Controversial Entertainment Opinions/Discussion Thread - Part II

[Tawnos]

Honestly, my biggest criticism of Taylor Swift is her image. She is NOT a shallow artist, but the image she puts off is that of a artistically bankrupt pop star.

I've never liked her music, but I could see the appeal if you were into that sort of thing. Her transformation into what she is now, as an entertainment product, is what bothers me.

I think she's got a parallel in the career of Avenged Sevenfold, just so you don't think this is in any way misogynistic.

 

[KCbus]

Here's a nice controversial opinion for you:

Anyone who complains about an artist "selling out" needs to be drug out into the street and shot.

Unless you're just someone goofing off in your garage, and you've ever, ever sold a ticket to anything in your life, music/art/whatever is your career. The goal is to entertain people and to do it in such a way that you make a living doing it. Changing your style a little bit to a more mainstream sound isn't "selling out." Selling out is when you change something about yourself that you personally stand for for money. Going against some belief or principle.

Changing your genre/sound a little bit is changing your genre/sound a little bit. Finding a groove that's a little different from what fans expect isn't evil in some way -- it's smart. If you personally don't care for their new stuff vs. their old stuff, that's your opinion, nothing more. Artists aren't obligated to do the same thing forever because it suits your personal taste.

 

[Shareefruck]

A little extreme.

I don't think it's fair to characterize anybody who complains about selling out as expecting an artist to do the same thing forever, because clearly people who would think that way want their sound to evolve, and criticize the change because they think they're regressing into a less interesting comfort zone.

I don't hold it against anybody for thinking about their career/family first and foremost-- You gotta do what you gotta do-- and there's a definite grey area for when an artist is actually selling out or changing their sound organically in a way that happens to be more marketable-- but as a listener interested in the reward, I'm disappointed whenever somebody does adopt that mindset and their work suffers for it. And I inevitably have less respect for them than I did when they were doing something more daring and interesting.

And if somebody does the unthinkable and stubbornly chooses their art over their practical livelihood, even though it's a wildly dumb/irrational decision on their part, I still respect the hell out of them for making it.

 

[HanSolo]

Here's a random one.

Does it slightly niggle anyone else that people on these boards (I assume mostly guys) will readily trash things like Justin Bieber/Taylor Swift/One Direction/Coldplay/chick flicks/reality TV, but will turn around and embrace/be really forgiving of something equally dumb/childish/absent of quality like Dragonball Super, The Expendables, Power Rangers, or pro wrestling? There's this weird gender-based double standard that guys here seem to be either unaware or uncaring of. These are all basically the same thing, just on opposite ends of the spectrum, so it's always seemed to me like it only really makes sense for people here to either be dismissive of both types or forgiving of both types rather than one but not the other.

People like the Expendables?

 

[KCbus]

A little extreme.

I don't think it's fair to characterize anybody who complains about selling out as expecting an artist to do the same thing forever, because clearly people who would think that way want their sound to evolve, and criticize the change because they think they're regressing into a less interesting comfort zone.

I don't hold it against anybody for thinking about their career/family first and foremost-- You gotta do what you gotta do-- and there's a definite grey area for when an artist is actually selling out or changing their sound organically in a way that happens to be more marketable-- but as a listener interested in the reward, I'm disappointed whenever somebody does adopt that mindset and their work suffers for it. And I inevitably have less respect for them than I did when they were doing something more daring and interesting.

And if somebody does the unthinkable and stubbornly chooses their art over their practical livelihood, even though it's a wildly dumb/irrational decision on their part, I still respect the hell out of them for making it.

But you're apparently not an example of someone I'm talking about.

You're MORE than entitled to be disappointed with the direction someone you're interested in takes their stuff/career. But being disappointed and calling someone a "sellout" are different. (As you just demonstrated.)

 

[aleshemsky83]

I value a song a lot more if the lyrics are actually decipherable and double if it tells a interesting story. Even if an artist explains what its about as long as I can say "yeah, I can see that". I really hate lyrics that are a bunch of vague bullcrap.

