Controversial Entertainment Opinions/Discussion Thread - Part II

[Carolinas Identity*]

Lord of the Rings is awesome and I love all the movies, and books, and games, and etc. But...

The Last Samurai was the best movie of 2003.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

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.

That post was disingenuous anyway. He wasn't particularly well-informed about different kinds of music. Anybody who thinks Interstellar Space is the sort of Coltrane album that shows up most regularly on jazzophiles' best-of lists doesn't have any idea what they're talking about.

He chose to narrow his focus to essentially one main genre, at the expense of all others. Some put more emphasis on broadening their horizons instead.

 

[Shareefruck]

Oh, I know, I think it was bull**** too and I'm not in any way conceding to his point, but it did send me off on this other tangent. The thing he described didn't sound appealing to me in any way, and that's why. Digging through all the second and third wave artists regardless of whether or not anyone thought they were any good? Sounds like a nightmare.

His argument seemed all over the place and based on a preconceived problem with me anyways, essentially accusing me of not having enough actual knowledge to warrant being the elitist that he thinks I clearly am while simultaneously expressing frustration that I don't own it or carry that elitism around like it's a fact (like he apparently does). If I don't have knowledge that warrants it, and I don't act on any potential elitist thoughts (let's face it, everyone, deep down, must at least have a "feeling" that there's some truth to their strongest opinions, whether they're right or wrong) and don't overstep into claiming objective truth about other people's opinions....... then I'm handling it correctly. I can't be an elitist just because I like this stuff, am unwilling to budge from my own opinion, am vocal about it, and because he's certain that I'm secretly thinking bigoted/insulting things internally without ever directly expressing them in words. He got all of that just from not liking Foo Fighters and liking Coltrane/Velvet Underground/Beefheart, as if that combination must be elitist.

 

[Eisen]

Dr. Strangelove is not that great of a movie, it just captures a niche audience who like to merge their politics with their entertainment.

I'd sign that. It had a couple of nice lines but overall it just wasn't that good.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Oh, I know, I think it was bull**** too and I'm not in any way conceding to his point, but it did send me off on this other tangent. The thing he described didn't sound appealing to me in any way, and that's why. Digging through all the second and third wave artists regardless of whether or not anyone thought they were any good? Sounds like a nightmare.

His argument seemed all over the place and based on a preconceived problem with me anyways, essentially accusing me of not having enough actual knowledge to warrant being the elitist that he thinks I clearly am while simultaneously expressing frustration that I don't own it or carry that elitism around like it's a fact (like he apparently does). If I don't have knowledge that warrants it, and I don't act on any potential elitist thoughts (let's face it, everyone, deep down, must at least have a "feeling" that there's some truth to their strongest opinions, whether they're right or wrong) and don't overstep into claiming objective truth about other people's opinions....... then I'm handling it correctly. I can't be an elitist just because I like this stuff, am unwilling to budge from my own opinion, am vocal about it, and because he's certain that I'm secretly thinking bigoted/insulting things internally without ever directly expressing them in words. He got all of that just from not liking Foo Fighters and liking Coltrane/Velvet Underground/Beefheart, as if that combination must be elitist.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

I thought The Godfather III was actually pretty good.

Okay, Sofia Coppolla's performance was quite ****, but I liked Andy Garcia quite a bit in it. And hey, Al Pacino as Michael Corleone.

 

[Shareefruck]

Here's one related to the previous one that should be equally disagreeable...

Opinions about movies/music/television have no need/requirement to be backed up or explained.

Opinions only have a need/requirement to be backed up if they're arrogantly and intrusively thrown out like facts that are either expected to be obeyed by others or implied as being superior to others. Someone simply saying "I thought it completely ****ing sucked!", no matter how crudely and insensitively, doesn't qualify as something that demands explanation-- It could be taken with a grain of salt, maybe, but it's still just a harmless opinion that can reasonably be informed solely by an impression or a feeling. My opinions always start from an organic impression and I try to assign reasons to explain why it came out that way, not the other way around. And if I'm unable to successfully find or express that reason, doesn't really change the relevancy of the opinion. What ultimately matters is that it did have that effect on me.

Yes, perhaps the comment has less value and currency to other posters than it would if it were explained and thought out, but that brings me to my second opinion...

