Controversial Entertainment Opinions/Discussion Thread - Part II

[Xelebes]

It's hard for me to see why the innovation needs to be separated from the innovator themselves. If somebody's output has a profound impact on any field, be it art, science, philosophy or whatever, it only seems correct to acknowledge that it was their work, their thought, their vision that brought the change about.

I'm not sure why this is a big deal really - I can think of plenty of musicians, writers, painters, etc. that were innovative and influential but who, nonetheless, don't particularly provide me with any personal enjoyment. I'm still perfectly content to give them any credit they've earned.

The whole notion of dismissing something important for 'unforgivable qualities' (whatever that means) seems weird to me. It's not about me as an individual in these cases, I'm capable of seeing past my own biases when required.

Basically you can observe an innovation and observe the attribution, but the unforgivable quality, trait or attribute can impede the veneration of the artist.

An extreme example would be Leni Riefenstahl or DC Scott. Racism as an aesthetic choice made by those artists can impede their veneration. In fact, their choices often result in them consistently being demoted.

 

[Ouroboros]

By the way what are these examples of innovation that sucks? At least give 2 or 3 examples

Conceptual art as a whole is pretty much awful. Craftless, meaningless, pretentious garbage. Duchamp, Manzoni, Klein - all innovative thinkers who have produced nothing of value.

Basically you can observe an innovation and observe the attribution, but the unforgivable quality, trait or attribute can impede the veneration of the artist.

An extreme example would be Leni Riefenstahl or DC Scott. Racism as an aesthetic choice made by those artists can impede their veneration. In fact, their choices often result in them consistently being demoted.

That seems exceptionally specific, no? I guess that's legitimate criticism, but personally I don't have an issue with it.

How do you feel about people with objectionable views who never expressed them explicitly in their art?

 

[Xelebes]

As I said, it is an extreme example.

A more nuanced example comes from the RRHoF thread. Someone does not like Tupac and that epoch of hiphop. The unforgivable quality he provides is that it is excessively testosterone-driven. He also identifies the examples that he likes is also innovative (although the sentiment was conveyed in a manner to suggest that TD was not innovative.) I guess the problem here is less so much being asked to identify that some artists were innovative but that innovation was being used as an argument of whatabouttery. The one who brings up innovation never challenges the fact that the epoch in question is testosterone-driven to the excess. The lack of innovation is not the deal-breaker. It's the excessively testosterone-driven nature of that epoch that is the deal-breaker.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I'm very resentful of the fact that actors tend to be the one's who promote the movie and talk about it in the press considering they tend to be the smallest contributors to the creative process of a work of art. I'd rather hear from the writer or the director or the cinematographer than I would the actor who most of the time is only doing what he's being told. In the same vein, I tend to consider actors to be instruments of the artist far more than I consider them artists themselves.

 

[Shareefruck]

I'm very resentful of the fact that Actors tend to be the one's who promote the movie and talk about it in the press considering they tend to be the smallest contributors to the creative process of a work of art. I'd rather hear from the writer or the director or the cinematographer than I would the actor who most of the time is only doing what he's being told. In the same vein, I tend to consider actors to be instruments of the artist far more than I consider them artists themselves.

Absolutely. It would almost be like people praising a great painting by concentrating on what high quality tools/materials he used and ignoring the painter. They're important, but for the most part, they're secondary/supplementary players.



3:20

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I'm very resentful of the fact that Actors tend to be the one's who promote the movie and talk about it in the press considering they tend to be the smallest contributors to the creative process of a work of art. I'd rather hear from the writer or the director or the cinematographer than I would the actor who most of the time is only doing what he's being told. In the same vein, I tend to consider actors to be instruments of the artist far more than I consider them artists themselves.

I personally don't care about promotion for a movie, but if you actually want to get people to listen you kind of have to use the actors. Most people don't know much about an upcoming movie other than the major actors in play and maybe the director. And the directors do a lot of promotion as well.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I personally don't care about promotion for a movie, but if you actually want to get people to listen you kind of have to use the actors. Most people don't know much about an upcoming movie other than the major actors in play and maybe the director. And the directors do a lot of promotion as well.

I know why they do it. Actors are the most recognizable face of a movie. I just think it sucks. And the directors who do do press do a lot less of it - and in less accessible forums - than the actors of the movie.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I know why they do it. Actors are the most recognizable face of a movie. I just think it sucks. And the directors who do do press do a lot less of it - and in less accessible forums - than the actors of the movie.

