Oh, excellent question I hadn't stopped to consider.
I've noticed some fiction I enjoy, and some fiction I immediately want to extend, and sometimes they're the same and sometimes they're not. Sometimes whether something is really good or quite dire, but it trips the "I want to do this RIGHT" switch. Every Shakespeare play, I come out saying "But why...? Well, I think...". And Startrek, most of the individual episodes were meh, but the accumulated experience was invaluable, so it's really made for "these tiny hints about the characters personal lives, where could they go?". Sometimes I love something, but feel I have nothing to add: I have no idea how those characters would behave in some other situation, I don't want to ruin the magic by thinking about it, I just want to be told.
I've occasionally written little bits of fan-fic, but never got into it as a regular thing. I think I'd like it, but have never had the time! I have often enjoyed reading other people's fanfiction though, even for shows that I don't think I could write myself, or even that I've never actually seen. (I loved toft's story about John and Rodney as composer/violinist!)
It's interesting to ask how interactive a book or film is as I'm experiencing it. And the answer is, it varies a lot. Sometimes what happens is really interesting, but there's not much to think about as it goes along, and a habit of inhaling anything vaguely good in one go is mostly harmless. Sometimes a book or film really values thinking through the implications as you go, and I try to do that, but it's hard to deliberately stop if the next bit is already available...
Some books and films, just sink in, and I only realise how much they affected my thought in retrospect. Others feel like they impressionistically painted a whole universe, leaving the reader to mentally delve into any of hundreds different aspects which were introduced but not delved into. In some ways, it's like the different ways of looking at a piece of maths: sometimes it's clearly beautiful from the start, but you just want the emotional reward of experiencing it again; sometimes it's really obvious but only when it's pointed out; sometimes it's layers on layers on layers and each time you examine it you learn more.
Likewise, it's common when I nitpick, but it's not just "this is what's wrong". If a film makes no effort to keep something consistent, it usually just rolls off me, unless it goes out of its way to be INCREDIBLY egregious. I often nitpick things I find really interesting. Or things which seemed perfect in most ways, but there's just one thing I want to fix.
Or, not that it's wrong compared to reality, but it ruined the plot for me (and maybe other viewers) -- I don't care if the assumptions are plausible as long as they're clear, but "clear" can vary between different people. If the film says "don't examine the time-travel too deeply" that's fine. If it says "here's how it works even though that only makes sense to human intuition, it couldn't be a physical law", that's fine. If it says "as far as we know it works like this, but we don't really know", that's fine. What I REALLY HATE is "here's how it works, we know it makes no sense, just accept it" and then at the end of the film "THAT WAS A LIE WE JUST BROKE THE BIG RULE AREN'T WE CLEVER, YOU DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING".
Likewise, for general plots, I would prefer to experience the plot, and only later analyse it. To experience the highs and lows along with the characters. But as you read more books or watch more films, it's impossible to avoid getting more and more experience with how plots often work -- certain patterns are reused because they work well, or because people like them. And often, one establishing shot can tell you "ok, there'll be a chase to start with, and then a set-back, and then the middle, and then a lot of bad-assery, and then the good guys will win, and the most prominent male and female leads will get together".And when you KNOW that's going to happen there's no tension -- it's a delicate art to make the audience feel like the plot is actually happening, and not just up to the whim of the creator, and it works at different levels for audiences with different experience. Usually, children's books are not exciting to adults, and often, the books which retread all the most obvious tropes of a genre are more interesting to people new to that genre, but the books which subvert and change them are most interesting to long-time readers. And that's ok, but it means there's not a standard standard of "how good a book is".
And sometimes, you can have a film which sucks you in EVEN THOUGH you know what's going to happen -- a horror film which is tense even when you know what's going to jump out, a romance which is touching even when you know the ending, a climax which is exciting even when the film starts by telling you they succeed. But I don't know exactly when that works.
I've noticed some fiction I enjoy, and some fiction I immediately want to extend, and sometimes they're the same and sometimes they're not. Sometimes whether something is really good or quite dire, but it trips the "I want to do this RIGHT" switch. Every Shakespeare play, I come out saying "But why...? Well, I think...". And Startrek, most of the individual episodes were meh, but the accumulated experience was invaluable, so it's really made for "these tiny hints about the characters personal lives, where could they go?". Sometimes I love something, but feel I have nothing to add: I have no idea how those characters would behave in some other situation, I don't want to ruin the magic by thinking about it, I just want to be told.
I've occasionally written little bits of fan-fic, but never got into it as a regular thing. I think I'd like it, but have never had the time! I have often enjoyed reading other people's fanfiction though, even for shows that I don't think I could write myself, or even that I've never actually seen. (I loved toft's story about John and Rodney as composer/violinist!)
It's interesting to ask how interactive a book or film is as I'm experiencing it. And the answer is, it varies a lot. Sometimes what happens is really interesting, but there's not much to think about as it goes along, and a habit of inhaling anything vaguely good in one go is mostly harmless. Sometimes a book or film really values thinking through the implications as you go, and I try to do that, but it's hard to deliberately stop if the next bit is already available...
Some books and films, just sink in, and I only realise how much they affected my thought in retrospect. Others feel like they impressionistically painted a whole universe, leaving the reader to mentally delve into any of hundreds different aspects which were introduced but not delved into. In some ways, it's like the different ways of looking at a piece of maths: sometimes it's clearly beautiful from the start, but you just want the emotional reward of experiencing it again; sometimes it's really obvious but only when it's pointed out; sometimes it's layers on layers on layers and each time you examine it you learn more.
Likewise, it's common when I nitpick, but it's not just "this is what's wrong". If a film makes no effort to keep something consistent, it usually just rolls off me, unless it goes out of its way to be INCREDIBLY egregious. I often nitpick things I find really interesting. Or things which seemed perfect in most ways, but there's just one thing I want to fix.
Or, not that it's wrong compared to reality, but it ruined the plot for me (and maybe other viewers) -- I don't care if the assumptions are plausible as long as they're clear, but "clear" can vary between different people. If the film says "don't examine the time-travel too deeply" that's fine. If it says "here's how it works even though that only makes sense to human intuition, it couldn't be a physical law", that's fine. If it says "as far as we know it works like this, but we don't really know", that's fine. What I REALLY HATE is "here's how it works, we know it makes no sense, just accept it" and then at the end of the film "THAT WAS A LIE WE JUST BROKE THE BIG RULE AREN'T WE CLEVER, YOU DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING".
Likewise, for general plots, I would prefer to experience the plot, and only later analyse it. To experience the highs and lows along with the characters. But as you read more books or watch more films, it's impossible to avoid getting more and more experience with how plots often work -- certain patterns are reused because they work well, or because people like them. And often, one establishing shot can tell you "ok, there'll be a chase to start with, and then a set-back, and then the middle, and then a lot of bad-assery, and then the good guys will win, and the most prominent male and female leads will get together".And when you KNOW that's going to happen there's no tension -- it's a delicate art to make the audience feel like the plot is actually happening, and not just up to the whim of the creator, and it works at different levels for audiences with different experience. Usually, children's books are not exciting to adults, and often, the books which retread all the most obvious tropes of a genre are more interesting to people new to that genre, but the books which subvert and change them are most interesting to long-time readers. And that's ok, but it means there's not a standard standard of "how good a book is".
And sometimes, you can have a film which sucks you in EVEN THOUGH you know what's going to happen -- a horror film which is tense even when you know what's going to jump out, a romance which is touching even when you know the ending, a climax which is exciting even when the film starts by telling you they succeed. But I don't know exactly when that works.