Why do non-fans think we think it's real?
- Thread starter gomtuu20
- Start date
Okay, that's great -- but those aren't the people I'm talking about. The average sports fan doesn't know the players personally, any more than the average TV show fan knows the actors.
You're right, entertainment is not reality. So how are sports magically exempt from that fact? Playing the games is a real-life profession, but the game is a game, not real life. Just like acting for and producing shows is a real-life profession, but the stories aren't real life.
I'm not directly addressing that question right now, though. Your and JarodRussel's posts caught my eye. What I'm getting at is that there is indeed a similarity between sports fans and TV fans. There is this unfair attitude that performers of physical feats and fans thereof somehow have inherent merit and credibility over performers of intellectual and creative feats and fans thereof, and that only the former "actually achieve something in real life". Bullshit, I say.
- a professional athlete participates in a game that fans of said game watch and contribute nothing but interest to varying degree. and in the larger scheme of things the outcome of the game has no impact except perhaps for the athlete. that said an athlete's performance could conceivably inspire an interested fan to apply themselves to some given pursuit.
- a professional actor participates in a film or television series portraying a fictional character that fans of said program watch and contribute nothing but interest to varying degree. and in the larger scheme of things the program has no impact except for perhaps for the actor. that said the quality of an actor's performance could conceivably inspire an interested fan to apply themselves to some given pursuit.
So now what's the dif in enjoying sports and enjoying a film or television series?
- a professional actor participates in a film or television series portraying a fictional character that fans of said program watch and contribute nothing but interest to varying degree. and in the larger scheme of things the program has no impact except for perhaps for the actor. that said the quality of an actor's performance could conceivably inspire an interested fan to apply themselves to some given pursuit.
So now what's the dif in enjoying sports and enjoying a film or television series?
The game doesn't represent reality, and the stories aren't about reality, but fans celebrate what is real. The game itself is real, and the stories on TV are as real as the players on the field -- they exist, because they were created by real flesh-and-blood writers. Don't you understand? It is real. They created it, and it's real. It's... real...
Oh lol, this thread is just awesome.
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
I hear ya.
It's just a weird debate now with all kinds of weird examples that don't seem to work.
It's like some are saying 2+2=4 ,but others are saying no 3+1=4
That's entirely incorrect.
American football is my favorite sport so going to use it as a direct example:
If a college football team makes a bowl game it's an enormous revenue boost for the University, the City, the State, and the city where the bowl game is hosted (varying depending on which teams).
If a pro football team makes the playoff, it is again a huge revenue boost for both the city and the state where the team plays. Not too mention the revenue added to local businesses, etc.
First of all, that's entirely incorrect to say entertainment is not reality. Many people do things for the sake of entertainment that is entirely reality- such as skydiving, or a little less extreme, playing with a pet.
zar said:
I feel sorry for you that you don't understand the difference between sports and tv shows. I'm really not sure how to articulate the difference any better nor did I ever think I'd have a conversation where I needed to.
The sports event, or "game", is REAL LIFE. The game itself is real. The story told in star Trek is not. Sports are an event in human reality. The only thing real about Star Trek are the actors, producers, sets, etc.
I see an enormous difference between real life sporting events and tv shows, sorry that you don't.
I've already said wearing a jersey I find tacky, but someone is just supporting a real life team. Wearing a Star Trek T-shirt is a little nerdy, but just someone supporting a TV show. Wearing a Star Trek uniform to jury duty or to class, as has been done, is ABNORMAL. It's dressing up in a costume on a random day. Find me a case of someone dressing up in a Helmet, shoulder pads, jersey, jockstrap, football pants, and cleats, and I'll ridicule them just the same. Outside of Halloween, or football practice, I've never heard of that happening.
Mature people would cease to be patronising and agree to disagree. It's worth a try.
Perhaps I should've just said I see an enormous difference between fanatics of real life events as compared to fictional stories?
All over this thread I read patronizing and belittling statements, in fact the reason I've responded to this thread this long was the first statement in response to mine which misrepresented what I said to draw a false conclusion. Basically I'm jaded due to forum responses, so I no longer try to be cordial or mature.
I think it is time to get back on topic please.
I concede that my statement "entertainment is not reality" wasn't the best way to express my point, but then again I was just copying the phrase from your post.
