![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Sigh, the upstairs tenants have gotten bored and decided to move furniture and go on a cleaning frenzy. I can hear them pounding about upstairs and vacuuming. Reminds me that I need to send the robot vacuum around the apartment again. I'm extremely quiet tenant - because I don't wear shoes, etc. They aren't bad, for the most part they've been relatively quiet - the tenants before them were far worse.
I'm debating what to do with my day off from work. I have a three-day weekend. Considering taking a walk, it's cloudy and cool - maybe there won't be many people outside? Also, considering going on a supply run - but not sure I want to brave the grocery store quite yet. My mother keeps telling me not to whenever I discuss it with her - mainly because my last tale of braving the grocery store was not well, pleasant.
Also debating laundry - it's been three weeks. But it's just me and I'm not that dirty. The towels seem fine. And I have extra towels and sheets, so really not an issue. Plus I'm a New Yorker - I have enough underwear to last a month or two.
Not to mention clothes. Not wearing socks at the moment.
Maybe I should go on a cleaning spree?
2. Eh, scary charts...
But first... Please Don't Try to get Immune By Catching the Virus - it's a Really Dumb Move [I already knew that - I kind of wrote about idiots doing that in the backstory to an unfinished sci-fi novel I was working on about five or six years ago.]
This is a Social Distancing Scoreboard That Demonstrates How Well Your Community is Social Distancing
Mine is not doing that well. It has a C-, Manhattan is doing better - but Manhattan is mainly businesses not residential, and the residents are upper income. The outer boroughs are lower on the economic scale. Although, Queens is also doing better than Brooklyn and the Bronx. And when I also compare upstate and Long Island - which are also in the C- to D range, I'd state that the urban areas are doing better than the residential ones. I think the people who live in the suburbs and rural areas are a little more complacent about it, and think they are safe because hello - just in my neighborhood. I do see more people traveling about where I live than has been reported in Manhattan and areas of Queens which are more dense in population.
Visualization of How COVID-19 Progressed to the Number 1 Killer in a month's time
3. Why I write meta and making sense of the non-sensical.
I've been playing about on a GH fanboard. We've had two lengthy arguments.
The first was about which character has done the most horrid thing possible. Or the old, well "Character A" did these "horrible things" and got redeemed, why can't they redeem Character B, and more importantly why can't you find a way to give Character B the benefit of the doubt and a chance, along with their arc?
Answer? Because I don't want to, dammit.
That's really the most honest answer. Because let's face it any fictional character can be redeemed or be found to be likable by somebody. It's not a matter of whether or not they can be, it's a matter of whether or not the viewer or reader wants to deal with it.
I mean some characters just trigger me. I don't always know why. And while I can change my mind about a few of them, some I can't. I remember having fights with folks about Harmony and Spike back in the day. Harmony triggered me, while I kind of emphasized with Spike. They felt the exact opposite. We both thought we were right and the other person was a nitwit. We didn't listen to each other. We just threw examples of why we were triggered at each other. And then played a game of one-up-manship on whose problems or triggers were the worst and which character was the worst etc. We also had these battles over Angel and Spike, although Angel didn't trigger me. I wasn't bullied that badly by people like Angel, I was bullied badly by people like Harmony. I despised her on site and wanted her dead. Weirdly, Cordelia didn't bother me that much - mainly because it was the Harmonies of the world that make life painful. They are the Trump supporters, they are the mindless hoard or lynch mob. They are the contestants on the Bachelor, the mean girls in the schools, the people who join white supremacist groups, the trolls on social media. My hatred for Harmony knew no bounds. It wasn't rational. Hate as an emotion is rarely rational and it's painful. Triggers aren't rational. Actually I got into a fight once with someone in a group therapy session who couldn't handle the word "trigger" - that in of itself was a trigger for them.
And fighting over the character makes it worse. The more someone attempted to change my mind about Harmony the deeper I dug in my heels. I can be stubborn, I admit this.
