I've read that this is especially true for shows in syndication.
Has Netflix gone to far?
- Thread starter Nenya
- Start date
Being bad art doesn’t disqualify something as art.
Like those people who put toilets in museums and say “Hey, can a toilet be art?” Yes. That doesn’t make it good or worthwhile art though.
Big Brother isn't art, it's shit. Unless everyone's shit is art, then everything is art and if everything is art then nothing is art.
Art is defined by its intent. The act of framing something as art makes it art. Even if it’s terrible art.
The question of whether it’s either objectively or subjectively terrible has no bearing on the question of whether it’s art or not.
Big Brother is a game show, not intended as art. But far dumber things than Big Brother are terrible art.
I'm with the Stuckists on this. Not everything is art, just because someone claims intent. Tate Gallery and others have helped perpetuate this nonsense that was an interesting thought 100 years ago with Dada but the joke has become recursive and a messy bed is now considered art. it's all a con.
to quote the Stuckist Turner Prize Manifesto, which is about something specific but which illustrates the ongoing problem
Come to think of it, I think early movies including silent films were sped up to try to cover up imperfections and slower frame rates. You can spot this easily in early westerns when horses are galloping as they can sometimes look unnaturally fast.
I like the song "Stayin' Alive", but only when it's sped up. It sounds kind of weird when I hear the original. I wonder why Airplane! did this...
Fun fact: Robert Hays and Julie Hagerty rehearsed their dance moves for a full month. Nearly as long as it took to shoot the whole rest of the film.
Fun fact: Robert Hays and Julie Hagerty rehearsed their dance moves for a full month. Nearly as long as it took to shoot the whole rest of the film.
I’m more bothered by Netflix trying to limit the theatrical runs of films from major directors.
On UK TV, films and US TV series are usually sped up to compensate for the different frame rate. For TV, the speedup is about 5%. I sometimes choose to watch programs I've recorded on my DVR at higher speeds to save time. Speedup is also available for some audiobook sites such as Audible. It seems like a harmless and useful option. As long as it is optional, who cares?
I watched a movie on my TV last night that was originally intended to be seen on a theater screen!
Yeah, but those who were around when it came out were given the theatre screen option, flippant dude.
Maybe this is Netflix going too far? Turns out they aren't in favor of free speech.
https://tvline.com/2019/11/06/netflix-censorship-hasan-minhaj-patriot-act-saudi-arabia/
https://tvline.com/2019/11/06/netflix-censorship-hasan-minhaj-patriot-act-saudi-arabia/
Pretty much my feeling.
It's not just Netflix and Saudi Arabia. HBO has to cut out segments of Last Week Tonight in the UK because it's illegal there to use parliamentary footage to mock politicians.
John Oliver has a fiendish plan to get around Britain's censorship of his satirical use of Parliament footage
June 11, 2018
Last week's Last Week Tonight had a segment about the speaker of Britain's House of Commons delivering put-downs, but nobody in Britain saw it, John Oliver said on Sunday's show. "And not for the normal reasons of disinterest, ignorance about this show's existence, or longstanding aversion to my name and face." At the designated spot in the U.K., he said, the show "just cut to black — like I'd just been murdered on The Sopranos. And the reason for that is, in the U.K., it is, unbelievably, against the law to use footage from the House of Commons for the purpose of comedy. It's true!"
"This law is patently offensive," Oliver said. "Britain is supposed to be one of the world's great free societies. We came up with the Magna Carta, and we allow a product called 'Daddies Brown Sauce' to be sold, regardless of how disturbing that sounds. That's freedom right there! And this anti-satire law isn't just hypocritical, it is a legitimate burden because it's genuinely hard to use parliamentary footage for purposes that are not comedy. Parliament is inherently ridiculous." He showed some examples.
"The fact that we are using parliamentary footage in making fun of this means that this part of the show is now going to be blacked out in the U.K. tomorrow as well, which is genuinely insane and frankly antidemocratic," Oliver said.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thewee...s-censorship-satirical-use-parliament-footage
In the silent film days, cameras were hand-cranked and the usual frame rate was 16-18 FPS. When sound-on-film (optical soundtrack) came in, the frame rate was standardized at 24 FPS to ensure sound fidelity. Older silent footage would be sped up when it was incorporated into the new "talkies." The speed-up wasn't intentional; it was simply unavoidable.
Today, of course, with digital video, silent films can have music and sound effects added and still play at the correct speed.
Last edited:
I do. It's taking someone's piece of art and changing how it was meant to be experienced. The director created something with a specific look, feel, and pacing. If there are stuff you want to skip past, maybe it's not the movie for you.
Colorizing doesn't destroy the original either, but, it changes the experience. Which is the same thing as speeding up movies.
Because there's a conversation between the art as it is and the audience. The artist has created and crafted something. And sometimes that might mean challenging an audience member.
Why does the viewer have all the power in the relationship between the artist and viewer?
Overall, I think it's a terrible idea. The need to consume more, faster is a terrible one. Art shouldn't be about checking off the boxes of how much you consume. It's not a contest.
Don't have time to finish a movie? Thank god they've invented something so it will be there when you get back.