It's nice to know that you feel sorry for me, you know, you're a swell guy
I have articulated the similarity as best I can, but you seem to have ignored those parts of my posts. At least, you chose not to quote/reply to them:
A fictional story on TV is a spectacle that exists in reality, brought into being by a team of real people to entertain fans. The very same definition can be applied to a sports game. The contents of the spectacles can both be said to be "unreal" because a) athletes are simply playing, and acting within the rules of a game -- real competition, but artificial environment -- and b) actors are simply playing out a script; and both can be said to be "real" because actors and athletes are both real people. The difference between the spectacles is that one performance is predominantly physical and the other is artistic.
And if a TV program is successful, it means profit for the network... your point?
Perhaps I should've stated things more clearly. TV Entertainment is reality, but the "show" itself is fake.
zar said:
And that one occurs in real life, and the other is fake? The game is a real life event, what happens in an episode is not real.
Nowhere have I said that "performers of physical feats and fans thereof somehow have inherent merit and credibility over performers of intellectual and creative feats and fans thereof, and that only the former "actually achieve something in real life". Nor do I believe that so there was no reason to reply.
As far as "The game doesn't represent reality, and the stories aren't about reality, but fans celebrate what is real. "
Again the game IS itself reality, whereas the events in a tv show are not.
Zar said:
That wearing a jersey or emblem of a sports from a hat or shirt is representative of being a fan of a real team, in a real city. I support the team through clothing and want the team to do well for many reasons, among those the increased revenue brought to the city and state I live in as well as the university I attended.
Wearing a Star Trek T-shirt is fine and normal. But to the original point of this thread, the reason non-fans think we are weirdos to the point of asking a question "why do you think Star Trek is real?" is, in part, because there are Star Trek fans that wear Starfleet uniforms to jury duty and think that is appropriate and normal behavior. There is no StarFleet. There is no United Federation of Planets. There is no James T. Kirk. So it gives a strange impression to dress up in costume and profess beliefs to a TV show.
Whereas, there is a Peyton Manning. He's not just "pretending to be a QB", he is a real person. Wearing a Peyton Manning jersey is supporting the real person.
I hear ya.
It's just a weird debate now with all kinds of weird examples that don't seem to work.
It's like some are saying 2+2=4 ,but others are saying no 3+1=4
Oh no ya dont ... 1+1+2 = 4!
Once again, why is it acceptable to belittle TV fans because "it's just a show" but not sports fans because "it's just a game"? Both are performances on an artificial stage, be it rules and conditions of a game, or set pieces and scripts. Both performances occur in real life; some shows even have live audiences.
Rather than the person himself, are you not actually specifically supporting his role as QB -- his physical performance? How then is that vastly different than supporting an actor's role as a character -- his artistic performance? Or supporting the concepts of writers?
The experiences of the people creating the entertainment are quite different, but the role of the fans remains the same. To appreciate the entertainment on display. To simply watch. The similarity is obvious.
First of all, I was describing the attitude of general society, not any individual. But it was JarodRussel who said: "And then sport teams actually achieve something in real life. Star Trek fans are following some fictional universe that makes no sense and has no real importance to anything." And your own remarks about sports fans vs. Trek fans indicate that you share this attitude to some degree.
You even admitted that you would consider Kreacher a "weirdo" for displaying the UFP flag while the guy wearing the sports shirt was acceptable. It's bullshit. Anyone can hang a painting of unreal subjects concocted in the artist's mind, but if the subject is a niche work of fiction like Star Trek, ridicule is inevitable.
Let me throw a few more coals into the fire:
Rock band fans - Kiss fans, Dead fans, et al, who wear band t-shirts, go to concerts, play their music, maybe play an instrument themselves.
Sherlock Holmes fans - those who gather to read The Canon, have Holmes parties in period dress, stage mysteries and role play.
Civil War reenactors - history buffs who gather in uniform to replay historical battles, sometimes in private, sometimes as a public performance.
In each case, groups who dress up in honor of their favorite thing and participate in fannish activities - in each case, Comperable to Trek fans? Comperable to sports fans? Both? Neither? Should Lakers fans be beating them up and making fun of them?
Rock band fans - Kiss fans, Dead fans, et al, who wear band t-shirts, go to concerts, play their music, maybe play an instrument themselves.
Sherlock Holmes fans - those who gather to read The Canon, have Holmes parties in period dress, stage mysteries and role play.
Civil War reenactors - history buffs who gather in uniform to replay historical battles, sometimes in private, sometimes as a public performance.
In each case, groups who dress up in honor of their favorite thing and participate in fannish activities - in each case, Comperable to Trek fans? Comperable to sports fans? Both? Neither? Should Lakers fans be beating them up and making fun of them?
Similar threads
