Controversial Entertainment Opinions/Discussion Thread - Part II

[hototogisu]

None of these arguments make very much sense.

I doubt very many of us have been raped or know many more people who have been raped than have been murdered. Whether or not characters who kill for fun are portrayed as despicable human beings is irrelevant, because the same is more or less true of the characters who rape. Furthermore, the only reason most villains have ulterior motivations for murder these days was in reaction to past norms where villains were evil for the sake of evil and murder for ****s and giggles. It wasn't treated any differently then, and people didn't excuse violence any less.

Motive/justification really has nothing to do with why they're treated differently. It has more to do with response. The thought of being raped is more terrifying and disturbing than the thought of being murdered, just as the thought of being tortured is more terrifying and disturbing than the thought of being murdered.

I don't think you can claim everybody else is wrong when the central thrust of your argument is as subjective as this.

 

[Aladyyn]

When someone murders you you don't have to live with the consequences and mental scarring.

 

[Shareefruck]

I don't think you can claim everybody else is wrong when the central thrust of your argument is as subjective as this.

Why? I don't think the logic of those arguments check out, for the reasons I gave, whereas I think that rape/torture have a more visceral effect on people because a) it involves more drawn-out pain and anguish, which is harder to watch than a quick death and b) the person lives through the lasting traumatic repercussions.

Both comments were an attempt at using logic, not an emotional answer. My comment should be criticized in equal measure if there are similar holes in it.

 

[hototogisu]

Why? I don't think the logic of those arguments check out, for the reasons I gave, whereas I think that rape/torture have a more visceral effect on people because a) it involves more drawn-out pain and anguish, which is harder to watch than a quick death and b) the person lives through the lasting traumatic repercussions.

Both comments were an attempt at using logic, not an emotional answer. My comment should be criticized in equal measure if there are similar holes in it.

The "hole" in it is that your reason is completely subjective. I certainly wouldn't say the part that I bolded in my last post applies to me, at least.

 

[Shareefruck]

The "hole" in it is that your reason is completely subjective. I certainly wouldn't say the part that I bolded in my last post applies to me, at least.

Really, you wouldn't? The thought of being slowly tortured inch by inch or raped and living through every moment of the trauma doesn't disturb you more than being shot in the face and dying? I wouldn't have thought that would be a subjective statement. The reasons why I think that certainly aren't very subjective. If they're incorrect, I'm happy to concede the point.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Sharee, it surprises me that motivation from a narrative standpoint doesn't explain to you why rapes are not nearly as prevalent as murders and why you could have too much of the former than the latter.

 

[Xelebes]

From a narrative standpoint, the employment of rape scenes can be sleazy or erroneous if the treatment of characters are against what the narrative is trying to say.

 

[Shareefruck]

Sharee, it surprises me that motivation from a narrative standpoint doesn't explain to you why rapes are not nearly as prevalent as murders and why you could have too much of the former than the latter.

To a degree, maybe, but I don't think that it fully does explain it (although I think that's one of the more reasonable defenses mentioned). Murder can have more narrative application, so a show with alot of rape can be more tediously repetitive and pointless than a show with a variety of narratively driven murders. True. But if we removed that variable, and had a show with only one type of murder vs. one type of rape, I'm pretty sure the same double standard would still exist. Afterall, people are okay with shows about serial killers and maniacal supervillains who are pure evil and must be stopped. There's not much variance of motivation in the murders there, yet it's still viewed as more excusable than showing gratuitous amounts of rape.

Hell, just in the Game of Thrones example, have we really seen more instances of rape than instances of un-motivated, pure evil murder? The Mountain's constantly ripping people apart left and right for the fun of it, and you never hear a peep about it being exhausting. You did hear outcries about there being too many Ramsey torture scenes when that was a thing.

The real explanation for why one is worse than the other must lie elsewhere.

 

[Eisen]

Why? I don't think the logic of those arguments check out, for the reasons I gave, whereas I think that rape/torture have a more visceral effect on people because a) it involves more drawn-out pain and anguish, which is harder to watch than a quick death and b) the person lives through the lasting traumatic repercussions.

Both comments were an attempt at using logic, not an emotional answer. My comment should be criticized in equal measure if there are similar holes in it.

Not to me. Murder is worse to me. I know, I'm anecdotal, but so were you.

 

[Shareefruck]

Not to me. Murder is worse to me. I know I'm anecdotal, but so where you.

We're talking about which is worse to watch, though, not commit. Unless that's what you're talking about too.

 

[Eisen]

We're talking about which is worse to watch, though, not commit. Unless that's what you're talking about too.

Both, watch and be victimised. I'm not saying that sexual violence is harmless. I'm just saying murder is worse (to me).

 

[Shareefruck]

Fair enough.

 

[Moncherry]

Every episode comes e back to Frank this or Frank that and how he's a *******. He's involved in all the plots or subplots.