38 years old, Wheat Kings, In the Ghetto, Wreck of The Edmund Fitzgerald even Not Ready to Make Nice. I really enjoy those songs.

Like I'll hear a song like Man Who Sold the World and think how are you supposed to tell thats about split personalities or Dopplegangers? Even when its explained it doesn't make any sense.

 

[Shareefruck]

^ Hah. I'm the complete opposite. I hate when songs have a direct message-- comes across as preachy/self-important to me-- and I prefer when they're vaguely stream of conscious/psychological/nonsensical on a literal level.

But you're apparently not an example of someone I'm talking about.

You're MORE than entitled to be disappointed with the direction someone you're interested in takes their stuff/career. But being disappointed and calling someone a "sellout" are different. (As you just demonstrated.)

It's not that far removed though. My attitude is sort of, you might be a sellout or you might not be, this is the direction I'm leaning towards, and it would be understandable for you to sell out, but it would still be a shame that you do, if you do, and I would respect you less than someone who didn't.

And if that's what you're doing, why not be accurately labelled as that? No different than being called an eccentric or curmudgeon or contrarian if that's what they're doing.

People like the Expendables?

They seemed really interested/excited about it when it came out.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think I'd prefer if all music were totally devoid of lyrics and vocals. I can't recall any instances of them enhancing my enjoyment of a piece, and generally I'm just hopeful that it doesn't detract from the experience too much.

Let the music carry the narrative - if there is one at all. If you think your writing/lyrics are essential then include them in the liner notes to be read along with the piece.

 

[aleshemsky83]

I think I'd prefer if all music were totally devoid of lyrics and vocals. I can't recall any instances of them enhancing my enjoyment of a piece, and generally I'm just hopeful that it doesn't detract from the experience too much.

Let the music carry the narrative - if there is one at all. If you think your writing/lyrics are essential then include them in the liner notes to be read along with the piece.

I have seen plays or animation where there are no words and the music kind of plays the role of the dialogue, like fantasia, but that is the only time where I can imagine the instruments telling the story. I like to know the actual story and the music to set the emotional atmosphere. I'm not a big fan of the artist leaving it up to interpretation. I like an actual definitive interpretation.

But thats just my personal preference. And liner noted I'm not a big fan of. I really enjoy peter and the wolf but without the animation to accompany it I can't imagine understanding what the hell is going on.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Here's a random one.

Does it slightly niggle anyone else that people on these boards (I assume mostly guys) will readily trash things like Justin Bieber/Taylor Swift/One Direction/Coldplay/chick flicks/reality TV, but will turn around and embrace/be really forgiving of something equally dumb/childish/absent of quality like Dragonball Super, The Expendables, Power Rangers, or pro wrestling? There's this weird gender-based double standard that guys here seem to be either unaware or uncaring of. These are all basically the same thing, just on opposite ends of the spectrum, so it's always seemed to me like it only really makes sense for people here to either be dismissive of both types or forgiving of both types rather than one but not the other.

Not to mention that this is all posted on a professional hockey forum.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

Well then, who will do the honor of dragging me out in the middle of Bay Street and popping a bullet through my cortex?

On a serious note, potentially controversial opinion on entertainment: I kind of like Chris Tucker's antics in most of his comedies. I get that he's obnoxious in the Fifth Element and Rush Hour, but for some reason I cannot help but enjoy these films in due part because of him.

I also think writing a great comedy is harder than writing a great drama. For the record, I do not consider any of Chris Tucker's films to be great.

 

[aleshemsky83]

Chris Tucker is a very good comedic actor. Not the least bit controversial.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

I thought that the Lord of the Rings films were bad, especially Return of the King. Had great moments and potential, but for me the entire experience was just utterly ruined by what I considered to be abysmal pacing, especially the last one.

Cannot give my opinion on the Hobbit films, as I didn't see them nor do I really have an intention to see them.

 

[BonMorrison]

Here's a nice controversial opinion for you:

Anyone who complains about an artist "selling out" needs to be drug out into the street and shot.

