Back Synopsis Just Brief...

swampy wrote:

spowell92 wrote:

Can we drop the brief from brief synopsis please? By its own definition a synopsis is brief.

Someone please explain this to GreenSam. He still hasn't got his head around this. Or have a separate thread Extended epistle.

You don't have to read it.

I don't Josh simply because it goes on and on. The point is it is a "brief synopsis" thread. You don't need so much detail and repetition to get a point or opinion across. You can use 20,000 words but at the end of the day it's one person's opinion and the next person could hold a completely different view. Advertisers keep it shorter and punchy to hold peoples' attention. I'm afraid Sam loses my attention very quickly which I do feel slightly guilty about as he does put a lot of thought and effort into it. Match reports in mainstream newspapers are rarely very long even with the main match of the day. Perhaps Sam should pretend he is a journalist given a 20 minute deadline and 300 words to get his match report done in.

Well I liked it, well done!

I appreciate Sam's synopsises (?) - as someone who doesn't get to as many games as I would like, it's nice to read a detailed analysis of the game rather than the BBC's three sentences, or the shite that Errington puts out for the Herald. Keep up the good work Sam.

swampy wrote:

I don't Josh simply because it goes on and on. The point is it is a "brief synopsis" thread. You don't need so much detail and repetition to get a point or opinion across. You can use 20,000 words but at the end of the day it's one person's opinion and the next person could hold a completely different view. Advertisers keep it shorter and punchy to hold peoples' attention. I'm afraid Sam loses my attention very quickly which I do feel slightly guilty about as he does put a lot of thought and effort into it. Match reports in mainstream newspapers are rarely very long even with the main match of the day. Perhaps Sam should pretend he is a journalist given a 20 minute deadline and 300 words to get his match report done in.

Yeah but it's not a match report, it's an opinion piece isn't it? Like, it's his analysis of the game he's not just stating the events.

I'll be honest and say I don't always read it as I do find them a little too much to handle in one go, just not keen on the moaning. Read all of this one and it was excellent, I'm sure Sam will make a very good journalist in the future.

I'm must say I'm in the skim-read gang, though I do admire Sams enthusiasm to pen his match day musings at such length. Shades of Greenjock, almost.

What I will say is, as great as Talbot was bossing midfield on Saturday, a large part of that would have been down to the opposition not expecting it, and not knowing how to counter it once we were under way. But the cat is out of the bag now. Any Oxford scouts will have taken note of that performance, and it's unlikely Talbot will get a chance to dominate as much on Saturday if he's playing in the same slot.

I enjoy Sam's pieces too, handy for us exiles.

I prefer Shezza's post match interviews.

bullet point reviews are the future.

I don't go enough to do reviews for every match.

It's an interesting debate over Sam's style of match report compared to the modern day journalist. I've been looking into a new film theory called Slow Cinema (hardly an inspiring title, but if you're interested this is a decent source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Its a counter hegemonic movement that destabilizes the conventions of Hollywood (mainstream) cinema. Essentially it considers how society today is dictated by modernity, which in turn is obsessed with speed and efficiency. In terms of cinema, Hollywood is designed to entertain (arguably superficially) and it does this by replaying a set of generic narrative conventions (causality) within a very specifically formulated structure (three act) and is edited often with a fast pace (the average length of a shot in Hollywood is roughly 3 seconds).

In journalistic terms we've seen a rise in the demand for 24 hour news, or instant twitter feeds of 140 character updates of events. Such is the fast place of life within modern society, one either a) struggles to find the time to slow down and enjoy whatever they're doing at a slow pace or b) is conditioned to disregard anything that's not in keeping with their obsession for instant gratification as boring.

The idea of slow cinema is that you don't need to be attentively staring at the screen to absorb some enjoyment from the picture. Its a passive watching of a film that's designed to allow the audience to receive the film how their mind chooses too (its a far more democratic form of filmmaking), whether that's reflexive or meditative or just simply enjoying the visual or audio sensory pleasures or whatever. Its an opportunity to let your mind wonder and just think about things in an unstressful environment during the duration of the picture. Long, thoughtful, flowing pieces of journalism, like Sam's match day reports, I believe have that similar effect. Another recent example is Rick Cowdrey's excellent Stevenage report. Errington's quick write ups suppress freedom of expression from the author, they're clinical reports void of character and emotion. Of course they're a welcome and good recount of events, but there's little enjoyment for me in reading them - I gain facts, but I don't experience anything.

Keep up the good work Sam, but I agree with Swampy's point - they deserve their own thread.