Also, when people debate - they often use emotion as a tactic. I see it in political fights as well. And often they will go after the favorite character of the person they are debating. I've used this tactic too, it never ends well. All I end up doing is alienating them further. I can't win an argument by attacking someone else's beliefs, loves, desires, goals, or hopes. I can win by working to get rid of their fears and by chipping away at the anger. But that's hard to do.
I think in order to change my mind about Harmony, the other debater would have had to listen to me first. Understand and appreciate why the character triggered me, and then slowly get across to me the differences and find things in the character that we could both agree on or common ground. The trick to winning a debate is not talking or debating, but listening. You don't win by shouting the other person down, but by allowing them to talk at length and listening to everything they said, and then with kindness and compassion, slowly going after the points you agree with and the one's you don't and ask for clarification.
The reason why I think this is very hard to do - outside of the obvious - is I often don't want to do it. I just want to feel the way I do and don't understand why they can't too. It's hard - I think - to get past the self-interest. But I kind of have to in order to truly connect to the other person. It's why I wrote meta to be honest - or one of the many reasons - I wanted to connect with people. And through the writing of the meta, the rational analysis of characters and the reasons why I struggled with them - I was able to make that connection. I was able to find a way to appreciate characters that I despised and the metaphors they represented. In Harmony, I was able to find why she existed in the series, her role in it, and the humor within that. That it was the writers way of dealing with their own childhood demons many of which were similar to my own. Through meta - I was able to get past my anger, hate, fears, and frustrations with my own life and the show I loved, and find the reasons I loved it, it was also how I was able to find others of like minds, and find people who felt the same way I did and needed to do it as well. Most of the time, we didn't agree on the characters we discussed, many of the friends I met online loved the character of Harmony for example, and many despised the character of Spike - but we were able to connect and appreciate each others views through this medium of rational and often scholarly discussion.
If you were to ask me why I wrote meta - that's why. If you were to ask why I like to discuss plot points and characters online - that's why. It's a way to cross boundaries, to find common ground.
Even in the harshest debates about characters - I find myself hunting for the human understanding. Why we do what we do, and how we can find common ground.
Sure I hate Harmony, you love her.
Sure I love Spike, and you hate him.
But that does not mean we can't be friends. Same with politics or so I've found.
Sure you love Bernie, and I despise him.
Sure I love Warren, and you don't.
That does not mean we can't be friends.
The trick is to look past it and find common ground. I do it every day at work. I work with a lot of conservatives, many who voted for he who shall not be named. But, we still have common ground - we have our work, we have our families, we care about each other.
The other thing we fought over was whether a necklace was gold or silver. It's a prop, and obviously fairly cheap - so it can look gold or silver depending on the lighting and definition of the television set. Not all Television Sets are created equal. Several people, including myself, and my mother saw a silver necklace, the rest including the board moderator saw a gold one. (Note - my mother is NOT on the fanboard. I would never go on a discussion board with my mother - and she doesn't like those things anyhow.) It was important, because a character that most of us despised was shown to have the other half of the necklace. That half was gold. It was important - because apparently the character with the necklace that appeared to be silver had a missing daughter. Her mother who sold said daughter on the black market, gave the other half of the necklace to the daughter she'd sold. It was an important detail and people were fighting over it - mainly because they didn't like the direction the story was going and wanted it to go another route.
It reminds me of the arguments we had online in Buffy, Doctor Who, etc - over minute details that didn't work. Such as how come Spike has a reflection in a window, when he's a vampire? Is there inner meaning to that? (No, they forgot to edit it out.)
What works for me is to figure out why. If I can analyze it and come up with an explanation - then I have control. It makes sense. I move on. I like to make rational sense of things, to grab some semblance of control over something that bugs or confuses me. I'm detail oriented and analytical - I like things to make sense sometimes. It comforts me.
