tv or movies

ha ha ha you know nothing about public libraries in 99% of this country do you?

You can ILL all kinds of DVD's via ILL as Jaymc pointed out.

if you are really that into movies and you don't live in a place w/ an enormous library you should prob just get netflix?

Every interlibrary loan request I've ever made has been like pulling impacted wisdom teeth. "WHY in god's NAME would you ask me to do something like THAT, you think you're too good for these Touched by an Angel videotapes? ok, FINE. FINE!"

Whereas with film I feel like I've barely begun to scratch the surface of all the material worth watching 25x.

for ex. y'know, one day I will get around to going through all of Sam Fuller's films. Or Ozu. Or De Palma. I am fairly confident that these are treasure troves that I am likely to enjoy. I do not feel this way about diving into the entire run of, say, Lost.

xps

http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s320x320/381407_10150408507856548_683531547_8780150_621217801_n.jpg

Yeah, and I've seen everything I want to see from them. Unless I take up a marathon viewing of Armenian miniseries concerning the effects of genocide and the problem with Turks, that is. ILL is a great option in theory, but the wait time for anything that isn't Anne of Avonlea is +/- 6 months. I still do it sometimes, but by the time I get the movie I've ILLed, I've often moved on to something else or forgotten why I put it on the first place. I live in a suburb that's suburby enough (sorry, iatee) that I don't have access to the large city collection that I did even 5 miles on the other side of town. I do netflix, greencine, hulu, and DVDs by mail from Sprockets when I need, and I see a ton of movies through them but there is honestly _no_ local option for watching them.

ha ha ha you know nothing about public libraries in 99% of this country do you?

hahaha I was raised by a librarian, have two close friends that are public librarians in the SF library system, and go to our branch on a weekly basis. and get ILL all the time (primarily for sci-fi books and not for movies tho)

in conclusion, fuck you

Every interlibrary loan request I've ever made has been like pulling impacted wisdom teeth. "WHY in god's NAME would you ask me to do something like THAT, you think you're too good for these Touched by an Angel videotapes? ok, FINE. FINE!"

― William (C), Tuesday, December 13, 2011 6:46 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Permalink

that's a function of a person at your library being a total dick, not ILL itself as an idea.

Yeah, I loved the SF library system. And the LA library system. And the Seattle library system. And the Boston library system. Unfortunately I'm not near any of them.

remy is there stuff you can't find on those internet services? (I've never used any of them)

xp

"DO I KNOW ABOUT LIBRARIES!? YOU GO TO HELL, SIR" may be my favorite haughty comeback in ilx history

ILL is a great option in theory, but the wait time for anything that isn't Anne of Avonlea is +/- 6 months. I still do it sometimes, but by the time I get the movie I've ILLed, I've often moved on to something else or forgotten why I put it on the first place.

6 months? Really?

that's a function of a person at your library being a total dick, not ILL itself as an idea.

I agree completely, but a barrier is a barrier.

some of my BEST FRIENDS are librarians

your results may be somewhat affected by the fact that you live in San Francisco btw, i can't believe that you're arguing that someone who lives in topeka or basically anywhere that isn't an urban/upper-middle class suburban area is going to be able to get a steady stream of iranian art movies or whatever through inter-library loan

ps i am a librarian

there's no real difference between walking to a store to get those 1s and 0s or pressing 3 buttons on your computer

Well, the diff is the vidstores will have stuff you are not going to find on your computer. We lose titles every time there's a technology change, as Dave Kehr has pointed out.

even if they magically did have access to this type of movie through ILL, they won't for much longer thanks to national library budget cuts

ILL would be a great setting for a hilarious TV comedy (not really)

6 months? Really?

Really. I waited for almost a year to rewatch Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and then got kicked off the list b/c I didn't pick it up w/in 4 days of it arriving at my branch.

Shakey,

I'm pretty pleased with what I can find through the various internet-based sevices. It's not 100% - more like 70% - and it takes a _lot_ of time to track down some titles. Generally I'm 6 or 8 months behind the curve on new releases unless I get screener copies, and that's a good 3-6 months behind where I was when I had local video stores or libraries pipelining me new stuff. It's not a bad setup, but it leaves a lot to be desired, and I've been moving from movies toward TV just for ease of procurement.

btw I would never disagree that major-studio US films are worse than ever, and will be worse 5 years from now. He seems to agree:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/8919102/Where-are-the-great-movies-asks-Spielberg.html

some of my BEST FRIENDS are librarians

your results may be somewhat affected by the fact that you live in San Francisco btw, i can't believe that you're arguing that someone who lives in topeka or basically anywhere that isn't an urban/upper-middle class suburban area is going to be able to get a steady stream of iranian art movies or whatever through inter-library loan

I work for an academic library that sends out DVD's, VHS tapes to small town middle of nowhere libraries on a daily basis. Our holdings include all kinds of stuff, including IRANIAN ART MOVIES. Neat, huh?

slightly off-topic, another weird thing about TV is that it requires this bigger emotional/time-commitment to pay off, imho. For example, I've watched episodes of Community and Parks & Rec and Arrested Development, not laughed once, and happily ignored them ever since. But you get this phenomenon of people telling you you have to watch several episodes before you will enjoy it - it's like you have to perform this mental trick to get anything out of it, you have to first invest time and energy into it and then the cognitive dissonance kicks in and you figure you better watch it/enjoy it now cuz you've already watched 1 1/2 hours of it etc. Like you have to develop this familiarity/immersion in the show before you get anything out of it. I find something about this phenomenon off-putting.

And I don't get this from movies.

xps

that is neat

xpost

Attacking the prevalence of film franchises - movies based on toys, or video games, that are intended to sell a product as much as they are to entertain - Spielberg said: “I think producers are more interested in backing concepts than directors and writers.

