I have been sitting and contemplating: Have our imagination or rather our skill in imagining, waned throughout the last decades or so?

Music: I have watched music videos, and I get a good (?) idea what it is the band is trying to tell me. I then listen to the same song with no video, and I'm all of the sudden wondering: What are they trying to tell me? Do I really need visual aid to understand? Or did the video just broaden the message somehow?

Books and movies: Have movies put our imagination half to sleep? What does it do to us when we get all the images and sounds presented to us, instead of having to make them all up for ourselves? A book needs your imagination, I feel, while a movie presents you with someone else's visions, it doesn't need your imagination on the same level. Instead, that imagination could come into conflict with what you see and hear, so you need to swith off parts of your imaginative mind to watch the movie without losing the thread. On the other side, I have seen stuff in movies I could never have imagine (I think so at least).

What about non-graphical computer games? The old school text adventures for instance. Did we benefit from having to imagine it all or does today's graphics help us expanding our imagination

So, what are your views? Does all this visual and sounds expand our imagination, or does it cripple it?

Use your imagination, guys and gals, what do you think?

DISCLAIMER: This is not a declaration of war against music videos or movies. I do enjoy a good movie. I'm just wondering if our imagination has become "lazier" lately.

I don't think imagination is a kind of ability someone can develope. There are certain people gifted with it (well, everybody, but certain ones are more gifted than others) and those will find ways to "practice" it. Not movies nor computer games can kill it.

I wouldn't say that films required less of an input of imaginationand books, or cause people's imagination to become fallow. I'd say that they both allow the person making the film or book to instill certain emotions or to provoke thought or discussion in a given direction.
A filmmaker or an actor can convey messages using subtle imagery and acting that is near impossible in a book. In the same way, a writer is far more free to craft sentences and to describe whatever he wants than a filmmaker, who is limited to what is visible on a screen and what can be produced in front of a camera.
I think the big difference between films and books is what the makers of each can get away with. It is possible to make a film lazily, without much concern for it's artistic value (with lots of car chases, explosions and gunfights), and for it to still be fairly enjoyable to watch and reasonably successful. A badly written book, however, is near worthless. Despite this, I'd say that the best examples of eahc medium require concentration and imagination to extract full enjoyment from, and both are very worthwhile pursuits.

Oh, and @Tito:

Science fiction movies have died because video games make more money than many movies. Movie makers have taken the wrong idea from this. Instead of focusing on what a movie can give that a video game cannot, they try to make movies like video games. Personally, this makes going to a science fiction movie on par with watching someone else play a video game.

CGI has also struck a near fatal blow to science fiction films. Instead of using visual effects to tell the story, the visual effects are used to wow the audience. The best example of the proper use of special effects in a film is Forrest Gump. It is not a science fiction film, but the story of a man's life who happens to get involved in history. The special effects are there merely to advance the story. the most amazing one being Tom Hanks shaking hands with a man who had been dead for over twenty years (JFK).

There is no inherent conflict between books and film, even if they try to tell the same story, because they can tell the story in different ways. The best way to understand this is by watching the old Asterix animated films. Particularily, Asterix the Gaul and Asterix and Cleopatra. Asterix the Gaul was apparently made by cutting the book up into a storyboard and animating everything between the panels of the book. Goscinny and Uderzo hated it, because the film presented nothing that they could not have done themselves. Asterix and Cleopatra had a song and dance number, and otherwise remembered that, in a film, the pictures can move and there is a soundtrack.

Mmm I don't see any dichotomy between book and film. They're different cases of representation. An artist must not focus on what he's trying to represent alone, but on his representation of it; that's the definition of art for me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_realism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_%28arts%29

And so book and film use different tools to get a representation into our minds, some artists prefer one of the two and we as audience like to enjoy both. But just like they're different so are different genres within a single art, such as painting.

You can't compare a film with a book, and I agree with Rlbell that the worst way to adapt a book into a film (or the other way around) is trying to deliver the exact same message *in form*. And it's wrong to criticize a work of art, or compare works of different arts such as literature and cinema, by how close they are to the reality they represent. First of all because we can't, everything we know and think about is representations of reality, never reality itself because we apprehend it always through a representation, even when we see it with our own eyes.

(That's why I find so funny that so many people judge the quality of a book by how accurately it describes things and specially the stage, they think good literature is about including photographic descriptions (with good adjectives) of every place. Many times there's a point in descriptions but that's just ridiculous and opposite to the way to go. If an author is doing that he should be making a movie.)

Well in short I do not think one art is better than other, or more meritorious or more noble or even requires higher mental skills to enjoy. Of course there are films that can brutalize or at least don't cotribute anything to the audience; but if you think about it there are also many like books.

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that action movies and our helter skelter western sinful lady of babylon western society have done imagination any harm. In fact, having met old people, I'm not sure imagination was ever in great supply.

