Cinematic (and TV, What the Hell) Pet Peeves

[number8]

There must be some research behind this. I'm willing to bet somewhere someone said, 90 minutes is the maximum running time that a general audience can withstand during a horror film. People leave these films exhausted and drained.

Btw, the highest grossing horror movie of all time is 2h 15m.

[Dukefrukem]

Btw, the highest grossing horror movie of all time is 2h 15m.

Exorcist?

[D_Davis]

It.

[Dukefrukem]

Just looked it up. It's Exorcist adjusted for inflation. (2 hours and 2 minutes btw)

[number8]

Ehhhhhh... pretty sure 8 was joking.

Not entirely. I do frequent new installations by contemporary artists at modern art museums more often than Im inclined to go visit renaissance or mid century exhibits. I go to various museums fairly often but like if you ask me which artist whose work I've gone to see most often of it's probably Kahinde Wiley or Kara Walker.

Also about 90% of the time when i go see concerts it's usually bands with like one (or in today's SoundCloud era, none) album.

Also when it comes to literature I think it's crucial to always question the canon.

[number8]

Just looked it up. It's Exorcist adjusted for inflation. (2 hours and 2 minutes btw)

Another of my cinematic pet peeve: adjusting BO for inflation like that's supposed to mean anything.

I was talking about It.

[Dukefrukem]

Another of my cinematic pet peeve: adjusting BO for inflation like that's supposed to mean anything.

I was talking about It.

Well isn't the whole point of Box Office results a measure of how many people go see the movie? With ticket prices being so high in 2017, if the same amount of people went and saw Exorcist in 1973 and It in 2017, obviously the 2017 number will be higher. Exorcist would have been a better example to use to counter my 'no one goes to see 2 hour horror movies' post.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Also when it comes to literature I think it's crucial to always question the canon.

Absolutely agreed with this and would extend that to all modes of art.

[Sycophant]

Not entirely. I do frequent new installations by contemporary artists at modern art museums more often than Im inclined to go visit renaissance or mid century exhibits. I go to various museums fairly often but like if you ask me which artist whose work I've gone to see most often of it's probably Kahinde Wiley or Kara Walker.

Also about 90% of the time when i go see concerts it's usually bands with like one (or in today's SoundCloud era, none) album.

Also when it comes to literature I think it's crucial to always question the canon.

There's nothing I disagree with here (apart from which things you claim to go see more often--it's not really my place to agree or disagree with what you do). I dig "New art is better than old art" as a glib reductive statement to counter anyone who might claim that all art/lit/film/music today is not worth bothering with. As a polemic I like it, though I don't think it's a really defensible position.

Canons should be challenged, interrogated, revised, expanded, and sometimes decimated, but I don't think that necessarily means the texts within them shouldn't continue to be read by at least some. I think an inclination to not examine the traditions and purported classics of artistic forms and genres has its pitfalls as does the stance of those who dig in their heels and refuse to engage with anything new.

[Sycophant]

Box office is a lousy measurement for discussions of popularity outside of a particular moment in time (and has its limitations in that moment, too) and I wish we'd gotten our shit together and just started counting attendance decades ago.

[baby doll]

Also when it comes to literature I think it's crucial to always question the canon.

That goes without saying. But when it comes to choosing which novel to read in the first place, all things being equal, a book that's long been recognized as a classic is more likely to give pleasure than something that was published last week. Similarly, I'd wager that an exhibition of Renaissance or Baroque art is more likely to give pleasure than a contemporary exhibit, since most of the bad art from those periods hasn't been preserved.

[Grouchy]

Besides, new art is almost always engaging in conversation with old one. I don't know if the time for new subject matter is gone for good but it sure looks like it.

[D_Davis]

But when it comes to choosing which novel to read in the first place, all things being equal, a book that's long been recognized as a classic is more likely to give pleasure than something that was published last week.

This has not been my experience at all. I like to discover new stuff, most of the time. Not always. I did enjoy my read through the Hugo and Nebula winners a few years ago.

[number8]

That goes without saying. But when it comes to choosing which novel to read in the first place, all things being equal, a book that's long been recognized as a classic is more likely to give pleasure than something that was published last week. Similarly, I'd wager that an exhibition of Renaissance or Baroque art is more likely to give pleasure than a contemporary exhibit, since most of the bad art from those periods hasn't been preserved.