No, that mostly applies to the gang as a whole, and Frank certainly doesn't steal the spotlight in that regard. He is also considerably less involved than you make him out to be. In some episodes he's almost like a side character. Frank gets the least screen time, the least lines, and for most episodes he is just going along with the gang. He rarely has episodes devoted to him or specific subplots that don't involve Charlie. Major character? Sure. Your opinion on the quality of the show when Frank is involved is your own, and Frank is personally my least favourite, but your assessment of how much of the show revolves around Frank is factually wrong. There's just no way you can say Frank is the most important character if you actually watch the show. Hell, the last season has a Frank POV episode which rested on the novelty that we barely get to see Frank's life.

 

[left hand path]

the only black sabbath song anyone needs to hear is into the void

 

[Shareefruck]

No, that mostly applies to the gang as a whole, and Frank certainly doesn't steal the spotlight in that regard. He is also considerably less involved than you make him out to be. In some episodes he's almost like a side character. Frank gets the least screen time, the least lines, and for most episodes he is just going along with the gang. He rarely has episodes devoted to him or specific subplots that don't involve Charlie. Major character? Sure. Your opinion on the quality of the show when Frank is involved is your own, and Frank is personally my least favourite, but your assessment of how much of the show revolves around Frank is factually wrong. There's just no way you can say Frank is the most important character if you actually watch the show. Hell, the last season has a Frank POV episode which rested on the novelty that we barely get to see Frank's life.

I think what he means is that while he technically gets a little less, he's sort of given nearly as much of a spotlight as any of the other main characters, and that's already too much, because he's only a small fraction as funny or interesting. And I tend to agree with that. He's not relegated to being a background character, so every episode is going to involve him in a big way and you can't just receive him in small quantities and take much of a break from his antics. I would rather see him reduced to a role that's more like the waitress'.

I don't see where it was ever implied that Frank is the most important character and gets MORE of the spotlight than the other 3.

Also, you might be able to make an argument that Frank has more of a narrative role than Dee, which is also unfortunate. The fact that every scheme is financed by Frank, taken part in by Frank, AND secretly manipulated/undermined by Frank gives him way too massive/constant a role in every story. It's either Frank's money, Frank's plan, Frank trying to weasel his way into the plan, or Frank antagonizing the plan, and 3/4ths of the scenes without him SORT of has the other characters looking over their shoulder for him. So I definitely get where that sentiment's coming from.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I thought Frank was hilarious.

Also thought Sweet Dee was woefully underrated in that series.

 

[BenchBrawl]

About the above discussion, I believe that severe torture is worst than most murders.

 

[Ozz]

the only black sabbath song anyone needs to hear is into the void

That's a good one.

 

[Aladyyn]

That's a good one.

wrong =/= good

First 3 Sabbath albums are mandatory if you have even passing interest in rock music. If you're into metal the first 6 + Heaven and Hell are mandatory. 1 song won't do.

 

[NyQuil]

I thought Frank was hilarious.

Also thought Sweet Dee was woefully underrated in that series.

The episode where she's a stand-up comedian is impressive.

 

[Ozz]

wrong =/= good

First 3 Sabbath albums are mandatory if you have even passing interest in rock music. If you're into metal the first 6 + Heaven and Hell are mandatory. 1 song won't do.

Not my #1 pick, but a good song indeed.

 

[ProspectsSTC]

Alright, here's another one.

Given the choice between seeing a cinematic failure or a meh movie product, I will take the former more often than not.

Absolutely. I'd watch the Room again before I even considered watching something like Passengers or Batman v Superman again

 

[WeThreeKings]

Frank Reynolds is amazing. Danny DeVito cracks me up all the time.

Frank gets an intervention is one of the best episodes.

But I understand the sentiment. The best episode of the series was "The Anti Social Network" and Frank only comes in at the end with the virus video.

 

[Shareefruck]

Absolutely. I'd watch the Room again before I even considered watching something like Passengers or Batman v Superman again

That's an unfair comparison because The Room is something that's a trainwreck in miraculously great way that completely works rather than the normal kind of trainwreck.

You could even call The Room a great movie, even if it was completely unintentional.

 

[Shareefruck]

Controversial opinion-- The Room should be considered a legitimately great movie because its rewards are legitimately great. How poorly it was made and the success of its intentions shouldn't be the barometer, the experience of watching it should be.

Oh, and here's another one:

(this would probably fit into that controversial opinion thread)

Personally, I think that if something requires an unspoiled plot to to be effective, it's not that good in the first place. If anything, the reaction you have to something with the plot spoiled is likely the correct reaction that you'll end up having after giving it time to sink in. In other words, if you're blown away by the surprise of something that you otherwise wouldn't have been, every subsequent time you retry it, you're going to like it less and less until it eventually regresses to that level anyways.

I'm probably exaggerating, but I think the importance of going into something spoiler-free is grossly overstated.