Truly imaginative people are rare little birdies, and I'd bet my balls that they always have been.
Of course, with a thriving commercial art scene (art covers the whole shebang here) it's pretty profitable to fake imagination and draw inspiration from other sources. The vaguer the source, the more imaginative the artist.

If you mean "visualising", then that's gone right down the crapper.

Despite all my bitching here, I'll wind down and say originality's on the up.

"A robot that turns into a car!? Who comes up with this stuff!?"

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Japofran @ Aug 2 2007, 12:57 PM) [snapback]302423[/snapback]</div>Never actually met anyone who thinks like this, but I can see why they'd get on your wick.
Old Man and the Sea! Nary a detail the whole way.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Havell @ Jul 30 2007, 11:01 AM) [snapback]301926[/snapback]</div>Harry Potter's worth how much now?

I guess I might have something to say on the subject :) After all my diploma theses was graded with the highest possible mark and I did cover the conversion of a book into a movie (OK it was Clockwork Orange, so it's really an exceptional movie - and the book was always somewhat obscure - but still).

First off, we should all know what ART is. The most simple and still valid explenation I could ever find was that "art is way of creating something without the intent of having material gain from it."

All the books, movies, paintings, songs... that were made for the INDUSTRY are not really ART. They are products. They may be of extremely high quality, but they're still not art. On the other hand art may be really crappy and people will completely forget about it.

Example - when a kid takes four color spray cans and makes some graffitti (expressing something) that is art. It may be the lowest and most worthless form of art, but it's art. While on the other hand when a graffitti artist is hired to paint a subway station that is NOT ART, but a product. True, such products may be much better then art things (after all Michellangelo's ceiling in the Chapel was ordered, so de-facto it is not art) and so people come to think of them as art (especially if they're done by authors, who have established themselves as artists).

But all of this still has nothing to do with imagination (those were just random thoughts that went through my head while reading some previous posts).

Now about imagination...

No, imagination is not on the downfall. People have more and more imagination, but as chumloofah said, people with a lot of imagination were always rare. You'll find more people today, that believe in one or another form of imaginary creatures (even if they did only copy it from another source). The point is, they take for granted a world that is not real (for instance, most people know the reality of Star Trek, and although it's far from being real, people know about it - so thinking about it is acctually imagining things and thinking about imaginary). On another level, many people are capable of thinking out conspiracy plots. Those might not be original, but they are their own imagination. So by seeing imaginary things, people can imagine more (the quality and originality of it may be questionable, but there's still more imagination as there was before).

And about the ability to deliver a message...

I must say, I have to draw from personal experiance as a teacher. I have given quite a few classes the movie Pink Floyd: The Wall to watch in order to write an essay about it. It's a very hard movie to watch. Most of them didn't think they understood the movie.

the problem was simple, they got several messages and couldn't (because they were unable to process them all) believe that more then one message could be correct. So they were so unsure in what they understood, they disliked the movie. Not to mention, they missed out on several messages (it's a really heavy movie). Now if this causes the public to stop enjoying something, because they can't get a clear message from it, the industry won't make it. Which movies and books were always mostly spread? The ones, that had a clear and easily understandable message, so the reader, viewer got the feeling of catarse (cleansing). And when a book or a movie is that specific then you don't need any imagination.

The problem is also, that the audience is getting younger and younger. The older audience isn't prepared to spend so much money on the industry. An adult with a job will not have the time, nor will he be willing to spend money to go to the cinema 8 times a month or to buy a book every week. Both time and money are factors. And it's the adolescent audience that has the time and can get just enough money for it. now if the audience isn't spending money, the industry isn't making it and therefore the industry won't do something that will not attract the population they can make most money off. And in order to get their attention they have to give the kids what they want. Lots of meaningless action, assotiations to sex and shallowly presented ideas, so they can be certain about what the message was (it was always like that).

The only difference why you might get the idea that it used to be different in the past is that only the quality prevailed. Take a look at how many short TV comedies there were in the seventies and eighties (google for them and you'll see there were many and most of them were mindless). But only a handfull of the best remained (example M*A*S*H). Quality remains, the rest falls into oblivion. But there were always bad quality things. Doesn't matter what media (canvas, paper, film, computer programme...).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sebatianos @ Aug 2 2007, 07:18 PM) [snapback]302471[/snapback]</div>I've always had a hard time pinning down what makes art.
I don't think it's mandatory that art and product be totally separate, though.
Almost every artist in history has made money from their art, or someone else has made money from it, apart from a few outsiders like that hobo in the US that had a weird compulsion to build a tower out of cardboard boxes.

At the moment I'm standing behind the delightful "Art is anything that was deliberately created to be of no use to anyone" theory.

