and actually being it. One isn't real. Butter? It's not!
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
computer parts posted:By the same token, isn't trying to maintain a border between society and pop culture a delusion? Not as big a delusion as the border between me and your mom, last night.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Exactly, yes. See, this is why I hate JJ Abrams' mystery box publicity for Star Wars so much. It is entirely predicated on not being "the enemy", by neither being a spoiler or being George Lucas (see the promo hyperemphasis on real sets! real props!).
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Corek posted:See, this is why I hate JJ Abrams' mystery box publicity for Star Wars so much. It is entirely predicated on not being "the enemy", by neither being a spoiler or being George Lucas (see the promo hyperemphasis on real sets! real props!). Not being "the enemy" is a Disney thing, I think. Age of Ultron seems like it had several scenes inserted specifically to say "we're not like that gritty Man of Steel, honest! Now watch Hulk tear up a city."
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:What's the difference between feeling sad and being sad? They are both describing the same thing - there is a difference between emotions and 'immersion', a wholly abstract sense that is never actually achieved. With drugs, you can be made to feel 'like' your skin is made of clay.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:They are both describing the same thing - there is a difference between emotions and 'immersion', a wholly abstract sense that is never actually achieved. Immersion is an emotional state, or a combination of them. It's not a question of knowledge, and there's no physical analogue to test against, like butter or clay or skin. We do not have access to a platonic ideal of immersion, any more than we do to one of sadness. Your analogies aren't appropriate. e: A drug could both create the subjective experience that your skin is made of clay, and also the conviction that your skin is made of clay. The conviction contradicts reality, but the experience just is, and it's the experience that I'm talking about. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Jul 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Being immersed and feeling immersed aren't the same thing. One of them is impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Being immersed and feeling immersed aren't the same thing. One of them is impossible. "Experiencing something as if it were real, to a limited or partial degree" and the experience which makes fiction possible are the same thing. If you want me to use a different word for that, I'll do so as a courtesy. But they are the same thing, and neither are impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
What are you guys even arguing about anymore? Problem with spoilers isn't that they break some kind of immersion or whatever, it's just that watching a movie knowing a certain twist or a plot point is different than watching that movie without knowing it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 20:53
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Being immersed and feeling immersed aren't the same thing. One of them is impossible. jesus, when you're in a hole quit digging
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:"Experiencing something as if it were real, to a limited or partial degree" Exactly. It feels real but is not. Being immersed and feeling immersed aren't the same thing. One of them is impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:"Experiencing something as if it were real, to a limited or partial degree" and the experience which makes fiction possible are the same thing. If you want me to use a different word for that, I'll do so as a courtesy. But they are the same thing, and neither are impossible. 'Immersion' is a concept wholly distinct from 'suspension of disbelief'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
rvm posted:Problem with spoilers isn't that they break some kind of immersion or whatever, it's just that watching a movie knowing a certain twist or a plot point is different than watching that movie without knowing it. Apparently that difference is like, all in our heads or something. Or there is no true reality, therefore to know something is the same as to not know it. Or something. I'm dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Exactly. It feels real but is not. I have been using "immersion," from the start, to describe the feeling. Your objection is a non sequitur. SuperMechagodzilla posted:'Immersion' is a concept wholly distinct from 'suspension of disbelief'. Before I even respond to this, which term (if either) would you assign to the subject I've been talking about?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Apparently that difference is like, all in our heads or something. Or there is no true reality, therefore to know something is the same as to not know it. Or something. I'm dumb. You're not dumb, I'm just not very good at expressing myself clearly. You know that fiction isn't real, but the ability to imagine it is helps. Some things make imagining so easier, or harder. It's a good talent, and something worth working at, to be able to treat any fiction that way, no matter how unfamiliar it is. But some people have more difficulty with it than others, and the way CineD sometimes treats that like a sin instead of just a very minor shortcoming is stupid; especially because someone like that can still have rational/intellectual insight into a film anyways. Also I said earlier that going into a film unspoiled might be one of the things that helps, but that was an intuitive leap and I'm more likely to be wrong about that than anything else I've said.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Before I even respond to this, which term (if either) would you assign to the subject I've been talking about? In the case of the efficient symbolic fiction of the judge wearing his insignia, "I know very well that this person is a corrupt weakling, but I nonetheless treat him as if I believe that the symbolic big Other speaks through him": I disavow what my eyes tell me and choose to believe the symbolic fiction. On the contrary, in the case of the simulacrum of virtual reality, "I know very well that what I see is an illusion generated by digital machinery, but I nonetheless accept to immerse myself in it, to behave as if I believe it." Here, I disavow what my (symbolic) knowledge tells me and choose to believe my eyes only... -Slavoj Zizek, "The Big Other Doesn't Exist" From what I can tell, you are conflating these things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
