Are classics looked upon sowell just because we feel expected to like them?

Ok... I didn't find the subject matter to be of any interest in the examples I mentioned.

BuryMe

I'm still having a tough time wondering how anyone can find Pulp Fiction boring. You're really going to need to elaborate on this one.

DharmaMember77

But from as much as I saw, it just didn't touch on anything I find interesting. It's a crime movie, and I'm just not interested in crime. It was well acted and yes, well written, but nothing in it appealed to me.

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

Ok... I didn't find the subject matter to be of any interest in the examples I mentioned.

Aljosa23

What else can I pssibly say? The material was boring to me, so I didn't like it. Being well written, well acted, and well directed won't make me enjoy a boring plot.

BuryMe

lol this thread

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

Ok... I didn't find the subject matter to be of any interest in the examples I mentioned.

Aljosa23

Right, that's more of a critique of your own tastes, not the thing itself. I don't pretend to like everything I watch or read, but boring is just the wrong word to use in any case. If it's not for you, then it's not for you. Simple as that. Doesn't make it bad (or boring, which you're making synonymous). If you can't find a reason beyond face value on why you don't like something (a movie's direction or even acting, for example), then you really aren't fit to judge any kind of art.

I've never understood the world's obsession with "classics" of any perticular industry. Every time I read, watch or listen to something because it's deemed a classic, I find that more often than not, I don't like it.

Looking back at book I've read, I had to read some Shakespeare in high school and I though every play I read sucked (Hamlet, Macbeth and Romet and Juliet.) Then more recently, I read 1984, and that didn't do anything for me either. Animal Farm was OK, but still not worthy of its hype.

In movies, I've never seen any Star Wars movies, Jaws, Jurrassic Park, Scarface, or The Godfather (to name a few.)They just don't appeal to me. And people at work are stunned. I tried watching Pulp Fiction, but I fell asleep halfway through because I was bored.

So with this, I've spent years wondering, are things that are regarded as classics perceived well by so many people because they just want to conform to the popuar oppinion that they are good, or am I just really weird for not liking any of these supposed "masterpieces"?

BuryMe

It just sounds like a short attention span to me. Have you seen The Boondock Saints? That is a cult classic that i think you would enjoy more then something like Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs. I could be wrong through.

you know whats horrible...young people now days not growing up with your own classics..Everything you have is a remake a reboot or just plain terrible..from music and movies and clothe styles..so glad im old..so freakin glad..

They are classics for a reason usually.

you know whats horrible...young people now days not growing up with your own classics..Everything you have is a remake a reboot or just plain terrible..from music and movies and clothe styles..so glad im old..so freakin glad..

VanDammFan

I'm still having a tough time wondering how anyone can find Pulp Fiction boring. You're really going to need to elaborate on this one.

DharmaMember77

Really? Try the whole segment with Travolta and Thurman. Also the parts with Willis in his apartment.

Found them to be horribly dull the first time I watched it. Still not crazy about them now. They're just not that interesting.

[QUOTE="VanDammFan"]

you know whats horrible...young people now days not growing up with your own classics..Everything you have is a remake a reboot or just plain terrible..from music and movies and clothe styles..so glad im old..so freakin glad..

VanHelsingBoA64

sure, has some truth to it..but still..im glad I grew up in a time where things were just happening,original,and didnt have to be filled with filth to be great. and every rap song didnt have the word n*()a , ho, and b*()h it in..now I shall sit back and wait to see what other movies and songs new culture can remake,reboot and distroy.

[QUOTE="DharmaMember77"]

I'm still having a tough time wondering how anyone can find Pulp Fiction boring. You're really going to need to elaborate on this one.

Niff_T

Really? Try the whole segment with Travolta and Thurman. Also the parts with Willis in his apartment.

Found them to be horribly dull the first time I watched it. Still not crazy about them now. They're just not that interesting.

I suppose its all opinions. I was 14 when I first watched Pulp Fiction and found the whole film to be captivating. But seriously were those scenes so boring that you had to turn it off because you couldn't get through anymore of it? I thought not.

[QUOTE="VanHelsingBoA64"]

[QUOTE="VanDammFan"]

you know whats horrible...young people now days not growing up with your own classics..Everything you have is a remake a reboot or just plain terrible..from music and movies and clothe styles..so glad im old..so freakin glad..

VanDammFan

sure, has some truth to it..but still..im glad I grew up in a time where things were just happening,original,and didnt have to be filled with filth to be great. and every rap song didnt have the word n*()a , ho, and b*()h it in..now I shall sit back and wait to see what other movies and songs new culture can remake,reboot and distroy.