Just so this isn't a total derailment from the point of the thread, and since I've been thinking about it a bit, I'll get back to imagination...
To break it down as simply as possible, imagination is the ability to imagine something that isn't actually happening. It's not strictly visual, but that's how it'll usually happen if you're not a jedi.
So, to set your mind at ease, if you've ever imagined yourself running alongside the car you're in slicing up cars with a sword or a laser you're ok and your brain hasn't been rotted yet.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rlbell @ Aug 2 2007, 04:42 AM) [snapback]302383[/snapback]</div>One thing that is very funny is that they actually did a movie OF a video game. It was on Gamespot a little while ago(actually it was a guy reminiscing about games he used to play, and about the movie, I think it was called The Wizard or something like that, it was gameplay from Super Mario Bros. 1 ), Kind of odd.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chumloofah @ Aug 2 2007, 09:03 PM) [snapback]302491[/snapback]</div>I've always had a hard time pinning down what makes art.
I don't think it's mandatory that art and product be totally separate, though.
Almost every artist in history has made money from their art, or someone else has made money from it, apart from a few outsiders like that hobo in the US that had a weird compulsion to build a tower out of cardboard boxes.

At the moment I'm standing behind the delightful "Art is anything that was deliberately created to be of no use to anyone" theory.


[/b][/quote]

Neither of these definitions of Art allow for the vast body of stuff that is found in art museums.

Art can only exist when, as a group, humans have enough spare time to specialise and are freed of the tyranny of having to hunt/gather/grow your own food. This pretty much eliminates ". . . not for material gain . . .", as an artist must have a way to support himself, and if it is not his art, he has little time to produce any. Just about every piece of art has some purpose, and any piece that does not is probably nothing more than the endpiece of performance art.

Art is an indirect way of communicating. We can have a great philosophical debate about what it means to be human, or we can watch Bladerunner. We could talk about the importance of free will, or we could read A Clockwork Orange. We can rail about how TV's race to the bottom causes us all to become less intelligent, or we can read Fahrenheit 451. Paintings are images that convey mood and sensation. Sure, you have all heard about how Canada is a huge place, but looking at the works of The Group of Seven can really drive the point home.

Propaganda posters are Art. Some years ago, there was even a touring collection of North Korean motivational posters.

Art without purpose is music without sound (a funny-once joke, at best). The simplest way to recognize a bad piece of art is if you cannot derive any meaning of the piece without knowing the title.

I'm not sure imagination is going the way of the Dodo. The one thing that gives me hope is that the intense popularity of books like Harry Potter. It only takes one good book to get people to appreciate the value of their own imagination. It was like when my mom bought me the D&D basic set back when I was six. The whole D&D world caught my imagination and I was soon battling Rust monsters in the starter packss campain. I still remember the picture of that rust monster and how it would eat away my weapon if I hit it. Anyways, just something as simple as that starter pack started me on different ways of using my imagination and creativity.

Just my 2 cents worth.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rlbell @ Aug 6 2007, 09:10 PM) [snapback]303228[/snapback]</div>Utility and meaning aren't the same thing.
Take a chair.
If it's for sitting on it's a chair, if it's not for sitting on it's art.
A good piece of art's going to inspire a thought or emotion along with, in many cases, a wanky comment, but it won't do anything.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skaven510 @ Aug 8 2007, 05:30 PM) [snapback]303640[/snapback]</div>Excellent point.

OK, people would might say that you didn't develop your own imagination, because you didn't think that monster up yourself, but saw it. Still, by seeing it and applying your imagination to something besides the everyday reality you have further developed your imagination. Where would you be without it? Would you develop your own imagination to such a point?

Did the quick-sell imaginatory world (D&D, MTG, Harry Potter...) hurt your imagination by forcing the made up world by somebody else upon you, or did it acctually start it off, by giving you the needed push beyond the border of reality and imagination?

Excellent point.

Where would you be without it? Would you develop your own imagination to such a point?

Did the quick-sell imaginatory world (D&D, MTG, Harry Potter...) hurt your imagination by forcing the made up world by somebody else upon you, or did it acctually start it off, by giving you the needed push beyond the border of reality and imagination?
[/quote]

I personally was always in my own little world being an only child you live in your own little world anyways :titan: D&D just helped fuel my creative drive to make worlds and populate those worlds with heroes, villians and monsters and then play as those heroes or villians and if your the DM the monsters.

Anyways I don't consider any form of writing hurting your imaginiation by giving it borders. When you think up new and interesting ideas that is never a bad thing and anything that helps the better.

I'm not sure about MTG using too much of your imagination though. That is more of a mathmatical problem type of game. IMO :)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mighty Midget @ Jul 29 2007, 09:13 PM) [snapback]301846[/snapback]</div>I'd like to refer to this one:
Do you know the music video of Jack Johnson's 'Taylor'?