.. as a reader of a message board, you're not owed value in other people's posts. If your issue with a comment is simply that it has no worth to you, tough sh**, that's just an unreasonable degree of entitlement on your part, IMO. I personally do get a little something just from reading people's general one-word impressions, and while I don't mind explaining my impressions when I'm able to, when someone interrogates about an opinion as if it only counts when qualified with reasons, I find it unreasonable and just want to flip them off.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Here's one related to the previous one that should be equally disagreeable...

Opinions about movies/music/television have no need/requirement to be backed up or explained.

Opinions only have a need/requirement to be backed up if they're arrogantly and intrusively thrown out like facts that are either expected to be obeyed by others or implied as being superior to others. Someone simply saying "I thought it completely ****ing sucked!", no matter how crudely and insensitively, doesn't qualify as something that demands explanation-- It could be taken with a grain of salt, maybe, but it's still just a harmless opinion that can reasonably be informed solely by an impression or a feeling. My opinions always start from an organic impression and I try to assign reasons to explain why it came out that way, not the other way around. And if I'm unable to successfully find or express that reason, doesn't really change the relevancy of the opinion. What ultimately matters is that it did have that effect on me.

Yes, perhaps the comment has less value and currency to other posters than it would if it were explained and thought out, but that brings me to my second opinion...

.. as a reader of a message board, you're not owed value in other people's posts. If your issue with a comment is simply that it has no worth to you, tough sh**, that's just an unreasonable degree of entitlement on your part, IMO. I personally do get a little something just from reading people's general one-word impressions, and while I don't mind explaining my impressions when I'm able to, when someone interrogates about an opinion as if it only counts when qualified with reasons, I find it unreasonable and just want to flip them off.

Why bother even posting anything if it's going to be a glib, dismissive opinion with no reasoning?

It's fine to simply think [blank] sucks, but if you're going to the trouble of posting it on a message board, what value does that have to anybody but the person making the comment?

Literally everybody has an opinion - supply is sky high and demand couldn't be lower. It's worthless in and of itself. Explanation is the only thing gives opinions value.

"That movie sucks"

"Why"

"It just sucks"

...is probably the most pointless conversation imaginable. I hope people get pissed off if I ask for an explanation, because they've already wasted my time and I'm itching for a fight at that point.

 

[Shareefruck]

Personally, I think the opinion itself is worth something without reasoning backing it up, and is worth posting for that reason alone. Especially if I already agree with the general direction of that person's tastes to begin with. The reasoning is a nice extra step to get into someone's mind, but it isn't a necessary part of it. Ultimately, the thing that matters to me is whether or not this person seems sincere/honest, has taste that I can relate to/respect, and whether or not they had a good/bad experience.

If I asked you, for example,
"What did you think of this latest album."
"I thought it completely stunk."
"Why?"
"I have no further comment, I just couldn't have felt more miserable listening to it (redundant information)."

That would be enough for me to mentally log that impression and consider it. I think I would be behaving like an entitled **** to interrogate you further about that, acting as though an explanation is owed. It's only an arrogant/objectionable thing worthy of grilling if they take "I thought it stunk" and further bring it to "I thought it stunk and people who don't are wrong," which I think is completely unfair to assume based on glibness.

On the flipside, if someone whose tastes have always seemed backwards/baffling to me recommended something, I would probably remain skeptical about taking it into consideration even if they had expounded walls and walls of reasoning.

Reasoning is just a completely secondary thing for me that doesn't matter THAT much. I'm much more interested in what something made someone feel than why. I appreciate its value when it's volunteered, but the only time reasoning might seem necessary/required for me would be maybe as evidence of sincerity for someone whose motivations seem questionable. I think it's unfair to jump to that conclusion just because someone has an unsupported negative opinion, though.

And flip it around. If somebody ****ing LOVED something and couldn't give you an explanation accounting for it, would you grill them about it and feel wronged if they don't play along? I don't see why it should be any different for the opposite equivalent.

For me, the point of a message board is to share and bounce things off each other, not get to the bottom of things. If you want to add additional substance to that and really get into it, great, everyone appreciates it, but you can't and shouldn't push that demand/standard onto anyone else, IMO.

And for the record, if you ask me to expand on something, I'll often oblige if the reasoning is already on the tip of my tongue, but there are also times where I'm going to be like "I dunno, doesn't matter." And yes, despite that, I'm probably not going to hold back from saying that I felt it stunk if I felt it stunk.