I was thinking to myself "maybe I should reread 'On Fairy Stories' and decide if I agree with it or not" but, of course, a Zizek works too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:I have been using "immersion," from the start, to describe the feeling. But feeling immersed and being immersed are different things, and one of them is impossible. There is nothing beneath the screen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:But some people have more difficulty with it than others, and the way CineD sometimes treats that like a sin instead of just a very minor shortcoming is stupid; especially because someone like that can still have rational/intellectual insight into a film anyways. Maybe these people should try harder, e.g. by consuming more media and thinking about how that media worked. They would then be less reliant on concepts like 'plausibility', 'likeability' and, yes, 'immersion' - concepts that are subjective, arbitrary and get in the way of good discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Not being "the enemy" is a Disney thing, I think. Age of Ultron seems like it had several scenes inserted specifically to say "we're not like that gritty Man of Steel, honest! Now watch Hulk tear up a city." Exactly. Ever since Disney's founding it's been totally unlike the other studios in positioning itself as more moral and ethical. It almost drove the company into the ground multiple times.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:-Slavoj Zizek, "The Big Other Doesn't Exist"
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:But feeling immersed and being immersed are different things, and one of them is impossible. "There is nothing beneath the screen" is not an insightful or meaningful statement. If the viewer is being immersed in anything, it's a simulation they create by interpreting what they see on the screen. You build it out of what you see, personal experiences, and cultural expectations, and it fills the gaps left by artifice -- lets you mentally replace "actors, props, and sets" with "people, things, and objects." If you suspend disbelief easily, or if the fiction goes to great lengths to disguise itself -- or the two meet in the middle -- then it's easier to be affected, and more strongly affected, by this simulation. You are, in my admittedly haphazard use of the word, immersed. I think SMG would call the process and the end state "suspension of disbelief" and means something else by immersion, but I don't know what that something else would be. When people complain about lack of immersion, it always seemed to me that this was what they were talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Fictional Films aren't documentaries about events that happened in a fictional Universe, because the telling is indistinguishable from the thing being told. Even documentaries are partially fictional, in that they are a product of a specific perspective. A cut happens; time is distorted. Information is given to you by the execution of the plot, shaping it and your reaction. The sense of immersion is illusory, because there is nothing to be immersed in. It is a dream of the story, but without the part where it is told a specific way. There's a fairly large correlation between people who don't like certain films (prometheus, man of steel, the SW PT) while only rigidly talking about them in terms of plot, and an unwillingness (or inability) to read the images in the films. In much the same way, books are more fun when you can read the words.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:There's a fairly large correlation between people who don't like certain films (prometheus, man of steel, the SW PT) while only rigidly talking about them in terms of plot, and an unwillingness (or inability) to read the images in the films. In much the same way, books are more fun when you can read the words. I don't know about this one bud
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Fictional Films aren't documentaries about events that happened in a fictional Universe, because the telling is indistinguishable from the thing being told. Even documentaries are partially fictional, in that they are a product of a specific perspective. A cut happens; time is distorted. Information is given to you by the execution of the plot, shaping it and your reaction. Of course they aren't. But they mimic recognizable events like those that happen in a real universe because that familiarity has emotional power. The artifice, in most cases, emphasizes parts of the illusion that are more important, more central to what it's trying to communicate. But some of its power to influence us still comes from the illusion -- there's a balance between the two. Hbomberguy posted:There's a fairly large correlation between people who don't like certain films (prometheus, man of steel, the SW PT) while only rigidly talking about them in terms of plot, and an unwillingness (or inability) to read the images in the films. In much the same way, books are more fun when you can read the words. I know! I spent pages and pages arguing against people with exactly that kind of viewpoint in the Prometheus thread. But I wouldn't have cared in the first place if the disintegration of Shaw's faith, or David's alienation and confusion towards human beings didn't speak to me... almost as if they were people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:I don't know about this one bud If that's all you can talk about in the visuals of a film, of course you're not going to enjoy it. I remember not liking lots of films and shows back when I couldn't see these things either. I expected to be immersed by the work, instead of making the conscious choice to engage with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
To be honest I didn't realize the term "spoiler" only referred to plot. I mean, practically that's what most people are talking about when they say they had something spoiled for them, but I'd feel the same way if I saw a particularly beautiful shot posted somewhere vs. a plot synopsis. Its something that I'd rather have discovered for myself with the full intended context.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Like, in the Prometheus thread, at best they'd talk about how pretty things were, like the landscapes. Very rarely, if at all, was there a discussion of shots, cuts, visual storytelling, the camera placement, blocking, et cetera. Consciously noticing those things is a skill, in addition to being a decision. It's not quite the same as literacy, though. To an illiterate, a book is just scribbles. They aren't going to absorb its meaning by osmosis. But that's exactly what happens when someone with no formal knowledge of film watches a movie. Sure, they're going to be very conscious of the plot, but generally speaking, they're also going to be at least subconsciously aware of the message. Some of the most common complaints against Prometheus were along the lines of "a scientist would never do something so stupid" or "the wealthiest man alive would never screw up an expedition so badly." These are both wrong, but they aren't the errors of illiteracy -- they're ideological mistakes. These people understood the message of the film, and it made them angry because they don't agree with it. And that happens partly, and ironically, because Prometheus is a well-constructed film. Basebf555 posted:To be honest I didn't realize the term "spoiler" only referred to plot. I mean, practically that's what most people are talking about when they say they had something spoiled for them, but I'd feel the same way if I saw a particularly beautiful shot posted somewhere vs. a plot synopsis. Its something that I'd rather have discovered for myself with the full intended context. There's no reason what you're describing shouldn't count. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Jul 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Wookiepedia Nerd MRA Trekkie Jews don't like spoilers?! Bring on the spoilers!