Very true.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Oh, here's a literary one: Iceberg Slim's Pimp should be considered a classic of American literature and not solely of African-American literature. While the story is rather simple - the the ups and down of a pimp through a couple of decades - the flow and slang of the story is damn near perfect, it reads almost as if you were being rocked by a sweet and flashy melody. It also has just the right amount of flowery language - which brings a nice contrast, especially when describing his brutal actions and the filthy world in which he lives - without overdoing it. The book is not preachy and it also does not glamorize the life he lived. Despite the vast wealth he accumulated at the height of his success, there are very few descriptions of how he spent his money or how he enjoyed it (besides trading in for a new Cadillac - or a hog, as it's called in the book - every year). The book is solely focused on the pimping itself (when he's not in prison). Iceberg Slim told a balanced story about an unbalanced world and did it to borderline perfection, my only issue with it being that the story sometimes feels a bit cartoonish (when he recounts his escape from prison, for example).

 

[Shareefruck]

Here's one that I repeat alot that is probably pretty disagreeable-- I think people rate things WAY too leniently, particularly critics, whose job, I feel, should be to highlight the separation that is deserved. Things that even they would acknowledge as run-of-the-mill, deeply flawed, average guilty pleasures always get at least 3/5, anything remotely good is 4/5, and anything legimately solid/memorable/coherent/worth recommending gets 5/5 automatically. Everything from terrible to below average fall into the 0-3/5 range, and the full range of these numbers are barely ever used-- they all basically mean the same thing. You can tell that the critics can tell the difference between an okay 5/5 thing and one that's an outright masterpiece, but it's all lumped together, I guess so as not to upset anyone and be nice/positive as possible. It makes the number less useful when you're really looking for what critics see as the best things. And just about everyone who rates things seem to use this same type of scale! I guess it's a controversial opinion because I'm basically saying that critics are too easy-going and aren't nearly critical enough.

In my mind, your starting point for things that are damn solid, cohesive, memorable, have very few flaws, and wouldn't feel wrong to put on a recommendation list should only be around 3/5. When you see a solid/decent, but unspectacular thing like The Hurt Locker (and worse yet, sometimes formulaic Superhero movies) get the same rating as something like 2001:A Space Odyssey, it's just all kinds of wrong.

---

Oh, here's a related one-- Neither expectations, nor what constraints/restrictions creators had to work under should have any bearing whatsoever on how something is assessed/evaluated. "What did you expect? It's a thing about _____" or "Yeah, but you have to remember that the creator had to juggle the needs of _____, _____, and ____, so what we ended up with is understandable" are meaningless caveats. If it works, it works, if it doesn't, it doesn't.

---

Oh, and a good cause doesn't excuse a bad idea. The ALS Ice-Bucket Challenge, for example, was just a glorified modern version of annoying chain-letters on a global scale, and the fact that it was for a good cause doesn't improve that perception, for me, personally.

---

Finally, I'm convinced that anyone who has ever called anyone a hipster is a terrible person. To just non-chalantly throw something baselessly accusatory and demeaning like that (You're basically telling them they're lying, greater-than-thou attention ******) because of someone's preferences..... how could they not be?

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I don't understand what was so great about Star Wars: The Force Awakens and Star Wars: Rogue One. They felt like banal, run of the mill action movies to me and I thought TFA was littered with bad acting. I've given a shot at both - due to the urging of friends - and ended up feeling gypped both times outside of a few nice images. Frankly, I had a lot more fun when I watched Suicide Squad because I find an awful flick more entertaining than an unoriginal and formulaic one.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

Finally, I'm convinced that anyone who has ever called anyone a hipster is a terrible person. To just non-chalantly throw something baselessly accusatory and demeaning like that (You're basically telling them they're lying, greater-than-thou attention ******) because of someone's preferences..... how could they not be?

I can agree with that, with the caveat that I still think hipsters are very real.

 

[Shareefruck]

I can agree with that, with the caveat that I still think hipsters are very real.

They do, but they're never the guys that are actually accused of it. I don't think they hang out in message boards (what would be the point? You're anonymous!).

If you can visibly SEE a guy that LOOKs like a fancy hipster, fashion-wise, and their tastes reflect that, and they have that dispassionate attitude, that's probably a stronger sign. I don't think these guys actually bother arguing with people about what they like, though, it's a completely benign surface level thing.