 

[Tawnos]

Why bother even posting anything if it's going to be a glib, dismissive opinion with no reasoning?

It's fine to simply think [blank] sucks, but if you're going to the trouble of posting it on a message board, what value does that have to anybody but the person making the comment?

Literally everybody has an opinion - supply is sky high and demand couldn't be lower. It's worthless in and of itself. Explanation is the only thing gives opinions value.

"That movie sucks"

"Why"

"It just sucks"

...is probably the most pointless conversation imaginable. I hope people get pissed off if I ask for an explanation, because they've already wasted my time and I'm itching for a fight at that point.

Message boards is one thing, but I do think that people get into this too much sometimes in regular conversation. What I'm mostly picturing is this kind of thing: In a discussion of grunge, Nirvana inevitably comes up. A person says they don't like Nirvana. That person gets asked why and the response is along the lines of "I don't know, I just don't." Then the rest of the people in the discussion look down on the person that can't define a reason, simply because they can't define the reason.

My point is that sometimes it really can be that simple. I don't like Nirvana, nor do I like the Rolling Stones, even though everything else about my musical tastes says I should like both. I've never really thought much about why I don't because, at the end of the day, I don't really care to explore it. Not everything requires a self-assessment and some introspection to discover the reason for a dislike and the dislike itself does itself imply a lack of motivation to do so.

 

[Leafsdude7]

I agree that it needs to be explainable, but I don't agree that it needs to be universally explainable.

The analogy doesn't work for me because sports is too different from art. Value judgements are going to be based on what matters with respect to the thing you're talking about, and the two have wildly different purposes.

The point wasn't that sports and art is analogous, the point was to explain why the words "good/bad" and "like/dislike" required different levels of support when they're claimed.

In sports, what matters about a hockey player is unquestionably their ability to contribute positively towards winning hockey games/championships.

But how do you determine that ability? Goals, assists, even wins, are very difficult in almost any team sport to pin on individuals. Marcel Dionne not only never won a cup but never even played a game in a Conference Finals, not to mention the fact his teams missed the playoffs in 9 of his 18 seasons so would you say he contributed negatively to his teams winning games/championships? I'd wager some would say yes and some would say no, but I don't think you can say either without explaining why. If you say you liked or hated him as a player, I don't think you need to explain why.

Your idea of goodness is going to be informed by how you personally feel about something

In a roundabout way, perhaps, but I still think in the case of being good the "feeling" would be defensible, and still not necessarily one that requires you always enjoy whatever you defend as "good".

 

[Shareefruck]

Message boards is one thing, but I do think that people get into this too much sometimes in regular conversation. What I'm mostly picturing is this kind of thing: In a discussion of grunge, Nirvana inevitably comes up. A person says they don't like Nirvana. That person gets asked why and the response is along the lines of "I don't know, I just don't." Then the rest of the people in the discussion look down on the person that can't define a reason, simply because they can't define the reason.

My point is that sometimes it really can be that simple. I don't like Nirvana, nor do I like the Rolling Stones, even though everything else about my musical tastes says I should like both. I've never really thought much about why I don't because, at the end of the day, I don't really care to explore it. Not everything requires a self-assessment and some introspection to discover the reason for a dislike and the dislike itself does itself imply a lack of motivation to do so.

I agree, and I think this extends to message boards. There's nothing that says it needs to be a deep probing intellectual battleground any different from casual conversation. Some people like it and appreciate it more that way, but tough ****-- you don't get to enforce that, IMO.

If it's worth saying in conversation, why wouldn't it be worth posting?

 

[Shareefruck]

The point wasn't that sports and art is analogous, the point was to explain why the words "good/bad" and "like/dislike" required different levels of support when they're claimed.



But how do you determine that ability? Goals, assists, even wins, are very difficult in almost any team sport to pin on individuals. Marcel Dionne not only never won a cup but never even played a game in a Conference Finals, not to mention the fact his teams missed the playoffs in 9 of his 18 seasons so would you say he contributed negatively to his teams winning games/championships? I'd wager some would say yes and some would say no, but I don't think you can say either without explaining why. If you say you liked or hated him as a player, I don't think you need to explain why.



In a roundabout way, perhaps, but I still think in the case of being good the "feeling" would be defensible, and still not necessarily one that requires you always enjoy whatever you defend as "good".