The video has actually nothing to do with the lyrics but both diliver a small message and it's nice. ^_^

Imagination never creates anything out of the blue. I think it was Aristotle who stated that phantasia processes the data from the senses. I remember a very good ducumentary that kinda proved that the brain works much alike when dreaming and when awake. Only that when sleeping there's no data from the senses, but the brain doesn't stop working and so makes stuff up, but still ultimately out of the stored memories. When you're awake your brain also makes stuff up from stored memories all the time, that's why you see someone and think, "hey that's my friend X", and then you look closer and see that you made a mistake; or you think you saw a revolting insect and then it turns out to be some polen. Without imagination we would only see meaningless "bitmaps".

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Japofran @ Aug 9 2007, 10:32 AM) [snapback]303833[/snapback]</div>You can only use the materials you have, is how I interpret that philosopher.
It doesn't mean a person can't come up with a new concept
An imaginative man can do more with what he was.
Take 2 paperclips and an empty coke can.
To me, that could be a coke man with a little face; to macgyver, a rail gun.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Japofran @ Aug 9 2007, 10:32 AM) [snapback]303833[/snapback]</div>Read catch-22 for more on the vu's.

Good points. I have to agree to most of them. But I have a somewhat different idea about this.

Lets look at the bigget picture. I think what is happeing now is the calm before the storm. Every revolution in Earth's historty was because people were BORED. People always want something new, but unfortunatly that means discarding the old things (more or less). I think what we facing here is big art revolution sometime in the near future. There will be a whole new style of art coming. something radically unlike before. Just like Picasso was at his time, or Rock and Roll, or even democracy against feudalism. People are slowly getting bored with this kind of art. Proves my point: This discussion, and the many others before on this matter, on this very forum alone.

CGI is getting boring, because film makers use it as an unversal tool to make best selling movies. People see the awesome effects and pay up, regardless of the story, or the meaning of the movie. So movie writers don't need a story anymore. Just take the new Transformers movie for example. It's turd, but a shiny turd on a golden plate, with cherry on top. meh.

But some part of the crowd (like us) is starting to feel bored to tears about the current standards, and with good reason. And there will be a revolution, that will change this. Maybe for the better, maybe not, but at least we get to see a very new kinda turd :D

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Playbahnosh @ Aug 12 2007, 10:18 PM) [snapback]304355[/snapback]</div>That is quite the statement. Rather than ask you to prove that bald assertion, I will merely ask you to name two of these revolutions that were caused by boredom.

Most revolutions were caused by people being unhappy.

For most people past the rebellious, thrillseeking episode of their lives called "youth", when it comes to anything but idling away the hours between suppertime and bedtime, boredom is something devoutly to be wished. Adventure is someone else having a miserable time. Generally speaking, safety is boring. Except for a lucky few, excitement at work is the result of something going wrong. Where I work, excitment is inextricably linked to ambulances. Nothing pleases me more than to say "Nothing exciting happened at work, today.". In fact, I take a small moment each morning to pray for an unexciting shift.

Parents like boring lives. Raising children in boring times is relatively easy. As the children do not have years of experience, everything is new to them, so they will not be bored.

No one who knows better will want to live in interesting times. When a chinese person wishes you to live in interesting times, that person is bestowing a curse.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Playbahnosh @ Aug 13 2007, 08:18 AM) [snapback]304355[/snapback]</div>Then stop going to see big 'blockbuster' movies where the effects are the movie. Go to see more movies where the effects add to the experience rather than make it. There are plenty! The Prestige was a good example in my opinion. Spiderman 3, in my opionion, was one of the worst movies ive ever seen.

On an unimaginative note, I thought Transformers was top deck, ooh wah.
Proves that I'm just not too good for giant robots fighting in the streets.
And call me an old softy, but Optimus Prime and his *sniff sniff* self-sacrifice and nobility just chokes me up.
Come on, it's not like it gets rave reviews from critics or anything, like certain ludicrously popular and poorly written novels. That everyone rushes out to buy the day it comes out. :wallbash:

Well, don't know about you, but I myself never thought big blockbusters, be it films or books, had anything to do with imagination or delivering messages. They are just products intended to make money fast and without much effort or problems. Not works of art, nor samples of creativity. So we could keep thos giant robots and little wizards out of this conversation, as they have nothig to do with it.

About art, don't try to define it. It is such a huge amount of different things that it is completely impossible to label it, or to find an unifying pattern or characteristic in it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rlbell @ Aug 13 2007, 04:10 AM) [snapback]304366[/snapback]</div>Why name two, when you can name them all? Lemme explain. You said revolutions are because people are unhappy. Fine, I go with that for the sake of example. Lets say, that you are unhappy about something right now. Like your neighbor is pumping some phat tunes through the night and you can't sleep. Most of the people won't go calling the police to arrest that mofo being an ignorant turdbucket, then sue the hell out of them. No, not just yet. Maybe it was a one time only thing. At its worst, you only going to mention him that the music was loud, please keep it down. But imagine hearing the music all through the week, until you can hum the bassline of all the songs without practice. And you don't like techno at all. Now THAT'S going to brake your calmness, and make you rebel, taking actions against your neighbor. Why? Because you are BORED of being unhappy. See?

