Controversial Entertainment Opinions/Discussion Thread - Part II

[Shareefruck]

Hmm. . .



Whoa, slow down captain. The reason people advise other people that nothing is perfect is to break perfectionist habits, habits that can and too often are deleterious to the functioning of the group. Secondly, it does remind us what is true. As no object is perfect (atomic and quantum theory dictates this) and nothing lasts forever (entropy dictates this), we have to concede that we can only get close and be satisfied by how close we can get.

I don't know how atomic and quantum theory can be applied to what feels right in music. I don't think there's some technical way of examining how perfect a stretch of music is, since there's no objective value to it. If something feels exactly the way it seems like it should feel, without reservation, and you don't have any gripes or lacking feeling, then it's a perfect experience, and plenty of things give that feeling.

Saying that it isn't perfect but nothing's perfect, to me translates into the suggestion that "it contains things that detract from the experience, but everything has things that detract from the experience." I don't think that's true in practice. Maybe in an ultra-technical sense, but ultra technical perfectionism doesn't seem compatible with totally compatible with measuring good or bad art, to me. Whenever somebody makes that comment, it strikes me as playing with semantics, and disingenuously switching out the meanings to something that was never intended to be communicated in the first place.

 

[Xelebes]

I don't know how atomic and quantum theory can be applied to what feels right in music.

It does. First, sound is carried by a fluid composed of molecules in the gas state. Instruments and the vocal cords are composed of molecules. What the ear hears is made of molecules. This is all entropic and makes no experience alike.

The problem with what you are doing is that you yourself are making that semantic switch. You are swapping Perfection with Excellence when you shouldn't.

 

[Augscura]

I don't really agree with the way that spoiler courtesy is a thing that's expected/enforced in modern culture. I go along with it because it isn't a big deal either way, but in my mind, you're not owed an unspoiled experience in any way. Isn't a huge incentive of experiencing something right when it's aired/released the ability to experience it completely fresh? If you choose not to do that (or can't), isn't that on you, accepting that the possibility of being spoiled is just something that comes with the territory at that point? You can't get mad at someone for spoiling something, or act like they're obligated to tip-toe around it for your sake. Like, how precious do you have to be to think you're owed that? I kind of feel like people should just be openly discussing spoilers in public immediately after they happen, and tough **** for anybody who didn't see it yet. Considering that you didn't make the effort to watch it when everyone else did, the enjoyment of people who want to talk about it without careful consideration of what they are or aren't allowed to say completely supercedes what little you lose from hearing it, at that point.

I don't think it should really matter anyways, because the novelty of seeing something "unexpected" is pretty overrated, IMO, but that's a whole other controversial can of worms that I already got into before.

So I'm playing Persona 5, a game that takes ~90 hours to complete just the main story. I have a job so I can't find as much time as a teenager or part time student to put in to the game. It is a very story driven game with a lot of really well written characters and it would be a damn shame to have things spoiled for me if people weren't courteous to respect not spoiling something for someone. Saying "well maybe you should make a better effort" is ridiculous. I have put a bulk of my free time to trying to finish the game, but there will always be people with more free time than I to do so

 

[Shareefruck]

It does. First, sound is carried by a fluid composed of molecules in the gas state. Instruments and the vocal cords are composed of molecules. What the ear hears is made of molecules. This is all entropic and makes no experience alike.

The problem with what you are doing is that you yourself are making that semantic switch. You are swapping Perfection with Excellence when you shouldn't.

You don't think this is an overly literalist deviation from any useful way the word could be used in the context of what we're talking about, though? You can't hear these differences, and they certainly aren't the source of any of the gripes that people can have with a thing. I'm also not totally sure why the fact that no two things being alike indicates imperfection anyways, but that's beside the point. Just a quick glance at the definition of perfect shows "make (something) completely free from faults or defects, or as close to such a condition as possible," so I don't think I'm using it incorrectly.

To me, the comment is a disingenuous way of needlessly softening criticism. When someone sees a flaw in something, they are saying that they see it as an unfortunate detraction from the experience. To acknowledge/agree with that, but then say "but on a molecular level, nothing is technically perfect" seems like making an irrelevant and meaningless semantic distinction to suggest that criticism needn't be made.

 

[Shareefruck]

So I'm playing Persona 5, a game that takes ~90 hours to complete just the main story. I have a job so I can't find as much time as a teenager or part time student to put in to the game. It is a very story driven game with a lot of really well written characters and it would be a damn shame to have things spoiled for me if people weren't courteous to respect not spoiling something for someone. Saying "well maybe you should make a better effort" is ridiculous. I have put a bulk of my free time to trying to finish the game, but there will always be people with more free time than I to do so

I'm not saying you should make a better effort, I'm saying that given the circumstance, if for whatever reason, good or bad, you can't make that effort, some spoilage should be an expected and accepted reality. If people want to go out of their way not to spoil it for you, great, and you should appreciate that, and if someone intentionally spoils it for you for ****s and giggles, they're an ***-hole. But nobody should feel obligated to withhold their behavior for your sake, and you would have no grounds to be upset at someone for "inconsiderately" spoiling something for you, simply by you stumbling upon it/overhearing it, IMO.

I don't think there should be rules like "Okay, Persona 5 just came out-- nobody should be heard in public talking about what happens in it for the first six months after it's released." There's a level of (for lack of a better word) spoiled entitlement to spoiler culture that feels silly to me.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Look at all those entitled jerks, thinking that anyone owes it to them not to spoil a movie! If they made the effort to get there before Homer, they wouldn't have had anything to worry about!

