Controversial Entertainment Opinions/Discussion Thread - Part II

[tarheelhockey]

For it's time and place, it was pretty subversive stuff. The idea that the people in charge of the button might be insane or have other motives was a subject no one wanted to broach. Nowadays, well, it's openly discussed. And you get more down to earth flicks like "Wag The Dog".

I can buy that it is very meaningful to people of a particular generation who are interested in subversive anti-war politics (also a niche interest). But when I hear a 20-year-old talk about how amazing it is, that's where I see a "this is smart, and I'm smart for liking it" sort of thing. It's just not that great of a movie, beyond the social/political role it played 60 years ago.

 

[Shareefruck]

I hate when people take the fact that they have a different opinion of something and go from that to "I'm confident that the only reason anyone disagrees with me is because they're disingenuous liars with a crippling bias purely for attention/credibility." The arrogance of that is just rotten and insulting.

Dr. Strangelove is arguably the most satisfying movie I've ever seen on a comedic level. I don't like it for political reasons (I didn't even really think of it as an anti-war movie until you mentioned it), and it's not an intellectually challenging movie like certain things are-- Its ideas are very straightforward/accessibility and it's good because it shines a light on something ludicrous about our history and takes a p*** out of it in a deftly hilarious and perfectly told way.

I don't know how anyone can watch those Ripper/Mandrake interactions and not have an instant grin on their face.

 

[Huggy43]

A company's social media account should stick to posting things relating to their company. I'm sorry but a Canadian rock n roll radio station shouldn't be posting about Donald Trump multiple times daily! Stick to music.

 

[Shareefruck]

Spoilers don't matter.

 

[aleshemsky83]

Spoilers sometimes matter.

Which I think is the most controversial. For some people it's all or nothing. I'm a man of grey areas.

 

[Shareefruck]

Uhh... okay.

 

[Carolinas Identity*]

After having a week or so to digest it, I can't believe I am about to say this with a straight face either, 50 Shades of Grey, might be so awful, that's kinda good. A lot like Troll 2.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I hate when people take the fact that they have a different opinion of something and go from that to "I'm confident that the only reason anyone disagrees with me is because they're disingenuous liars with a crippling bias purely for attention/credibility." The arrogance of that is just rotten and insulting.

Arrogance is indeed a very unattractive trait.

And that strawman, good lord. Read a few more words in between the lines next time.

it shines a light on something ludicrous about our history and takes a p*** out of it in a deftly hilarious and perfectly told way.

And again, as a period piece I can guy that. But it hasn't aged well, and as a "cinema classic" it gets credit for being a whole lot funnier than it actually is. A great deal of the humor is just silliness, and there are large chunks of it which just drag.

I'm not saying it's a steaming pile of ****, but it's not THAT great.

 

[Shareefruck]

Arrogance is indeed a very unattractive trait.

And that strawman, good lord. Read a few more words in between the lines next time.



And again, as a period piece I can guy that. But it hasn't aged well, and as a "cinema classic" it gets credit for being a whole lot funnier than it actually is. A great deal of the humor is just silliness, and there are large chunks of it which just drag.

I'm not saying it's a steaming pile of ****, but it's not THAT great.

Strawman?

"But when I hear a 20-year-old talk about how amazing it is, that's where I see a "this is smart, and I'm smart for liking it" sort of thing."

How is that not implying that someone is presumed to be a disingenuous liar posing for attention/credibility simply because you don't accept that someone can arrive at a different opinion genuinely?

It's very arrogant, and discourse gets really ugly when people start suggesting such things.

Personally, I don't fall under any of the categories you've painted (having seen it for the first time in the last decade, not caring about politics or even really history, hating war movies, thinking that movies that become dated should just be considered bad, etc), and just genuinely find it as rewarding of an experience as anything else. I respect the disagreement, but I resent the blanket statement.

 

[tarheelhockey]

How is that not implying that someone is presumed to be a disingenuous liar posing for attention/credibility simply because you don't accept that someone can arrive at a different opinion genuinely?

It's very arrogant, and discourse gets really ugly when people start suggesting such things.