Unless you're just someone goofing off in your garage, and you've ever, ever sold a ticket to anything in your life, music/art/whatever is your career. The goal is to entertain people and to do it in such a way that you make a living doing it. Changing your style a little bit to a more mainstream sound isn't "selling out." Selling out is when you change something about yourself that you personally stand for for money. Going against some belief or principle.

Changing your genre/sound a little bit is changing your genre/sound a little bit. Finding a groove that's a little different from what fans expect isn't evil in some way -- it's smart. If you personally don't care for their new stuff vs. their old stuff, that's your opinion, nothing more. Artists aren't obligated to do the same thing forever because it suits your personal taste.

Agreed with every single word of this. I don't argue about what selling out is anymore, I've said all of this too many times.

In addition this, a band like Imagine Dragons gave the rights to like half of one of their albums to be featured in commercials for products. I consider that selling out in more of the literal sense.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

I think it's okay if people don't like using the term sellout, but please let me live!

 

[Aladyyn]

Taste is only subjective to a degree and, yes, there is such a thing as "bad taste"

There is nothing wrong with enjoying things that aren't "good"

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Taste is only subjective to a degree and, yes, there is such a thing as "bad taste"

There is nothing wrong with enjoying things that aren't "good"

I don't get it, how can you enjoy something if it isn't any good? I'm perplexed.

 

[Shareefruck]

I agree that taste is only subjective to a degree. Don't know if we're arriving at that the same way, but I would argue that it's impossible to truly enjoy something more than what it's actually doing warrants. Guilty pleasures can't give you THAT much satisfaction, no matter how much you lean towards them-- it's not just 100% subjective in that it's possible to appreciate a turd as much as it's possible to appreciate Shakespeare-- the closest you can get is appreciating the turd a surprisingly decent amount and not appreciating Shakespeare at all, IMO (and I don't, really ). There's a ceiling to both. So having taste is about..... identifying things that have the greatest capacity for reward and then experiencing the most out of it. I don't think it's possibly to objectively measure/prove which things those are using intellect, but I think that there is a limit to the objective value to things. That's why the whole being respectful of different opinions thing... I subscribe to it (because I don't know for certain that I'm any more right either), but only to a degree. I think it's fair to at least have a feeling that there are truths in some perceptions and falsities in others, even though you can't know for sure.

I don't get it, how can you enjoy something if it isn't any good? I'm perplexed.

People have this idea that "think it's good" means acknowledging how well made/significant something is and "enjoy" refers to how compulsively watchable something is. I've always disagreed and argued with it. I think both words should mean the same thing-- neither of those definitions, but rather a combination of both-- personally. Both just mean how much you get out of something, however you arrive at that.

In my opinion, if you're saying that something is good because it's well made but you hate it, you're not making any sense.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I agree that taste is only subjective to a degree. Don't know if we're arriving at that the same way, but I would argue that it's impossible to truly enjoy something more than what it's actually doing warrants. Guilty pleasures can't give you THAT much satisfaction, no matter how much you lean towards them-- it's not just 100% subjective in that it's possible to appreciate a turd as much as it's possible to appreciate Shakespeare-- the closest you can get is appreciating the turd a surprisingly decent amount and not appreciating Shakespeare at all, IMO (and I don't, really ). There's a ceiling to both. So having taste is about..... identifying things that have the greatest capacity for reward and then experiencing it. I don't think it's possibly to objectively measure/prove which things those are using intellect, but I think that there is a maximum possible objective value to things. That's why the whole being respectful of different opinions thing... I subscribe to it, but only to a degree. I think it's fair to at least have a feeling that there are truths in some perceptions and falsities in others, even though you can't know for sure.



People have this idea that "think it's good" means acknowledging how well made/significant something is and enjoy means how compulsively watchable something is. I've always disagreed and argued with it. I think both words should mean the same thing-- neither of those definitions, but rather a combination of both-- personally. Both just mean how much you get out of something, however you arrive at that, whether it's impressive or not, whether it's compulsive/accessible or not.