You're obviously not digging deep into our culture if you think that's all we have to offer.

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

I tried watching Pulp Fiction, but I fell asleep halfway through because I was bored.

skinny_man_69

My thoughts exactly. Pulp Fiction was passing on TV this weekend. I just had to watch it from beggining to end.

Most things that are considered classics are pretty good. They are deemed classics for a reason.

BossPerson

And then I read an article about a famous violinist playing the worlds most expensive violin in a public place and hardly anybody stops to watch. If people knew who he was they would have swarmed around him to listen, but because they were left to themselves they simply walked by. I believe the same could be said about classical things like music, books and movies. Someone may like them on their own, but when they are considered "classics" it will positively sway the opinion that someone has about them.

No because they are that good.

[QUOTE="skinny_man_69"]

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

I tried watching Pulp Fiction, but I fell asleep halfway through because I was bored.

nunovlopes

My thoughts exactly. Pulp Fiction was passing on TV this weekend. I just had to watch it from beggining to end.

I want to watch Pulp Fiction again now.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

Most things that are considered classics are pretty good. They are deemed classics for a reason.

hoola

And then I read an article about a famous violinist playing the worlds most expensive violin in a public place and hardly anybody stops to watch. If people knew who he was they would have swarmed around him to listen, but because they were left to themselves they simply walked by. I believe the same could be said about classical things like music, books and movies. Someone may like them on their own, but when they are considered "classics" it will positively sway the opinion that someone has about them.

[QUOTE="hoola"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

Most things that are considered classics are pretty good. They are deemed classics for a reason.

VanHelsingBoA64

And then I read an article about a famous violinist playing the worlds most expensive violin in a public place and hardly anybody stops to watch. If people knew who he was they would have swarmed around him to listen, but because they were left to themselves they simply walked by. I believe the same could be said about classical things like music, books and movies. Someone may like them on their own, but when they are considered "classics" it will positively sway the opinion that someone has about them.

You can't let that influence your opinion in a negative way either though. Which has also shown itself in this thread. What happened to being able to like or dislike a movie solely because you enjoyed or did not enjoy it? I didn't know we all had to be mindless drones that follow every trend we see. That argument works for all the people who dislike it because it is a classic as well. Some people are so afraid that they will be jumping on the bandwagon that whey just don't give it a chance. Others are afraid not to like it. It works for both. Just realize that some of these movies are "classics" because they really are great movies. The Godfather and Goodfellas for example are two "classics" that are commonly swooned over. I really enjoy Goodfellas, yet The Godfather just isnt for me. I can respect it for being an alright movie and what it was for it's time, but for me there is just too much filler in the movie, even for a dialogue heavy movie. Just remember that some of us still have minds of our own and don't have to jump on everything the media/social stigma says.

EDIT: One more thing. I don't see that violin example as a good one. Most people who are walking have somewhere to be. They don't have time to stand around and applaud a street musician for his efforts let alone even listen to it. A lot of people walking are multitasking in some way whether it's being on the phone or just thinking about what they are having on their hour long lunch break. Most people just don't have time to appreciate something if it cuts into their day. I wouldn't even notice it personally, but I also have no taste for violin or classical music in general. Classical music is a genre and much different than a "classic". He may be a classic musician in his genre but it is still a much more specific taste than a movie, or even most music.

You just have bad taste.

DharmaMember77

i like most classics cause i like them

i also dont like alot of classics

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

[QUOTE="skinny_man_69"]



Dear lord

muller39

My thoughts exactly. Pulp Fiction was passing on TV this weekend. I just had to watch it from beggining to end.

I want to watch Pulp Fiction again now.

Man it's such a great movie. Some of the dialogues are just pure genius. I can't decide which Tarantino movie is the best, I'd say it's between Pulp Fiction and Inglorious Bastards.

Man it's such a great movie. Some of the dialogues are just pure genius. I can't decide which Tarantino movie is the best, I'd say it's between Pulp Fiction and Inglorious Bastards.

nunovlopes

Too many that are too good for Gamespot XD

[QUOTE="VanHelsingBoA64"][QUOTE="hoola"]

And then I read an article about a famous violinist playing the worlds most expensive violin in a public place and hardly anybody stops to watch. If people knew who he was they would have swarmed around him to listen, but because they were left to themselves they simply walked by. I believe the same could be said about classical things like music, books and movies. Someone may like them on their own, but when they are considered "classics" it will positively sway the opinion that someone has about them.