So this is the other reason I write meta or long posts on the internet - to make sense of the world around me, and to connect to others of similar dispositions. To make sense, and to feel less alone. Less afraid. Less uncertain. To have control.
If I can make sense of the non-sensical, it helps.
I'm debating what to do with my day off from work. I have a three-day weekend. Considering taking a walk, it's cloudy and cool - maybe there won't be many people outside? Also, considering going on a supply run - but not sure I want to brave the grocery store quite yet. My mother keeps telling me not to whenever I discuss it with her - mainly because my last tale of braving the grocery store was not well, pleasant.
Also debating laundry - it's been three weeks. But it's just me and I'm not that dirty. The towels seem fine. And I have extra towels and sheets, so really not an issue. Plus I'm a New Yorker - I have enough underwear to last a month or two.
Not to mention clothes. Not wearing socks at the moment.
Maybe I should go on a cleaning spree?
2. Eh, scary charts...
But first... Please Don't Try to get Immune By Catching the Virus - it's a Really Dumb Move [I already knew that - I kind of wrote about idiots doing that in the backstory to an unfinished sci-fi novel I was working on about five or six years ago.]
This is a Social Distancing Scoreboard That Demonstrates How Well Your Community is Social Distancing
Mine is not doing that well. It has a C-, Manhattan is doing better - but Manhattan is mainly businesses not residential, and the residents are upper income. The outer boroughs are lower on the economic scale. Although, Queens is also doing better than Brooklyn and the Bronx. And when I also compare upstate and Long Island - which are also in the C- to D range, I'd state that the urban areas are doing better than the residential ones. I think the people who live in the suburbs and rural areas are a little more complacent about it, and think they are safe because hello - just in my neighborhood. I do see more people traveling about where I live than has been reported in Manhattan and areas of Queens which are more dense in population.
Visualization of How COVID-19 Progressed to the Number 1 Killer in a month's time
3. Why I write meta and making sense of the non-sensical.
I've been playing about on a GH fanboard. We've had two lengthy arguments.
The first was about which character has done the most horrid thing possible. Or the old, well "Character A" did these "horrible things" and got redeemed, why can't they redeem Character B, and more importantly why can't you find a way to give Character B the benefit of the doubt and a chance, along with their arc?
Answer? Because I don't want to, dammit.
That's really the most honest answer. Because let's face it any fictional character can be redeemed or be found to be likable by somebody. It's not a matter of whether or not they can be, it's a matter of whether or not the viewer or reader wants to deal with it.
I mean some characters just trigger me. I don't always know why. And while I can change my mind about a few of them, some I can't. I remember having fights with folks about Harmony and Spike back in the day. Harmony triggered me, while I kind of emphasized with Spike. They felt the exact opposite. We both thought we were right and the other person was a nitwit. We didn't listen to each other. We just threw examples of why we were triggered at each other. And then played a game of one-up-manship on whose problems or triggers were the worst and which character was the worst etc. We also had these battles over Angel and Spike, although Angel didn't trigger me. I wasn't bullied that badly by people like Angel, I was bullied badly by people like Harmony. I despised her on site and wanted her dead. Weirdly, Cordelia didn't bother me that much - mainly because it was the Harmonies of the world that make life painful. They are the Trump supporters, they are the mindless hoard or lynch mob. They are the contestants on the Bachelor, the mean girls in the schools, the people who join white supremacist groups, the trolls on social media. My hatred for Harmony knew no bounds. It wasn't rational. Hate as an emotion is rarely rational and it's painful. Triggers aren't rational. Actually I got into a fight once with someone in a group therapy session who couldn't handle the word "trigger" - that in of itself was a trigger for them.
And fighting over the character makes it worse. The more someone attempted to change my mind about Harmony the deeper I dug in my heels. I can be stubborn, I admit this.