In my opinion, if you're saying that something is good because it's well made but you hate it, you're not making any sense.

Eh...there's stuff where I can see the appeal/understand why it's considered as good but that I don't personally enjoy like Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov for example. I just don't understand how someone can enjoy something and not see it as good. I mean, if you enjoyed it, doesn't that automatically mean that there were some things about it that you considered good? Just because it's widely seen as crass or as low art (ugh) doesn't mean it can't be good. A lot of that sentiment seems to come from people who are embarrassed to admit they consider something good that was widely panned/ridiculed.

 

[Aladyyn]

I don't get it, how can you enjoy something if it isn't any good? I'm perplexed.

It's basically what "guilty pleasure" is.

 

[Shareefruck]

To me, something that one views as a guilty pleasure is something that they just, for whatever reason, don't admit has some redeeming qualities that make it at least minimally good enough to watch.

It's kind of like going "these conventional standards are infallible, so if I get something out of something that contradicts those standards, it must be some other thing besides how good I think it is."

To me, it's just a sign that you don't actually fully subscribe to those standards 100% and you secretly think that something that doesn't meet them can still be somewhat good.

Eh...there's stuff where I can see the appeal/understand why it's considered as good but that I don't personally enjoy like Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov for example. I just don't understand how someone can enjoy something and not see it as good. I mean, if you enjoyed it, doesn't that automatically mean that there were some things about it that you considered good? Just because it's widely seen as crass or as low art (ugh) doesn't mean it can't be good. A lot of that sentiment seems to come from people who are embarrassed to admit they consider something good that was widely panned/ridiculed.

I agree on the second point.

Regarding your first point, nobody seems to agree with me on this, but I've always seen it like..... even if you see the appeal and understand why it's considered good by other people, it would still be presumptuous of you to take that extra leap and consider it good on those grounds without actually knowing/feeling it first hand. It's at best an informed guess about it's potential goodness rather than a warranted claim that you actually think it's good, IMO.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

To me, something that one views as a guilty pleasure is something that they just, for whatever reason, don't admit has some redeeming qualities that make it at least minimally good, probably to buying into conventional standards as a definitive rule that goes against that.

I agree. There is alot of drinking the Koolaid of conventional standards going on, I think.

Regarding your first point, nobody seems to agree with me on this, but I've always seen it like..... even if you see the appeal and understand why it's considered good by other people, it would still be presumptuous of you to take that extra leap and consider it good on those grounds without actually knowing/feeling it first hand. It's at best an informed guess about it's potential goodness rather than a warranted claim that you actually think it's good, IMO.

Sure, I agree with your point but only on the basis that you haven't actually consumed the work of art who's appeal you understand. I read Lolita. It mostly did nothing for me but while reading it I can understand see how Nabokov's poetic prose, his style of writing and how the main character uses language to try and manipulate/convince the reader of his '' innocence ''. Just because it didn't work for me and my taste on a personal level does not mean I can't understand why others may like it.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

It's basically what "guilty pleasure" is.

You either like something or you don't. Guilty pleasure is such a cop-out to me. A way of saying '' Hey, don't jump down my throat! I enjoyed it but I know it really sucks! ''. Bleh.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

You either like something or you don't. Guilty pleasure is such a cop-out to me. A way of saying '' Hey, don't jump down my throat! I enjoyed it but I know it really sucks! ''. Bleh.

For myself, I always had more of "Yeah, I like it, come at me!" attitude when it comes to guilty pleasures.

Speaking of which, I enjoyed listening to B.o.B.'s Flatline.

But seriously, I like the beat work of that song. Lyrics on the other hand are.......not my thing?

 

[SJSharksfan39]

For myself, I always had more of "Yeah, I like it, come at me!" attitude when it comes to guilty pleasures.

Speaking of which, I enjoyed listening to B.o.B.'s Flatline.

But seriously, I like the beat work of that song. Lyrics on the other hand are.......not my thing?

I don't feel guilty about watching anything so why would it be a guilty pleasure.