Hubadubalubahu

You can't let that influence your opinion in a negative way either though. Which has also shown itself in this thread. What happened to being able to like or dislike a movie solely because you enjoyed or did not enjoy it? I didn't know we all had to be mindless drones that follow every trend we see. That argument works for all the people who dislike it because it is a classic as well. Some people are so afraid that they will be jumping on the bandwagon that whey just don't give it a chance. Others are afraid not to like it. It works for both. Just realize that some of these movies are "classics" because they really are great movies. The Godfather and Goodfellas for example are two "classics" that are commonly swooned over. I really enjoy Goodfellas, yet The Godfather just isnt for me. I can respect it for being an alright movie and what it was for it's time, but for me there is just too much filler in the movie, even for a dialogue heavy movie. Just remember that some of us still have minds of our own and don't have to jump on everything the media/social stigma says.

EDIT: One more thing. I don't see that violin example as a good one. Most people who are walking have somewhere to be. They don't have time to stand around and applaud a street musician for his efforts let alone even listen to it. A lot of people walking are multitasking in some way whether it's being on the phone or just thinking about what they are having on their hour long lunch break. Most people just don't have time to appreciate something if it cuts into their day. I wouldn't even notice it personally, but I also have no taste for violin or classical music in general. Classical music is a genre and much different than a "classic". He may be a classic musician in his genre but it is still a much more specific taste than a movie, or even most music.

Regarding classics,

I personally have always been an "anti-classic" kind of individual.

I view "classic works" with incredible scrutiny, and a lot of "classic" literature I have read and film I have watched...hasn't really done anything for me.

Perhaps the most overrated are people like Shakespeare, whose vernacular is so absurdly complex that I couldn't even begin to decipher it without some kind of modern translation.

But you do bring up an interesting point.

"Do I not enjoy classics simply because they are classics?"

I really don't think that's true.

However, I do look upon extremely outdated texts like Moby Dick or Paradise Lost with an incredible amount of skepticism specifically because they are so incredibly obtuse.

It seems that the more outdated a text becomes (without a modern translation), the less merit I give it.

"Classic" films from the 1900's-1920's are pretty much intolerable for me to watch, as are English texts from the 17th-mid 18th century for me to read (there are exceptions, of course).

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]

[QUOTE="VanHelsingBoA64"] I couldn't agree more, especially given a lot of the responses in this thread. peterw007

You can't let that influence your opinion in a negative way either though. Which has also shown itself in this thread. What happened to being able to like or dislike a movie solely because you enjoyed or did not enjoy it? I didn't know we all had to be mindless drones that follow every trend we see. That argument works for all the people who dislike it because it is a classic as well. Some people are so afraid that they will be jumping on the bandwagon that whey just don't give it a chance. Others are afraid not to like it. It works for both. Just realize that some of these movies are "classics" because they really are great movies. The Godfather and Goodfellas for example are two "classics" that are commonly swooned over. I really enjoy Goodfellas, yet The Godfather just isnt for me. I can respect it for being an alright movie and what it was for it's time, but for me there is just too much filler in the movie, even for a dialogue heavy movie. Just remember that some of us still have minds of our own and don't have to jump on everything the media/social stigma says.

EDIT: One more thing. I don't see that violin example as a good one. Most people who are walking have somewhere to be. They don't have time to stand around and applaud a street musician for his efforts let alone even listen to it. A lot of people walking are multitasking in some way whether it's being on the phone or just thinking about what they are having on their hour long lunch break. Most people just don't have time to appreciate something if it cuts into their day. I wouldn't even notice it personally, but I also have no taste for violin or classical music in general. Classical music is a genre and much different than a "classic". He may be a classic musician in his genre but it is still a much more specific taste than a movie, or even most music.

Regarding classics,

I personally have always been an "anti-classic" kind of individual.

I view "classic works" with incredible scrutiny, and a lot of "classic" literature I have read and film I have watched...hasn't really done anything for me.

Perhaps the most overrated are people like Shakespeare, whose vernacular is so absurdly complex that I couldn't even begin to decipher it without some kind of modern translation.

But you do bring up an interesting point.

"Do I not enjoy classics simply because they are classics?"

I really don't think that's true.

However, I do look upon extremely outdated texts like Moby Dick or Paradise Lost with an incredible amount of skepticism specifically because they are so incredibly obtuse.

It seems that the more outdated a text becomes (without a modern translation), the less merit I give it.

"Classic" films from the 1900's-1920's are pretty much intolerable for me to watch, as are English texts from the 17th-mid 18th century for me to read (there are exceptions, of course.)

Shakespeare is a hard read (language-wise), but I think you're giving yourself to little credit when you say you can't decipher it without a modern translation. If you read slow and read it multiple times, you can figure it out.