Also, when people debate - they often use emotion as a tactic. I see it in political fights as well. And often they will go after the favorite character of the person they are debating. I've used this tactic too, it never ends well. All I end up doing is alienating them further. I can't win an argument by attacking someone else's beliefs, loves, desires, goals, or hopes. I can win by working to get rid of their fears and by chipping away at the anger. But that's hard to do.
I think in order to change my mind about Harmony, the other debater would have had to listen to me first. Understand and appreciate why the character triggered me, and then slowly get across to me the differences and find things in the character that we could both agree on or common ground. The trick to winning a debate is not talking or debating, but listening. You don't win by shouting the other person down, but by allowing them to talk at length and listening to everything they said, and then with kindness and compassion, slowly going after the points you agree with and the one's you don't and ask for clarification.
The reason why I think this is very hard to do - outside of the obvious - is I often don't want to do it. I just want to feel the way I do and don't understand why they can't too. It's hard - I think - to get past the self-interest. But I kind of have to in order to truly connect to the other person. It's why I wrote meta to be honest - or one of the many reasons - I wanted to connect with people. And through the writing of the meta, the rational analysis of characters and the reasons why I struggled with them - I was able to make that connection. I was able to find a way to appreciate characters that I despised and the metaphors they represented. In Harmony, I was able to find why she existed in the series, her role in it, and the humor within that. That it was the writers way of dealing with their own childhood demons many of which were similar to my own. Through meta - I was able to get past my anger, hate, fears, and frustrations with my own life and the show I loved, and find the reasons I loved it, it was also how I was able to find others of like minds, and find people who felt the same way I did and needed to do it as well. Most of the time, we didn't agree on the characters we discussed, many of the friends I met online loved the character of Harmony for example, and many despised the character of Spike - but we were able to connect and appreciate each others views through this medium of rational and often scholarly discussion.
If you were to ask me why I wrote meta - that's why. If you were to ask why I like to discuss plot points and characters online - that's why. It's a way to cross boundaries, to find common ground.
Even in the harshest debates about characters - I find myself hunting for the human understanding. Why we do what we do, and how we can find common ground.
Sure I hate Harmony, you love her.
Sure I love Spike, and you hate him.
But that does not mean we can't be friends. Same with politics or so I've found.
Sure you love Bernie, and I despise him.
Sure I love Warren, and you don't.
That does not mean we can't be friends.
The trick is to look past it and find common ground. I do it every day at work. I work with a lot of conservatives, many who voted for he who shall not be named. But, we still have common ground - we have our work, we have our families, we care about each other.
The other thing we fought over was whether a necklace was gold or silver. It's a prop, and obviously fairly cheap - so it can look gold or silver depending on the lighting and definition of the television set. Not all Television Sets are created equal. Several people, including myself, and my mother saw a silver necklace, the rest including the board moderator saw a gold one. (Note - my mother is NOT on the fanboard. I would never go on a discussion board with my mother - and she doesn't like those things anyhow.) It was important, because a character that most of us despised was shown to have the other half of the necklace. That half was gold. It was important - because apparently the character with the necklace that appeared to be silver had a missing daughter. Her mother who sold said daughter on the black market, gave the other half of the necklace to the daughter she'd sold. It was an important detail and people were fighting over it - mainly because they didn't like the direction the story was going and wanted it to go another route.
It reminds me of the arguments we had online in Buffy, Doctor Who, etc - over minute details that didn't work. Such as how come Spike has a reflection in a window, when he's a vampire? Is there inner meaning to that? (No, they forgot to edit it out.)
What works for me is to figure out why. If I can analyze it and come up with an explanation - then I have control. It makes sense. I move on. I like to make rational sense of things, to grab some semblance of control over something that bugs or confuses me. I'm detail oriented and analytical - I like things to make sense sometimes. It comforts me.
So this is the other reason I write meta or long posts on the internet - to make sense of the world around me, and to connect to others of similar dispositions. To make sense, and to feel less alone. Less afraid. Less uncertain. To have control.