The people of France were unhappy long before the french revolution started. They were bored of living under that government, bored of being abused, and so on. If that situation was to be a one day thing, there wouldn't be any revolution. People need time, until they just can't take it anymore, until they are bored being angry and sad. Same thing with ALL the revolutions. See my point?

This is the very same thing why utopia can't work either. If you read Asimov, saw the Matrix movies or even read the Bible, you can put it all together. Humans are like this. We need change, we have the need for the new, the different. This goes to everything. People having a bad life want something better, something different than they are living in. People having a good life, want something different too than what they are living in. They don't say "Im not unhappy, so I don't want to do anything new". Some rich people even abandoned their wealth, gave away everything to live among monks in Tibet.

So my point is: no change = boredom = revolution. Duh!


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(STFM @ Aug 13 2007, 06:29 AM) [snapback]304370[/snapback]</div>Yeah, maybe there are still movies that are worth watching, but that is not THAT plenty. I remember times when I strolled into a VHS rental store, I picked a movie off the shelf at random (from the genre I liked to watch) and there was a 80% chance that it was a GOOD movie, with the right mix of story, emotions, effects and meaning. Lasting appeal. Now I walk in a DVD rental store, shuffle through the shelves to find the best possible one, and it is only a 30-40% chance that I won't go to sleep or brake out in a laughing match (on a thriller or drama) after the first ten minutes. And that is pathetic. I see all the shiny CGI, the over-stared actors only to watch a possibly good story ruined by mediocre acting, bad screenplay and even worse directing. And I'm a guy who likes watching good movies. And yes, there are good movies around, I saw one or two this year, but the movie industry is pumping out these these one-week-blockbusters, sweeping the good ones aside. I don't like that. And you can't help watching the 'blockbusters', as you mentioned. They are practically showing them down your throat. Anywhere you turn you see huge posters, TV playing teasers, fast-food joints giving themed foods and toys to kids...and so on. Even if you don't stroll into a movie theater, you will watch half the movie one way or another. Even if you like it or not. Yea, I don't like it either dude :/

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mighty Midget @ Jul 29 2007, 09:13 PM) [snapback]301846[/snapback]</div> :ok: More professional text adventures! NOW!

One time I thought Amnesia had graphics as I had them in my mind's eye, but I only remembered the images (word family!) I imagined at playing.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rlbell @ Aug 13 2007, 04:10 AM) [snapback]304366[/snapback]</div>I don't know better.


Can't imagine to have no imagination.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Playbahnosh @ Aug 13 2007, 10:47 PM) [snapback]304528[/snapback]</div>Why name two, when you can name them all? Lemme explain. You said revolutions are because people are unhappy. Fine, I go with that for the sake of example. Lets say, that you are unhappy about something right now. Like your neighbor is pumping some phat tunes through the night and you can't sleep. Most of the people won't go calling the police to arrest that mofo being an ignorant turdbucket, then sue the hell out of them. No, not just yet. Maybe it was a one time only thing. At its worst, you only going to mention him that the music was loud, please keep it down. But imagine hearing the music all through the week, until you can hum the bassline of all the songs without practice. And you don't like techno at all. Now THAT'S going to brake your calmness, and make you rebel, taking actions against your neighbor. Why? Because you are BORED of being unhappy. See?

The people of France were unhappy long before the french revolution started. They were bored of living under that government, bored of being abused, and so on. If that situation was to be a one day thing, there wouldn't be any revolution. People need time, until they just can't take it anymore, until they are bored being angry and sad. Same thing with ALL the revolutions. See my point?

This is the very same thing why utopia can't work either. If you read Asimov, saw the Matrix movies or even read the Bible, you can put it all together. Humans are like this. We need change, we have the need for the new, the different. This goes to everything. People having a bad life want something better, something different than they are living in. People having a good life, want something different too than what they are living in. They don't say "Im not unhappy, so I don't want to do anything new". Some rich people even abandoned their wealth, gave away everything to live among monks in Tibet.

So my point is: no change = boredom = revolution. Duh!



[/b][/quote]

What does boredom mean to you? The only thing more exciting than worrying about jackbooted thugs hauling you away to prison is when they actually do it. Last I checked, being tortured is very exciting for all of the wrong reasons. No one gets bored of repressive government, except those who benefit from keeping the commons repressed (the ones who are least likely to revolt).

There was plenty of excitement to keep the downtrodden poor of France from being bored-- eking out a living for themselves and their children. Contrary to what you may believe, poverty is not dull. Boredom is a luxury for those who have their basic needs fulfilled.