[QUOTE="peterw007"]

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]

You can't let that influence your opinion in a negative way either though. Which has also shown itself in this thread. What happened to being able to like or dislike a movie solely because you enjoyed or did not enjoy it? I didn't know we all had to be mindless drones that follow every trend we see. That argument works for all the people who dislike it because it is a classic as well. Some people are so afraid that they will be jumping on the bandwagon that whey just don't give it a chance. Others are afraid not to like it. It works for both. Just realize that some of these movies are "classics" because they really are great movies. The Godfather and Goodfellas for example are two "classics" that are commonly swooned over. I really enjoy Goodfellas, yet The Godfather just isnt for me. I can respect it for being an alright movie and what it was for it's time, but for me there is just too much filler in the movie, even for a dialogue heavy movie. Just remember that some of us still have minds of our own and don't have to jump on everything the media/social stigma says.

EDIT: One more thing. I don't see that violin example as a good one. Most people who are walking have somewhere to be. They don't have time to stand around and applaud a street musician for his efforts let alone even listen to it. A lot of people walking are multitasking in some way whether it's being on the phone or just thinking about what they are having on their hour long lunch break. Most people just don't have time to appreciate something if it cuts into their day. I wouldn't even notice it personally, but I also have no taste for violin or classical music in general. Classical music is a genre and much different than a "classic". He may be a classic musician in his genre but it is still a much more specific taste than a movie, or even most music.

GreySeal9

Regarding classics,

I personally have always been an "anti-classic" kind of individual.

I view "classic works" with incredible scrutiny, and a lot of "classic" literature I have read and film I have watched...hasn't really done anything for me.

Perhaps the most overrated are people like Shakespeare, whose vernacular is so absurdly complex that I couldn't even begin to decipher it without some kind of modern translation.

But you do bring up an interesting point.

"Do I not enjoy classics simply because they are classics?"

I really don't think that's true.

However, I do look upon extremely outdated texts like Moby Dick or Paradise Lost with an incredible amount of skepticism specifically because they are so incredibly obtuse.

It seems that the more outdated a text becomes (without a modern translation), the less merit I give it.

"Classic" films from the 1900's-1920's are pretty much intolerable for me to watch, as are English texts from the 17th-mid 18th century for me to read (there are exceptions, of course.)

Shakespeare is a hard read (language-wise), but I think you're giving yourself to little credit when you say you can't decipher it without a modern translation. If you read slow and read it multiple times, you can figure it out.

Of course I can...but doesn't that completely destroy the point of a theatrical narrative?

When I read literature, I want to move with it.

Having to constantly go back and read the lines again, or consulting a glossary explaining outdated terminology, just ruins the essence of the play for me.

I can't in good conscious read something like Shakespare for fun.

Of course I can...but doesn't that completely destroy the point of a theatrical narrative?

When I read literature, I want to move with it.

Having to constantly go back and read the lines again, or consulting a glossary explaining outdated terminology, just ruins the essence of the play for me.

I can't in good conscious read something like Shakespare for fun.

peterw007

Personally I don't read for fun anymore (last thing I read for fun was the "Series Of Unfortunate Events" series when I was younger. I only read if I'm told to for school or w/e. But I do find that I can read pretty well, and tend to understand what I'm reading.

I have only read modern translations of Shakespeare readings in school, but we did look back at some of the terminology that Shakespeare used, and I didn't understand any of it lol.

[QUOTE="VanDammFan"]

[QUOTE="VanHelsingBoA64"]

DharmaMember77

sure, has some truth to it..but still..im glad I grew up in a time where things were just happening,original,and didnt have to be filled with filth to be great. and every rap song didnt have the word n*()a , ho, and b*()h it in..now I shall sit back and wait to see what other movies and songs new culture can remake,reboot and distroy.

You're obviously not digging deep into our culture if you think that's all we have to offer.

again..new culture is..reboots,remakes,unoriginal music,lack luster performers,n&*a,b&()h,ho, in every song,pants hanging down under your disgusting underwear,take something that is fun,family friendly and make it foul,perverted,and awful. Not to say there isnt good along with that bad. ALSO keep in mind that my LIKES and LOVES and MASTERPIECES, might not be the same as yours. I will just say your Lady Gaga,Kanye West,Chris Brown,Katy Perry will not be remembered in 20 years. They will come and go just like all artist do anymore. I use to be "hip" on american culture. New my music,movies,tv ect..IF someone wanted to know something, they called me. BUT I no longer keep up with any of it..I do however listen to music from the 70,80,and early 90s..and SOME new stuff..I would keep up with the movies today, but ive already seen them 20 years ago so why? lol

[QUOTE="DharmaMember77"]

[QUOTE="VanDammFan"]

sure, has some truth to it..but still..im glad I grew up in a time where things were just happening,original,and didnt have to be filled with filth to be great. and every rap song didnt have the word n*()a , ho, and b*()h it in..now I shall sit back and wait to see what other movies and songs new culture can remake,reboot and distroy.