If I can make sense of the non-sensical, it helps.
no subject
Date: 2020-04-10 04:29 pm (UTC)Very true, and we can see that over and over in human history (or the present events, for that matter).
no subject
Date: 2020-04-10 07:22 pm (UTC)I guess the key in overcoming these seemingly intractable conflicts (in terms of characterizations) is the willingness to challenge your own assumptions. Do I have a bias against this character because of my own life experiences? Have I misread the creator's intent with this character? (Some people don't want their assumptions challenged.)
You know I've always loved Harmony. Yes, she's a bimbo, a troll, a vicious sheep, the poster girl for the herd mentality. But that was exactly her purpose in the Buffy/Angel narrative. Her selfish immaturity and complete lack of personal loyalty made her character adaptable to a variety of situations. She remained consistent all the way to the end. Angel knew she'd betray him to Wolfram & Hart... and she didn't disappoint.
The only time I ever had any problems with Spike was his Buffy S6 characterization, which I originally thought was caught between "abused boyfriend" and "abusive boyfriend." These days, I realize there's no reason it couldn't be both, and I can live with it. (I still have problems with S6's writing and character arcs, though.) Every other incarnation of Spike was a joy: big bad (B2), wacky neighbor (B4), Bronte-an tortured hero (B7), soul brother (A5).
If I can see a character's purpose in the narrative and the character acts like a three -dimensional human, I think I can pretty much tolerate him (or her) no matter how unpleasant. If the character is a stereotype with zero spin? Then I get irritated--no matter how important that character is to the narrative.
no subject
Date: 2020-04-10 11:13 pm (UTC)Yes. I liked Harmony better in Angel than Buffy, actually there were a lot of characters that I preferred in Angel including Angel. They tended to be more well-rounded and less just a "trope" or "metaphor". Harmony was far more complex in Angel, in Buffy she was more of a one-note joke and didn't work for me that much - except that I understood she was meant to be a metaphor and in a way a kind of mirror to Buffy. Buffy - the ditzy/self-absorbed blond cheerleader who gets killed in all the horror flicks and is relegated to male arm candy - that's Harmony in Buffy, and it's kind of a reflection or a comment on the trope. Just as Darla and Buffy and even Cordelia are all comments on the trope - from a male perspective. Not that I necessarily think a female perspective would have been that different - since Marti kind of wrote it the same way as did the writer of the Boom!Comics.
In Angel, Harmony is provided with a bit more depth, as are Angel (who was a romantic trope in Buffy and a metaphor mainly - Spike actually got a bit more characterization in Buffy than Angel did but he was also in Buffy longer than Angel and had a more detailed arc), Cordelia, Wesley, Darla and Drusilla...for that matter. They all get more depth and much better arcs.
I need something to bite into. For the most part, Whedon worked to subvert or spin the stereotypes, and often the stereotypes were deliberate - so I could hand-wave and deal. He did spin them. A lot of television writers don't, which is problematic.
That said? I still get emotionally triggered by characters or in some cases the fans who love them. For example? I loved Angel, I did not like Angel's fans. And I think this was true for a lot of people including myself regarding Spike. Even Willow for that matter. An obsessed fan tends to well...not think rationally and often their vision of a character is NOT necessarily what is on the screen, it's often skewed. So that can add a wrinkle to any discussion of the character.
no subject
Date: 2020-04-10 11:59 pm (UTC)(Some fans.)
I can't and never have been able to stomach these Angel vs. Spike, Team Edward vs. Team Jacob, etc. etc. fan battles. They just give me hives. I run in the opposite direction at top speed; otherwise, I'd be tempted to yell at both sides: "Jesus, you people, get a life!" (And then both sides would track me down and incinerate me.)
While Angel and Spike fanatics were flaming each other at the end of Buffy s7, you and I were saying: "Gee, I can't wait for Angel and Spike to get together again." And they did. And it was wonderful.
no subject
Date: 2020-04-11 01:41 am (UTC)Sigh. Shippers. Sigh.