I feel like you may have ignored the line of reasoning I had in the post, that basically touches on each of these. My point wasn't to use "Sports and Art are different" as a knockdown argument. It was that the way they're different creates different rules in how they demand to be evaluated. The purpose of art is to be liked or valued or experienced. Effectiveness in that area can be reasoned through unexplained personal impression alone. Effectiveness in achieving the goal in hockey cannot be reached that way because of the more objective/unambiguous purpose.

 

[Leafsdude7]

I feel like you may have ignored the line of reasoning I had in the post, that basically touches on each of these. My point wasn't to use "Sports and Art are different" as a knockdown argument. It was that the way they're different creates different rules in how they demand to be evaluated. The purpose of art is to be liked or valued or experienced. Effectiveness in that area can be reasoned through unexplained personal impression alone. Effectiveness in achieving the goal in hockey cannot be reached that way because of the more objective/unambiguous purpose.

I'm confused. I basically said, yes, different things can be evaluated critically in different ways, but that doesn't mean that evaluating things critically in a positive way, no matter what way that is, necessarily means you like that thing, even if you evaluate based on concepts you like. So I'm not sure if you're arguing with me here or agreeing with me, since your language seems to be the former but the content seems to be the latter...

 

[End on a Hinote]

In a span of less than two years, Robert De Niro had gone from a badass, gangster-playing Hollywood legend to, IMO, one of those lame elders who try desperately to appear cool and hip with the millennial crowd (Dirty Grandpa, ranting about Trump on YT).

 

[Shareefruck]

I'm confused. I basically said, yes, different things can be evaluated critically in different ways, but that doesn't mean that evaluating things critically in a positive way, no matter what way that is, necessarily means you like that thing, even if you evaluate based on concepts you like. So I'm not sure if you're arguing with me here or agreeing with me, since your language seems to be the former but the content seems to be the latter...

I don't follow why you think the content suggests the latter. Let me try to condense/summarize my argument.

I don't think the two things can ever be fully separated. The reasons you have for why you think something is good should come from your idea of what qualities contribute positively towards things that you value about movies. Agreement on that in certain circles is also what I assume created the more universally accepted academic standard. It shouldn't be everyone's standard, though, because everyone values different things about movies.

<< this part is why I think goodness = preference >>
So in following with that beginning, if the reasons are accurate and good with respect to your own opinion, they should be compatible with what contributed to your own experience/impression, which is inevitably tied with whether or not you like it. I agree with you that it doesn't need to have anything to do with whether you feel a compulsion to watch it, but compulsion != preference. You prefer something more because you value it more, which is the same goal based on the same standard as the thing that achieves the purpose of movies. The reverse must be true then as well (something that you value in an experience must be accounted for in your standard for goodness, because value is the thing that goodness is measured by). As a result, either a) guilty pleasures are good, IYO (and are only about feeling shame in thinking that), or b) guilty pleasures are referring to compulsion, which have nothing to do with preference.

<< this part is why I think it's subjective rather than objective >>
With sports, the purpose is set in stone-- it's to win-- so that's the only reason why everyone's individual opinion of who's good can be argued objectively rather than personally (whether you like a player has no bearing on how much they contribute to winning, which is the goal that affects its goodness). With movies, the purpose is whatever works and whatever gives you value (whether you enjoy/appreciate a movie has EVERY bearing on how much you value it, which is the goal that affects its goodness), so a) everyone values different things, which means there can be no universal goal/standard to work with, which means even explainable opinions are only going to be individual and personal rather than objective (and it becomes valid to explain that opinion only by pointing to the value that you got from the experience), and b) the purpose is synonymous to the purpose of preference.

I don't follow which part of this you would pick apart. Could you re-iterate using this post?

 

[Leafsdude7]

I don't follow why you think the content suggests the latter.

As I said, it's because nothing you're saying seemed to be contradicting what I was saying. Perhaps I didn't read it correctly.

I don't think the two things can ever be fully separated. The reasons you have for why you think something is good should come from your idea of what technical qualities contribute positively towards things that you value about movies. Agreement on that in certain circles is also what I assume created the more universally accepted academic standard.