Even so, it's pretty difficult to tell who's genuine and who isn't. And if it IS genuine, it's undeserving of mockery.

 

[BonMorrison]

Oh my god yes on that hipster comment, Shar.

 

[aleshemsky83]

Oh, here's a literary one: Iceberg Slim's Pimp should be considered a classic of American literature and not solely of African-American literature. While the story is rather simple - the the ups and down of a pimp through a couple of decades - the flow and slang of the story is damn near perfect, it reads almost as if you were being rocked by a sweet and flashy melody. It also has just the right amount of flowery language - which brings a nice contrast, especially when describing his brutal actions and the filthy world in which he lives - without overdoing it. The book is not preachy and it also does not glamorize the life he lived. Despite the vast wealth he accumulated at the height of his success, there are very few descriptions of how he spent his money or how he enjoyed it (besides trading in for a new Cadillac - or a hog, as it's called in the book - every year). The book is solely focused on the pimping itself (when he's not in prison). Iceberg Slim told a balanced story about an unbalanced world and did it to borderline perfection, my only issue with it being that the story sometimes feels a bit cartoonish (when he recounts his escape from prison, for example).

I've listened to the audio book and I didn't consider it a classic at all. I don't think it was balanced, I thought the guy told the story from the perspective of his criminal self, why he became that way, etc.

I will say it is interesting to see its influences on black culture because it very clearly did have a big impact on people like snoop dog or katt Williams

Still like 80-90 percent of the book was him talking about the pimp game and it started repeating itself after a while. It also sound made up too. I think once or twice in the book he said he gave a woman a beating and it actually made her horny. I guess it's possible it's true for the type of messed up mindset these woman have but it's also more likely he just beat and raped these women.

Still it's an interesting listen knowing it's all written by a reformed criminal but the storytelling is pretty remorseless

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

They do, but they're never the guys that are actually accused of it. I don't think they hang out in message boards (what would be the point? You're anonymous!).

If you can visibly SEE a guy that LOOKs like a fancy hipster, fashion-wise, and their tastes reflect that, and they have that dispassionate attitude, that's probably a stronger sign. I don't think these guys actually bother arguing with people about what they like, though, it's a completely benign surface level thing.

Even so, it's pretty difficult to tell who's genuine and who isn't. And if it IS genuine, it's undeserving of mockery.

Well said. Hipster tend to reveal themselves, they don't need anyone to point it at them.

Conversely, it often seems the case where people who like to accuse someone for being a hipster.........ironically out themselves as basic.

 

[aleshemsky83]

What's basic? I've heard that a lot but I don't quite understand what it means.

 

[Shareefruck]

I'm not sure what basic is either.

Oh my god yes on that hipster comment, Shar.

I get accused of it often and it's completely infuriating-- I'm an introverted but compulsively opinionated Asian guy who thinks of fashion/social awareness as a tedious imposition. I wouldn't know the first thing about keeping up appearances and appearing hip!

Yet people here seem certain that I'm a latte sipping hipster with a well-groomed beard wearing a Fedora or something.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

What's basic? I've heard that a lot but I don't quite understand what it means.

It's a rather new term for myself as well, I got called that a lot during my recent job by someone who wanted to **** me off.

My understanding is that it is like a reverse hipster: only at ease with the mainstream trends while disliking diversity. I think it was originally referred towards white women, hence the term "basic *****."

In the end, they are polar opposites on the trends scale yet very similar in attitude. Calling someone basic is a massive charge to give, much like calling someone a hipster.

On a separate note, I think Beyonce's Lemonade wasn't very good.

 

[SJSharksfan39]

These award nominated films this year aren't doing much for me. I thought Manchester by the sea was depressing as hell and La La Land was decent but kind of boring in the middle. I mention these two films because they seem to be getting universal praise and, like Birdman, I don't understand what I'm missing. If I was giving a Best Picture award to a film that might get nominated (As in. the type of film that would probably get nominated), I would give it to either Arrival or Hell of High Water. I think Hell or High Water spoke to the very real society we live in today, about people stuggling to make ends meet despite what people say about the economy and jobs going well.

 

[Leafsdude7]

Oh, and a good cause doesn't excuse a bad idea. The ALS Ice-Bucket Challenge, for example, was just a glorified modern version of annoying chain-letters on a global scale, and the fact that it was for a good cause doesn't improve that perception, for me, personally.