Frank Bullitt wrote:

I don't go enough to do reviews for every match.

witty

spowell92 wrote:

It's an interesting debate over Sam's style of match report compared to the modern day journalist. I've been looking into a new film theory called Slow Cinema (hardly an inspiring title, but if you're interested this is a decent source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Its a counter hegemonic movement that destabilizes the conventions of Hollywood (mainstream) cinema. Essentially it considers how society today is dictated by modernity, which in turn is obsessed with speed and efficiency. In terms of cinema, Hollywood is designed to entertain (arguably superficially) and it does this by replaying a set of generic narrative conventions (causality) within a very specifically formulated structure (three act) and is edited often with a fast pace (the average length of a shot in Hollywood is roughly 3 seconds).

In journalistic terms we've seen a rise in the demand for 24 hour news, or instant twitter feeds of 140 character updates of events. Such is the fast place of life within modern society, one either a) struggles to find the time to slow down and enjoy whatever they're doing at a slow pace or b) is conditioned to disregard anything that's not in keeping with their obsession for instant gratification as boring.

The idea of slow cinema is that you don't need to be attentively staring at the screen to absorb some enjoyment from the picture. Its a passive watching of a film that's designed to allow the audience to receive the film how their mind chooses too (its a far more democratic form of filmmaking), whether that's reflexive or meditative or just simply enjoying the visual or audio sensory pleasures or whatever. Its an opportunity to let your mind wonder and just think about things in an unstressful environment during the duration of the picture. Long, thoughtful, flowing pieces of journalism, like Sam's match day reports, I believe have that similar effect. Another recent example is Rick Cowdrey's excellent Stevenage report. Errington's quick write ups suppress freedom of expression from the author, they're clinical reports void of character and emotion. Of course they're a welcome and good recount of events, but there's little enjoyment for me in reading them - I gain facts, but I don't experience anything.

Keep up the good work Sam, but I agree with Swampy's point - they deserve their own thread.  

Slow Cinema sounds like Slow Food following a vehicle transplant.

I believe the Slow Media movement was born from the Slow Food movement in Italy.

So the basis of slow media is old news?

spowell92 wrote:

I believe the Slow Media movement was born from the Slow Food movement in Italy.

Slow food is what we should all be aiming for instead of gorging fast food in front of the TV, fast food is the work of the devil ......................apart from the mighty paaaaaasty of course!

sufferedsince 68 wrote:

Watching country file ( sad i know) when that nice Matt Baker said Nitty Gritty.... WTF! I WAS OUT RAGED! Get PC Pedlars boss No mates Nool to Ban him from Brown Nosers Farm forever!!!

Was that where that quite tasty announcer was milking goats???? I want to be a goat

I reckon 73 points

Les Miserable wrote:

spowell92 wrote:

I believe the Slow Media movement was born from the Slow Food movement in Italy.

Slow food is what we should all be aiming for instead of gorging fast food in front of the TV, fast food is the work of the devil ......................apart from the mighty paaaaaasty of course!

Anybody who thinks a pasty is fast food has obviously never made one.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Les Miserable wrote:

spowell92 wrote:

I believe the Slow Media movement was born from the Slow Food movement in Italy.

Slow food is what we should all be aiming for instead of gorging fast food in front of the TV, fast food is the work of the devil ......................apart from the mighty paaaaaasty of course!

Anybody who thinks a pasty is fast food has obviously never made one.

Haha. What constitutes fast food though? I picked up a couple of smoked salmon and muscle chowders from Lidl and mixed that in with some tagliatelle last night, took less than 10 mins and was bloody 'ansom. Does that count as fast food?

spowell92 wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Les Miserable wrote:

spowell92 wrote:

I believe the Slow Media movement was born from the Slow Food movement in Italy.

Slow food is what we should all be aiming for instead of gorging fast food in front of the TV, fast food is the work of the devil ......................apart from the mighty paaaaaasty of course!

Anybody who thinks a pasty is fast food has obviously never made one.

Haha. What constitutes fast food though? I picked up a couple of smoked salmon and muscle chowders from Lidl and mixed that in with some tagliatelle last night, took less than 10 mins and was bloody 'ansom. Does that count as fast food?

No, thats posh nosh!

spowell92 wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Les Miserable wrote:

spowell92 wrote:

I believe the Slow Media movement was born from the Slow Food movement in Italy.

Slow food is what we should all be aiming for instead of gorging fast food in front of the TV, fast food is the work of the devil ......................apart from the mighty paaaaaasty of course!

Anybody who thinks a pasty is fast food has obviously never made one.

Haha. What constitutes fast food though? I picked up a couple of smoked salmon and muscle chowders from Lidl and mixed that in with some tagliatelle last night, took less than 10 mins and was bloody 'ansom. Does that count as fast food?

When I referred to fast food I meant takeaway, McD, Kentucky and the like, I assumed that was obvious