You know how some restaraunts have a reputation for serving “good food” (I.e. gourmet food), but just because it’s fancier food it doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll actually like it more?
So, what are some foods that people only like because they’re fancy? (I’d argue caviar is one)
Same idea, but for movies. What are some movies that people only like because they’re seen as being “good movies”?
I feel like this is most of shakespears work. Having read a lot of it, i was deeply unimpressed. I found it grueling to work through any of his pieces. And yet theyre universally beloved. Pretty sure its just because everyones teacher told them the book was good.
Its weird though, to kill a mockingbird was actually good, and yet it doesnt recieve nearly as much fanfare as something like hamlet or romeo & juliet. Feels like people just like shakespear because everyone else likes shakespear.
Shakespeare’s collective works span virtually every genre and introduce virtually every character archetype that is still used in modern literature and media. His works are brimming with word play, which often has triple or quadruple meaning; often dramatic, philosophical, and comedic at the same time. He was so prolific and such a good writer that there are conspiracy theories that he was actually several different playwrights sharing the same pen name.
Granted it’s not as easy to appreciate his works today because of how the English language has drifted over the last 500 years, but what other work of literature from 500 years ago can you even point to as being popular today in its original form?
If you want to give Shakespeare a fair shake from the literary appreciation point of view, try reading an annotated copy of his works that provide context and translate the less familiar turns of phrase. It probably won’t make you enjoy reading his works, but it should at least help you understand why he’s so revered.
In terms of actually enjoying Shakespeare, well… He was a playwright, not a novelist! His works are meant to be seen on a stage. There are some really good performers out there whose emotivity can help bridge the language gap. Some troupes also tweak the dialog to make it more accessible to a modem audience, but I don’t generally like that because they tend to lose the puns or at least diminish the layers or the poetry.
Shakespeare’s influence on pretty much all English writing, fiction, theatre, film, narrative form of any sort is so utterly massive it’s almost impossible to fathom. His use of plot has informed how plots are constructed ever since. His use of language is still a massive influence on the way we speak today, and phrases he invented are so rooted in our cultural language we forget they were his. Going on a “wild-goose” chase. Having a “heart of gold”. To “vanish into thin air”. Even: “Knock knock, Who’s there?” was his.
His works might be hard work for today’s student since the language isn’t the language of today. But pick pretty much any genre defining film from 50 years ago and it will seem a bit slow, and flat, and stilted compared to today’s films. “It’s been done better since!” His works are from 500 years ago!
So incredibly influential and popular that reading/watching is boring because everything that has been said by them has been said by everyone else, but better years/decades/centuries later.
I agree that shakespeare is a slog, simply because ive seen probably 50 “hamlet” television episodes that are better
Another great example: West-side Story is just a much better version of romeo and juliet which is slow for no reason in comparison.
Popular might not be the word. Bananas are popular, I can buy the in virtually every store in the country. Caviar is actually pretty hard to get, so it’s clearly not a thing that very many people like.
I would say that it’s “regarded as good” because it’s exclusive, scarce, and expensive. Like, rich people like it (because they can get it) and therefore it’s good.
I’m not disagreeing with you, just trying to contribute some nuance because I think this is what OP was getting at.
In the same vein that lobsters used to be seen as poor food, bugs of the sea. And now we make them scarce and market it as fancy, selling it as a delicacy
Lobster used to be boiled to the point of being hard and rubbery before being served as poor food. Cooking it to the right texture and serving with butter and other things that make it delicious was a later development.
Same with the less popular tough meat cuts, where specific preparation is needed for it to be delicious BBQ.
It isn’t scarcity or marketing as much as it is specific preparation being necessary before it becomes enjoyable to eat.
The amount of money spent making Avatar movies could probably have paid for universal K-College education for every American for decades with enough money left over to bribe the politicians into voting for something regular people want for a change!
You know how like some stuff is goodbad but people like it because it’s not awful? Like, when it’s not made with minimal effort and it seems like someone actually tried write believable dialog.
What are goodbad movies like that movies like that but good.
What?
You know how some restaraunts have a reputation for serving “good food” (I.e. gourmet food), but just because it’s fancier food it doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll actually like it more?
So, what are some foods that people only like because they’re fancy? (I’d argue caviar is one)
Same idea, but for movies. What are some movies that people only like because they’re seen as being “good movies”?
What?
What?
I feel like this is most of shakespears work. Having read a lot of it, i was deeply unimpressed. I found it grueling to work through any of his pieces. And yet theyre universally beloved. Pretty sure its just because everyones teacher told them the book was good.
Its weird though, to kill a mockingbird was actually good, and yet it doesnt recieve nearly as much fanfare as something like hamlet or romeo & juliet. Feels like people just like shakespear because everyone else likes shakespear.