You've actually just gave the reason why I prefer new(er) art: the risk. When I read from the canon it's usually just a sense of me being a completionist. It doesn't give me nearly as much pleasure as not knowing anything about an author but supporting them when they need it and finding myself enjoying the work.

[number8]

Well isn't the whole point of Box Office results a measure of how many people go see the movie? With ticket prices being so high in 2017, if the same amount of people went and saw Exorcist in 1973 and It in 2017, obviously the 2017 number will be higher. Exorcist would have been a better example to use to counter my 'no one goes to see 2 hour horror movies' post.

If you're going to adjust to inflation as a way to level the comparison between current and past movies, why aren't we also adjusting the math to the change in number of theaters in the country, the way film distribution model has radically changed, the effect of the introduction of home viewing availabilities, the effect of competition from video games and television, and the arrival of multiple formats that readjusted theater pricing? Just adjusting to inflation is an incomplete metric that makes it even more unfair than just accepting that box office intakes have changed over the years and it's all just counting how much money a film makes in the end anyway.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Once you're comparing films separated by more than, like, five years, it becomes increasingly pointless.

[I hate the horse race element of box office, but as a wonk for numbers, I do find some of the statistics interesting, and it's encouraging to learn when certain movies do well, because that may incentivize studios to pursue similar projects.]

[Dukefrukem]

If you're going to adjust to inflation as a way to level the comparison between current and past movies, why aren't we also adjusting the math to the change in number of theaters in the country, the way film distribution model has radically changed, the effect of the introduction of home viewing availabilities, the effect of competition from video games and television, and the arrival of multiple formats that readjusted theater pricing? Just adjusting to inflation is an incomplete metric that makes it even more unfair than just accepting that box office intakes have changed over the years and it's all just counting how much money a film makes in the end anyway.

Too many variables. It's just supposed to give you a general idea.

[Grouchy]

If you're going to adjust to inflation as a way to level the comparison between current and past movies, why aren't we also adjusting the math to the change in number of theaters in the country, the way film distribution model has radically changed, the effect of the introduction of home viewing availabilities, the effect of competition from video games and television, and the arrival of multiple formats that readjusted theater pricing? Just adjusting to inflation is an incomplete metric that makes it even more unfair than just accepting that box office intakes have changed over the years and it's all just counting how much money a film makes in the end anyway.

Eh, because those variables are impossible to take fully into account. The BO adjustment for inflation is an estimate that can be accepted.

You are seemingly arguing that comparing box office numbers for different films is completely pointless and doesn't lead to any worthwhile conclusions.

[baby doll]

You've actually just gave the reason why I prefer new(er) art: the risk. When I read from the canon it's usually just a sense of me being a completionist. It doesn't give me nearly as much pleasure as not knowing anything about an author but supporting them when they need it and finding myself enjoying the work.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, since I'm always looking for ways to minimize the risk of my wasting time on crappy art. Certainly I don't enjoy Bach's Brandenberg Concertos, Jane Eyre, or Play Time less because people before me said they were wonderful. Besides which it's impossible to "discover" anything anyway, since everything you see has been pre-selected for you by someone else, whether it's a curator organizing a show of recent work or a distributor promoting and releasing a particular film, to say nothing of the intermediary role of critics in conferring cultural prestige on certain offerings.

[Grouchy]

since I'm always looking for ways to minimize the risk of my wasting time on crappy art

Oh, what a terrible risk! Stay safe, baby doll!

I'm not usually a "middle of the road" kind of guy, but I find you and 8's viewpoints here way too extreme for me. Neither does modern art completely invalidate the classics nor going with a safe bet and watching/reading the canon is always the best idea.

[baby doll]

Oh, what a terrible risk! Stay safe, baby doll!

I'm not usually a "middle of the road" kind of guy, but I find you and 8's viewpoints here way too extreme for me. Neither does modern art completely invalidate the classics nor going with a safe beat and watching/reading the canon is always the best idea.

What can I say? My time is valuable, so I prioritize things I think I'm likely to enjoy.

[number8]

Same. My time is too valuable to waste on the dead.

[Grouchy]

My time is not that valuable, to tell you the truth.

[Dukefrukem]

What can I say? My time is valuable, so I prioritize things I think I'm likely to enjoy.

I am leaning this way more and more.

Although, I did just watch the entire Hellraiser and Saw Franchise....

[D_Davis]

The easiest way to minimize risk when reading something new is to give it 50 pages. If you don't like it by 50 pages, put it down and start something else.

Quite early, quit often, and you'll read and enjoy more.