I always went along with the storyline. (It's rare when I don't -usually when the story makes no sense like the last trilogy of Stars Wars, but never mind that.) I never understood shipping against the storyline - seemed awfully masochistic. Granted I've been known to do it with soap operas here and there, but it's not for very long, also "soap operas". Better written series - I can usually figure out where they are going and why, and if it works, I go along with it.
For example? I loved Angel and Buffy up until S4 Buffy, S1 Angel, when the writers broke them up and finally sold me on it. I could see the reasons for the break up and why the two didn't work together - it made sense. And I moved merrily on to Riley. The Riley/Buffy breakup seemed a bit more abrupt, but I bought it too and went along with it. And they sold me on Buffy and Spike somewhere around Afterlife. I also knew exactly how they'd break them up and why - I didn't find it shocking at all. In fact I tried to warn people and they attacked me with pitch forks. Just as I tried to warn them about Tara's death.
It was well-written enough that I could see the plot unfolding and knew at a certain point where they were headed with it.
And I grew very frustrated with the fandom, who wanted the story in their heads not the story that was playing out on screen. That's actually the problem with writing fanfic - is the fanfic writer is often trying to second guess the original writer and can come up with a story they like better than the original writer's story. It's also why a lot of novelists despise fanfic writers.
While Angel and Spike fanatics were flaming each other at the end of Buffy s7, you and I were saying: "Gee, I can't wait for Angel and Spike to get together again." And they did. And it was wonderful.
I remember it well. It seems awfully silly in retrospect. I kept getting into fights with folks on fanboards the summer before, because they thought Spike would ruin Angel. At one point, Tim Minear jumped on Angel's Soul Board and spanked the fans - with the statement that they should watch the story - and how great an addition Spike was to Angel. (I was forever enamored of the writer after that. I was highly amused. Their hero had spanked them. LOL!)
What a lot of fans didn't realize was that David Boreanze was bored and ready to throw in the towel, and Marsters energized him. He also convinced him to do whatever was possible to keep the show going.
I'm more appreciative of what Boreanze accomplished with the show now than I was at the time. He had a very hard job and did it well. I've seen others try to do the same thing and not pull it off.
no subject
Date: 2020-04-11 03:59 am (UTC)For me, the most recent example of the above was the huge number of GoT fans who were sorely pissed at the series' ending because of the fate of the Daenerys Targaryen character, whom most-- including myself-- were more than a mite infatuated with.
Since I didn't get to see the last season until the DVD set was released, it was impossible to avoid spoilers, so I knew what would happen, just not the particulars.
On the actual viewing, I was very bummed, but... after a second viewing of the episode, and then pondering not only the events of the final season, but the seasons before, it became clear to me that this was really the only logical outcome. There were multiple preshadows of her fate, and even who would be the administer of her fate.
So... unhappy? Yes, but... my desire to see well-thought-out creative writing take place, with a serious point to be made, despite knowing some viewers will be ticked? Satisfied. Like the man said-- You can't always get what...
no subject
Date: 2020-04-11 02:17 pm (UTC)And up until roughly the second to last season - it stuck to those details, adhered to them. It was precise. Then all of a sudden it not only went off-book (which to be fair it had to) but it also dropped the details. Characters who used to take a whole season to traverse a world or at least several months, could now pop in and out of places in the blink of an eye. Starbucks coffee cups were spotted in various scenes. Fight sequences were poorly executed and made no sense - NASA who loved the series for it's adequate fight sequences were furious with how the fighting was staged in the final season - it was made no sense. It was as if they fired their fight scene writer and hired someone who knew nothing about it. (And considering they took two full years to film it when the previous seasons had been filmed in one year...)
Also it felt rushed. The lighting was so dark people couldn't see half of it.
I can go on and on and on.
