this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2025
165 points (91.0% liked)

Humor

7806 readers
171 users here now

"Laugh-a-Palooza: Unleash Your Inner Chuckle!"

Rules


Read Full Rules Here!


Rule 1: Keep it light-hearted. This community is dedicated to humor and laughter, so let’s keep the tone light and positive.


Rule 2: Respectful Engagement. Keep it civil!


Rule 3: No spamming!


Rule 4: No explicit or NSFW content.


Rule 5: Stay on topic. Keep your posts relevant to humor-related topics.


Rule 6: Moderators Discretion. The moderators retain the right to remove any content, ban users/bots if deemed necessary.


Please report any violation of rules!


Warning: Strict compliance with all the rules is imperative. Failure to read and adhere to them will not be tolerated. Violations may result in immediate removal of your content and a permanent ban from the community.


We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 12 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Gustephan@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Gustephan@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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.

[–] cows_are_underrated@feddit.org 1 points 2 weeks ago

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)

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Yeah, it's always so wild to me when people start talking about movies and every other person is like, oh yeah, I've watched that movie. I'm entirely aware that I've watched barely any movies, but in my head, normal people have watched like 20–30 movies or so. But yeah, then you listen and it feels more like they've watched 100+ movies.

[–] burgersc12@mander.xyz 10 points 2 weeks ago

100s? I bet most people have seen thousands of movies by the time they hit adulthood now (dependent on their parents of course). Like do you even realize how many hours people just spend slumped over in front of the TV? It's absurd

[–] criitz@reddthat.com 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I've surely watched many hundreds of movies at least in my lifetime, and I wouldn't say I'm an above average movie watcher

[–] CrowAirbrush@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

My old coworker watched 2 movies on a week night, i take 2 weeks to watch a single movie half the time.

I asked him how he did it, turns out the kid does well on half the sleep i require.

Ah man, i miss my teens and early twenties xD i was taught that the older you get the less sleep you need...so that was a lie.

[–] socsa@piefed.social 6 points 2 weeks ago

Big zoomer energy

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I watch things in the background while I do stuff on my main monitor. Most shows/movies aren’t worth my full attention but I like the background noise.

[–] kSPvhmTOlwvMd7Y7E@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Sorry have to ask: if you think the movie isn't worth full attention, why even bother? It's like reading one in every two pages and saying " this book didn't require my full attention" lol

I almost never watch movies, but when i do i giving it all

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I just like the background noise and I do sort of pay attention. I can mostly get the plot, etc.

[–] kSPvhmTOlwvMd7Y7E@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Understandable, this niche is filled with YouTube for me

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

I also watch a TON of YouTube. Basically I like to have something in the background whether I’m gaming or working.

[–] Pilferjinx@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Me too. Although I've switched to audiobooks and podcasts predominantly now.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The two shows were Firefly and Work It.

[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 3 points 2 weeks ago

But The Wire exists!

[–] shadowedcross@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago

I'm genuinely curious how many I've watched. I barely ever watch movies, maybe one or two a year, and probably about as many shows.