I don't even...

 

[aleshemsky83]

While the ice bucket challenge got pretty crazy with fame hungry people and brands trying to get into the spotlight, it still did a lot of good and as stupid as "raising awareness" sounds, it is a real thing and people do actually donate money because of it.

 

[Shareefruck]

I sort of see it as similar to this-- If a person is a terrible person, the fact that they're rich and they donate a ton of money saving many lives in the process, for me, doesn't absolve them of their terribleness. It's good that they donated that money, and I appreciate that it happened, but I can't square that by changing my view of them. I realize that on a consequentialist level, this doesn't make sense, but I hold it anyways, in a stubborn, principled way. The ALS Icebucket Challenge is a dumb thing that created a positive net outcome. It undeniably has me in moral checkmate, but even so, I still view it as the same dumb thing.

I admit, that's pretty flimsy, and is more of a controversial irrational inclination rather than hard position.

 

[Leafsdude7]

I sort of see it as similar to this-- If a person is a terrible person, the fact that they're rich and they donate a ton of money saving many lives in the process, for me, doesn't absolve them of their terribleness. It's good that they donated that money, and I appreciate that it happened, but I can't square that by changing my view of them. I realize that on a consequentialist level, this doesn't make sense, but I hold it anyways, in a stubborn, principled way. The ALS Icebucket Challenge is a dumb thing that created a positive net outcome. It undeniably has me in moral checkmate, but even so, I still view it as the same dumb thing.

I admit, that's pretty flimsy, and is more of a controversial irrational inclination rather than hard position.

I honestly don't understand your problem with it. Nothing you're saying sounds like anything related to the Ice Bucket Challenge...

 

[Spring in Fialta]

I've listened to the audio book and I didn't consider it a classic at all. I don't think it was balanced, I thought the guy told the story from the perspective of his criminal self, why he became that way, etc.

I will say it is interesting to see its influences on black culture because it very clearly did have a big impact on people like snoop dog or katt Williams

Still like 80-90 percent of the book was him talking about the pimp game and it started repeating itself after a while. It also sound made up too. I think once or twice in the book he said he gave a woman a beating and it actually made her horny. I guess it's possible it's true for the type of messed up mindset these woman have but it's also more likely he just beat and raped these women.

Still it's an interesting listen knowing it's all written by a reformed criminal but the storytelling is pretty remorseless

Disclaimer: I dislike audiobooks because I feel as if the reading of a book is a physical experience and that perhaps our attention isn't as sharp when we're listening to a book and we might miss the nuance of the written words while listening. I certainly find my aesthetic view of words to be greatly enhanced when I'm reading instead of listening. Especially in a work like Pimp, I find reading it would be of the utmost importance. The language and slang is extremely vivid and sometimes hard to understand (the book offers a key of a couple of pages long to define certain words) that I feel as a lot of the prose would go unnoticed, especially when they involved archaic words. Like I said, the prose often reads like music and I think this is an aspect that would get lost in an audiobook.

What I meant by balanced was that the book never delves too deeply into the ethics of his line of work. While the foreword and some passages - like the dreams of his mother - certainly suggest that Slim has remorse for his past life, he offers an uncompromising view of his pimping without celebrating the lifestyle nor feeling too sorry for his past mistakes - again, I'm only talking about the story here, not the foreword - and I think it gives the book a very grim feeling that greatly appealed to me as a reader. Also the influence it might have had on contemporary culture is rather irrelevant to me. The book could have had influenced no one and I still would have enjoyed it/liked it just as much. Frankly, a lot of the rappers who claim to have been influenced by Iceberg Slim seem to have only embraced his work on a surface level through the extravagant imagery of a pimp and not much else.

Also, you say that 80-90% of the book was him talking about pimping. I don't mean any offense by it, but wasn't the title of the book kind of a giveaway? And this is kind of what I was getting into with my cartoonish comment. It does sound very exaggerated at times - his escape from prison, the shooting in the bar from where he got his Iceberg Slim moniker - and there have been numerous rumors that large segments of the book was made up, which to me, is completely irrelevant even if the book is presented as a non-fiction memoir. It certainly reads like a fiction novel which is my favorite art. Also, I don't see why remorse or the lack of it should be held against it. Why should morality be used to judge a work of art?