Kinda disingenuous of him not to note his own role in this process, witting or unwitting.

btw I would never disagree that major-studio US films are worse than ever, and will be worse 5 years from now.

yeah this seems kind of indisputable.

thanks internet!

slightly off-topic, another weird thing about TV is that it requires this bigger emotional/time-commitment to pay off, imho. For example, I've watched episodes of Community and Parks & Rec and Arrested Development, not laughed once, and happily ignored them ever since. But you get this phenomenon of people telling you you have to watch several episodes before you will enjoy it - it's like you have to perform this mental trick to get anything out of it, you have to first invest time and energy into it and then the cognitive dissonance kicks in and you figure you better watch it/enjoy it now cuz you've already watched 1 1/2 hours of it etc. Like you have to develop this familiarity/immersion in the show before you get anything out of it. I find something about this phenomenon off-putting.

And I don't get this from movies.

so you don't have to invest 1.5 hours in a movie to get something out of it?

Really. I waited for almost a year to rewatch Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and then got kicked off the list b/c I didn't pick it up w/in 4 days of it arriving at my branch.

This is kind of your fault, though. If libraries didn't do this sort of thing, it would take even longer for you to get your stuff.

i'm really not trying to be a dick there, i honestly don't understand the difference you're trying to point out

ILL would be a great setting for a hilarious TV comedy (not really)

Yes!

ps i am a librarian

― n/a, Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:53 AM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Permalink

showing you're a pretty terrible one itt

good thing i have ilx posting to fall back on

so you don't have to invest 1.5 hours in a movie to get something out of it?

the specific amount of time is not the issue. It's more the phenomenon of say, having to watch several episodes of something before it becomes funny. Which has always struck me as odd. Good comedy should be funny right off the bat. Movies work in a different way.

xp

Good comedy should be funny right off the bat.

yeah all comedy shd be relentless pies in the face

and usually it's not a question of continuity - ie, a joke being set up early on that pays off four episodes later (altho this does happen with the better serialized shows like Sopranos, Mad Men, the Wire, etc.). It's more a question of developing a familiarity with a show's rhythms and tropes and then once you've internalized those you come to see the comedy in them... A lot of times I don't want to go through that process. Like with Parks and Rec I just didn't think the jokes were funny, I didn't want to have to sit through 4 episodes of bad jokes before I laughed at one, that seems like a waste of time.

xp

not saying that people don't sometimes excuse weak material with "you just have to get into it" but it's crazy to exclude all comedy that involves meticulous build-up of observation or establishment of expectations

yeah all comedy shd be relentless pies in the face
football in the groin

tbf football in the groin works on so many levels

ILL would be a great setting for a hilarious TV comedy (not really)

Ha, the other night at drinks, a few of us were actually discussing the idea of a library as a setting for a workplace sitcom.

http://aklemai.com/albums/album34/FootballGroin.gif

not saying that people don't sometimes excuse weak material with "you just have to get into it" but it's crazy to exclude all comedy that involves meticulous build-up of observation or establishment of expectations

obviously I'm referring primarily to the former scenario.

didn't they try a "party girl" sitcom?

I don't think the first few episodes of Parks and Rec were particularly funny. If I were recommending the show to someone I knew would be impatient, I would tell them to start with Season 2, and I don't think they would miss out on much. But ultimately I didn't mind watching them because they created context and familiarity. And one of the things that TV has on movies is that allows you to develop relationships with characters over time. I watch P&R not just for the laffs but also b/c I care about those people.

it's not just lesser shows people are pretending to like that take some time to really get invested in, it's pretty much EVERY SHOW, especially if you're watching it from the beginning and it's one of the 99% of good shows that had a shaky start

and then sometimes you invest yrself in a show that turns to shit... like, say BSG or (I have been led to understand) Lost.

xp That's true: most shows take at least a few episodes to find their rhythm, figure out what they do best.

my choice of films over tv wasn't a judgment of quality, it was more about which one fits my lifestyle better - actually i agree that the best tv is great because it allows you into this self-contained and detailed world that references back to itself, past events, different characters etc all the time. i just don't have the time for that sort of entertainment! and following tv in a more dilettantish kind of way feels way less satisfying.

films are both more disposable, weirdly (in that all you have to commit is a couple of hours then it's over) but also more intense an experience.

(I have been led to understand) Lost.

yeah, I wouldn't mind having those 130-something hours of my life back, tbh

something else i like about tv is that it doesn't have to tell you the whole story in two hours, so it's just more relaxed about everything.

in screenwriting there's this golden rule that every line of dialogue has to say something about both the plot and the character saying it, which is like seriously rigorous, and i feel like usually this mentality stretches out to every other aspect of the movie as well: you've got like an hour 45 and that's IT so every microparticle of the soundtrack and set and everything has to be honed to extract the maximum impact of whatever it is the director's trying to do. (this is one reason i think there are so many heist movies and thrillers, which you don't get so much of on tv - the characters' lives turn on the same kind of nanosecond mechanics that directors have trained themselves to excel at in the crafting of their movies). not all movies have this kind of saturation of meaning but most seem to. and sometimes it's great when the whole thing really clicks like a well-oiled machine. but i like to watch things unfold languidly too, or seemingly at random, or with small stakes - no big weddings or nuclear bombs - and tv seems suited to that because of its serial nature and its length.

i mean even in something as slow and natural as "i've loved you so long", there's really not a single wasted shot.

i guess another contributing factor here is what morbs hates - tv has to share space with the rest of your house, and it doesn't envelop your senses the same way, so it doesn't make as much sense to invest every frame with freighted meaning cause half the audience just put a forkful of ramen in their mouths