That's a HUGE difference between wanting the story in your head and wanting the story that you've been promised. Another example isthe Star Wars fandom - who equally got upset, and for good reason, for being promised one story and getting another - the story in Force Awakens that was promised didn't track through the three films. The writer left, the directors decided to drop or forgot the story that had been on screen...
So while yes, you can say that the fandom that was upset with how Dany's arc played out - fits the comparison, what you are missing is most people who watched it, and had been invested, were upset with the last two seasons because of the sheer sloppiness of the writing, plotting, characterization, and overall storytelling. Even the people involved with the actual production were upset with it.
no subject
Date: 2020-04-11 02:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-04-12 05:26 am (UTC)The things that bothered you (and apparently others) did not bother me, perhaps because I watched the entire series on DVD, and not as it aired. This could certainly affect some detail-related perceptions, because of the time contraction (such as viewing five seasons in a matter of a few months).
I will make a note though about one of your comments, regarding the scenes that were too dark to see clearly. An extremely common complaint, this is most often an inherent problem with the vast majority of modern television sets, many of which use an LCD technology to display an image. These sets, even when calibrated correctly, have difficulty in showing very dark shades of black. My own set, which is about five or six years old, has this issue.
Unfortunately, I've never had the opportunity to see one of these very dark scenes (in GoT or any number of other shows or movies) on one of the newer, OLED sets, which should be capable of displaying dark source material as intended.
Should, anyway. My trust in technology these days is often left wanting, as marketing departments far too often drive engineering instead of the other way around.
Besides it doesn't matter. In two years I'll forget about it.
Awww! Just wait 'til you get to my age, and you can forget something in maybe ten seconds! ;-)
no subject
Date: 2020-04-12 02:13 pm (UTC)1. The group that was disappointed in the overall execution, and felt it was just plain sloppy and the writers fell down on the job.
2. The group that was upset it wasn't done the way they wanted it to or expected it to - ie, their favorite character, characters or ship didn't get the proper attention that it deserved or the arc they deserved or were lead to expect.
3. The group that didn't care either way and just enjoyed it for what it was.
I kind of fell into group #1 for all three. I'm far too detail oriented and analytical not to get annoyed with poor execution in a story that I'm emotionally invested in.
no subject
Date: 2020-04-13 05:36 am (UTC)I totally get that. For myself, I'm nearly always in your group #3, which is partly my basic personality, but for quality films and TV like GoT, I find most of my "processing/analysis" while watching goes to primarily the visuals and secondarily the sound (score, music, effects, etc.) Unless dialog sounds stupid/poorly written, it registers at a much lower, albeit still important level.
But I get your sitch, because when I was in my late teens to early 30's I was similarly obsessed with audio-- the slightest faults in a recording or reproduction in a system would drive me up that proverbial wall. When I was in the trade, there were plenty of audiophiles like me, and I have a number of customers to this day whose equipment I repair that are still like I was... searching for the perfect sound is their holy grail, and some of them are as old as I am or older.
I have no idea if I just grew frustrated as time passed, but I discovered that the less carefully I listened-- analytically, that is-- and just emotionally got into the music, the sound quality aspects became less important. While I still expect a certain base level of technical performance from my system, I mostly now just go with the flow.
That was my deal with audio, but for visual media, I was fortunately not blessed/cursed with the same dilemma.
no subject
Date: 2020-04-13 05:16 pm (UTC)Season 6 - Buffy, didn't bother me all that much quality wise, S7, bothered me because the plot did NOT work, and it had from my perspective up to that point. So it's usually - if I think a show is brilliant and then it...screws up do to obvious writer burn-out and/or laziness -- that I get annoyed.
So no, I'm not quite THAT obsessed with it. I just like to be critical of things I love - to pick them apart - to see what works and what doesn't and why. But, I do handwave a lot, or I wouldn't love comic books, superhero films, Star Wars, and soap operas. Or romance novels for that matter. Hee Hee.