Confusing my post with your own, perhaps?

If a person adopts a standard that is actually accurate/honest with what they think, there should be no conflict between preference and their idea of goodness.
...
I suspect that some people only call them guilty pleasures because, while we feel a compulsion to watch them, we KNOW that we're not ACTUALLY getting that much satisfaction from them. But if that's the case, I think it's stupid for us to claim that we like them. Wanting the hit of watching something compulsive that you don't think is rewarding is not evidence that you like it, just like having a heroin addiction isn't evidence that you're having a good time.

I didn't say anything about being dishonest. You did.

And now you're saying that comments like that are "arrogant" and "ugly" (like comparing someone's opinion about a song to a heroin addiction).

Interesting stuff.

 

[Aladyyn]

Spoilers don't matter.

Sorry this is just dumb

 

[Carolinas Identity*]

I suspect that some people only call them guilty pleasures because, while we feel a compulsion to watch them, we KNOW that we're not ACTUALLY getting that much satisfaction from them. But if that's the case, I think it's stupid for us to claim that we like them. Wanting the hit of watching something compulsive that you don't think is rewarding is not evidence that you like it, just like having a heroin addiction isn't evidence that you're having a good time.

they are called guilty pleasures because we actually do get pleasure from them

the guilty part comes from the aspect of not necessarily being anything wrong

but more from you do not want other people knowing it gives you pleasure because you will be embarassed or some such

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

And again, as a period piece I can guy that. But it hasn't aged well, and as a "cinema classic" it gets credit for being a whole lot funnier than it actually is. A great deal of the humor is just silliness, and there are large chunks of it which just drag.

I'm not saying it's a steaming pile of ****, but it's not THAT great.

Out of curiosity, which comedies do you think have aged well?

I think the themes in Strangelove are as relevant as ever, and the writing and delivery are razor sharp. Sellers and Scott are at the top of their game too.

Strangelove's line "The whole point of the doomsday machine is lost... if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?!" is an all-time great.

 

[Blainer114*]

A company's social media account should stick to posting things relating to their company. I'm sorry but a Canadian rock n roll radio station shouldn't be posting about Donald Trump multiple times daily! Stick to music.

Agreed, I don't wantto be constantly hearing their political opinions. You're a music station stick to that if I wanted to hear about politics i'd follow or listen to that stuff

 

[Shareefruck]

Confusing my post with your own, perhaps?



I didn't say anything about being dishonest. You did.

And now you're saying that comments like that are "arrogant" and "ugly" (like comparing someone's opinion about a song to a heroin addiction).

Interesting stuff.

I agree that both statements can potentially be problematic in similar ways, and I was hesitant/careful not to paint everyone with the same broad brush with that comment. But there's a difference in scale and intention here.

Regarding your comment, I don't see how you can take a suggestion that someone is fueled by a "this is smart, and I'm smart for liking it" attitude without implying dishonesty. How can someone arrive at a genuine and honest impression if that disingenuous motivation is assumed? Dishonesty is built into that framing. Furthermore, the implication doesn't seem to be based on anything other than your own preference-- I don't see an actual argument there. Most importantly, though-- there's a difference between acknowledging a possibile use case that should be considered, and suggesting that it's evident/apparent/likely. The latter is the leap that makes it deplorable.

Regarding my comment, after describing the logical rules that I think we're bound to, I'm suggesting that given the rules I can comprehend about where the word "good" must ultimately come from, there are only are a few conceivable places where disagreement could come from. It could be the case that there is a fundamental disagreement on the definition of "good", which is the most likely case that I was tackling and that I explained why it didn't make sense to me. Or it could be that the word preference is being used in place of compulsion, where it doesn't belong. Nowhere did I imply that the latter is actually the case, especially not across the board in a blanket statement. It was an example of a possible defense that I could think of and why I thought it didn't work.

That's my defense for what I was trying to do. But I fully grant that if it's taken the way that you wish for it to be taken, I wouldn't stand by that and would gladly retreat from that position, because I don't believe in it. If the word "suspicions" rather than "wonder about possibility" is mucking it up, I'll gladly take back usage of that word and admit error.