Asimov was a microbiologist. The further you go from microbiology, the less he knew. With three courses in classical studies and another in twentieth century history under my belt, I am at least as likely to be an authority on revolutions as he is (not to make me out to be an authority, just to show that academic authority is very limited).

The American revolution had several causes: Being taxed to pay for the victorious war fought against the french (from which the colonists were the chief beneficiaries), the Crown's attitude to the catholics of British North America (letting them keep their religion, language, and code of civil laws), and negotiating borders with neighbouring indian tribes, with the goal of establishing aboriginal sovereign nations (thoroughly alarming given that, unlike the revolutionaries, the british actually gave at least some lip service to indian treaties). I find nothing about these causes to be boring.

A key component of boredom is the absence of stress. Without stress, there is no need to revolt. If the biggest complaint that you have about the government is boredom, what are you rebelling against?

If no change is boring, and boredom causes revolutions, please explain the histories of India and China.

Is that so? Maybe I'm at fault, and "boring" doesn't mean the same thing in all languages. I thought when someone is "bored", it is a feeling, a desire for a change, a different activity, a different FEELING. Apathy can be exiting for all the wrong reasons too you know. When a bored german soldier was walking in the death camp, and he was bored...well there were some interesting happenings there, but not really for him...and definetly not for the inmates. For that soldier, working there for years, shooting a man in the head or making them inmates do something to amuse him, is like switching to a different channel when you are BORED OF WATCHING TV! See my point? I'm not talking about small time boredom, to be facing the dilemma to go shopping or watching a movie. I'm talking about lifestyle like large boredom. Maybe it is because of the lingual differences, but I think if you try, you can understand what I mean. No necessarily agree with it, but simply catch my meaning.

I beg to differ. A key component of stress IS boredom. Stress is the process of getting bored with annoyance. You don't get stressed out having fun and new things to do, but you get stressed to do the same things over and over again, annoying things. Constant annoyance causes stress, in this case continuity IS the cause of stress, a never ending stride of annoyance. There is the concept to "unwind", to relieve stress. You do that doing something ELSE, to brake the annoyance-stream. You go home, pop out a beer and watch TV, or do anything else BUT stay annoyed. See? For different people, the word "stress" means something else. You can get annoyed by different things, and thus there is different kind of stress. You said, without stress, there is no need to revolt. You are right. Why revolt when you are not constantly annoyed outta your socks rite?

Well then, please show me your work. Show me your thousands of pages of award winning, world famous, approved work of literature on phylisophy, phsichology, politology and imagination. If you are at least as likely to be an authority as Asimov is, just because you have degrees, well let's hear it. Asimov is not an authority because he has a degree in microbiology, or any degree for that matter. He is an authority because he made it happen. He stood out in front of the (then) reluctant audiance, and he made his point on the most delicate subjects known to mankind, without any remorse or feelings of guilt. And he knew what he awas talking about. Maybe not all the time, and his theories are not allways necessarily true, but we don't know any better now do we? ;) Don't sheet yourself under your degrees and studies, that's just lame. Bring out reasons dude. I never said that I'm RIGHT about anything, I'm simply trying to have a civilised debate over this issue. I don't have any degrees, but I still have ideas, and I walk the world with open eyes and ears. I meant no offense to you, honest. ;)


I don't know better.


Can't imagine to have no imagination.[/b][/quote]

I second that :kosta:

bore 2 (bôr, br)
tr.v. bored, bor·ing, bores
To make weary by being dull, repetitive, or tedious: The movie bored us.
n.
One that is wearingly dull, repetitive, or tedious.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adj. 1. bored - tired of the world; "bored with life"; "strolled through the museum with a bored air"
world-weary
tired - depleted of strength or energy; "tired mothers with crying babies"; "too tired to eat"
2. bored - uninterested because of frequent exposure or indulgence; "his blase indifference"; "a petulant blase air"; "the bored gaze of the successful film star"
blase
uninterested - not having or showing interest; "an uninterested spectator"


Trying to fundamentally link unhappiness to boredom is absolute nonsense.
You can be unhappy because you're bored, but saying you're bored with being unhappy is word play.
Unhappiness implies things that boredom doesn't allow for.
This is pedantic, but you should use a different word :bleh:
People might do things because they're bored, but so long as they're not unhappy they won't revolt.

Ribell's right about boredom being more common among the classes that have everything they need to survive, which is almost everybody in the "first world".
As a result boredom's at it's historical peak, despite all the distractions.
No revolt though, because despite being bored we're comfortable.

As for the language in the matrix and the bible... I've seen better.
Wouldn't be too comfortable using them as sources. :bleh:


I'm just left wondering where the ability to deliver a message on imagination went? :whistling:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chumloofah @ Aug 14 2007, 01:42 PM) [snapback]304584[/snapback]</div>It's still there, both actually and potentially. Only that most people are happy with a substitute of it, and with short demand there will be short supply.