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
I don't think it's possible to innately understand a film - cinema is more of a language of its own that requires a specific, and learnable, approach to appreciate. Much like books. Reading is apparently a chore for some people, and spoilers, well, spoil the experience. Which implies a person will spend hours reading something and only take it from it things like 'shrek died'. I enjoy things more knowing 'what happens' in advance, since that's the least important part. Heart of Darkness is the best book ever not because of its plot but because even the descriptions of the lighting in the boat at the beginning make a point about human nature. On a basic level, a piece of art is paradigm and syntagm at once.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
rvm posted:What are you guys even arguing about anymore? Watching a movie knowing what a policeman does for a living, or that in action movies the hero usually wins, or that the lights on the screen are not showing real things that are actually happening and can be influenced by you shouting at the characters, is also different from watching a movie not knowing these things. You'll never get back the sense of wonder you felt watching your first big effects spectacle as a small child with no knowledge of the world, but that's okay because you're an adult now, knowing things is inevitable and supposed to be a good thing. If your enjoyment of watching movies is so ephemeral and trivial it can be sucked away just by knowing facts, that's your problem, not a universal human condition, and it's easy to fix where making all discussion of movies you haven't watched go away just by yelling at the internet isn't. You have chosen to hang your happiness on the incidental references of vague acquaintances and then thrown yourself into the public discourse, this does not place the whole rest of the world under any obligation to you. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 14:04 on Jul 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 13:55
|
|
|
People scream especially loud about GOT spoilers because surprise is literally the only feeling that garbage show is capable of eliciting and its fans are philistinic bottom feeders.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 14:05
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:You'll never get back the sense of wonder you felt watching your first big effects spectacle as a small child with no knowledge of the world Why have goons been harping on this so hard lately? What is with these bouts of faddish wisdom that go around? Spectacle doesn't go away as you age, it's just different things that push the awe buttons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
idk man like why are half the big-budget movies that came out this summer a sequel, remake, or reference to something kids liked in the 80s, aimed squarely at an audience that was small children in the 80s. You can totally enjoy things just as good as a grownup that was kinda my point, but whether or not you believe that like naive wonderment at seeing a rubber tyrannosaur for the first time really exists loads of people sure as hell do, and believe it can be manufactured, to the tune of billions of dollars
A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Jul 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:idk man like why are half the big-budget movies that came out this summer a sequel, remake, or reference to something kids liked in the 80s, aimed squarely at an audience that was small children in the 80s. You can totally enjoy things just as good as a grownup that was kinda my point, but whether or not you believe that like naive wonderment at seeing a rubber tyrannosaur for the first time really exists loads of people sure as hell do to the tune of billions of dollars Why is wonderment naive? Why do you loathe others' desires to seek emotional experiences?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
The Time Dissolver posted:Why is wonderment naive? Why do you loathe others' desires to seek emotional experiences? what other kind of wonderment are you talking about that can be demolished by knowing facts, that's basically definitional dude
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
If I was able to tell you the date of your death, and did so, would it affect how you live your life? "Nah man, I am not some weak womanly irrational creature of destructive emotionality, I am smart and intellectual with a non-feeling mind honed obsidian-sharp from thinking hard about everything all the time but never ever feeling anything, nosirree"
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
I'm not sure cause I've never tried it but I'm pretty positive it wouldn't lead to me melting down and gibbering about obsidian or whatever the gently caress, guy. maybe you need an outdoor hobby.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 11:55 |
|
|
The Time Dissolver posted:Why have goons been harping on this so hard lately? What is with these bouts of faddish wisdom that go around? Spectacle doesn't go away as you age, it's just different things that push the awe buttons. The specific spectacle does go away as you age, much like the specific movie's twist is known to you forever more even if a similar movie isn't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 15:07
|
|