It's a compulsion that I do understand, but I do think that it's a rotten way to converse, and if I catch myself actually doing that and actually making blanket statements purely out of a bad/underwhelmed impressions, I would instantly think I was doing something awful and worthy of criticism.

How would you defend your statement, though, other than by looking for something to throw it back the other way with? And do you stand by it?

 

[Shareefruck]

they are called guilty pleasures because we actually do get pleasure from them

the guilty part comes from the aspect of not necessarily being anything wrong

but more from you do not want other people knowing it gives you pleasure because you will be embarassed or some such

I think that that's the most common and obvious way of looking at it. I'm not intending to imply that mistaking compulsion for preference is any more likely than that, just that it's one other possibility.

However, to the person who thinks the way that you do, I would say.... If it's just about embarrassment over the standards that you have shown to have about what you enjoy/value and how you're embarrassed that they're incompatible with the academic standard that everyone expects, that suggests that your standard is different from it, and that you actually do think the thing is good, to some degree, even if you're embarrassed by it.

That's my point.

 

[Shareefruck]

Sorry this is just dumb

The furthest I'd concede is that it only matters a marginal/trivial amount. It's just novelty that wears off really easily and doesn't factor into how lasting my impression of a thing is.

Spoiler culture is weird to me-- go ahead and tell me what happens, I don't care.

Shows that rely on spoilers not being spoiled always feel very limited to me.

 

[Carolinas Identity*]

I think that that's the most common and obvious way of looking at it. I'm not intending to imply that mistaking compulsion for preference is any more likely than that, just that it's one other possibility.

However, to the person who thinks the way that you do, I would say.... If it's just about embarrassment over the standards that you have shown to have about what you enjoy/value and how you're embarrassed that they're incompatible with the academic standard that everyone expects, that suggests that your standard is different from it, and that you actually do think the thing is good, to some degree, even if you're embarrassed by it.

That's my point.

i have no guilty pleasures because i have no shame and am the embodiment of self deprecating humor

i make more fun of myself than anyone else ever could

 

[tarheelhockey]

I agree that both statements can potentially be problematic in similar ways, and I was hesitant/careful not to paint everyone with the same broad brush with that comment. But there's a difference in scale and intention here.

Regarding your comment, I don't see how you can take a suggestion that someone is fueled by a "this is smart, and I'm smart for liking it" attitude without implying dishonesty. How can someone arrive at a genuine and honest impression if that disingenuous motivation is assumed? Dishonesty is built into that framing. Furthermore, the implication doesn't seem to be based on anything other than your own preference-- I don't see an actual argument there. Most importantly, though-- there's a difference between acknowledging a possibile use case that should be considered, and suggesting that it's evident/apparent/likely. The latter is the leap that makes it deplorable.

Regarding my comment, after describing the logical rules that I think we're bound to, I'm suggesting that given the rules I can comprehend about where the word "good" must ultimately come from, there are only are a few conceivable places where disagreement could come from. It could be the case that there is a fundamental disagreement on the definition of "good", which is the most likely case that I was tackling and that I explained why it didn't make sense to me. Or it could be that the word preference is being used in place of compulsion, where it doesn't belong. Nowhere did I imply that the latter is actually the case, especially not across the board in a blanket statement. It was an example of a possible defense that I could think of and why I thought it didn't work.

That's my defense for what I was trying to do. But I fully grant that if it's taken the way that you wish for it to be taken, I wouldn't stand by that and would gladly retreat from that position, because I don't believe in it. If the word "suspicions" rather than "wonder about possibility" is mucking it up, I'll gladly take back usage of that word and admit error.

It's a compulsion that I do understand, but I do think that it's a rotten way to converse, and if I catch myself actually doing that and actually making blanket statements purely out of a bad/underwhelmed impressions, I would instantly think I was doing something awful and worthy of criticism.

How would you defend your statement, though, other than by looking for something to throw it back the other way with? And do you stand by it?

That's one hell of a wall of word salad.