@chumloofah

OOOMPF!!! *Playbahnosh drops to the ground and curls up into fetal position* GNNNAH, That hurts!!! gnnnn you bastard....aarrrgh...


;)

^ pwnt :D

You hurt my feelings dude. You are bad bad man. At least you could've read what I did there. Meh.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Playbahnosh @ Aug 14 2007, 09:11 AM) [snapback]304572[/snapback]</div>I'm sowwy, playbahnosh... :unsure:
I like a good argument, so really don't take anything personally.
I'd take your cat hostage if I had to.

Don't you DARE touch my cat! :angry:
I rip your arm off and stick it in your back if I have to.



:hypocrite:

Anyway, The definition of boring, as you crtl+v-ed it here is consistent with my theory if you look it that way
See? "Uninterested because of frequent exposure". But what if you are frequently exposed to unhappyness? What if you are even more frequently exposed to the SAME type of movies, books...art? (on the same type I mean insanly bad) You get bored for all the wrong reasons there. Stress it is. "Depleted of strenght or energy" to take any more beating, thus you "revolt" against the cause of your unhappyness. And there are those cool catchphrases that even I didn't write, right there: Tired of the world, and bored with life. If people get THAT bored with life, most of them tend to change something to be LESS boring. And I'm not talking about your daily habits. You with me here? Or you gonna dismiss this one argument too as an insane hungarian trying to carve out some appreciation for himself? ;)

I don't see how you make bored mean stressed. :titan:

No revolt in history happened because the same nice things happened to people day in, day out until they got tired of it.
Logically, that means that there's something else to it than boredom.

fine...just ignore what I said <_<

I don't see the point to explain myself any further. If somebody wants to see my point, they got more than enough clarification. Then we can talk more.

'nuff said.

Now lets get another topic on which you can ignore me further ;)

Could talk about imagination. ^_^

I hope you're happy, we've taken over poor Mighty's thread. :ok:

as UT2004 would say:

HIJACKED!!!

:whistling:

Anyway, lets get back on topic before this thread get closed for multiple infringement of the board rules...



soooooo... what did you imagine lately? ^_^



EDIT: I didn't wanted to aggravate the situation with double-posting, but I found something relevant to the discussion at hand

Check this out: The 10 Most Awesome Movies Holywood Ever Killed

Talking about not having imagination... It's not the ideas that are bad, it's the industry!

Wow!!! All those films... that will never be born...

I'm so glad. They talk about them as the new seven wonders, but they appear to me as crappy candidates for the worst movie of the year.

Talking about imagination, they all seem to be the kind of sequels or adaptations that could have shown a complete lack of it.

Apropos sequels: Have to read another John Irving novel. They are like a series to me, although they're not connected (of course they are, they're all Irving ones). Imagine: You can read them in any order, and it's the right one. :w00t:

(I'm insane, you know.) :whistling:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Playbahnosh @ Aug 16 2007, 11:13 AM) [snapback]304865[/snapback]</div>It is just as well that the HALO movie never got made. It would have been another Doom-- a movie of a video game.

Peter Jackson is not that great a director. What made the LOTR films so great was the story on which they were based. Not that the films were really all that great anyway. Rankin Bass Productions did a much better adaptation of Return of the King way back in 1978. It was a made-for-TV feature length animated film. The first thing that makes it better is that, even with commercials, it only runs ninety minutes. Yes, it does nearly gut the book to fit the story into that small slice of time; however, where it shows artistry is how it manages to link the vignetttes that it does include into a seemingly complete story. Unlike Jackson's version, we actually find out why Denethor is unhinged, but the whole affair with his madness is wrapped up in less than a minute with narration about how the Steward of Gondor is so dispirited, he has ordered his own execution, followed by a cut to Denethor telling Gandalf about what he has seen in his palantir. The Paths of the Dead is left out. It turns out that The Black Fleet was captured by Aragorn and his army, and is being used to quickly transport them all to Minas Tirith. Enough is left in to recognise the story, yet enough is left out to keep it short. Jackson cut stuff out and still had the films run to three hours.

Rankin Bass productions also did a version of The Hobbit.

LOTR is such a great story, that even Ed Wood could have made a compelling film out of it, providing none of the actors died during filming (Ed Wood was such a bad director, that he passed through the looking glass, and his films are fun to watch, even if only in a MST3K type of silly mood).

The best thing about Jackson's trilogy is that it paves the way for someone else to come around, at a later date, and do it right.

I can truly understand why Bill Murray would not have wanted to do Ghostbusters in Hell. Acting in front of a greenscreen, being upstaged by things that will only exist after post-production editting, combines the worst of both possible worlds of film and radio plays. You are by yourself and everyone can see you.

The only reason these films are considered the greatest films never made was precisely because they were never made. There were likely lots of better films pitched by nobodies that never had their phonecalls returned.

Ive never read LOTR and I dont plan to.