So in following with that beginning, if the reasons are accurate and good with respect to your own opinion, they should be compatible with what contributed to your own experience/impression, which is inevitably tied with whether or not you like it. I agree with you that it doesn't need to have anything to do with whether you feel a compulsion to watch it, but compulsion != preference. You prefer something more because you value it more, which is the same goal based on the same standard. The reverse must be true then as well.

I don't follow which part of this you would pick apart.

My main reasoning for why things can be viewed good without liking them is because two things that follow similar artistic patterns aren't always necessarily equally enjoyed by an individual. My basic argument would be that you can't account for individual taste, but you can critique for artistic patterns.

This is exactly why the bolded can result in individuals assessing a work as good but still not enjoying it: they can follow patterns and methods they see in movies they enjoy, but that doesn't necessarily mean those patterns and methods are always going to be enjoyable to individuals who usually like the style, often times without any obvious rhyme or reason to the viewer.

 

[Mrb1p]

Pink Floyd sucks.

But that one isnt an opinion, its a fact.

 

[Xelebes]

A controversial opinion: a songs greatness is not determined by the technique but rather the flexibility and appropriateness of the song for situations in life. The interpretation, however, boils entirely down to technique.

 

[BonMorrison]

Pink Floyd sucks.

But that one isnt an opinion, its a fact.

Yes.

Pink Floyd is some next level suckage. They have like three good songs and it's their popular ones. The rest is mindless craaaaap.

 

[Shareefruck]

As I said, it's because nothing you're saying seemed to be contradicting what I was saying. Perhaps I didn't read it correctly.



My main reasoning for why things can be viewed good without liking them is because two things that follow similar artistic patterns aren't always necessarily equally enjoyed by an individual. My basic argument would be that you can't account for individual taste, but you can critique for artistic patterns.

This is exactly why the bolded can result in individuals assessing a work as good but still not enjoying it: they can follow patterns and methods they see in movies they enjoy, but that doesn't necessarily mean those patterns and methods are always going to be enjoyable to individuals who usually like the style, often times without any obvious rhyme or reason to the viewer.

This is technically compatible with what I'm saying. But there's no reason to equate "following artistic patterns" with goodness. Good is an all-encompassing aggregate of everything that makes movies valuable to you. Whether it engages you (for non artistic reasons) or whether you appreciate what it's doing (for artistic reasons), both of those factor into how good something is, weighted based on how much you care about them. Preference is also the aggregate of everything that makes movies valuable to you.

You can "like" someone because you want to hang out with them all the time, and you equally can "like" someone because you value what they've done. Both of those things have value to you. Similarly, you can "appreciate" someone because you want to hang out with them all the time, and you equally can "appreciate" someone because you value what they accomplish. Both of those things have value to you.

It makes sense to say that "wanting to hang out with someone all the time" can conflict with "valuing what they accomplish" (which is the level that you're attacking this from). No arguments there. But it makes no sense to say that "liking someone" conflicts with "appreciating someone" because the same things contribute toward both.

What you're saying would only make sense if it was universally agreed upon and definitive that the purpose of movies was to follow artistic patterns. But this clearly isn't the case.

It's convenient and become a common part of our vernacular to treat good as being interchangeable with well made/meaningful and like as being interchangeable with engaging. But I think it's really inaccurate to use them that way, and short-changes both the word "good" and the word "like", which both have to do with the full picture/experience.

 

[Tkachuk4MVP]

In a span of less than two years, Robert De Niro had gone from a badass, gangster-playing Hollywood legend to, IMO, one of those lame elders who try desperately to appear cool and hip with the millennial crowd (Dirty Grandpa, ranting about Trump on YT).

I don't think that's a very controversial opinion.

 

[Leafsdude7]

This is technically compatible with what I'm saying. But there's no reason to equate "following artistic patterns" with goodness. Good is an all-encompassing aggregate of everything that makes movies valuable to you.

We fundamentally disagree with this. Moreover, I provided an example of exactly why I disagree with my hockey example.

Would you at least accept that my disagreement with the above has merit?

 

[Shareefruck]

We fundamentally disagree with this. Moreover, I provided an example of exactly why I disagree with my hockey example.

Would you at least accept that my disagreement with the above has merit?

Which bit are you referring to? Maybe I missed it.

 

[Hammettf2b]

Pink Floyd sucks.

But that one isnt an opinion, its a fact.

Yes.

Pink Floyd is some next level suckage. They have like three good songs and it's their popular ones. The rest is mindless craaaaap.