You and I have different friends. One halloween we had a ham costume competition
Shakespeare’s collective works span virtually every genre and introduce virtually every character archetype that is still used in modern literature and media. His works are brimming with word play, which often has triple or quadruple meaning; often dramatic, philosophical, and comedic at the same time. He was so prolific and such a good writer that there are conspiracy theories that he was actually several different playwrights sharing the same pen name.
Granted it’s not as easy to appreciate his works today because of how the English language has drifted over the last 500 years, but what other work of literature from 500 years ago can you even point to as being popular today in its original form?
If you want to give Shakespeare a fair shake from the literary appreciation point of view, try reading an annotated copy of his works that provide context and translate the less familiar turns of phrase. It probably won’t make you enjoy reading his works, but it should at least help you understand why he’s so revered.
In terms of actually enjoying Shakespeare, well… He was a playwright, not a novelist! His works are meant to be seen on a stage. There are some really good performers out there whose emotivity can help bridge the language gap. Some troupes also tweak the dialog to make it more accessible to a modem audience, but I don’t generally like that because they tend to lose the puns or at least diminish the layers or the poetry.
The 2009 BBC Hamlet with David Tenant and Patrick Stewart is, without a doubt, the best possible version of hamlet on stage, on film, in its entirety.
I worked through and annotated hamlet and then watched that version. Just me, a dark room, popcorn, and a cozy spot.
It has made me obsess over Hamlet. Such a wonderful story!
Shakespeare’s influence on pretty much all English writing, fiction, theatre, film, narrative form of any sort is so utterly massive it’s almost impossible to fathom. His use of plot has informed how plots are constructed ever since. His use of language is still a massive influence on the way we speak today, and phrases he invented are so rooted in our cultural language we forget they were his. Going on a “wild-goose” chase. Having a “heart of gold”. To “vanish into thin air”. Even: “Knock knock, Who’s there?” was his.
His works might be hard work for today’s student since the language isn’t the language of today. But pick pretty much any genre defining film from 50 years ago and it will seem a bit slow, and flat, and stilted compared to today’s films. “It’s been done better since!” His works are from 500 years ago!
Imo shakespeare is like seinfeld.
So incredibly influential and popular that reading/watching is boring because everything that has been said by them has been said by everyone else, but better years/decades/centuries later.
I agree that shakespeare is a slog, simply because ive seen probably 50 “hamlet” television episodes that are better
Another great example: West-side Story is just a much better version of romeo and juliet which is slow for no reason in comparison.
I unironically like shakespeare, but yeah, there is an element of inertia to his popularity.
A million flies can’t be wrong.
So like, the entire Marvel universe?
I sort of get what you’re saying, but that’s less because the movie is fancy. More that it has a high budget.
The first iron man was ok.
But otherwise yes.
Caviar is delicious.
Oh, sure. Not debating that. But it’s popular because it’s seen as fancy.
You know I’ve never had caviar but I love the roe they put on sushi. It’s fantastic.
Popular might not be the word. Bananas are popular, I can buy the in virtually every store in the country. Caviar is actually pretty hard to get, so it’s clearly not a thing that very many people like.
I would say that it’s “regarded as good” because it’s exclusive, scarce, and expensive. Like, rich people like it (because they can get it) and therefore it’s good.
I’m not disagreeing with you, just trying to contribute some nuance because I think this is what OP was getting at.
In the same vein that lobsters used to be seen as poor food, bugs of the sea. And now we make them scarce and market it as fancy, selling it as a delicacy
Lobster used to be boiled to the point of being hard and rubbery before being served as poor food. Cooking it to the right texture and serving with butter and other things that make it delicious was a later development.
Same with the less popular tough meat cuts, where specific preparation is needed for it to be delicious BBQ.
It isn’t scarcity or marketing as much as it is specific preparation being necessary before it becomes enjoyable to eat.
deleted by creator
I would debate it. I’ve heard that it’s gross. I’ve never had it though. I’m not fancy enough.
Basically little Gushers filled with fishy, salty juice.
It seems like once real gushers were invented, caviar would become obsolete.
The texture in the fish ones are so much better
Imo It’s good but not worth the hype. But i’ve never had the good stuff (And never will, now that I don’t eat meat)
Don’t worry, I understand you.
OG Avatar was basically “last of the space Mohicans”.
Also: Jesus tapdancing christ 🤦♂️
The amount of money spent making Avatar movies could probably have paid for universal K-College education for every American for decades with enough money left over to bribe the politicians into voting for something regular people want for a change!
And they could have still made the movies with the other billion
You know how like some stuff is goodbad but people like it because it’s not awful? Like, when it’s not made with minimal effort and it seems like someone actually tried write believable dialog.
What are goodbad movies like that movies like that but good.
What?
Removed by mod
There was a movie in 2002 called the Pianist. If you were around then, you get it.
Do you mean the movie about the Holocaust? How does that fit in here?