VanDammFan

You're obviously not digging deep into our culture if you think that's all we have to offer.

again..new culture is..reboots,remakes,unoriginal music,lack luster performers,n&*a,b&()h,ho, in every song,pants hanging down under your disgusting underwear,take something that is fun,family friendly and make it foul,perverted,and awful. Not to say there isnt good along with that bad. ALSO keep in mind that my LIKES and LOVES and MASTERPIECES, might not be the same as yours. I will just say your Lady Gaga,Kanye West,Chris Brown,Katy Perry will not be remembered in 20 years. They will come and go just like all artist do anymore. I use to be "hip" on american culture. New my music,movies,tv ect..IF someone wanted to know something, they called me. BUT I no longer keep up with any of it..I do however listen to music from the 70,80,and early 90s..and SOME new stuff..I would keep up with the movies today, but ive already seen them 20 years ago so why? lol

I suggest you check out the movies on this list: http://theyshootpictures.com/21stcentury_films1-50.htm since you seem to think all modern film consists of remakes/reboots

Of course I can...but doesn't that completely destroy the point of a theatrical narrative?

When I read literature, I want to move with it.

Having to constantly go back and read the lines again, or consulting a glossary explaining outdated terminology, just ruins the essence of the play for me.

I can't in good conscious read something like Shakespare for fun.

peterw007

[QUOTE="peterw007"]

Of course I can...but doesn't that completely destroy the point of a theatrical narrative?

When I read literature, I want to move with it.

Having to constantly go back and read the lines again, or consulting a glossary explaining outdated terminology, just ruins the essence of the play for me.

I can't in good conscious read something like Shakespare for fun.

Aljosa23

Oh I won't deny that; I've seen Shakespare portrayed in multiple different interpretations.

My point with Shakespare was the difficulty of understanding his complex vernacular as a result of the source material's extreme age, not necessarily the general connotations the words take on when they are acted out theatrically.

Jurrasic Park is awesome. GTFO TC.

Seriously though, I agree with you to a certain extent. I find many of the very old "classics" to be somewhat underwhelming. I never quite got the appeal of Shakespear and I find many of the "classic" old films (black and white mostly) have quite poor acting and overall stories. That being said, I still can recognize that they were ground breaking at the time, I just don't think that being "ground breaking" should immediately mean something is "great" even many years later when other pieces in that medium of surpassed it.

I tried out Baldurs Gate at one point due to it supposing being a classic. I could clearly see why it's considered as such, I enjoyed it even though it's terribly old by todays date.

I tried out Final Fantasy 7 for the same reasons. In my opinion, it was barely playable, and I came to the conclusion that while it may have been great at the time, I think too many people are looking back at it through nostalgic tinted glasses.

Don't hurt me...

I tried out Baldurs Gate at one point due to it supposing being a classic. I could clearly see why it's considered as such, I enjoyed it even though it's terribly old by todays date.

I tried out Final Fantasy 7 for the same reasons. In my opinion, it was barely playable, and I came to the conclusion that while it may have been great at the time, I think too many people are looking back at it through nostalgic tinted glasses.

Don't hurt me...

sune_Gem

I don't like those games either lol.

[QUOTE="sune_Gem"]

I tried out Baldurs Gate at one point due to it supposing being a classic. I could clearly see why it's considered as such, I enjoyed it even though it's terribly old by todays date.

I tried out Final Fantasy 7 for the same reasons. In my opinion, it was barely playable, and I came to the conclusion that while it may have been great at the time, I think too many people are looking back at it through nostalgic tinted glasses.

Don't hurt me...

Aljosa23

I don't like those games either lol.

I'd call Age of Empires 2 a timeless classic in that regard. While I played it nearing it's release date, so I may have some nostalgic tinted glasses on myself, I still think it holds up amazingly even to today's standards of RTS. The graphics are just as perfect today as they was back then, and the gameplay is still as complex as any RTS in recent years. I convinced a friend of mine to try it for the first time sometime last year, and he was rather amazed by its quality and timeless nature.

You haven't seen Jurassic Park? What kind of monster are you?!