Bill Murray does what Bill Murray wants

Halo the movie? Are there ANY video game inspired movies that have been any good?
Silent Hill? crap
Street Fighter? crap
Mortal Kombat? enjoyable crap
Dead or Alive? my gawd so utterly crap
Doom? crap
Bloodrayne? crap
Resident Evil? ill pass it cos of milla
Mario Bros? crap
Final Fantasy? was ok i suppose
Double Dragon? crap
Tomb Raider? crap
Tekken? Havent seen it

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rlbell @ Aug 17 2007, 02:18 AM) [snapback]305001[/snapback]</div>Hey! I liked "Meet the Feebles"

My little 2cents -

Imagination can't die, because if it did, so would we as a species.

I mean, when we were back sitting around in caves our disproportionately large brains began to allow us to imagine/envisage a life outside of the cave, a better life. It allowed us to paint and create gods and burial customs and culture and basically evolve* as a species. Hell, imagination even got us to the moon :)

Without it we're nothing really.

And I am an optimist I suppose.

*note I'm not using the term in the clinical scientific sense here :P

EDITED: For spelling.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rlbell @ Aug 17 2007, 04:18 AM) [snapback]305001[/snapback]</div>Couldn't agree more.

I'd like that to be true, but dunno. The Academy suckers acclaimed it not only as the peak of a derided genre (adventure), but also as a gorgeous movie in its own merits. When it's nothing but more of that stinky John Woo discotheque violence which may be okay to gobble pop corn up especially if you're 13 years old but simply doesn't get along with Tolkien's epics. Yes Tolkien's story is there but only to be raped instead of adapted and in an extremely boring way into the bargain. Plus nowadays actors grossly overact when the movie's setting is not contemporary. Conan the Barbarian was way better as an adventure movie, better script, better directed, better movie, I bet the filming crew had better catering even. (However I'm fairly convinced that Conan's sequels are on the other hand complete crap even though I've seen like two minutes of one of them.)

Another LOTR movie can always be done but it's not in the Ideas pile of anyone's desk and no-one in Hollywood will want to compete in the short term with the handfull of Academy awards Jackson got directing as a spam bot.

for me, the only King kong is the 1930's version :)

If those movies are indicative of imagination I think it's time for the species to call it a day.
It's time to move over and let a race that couldn't conceive such crap take over.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("rlbell")</div>So true.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Lulu_Jane")</div>And now it's telling us that Halo and Fartman are golden opportunities we let slip by.
Wake up. Time to die.
*dove flies away*

Touche, good Sir :D

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lulu_Jane @ Aug 17 2007, 02:09 PM) [snapback]305117[/snapback]</div>For me, the only shooter is GORILLA.BAS LOL kidding

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Japofran @ Aug 17 2007, 12:06 PM) [snapback]305113[/snapback]</div>I'd like that to be true, but dunno. The Academy suckers acclaimed it not only as the peak of a derided genre (adventure), but also as a gorgeous movie in its own merits. When it's nothing but more of that stinky John Woo discotheque violence which may be okay to gobble pop corn up especially if you're 13 years old but simply doesn't get along with Tolkien's epics. Yes Tolkien's story is there but only to be raped instead of adapted and in an extremely boring way into the bargain. Plus nowadays actors grossly overact when the movie's setting is not contemporary. Conan the Barbarian was way better as an adventure movie, better script, better directed, better movie, I bet the filming crew had better catering even. (However I'm fairly convinced that Conan's sequels are on the other hand complete crap even though I've seen like two minutes of one of them.)

Another LOTR movie can always be done but it's not in the Ideas pile of anyone's desk and no-one in Hollywood will want to compete in the short term with the handfull of Academy awards Jackson got directing as a spam bot.
[/b][/quote]

Really good stories get made more than once. How many times has Dickens' A Christmas Carol been made into a movie? I can think of three versions, two of which nearly have the same script (A Christmas Carol, starring Alistair Sim, and A Christmas Carol starring George C. Scott), and I am ignoring films that change the setting (An American Carol starring Henry Winkler, and Scrooged starring Bill Murray).

Shakespeare is also good for repeated filming; although, the staging variations can make two adaptations of the same play nearly totally dissimilar (Paul Mazursky's Tempest and Forbidden Planet).

Hollywood has the annoying habit of stuffing the best, or most lucrative, films down a hole which is really a pipe. After enough films are pushed in, they start popping out the other end, and get remade. It may take years, but LOTR will also pop and be redone.

If we are really lucky, the BBC will do a low budget miniseries that will need to make up in scripting and acting what it cannot afford to do with CGI.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("rlbell")</div>They've discovered cheap CGI now, i'm afraid, so we can't even hope for that.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rlbell @ Aug 18 2007, 03:30 AM) [snapback]305207[/snapback]</div>L0L ture. Let's just hope that the other end of the pipe will be prettier, because the wait will be long.