Maybe there's some new definition for the word "dishonest" that doesn't imply someone's a liar.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Out of curiosity, which comedies do you think have aged well?

Interesting question, because come to think of it, comedy in general really doesn't age well. Topical jokes are instantly dated, verbal humor loses its edge as the language changes, and what's left is mostly the lowest common denominator of gags slapstick.

I guess the Mel Brooks school of comedy has generally aged pretty well. Even at that, it's not exactly timeless.

 

[Shareefruck]

That's one hell of a wall of word salad.

Maybe there's some new definition for the word "dishonest" that doesn't imply someone's a liar.

I'm not good at being concise. I just don't get how you don't see that making any comment in the vein of:

"I don't think it's that good. I see that people who like it must then be <insert character flaw/bias/oversight that discredits their intentions/sincerity/level-headedness>."

... is overly presumptuous/arrogant. That's my single greatest pet peeve on these boards. Sometimes I have to catch/stop myself from doing it, but it is pretty insulting.

i have no guilty pleasures because i have no shame and am the embodiment of self deprecating humor

i make more fun of myself than anyone else ever could

Then we agree.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Interesting question, because come to think of it, comedy in general really doesn't age well. Topical jokes are instantly dated, verbal humor loses its edge as the language changes, and what's left is mostly the lowest common denominator of gags slapstick.

I guess the Mel Brooks school of comedy has generally aged pretty well. Even at that, it's not exactly timeless.

I still love me some Mel.

Lubitsch, Keaton, Spinal Tap, and a few others fit the "timeless" mold for me. Strangelove's among them though. The humors's sharper and more poignant today than you're giving it credit for, IMO.

But hey, that's why it's a controversial opinion.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

I always thought Mystic River was overrated. Like a lot of Clint Eastwood's stuff.

 

[Shareefruck]

I feel like most things aren't worthwhile, and that the only things that are worthwhile are the exceptional out of the ordinary cases. This is why I seem to dislike 99% of things or only gravitate to things that show up on best of lists. I don't have the same attitude as people who just love the mediums for what they are and get alot just out of the process of discovery.

Hivemind criticized me a while back for not diving into the second or third wave of bands and being interested in the fringes (implying that I'm just going along with the fashions rather than forming my own opinion), and that's why. The process sounds like murder to me, and it hasn't yield many rewards for me whenever I've tried to do it.

If I could skip the discovery/exploration/weeding out process and jump straight to the stuff I'll end up liking most, I would. For example, the prospect of going to a bar and listening to local bands do not sound like a good time to me. I guess that means that I don't like music in general at all, although I love and am completely obsessed with the occasional outliers in music that grab me most.

Without the exceptions, movies and music in general would probably feel like a distracting and pointless waste of time to me, the way I currently look at social media fads, I guess.

 

[WeThreeKings]

I feel like most things aren't worthwhile, and that the only things that are worthwhile are the exceptional out of the ordinary cases. This is why I seem to dislike 99% of things or only gravitate to things that show up on best of lists. I don't have the same attitude as people who just love the mediums for what they are and get alot just out of the process of discovery.

Hivemind criticized me a while back for not diving into the second or third wave of bands and being interested in the fringes (implying that I'm just going along with the fashions rather than forming my own opinion), and that's why. The process sounds like murder to me, and it hasn't yield many rewards for me whenever I've tried to do it.

If I could skip the discovery/exploration/weeding out process and jump straight to the stuff I'll end up liking most, I would. For example, the prospect of going to a bar and listening to local bands do not sound like a good time to me. I guess that means that I don't like music in general at all, although I love and am completely obsessed with the occasional outliers in music that grab me most.

Without the exceptions, movies and music in general would probably feel like a distracting and pointless waste of time to me, the way I currently look at social media fads, I guess.

I don't necessarily disagree. I am a musician myself, I play drums in a local band. I find that musicians are often guilty of liking so much stuff, and I'll hear a band member play something from a new group every time while we are eating/smoking before practice.

I only give time to things that really grab me. However, I like the discovery process a bit.. but only when I find something I love.