 

[Shareefruck]

Look at all those entitled jerks, thinking that anyone owes it to them not to spoil a movie! If they made the effort to get there before Homer, they wouldn't have had anything to worry about!

Borderline. I think that only seems worse than it is because Homer so hyperbolic-ally lacks awareness/common sense that in any other context, it would be clear that he's intentionally doing it to spoil it for people.

If you're walking out of a movie and you discuss what happens in it without checking yourself for spoilers, I don't think you're at fault, though. If someone overhears it, that's unfortunate for them, but tough luck is all it is. They're not owed that courtesy, IMO.

 

[Augscura]

I'm not saying you should make a better effort, I'm saying that given the circumstance, if for whatever reason, good or bad, you can't make that effort, some spoilage should be an expected and accepted reality. If people want to go out of their way not to spoil it for you, great, and you should appreciate that, and if someone intentionally spoils it for you for ****s and giggles, they're an ***-hole. But nobody should feel obligated to withhold their behavior for your sake, and you would have no grounds to be upset at someone for "inconsiderately" spoiling something for you, simply by you stumbling upon it/overhearing it, IMO.

I don't think there should be rules like "Okay, Persona 5 just came out-- nobody should be heard in public talking about what happens in it for the first six months after it's released." There's a level of (for lack of a better word) spoiled entitlement to spoiler culture that feels silly to me.

This is way more reasonable than your first statement honestly. I agree with all of this. Another note regarding Persona 5, Atlus (the developer) made a statement telling YouTubers and Twitch streamers to not stream that game past a certain date (July 7th, about 25% through the game) or the it would risk a strike on those respective accounts. This was met with a pretty mixed reaction amongst the audience and players

 

[Shareefruck]

This is way more reasonable than your first statement honestly. I agree with all of this. Another note regarding Persona 5, Atlus (the developer) made a statement telling YouTubers and Twitch streamers to not stream that game past a certain date (July 7th, about 25% through the game) or the it would risk a strike on those respective accounts. This was met with a pretty mixed reaction amongst the audience and players

I don't think I said anything different in the first post, though. My issue is with spoiler-protection/enforcement/entitlement being a part of basic and obligatory social conduct in today's culture, and I'm arguing that nobody has an obligation to go out of their way to cater to your wants. In some ways (not entirely, admittedly), it's a bit of a zero sum game, and I think is unreasonable to have one side make all these concessions to the side that's late to the party.

I don't think I suggested that it's wrong to not want to be spoiled about something, or anything like that.

And put me in the camp that thinks the Atlus thing is a dumb idea.

 

[tacogeoff]

I don't think I said anything different in the first post. My issue is with spoiler-protection/enforcement/entitlement being a part of basic social conduct in today's culture, and that nobody has an obligation to go out of their way to cater to your wants.

I don't think I suggested that it's wrong to not want to be spoiled about something.

For most people it is common courtesy not to spoil something they know others have not had the opportunity to explore or experience in say an event/game/movie etc etc. There is a certain amount of etiquette that should be applied if you know that someone does not want something to be spoiled.

If someone overhears a conversation or clicks on a discussion about the said topic and is spoiled than it is what it is. Or there is always the ass that just likes to ruin experiences for people............I may have done it a time or two the end of wolverine being the last one (accidently through conversation)....co-worker didn't even bother to go see it bc of me........oooops.

 

[Shareefruck]

For most people it is common courtesy not to spoil something they know others have not had the opportunity to explore or experience in say an event/game/movie etc etc. There is a certain amount of etiquette that should be applied if you know that someone does not want something to be spoiled.

If someone overhears a conversation or clicks on a discussion about the said topic and is spoiled than it is what it is. Or there is always the ass that just likes to ruin experiences for people............I may have done it a time or two the end of wolverine being the last one (accidently through conversation)....co-worker didn't even bother to go see it bc of me........oooops.

I think it goes way beyond mere common courtesy to expect people to be constantly looking over their shoulder and keep their mouth shut "just to be safe", by default, though. It all comes down to how deliberate it is. If you have a good sense that a specific person A) doesn't want to be spoiled about something, B) hasn't seen it yet, and C) can hear you, then yeah, it would be inconsiderate to go ahead and do it anyways, but without all three of those elements being tangibly noted, I think it's all fair game.

There's this underlying idea that you should be careful about talking about potential spoilers in a public setting on the off chance that someone who you might be unaware of might overhear it and be displeased.... that's just a stupid level of consideration to expect and feel owed, IMO-- and it seems like an attitude a lot of people have.

 

[tacogeoff]

I think it goes way beyond mere common courtesy to expect people to be constantly looking over their shoulder and keep their mouth shut "just to be safe", by default, though. It all comes down to how deliberate it is. If you have a good sense that a specific person A) doesn't want to be spoiled about something, B) hasn't seen it yet, and C) can hear you, then yeah, it would be inconsiderate to go ahead and do it anyways, but without all three of those elements being tangibly noted, I think it's all fair game.

There's this underlying idea that you should be careful about talking about potential spoilers in a public setting on the off chance that someone who you might be unaware of might overhear it and be displeased.... that's just a stupid level of consideration to expect and feel owed, IMO-- and it seems like an attitude a lot of people have.

100% agree.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I think it goes way beyond mere common courtesy to expect people to be constantly looking over their shoulder and keep their mouth shut "just to be safe", by default, though. It all comes down to how deliberate it is. If you have a good sense that a specific person A) doesn't want to be spoiled about something, B) hasn't seen it yet, and C) can hear you, then yeah, it would be inconsiderate to go ahead and do it anyways, but without all three of those elements being tangibly noted, I think it's all fair game.

There's this underlying idea that you should be careful about talking about potential spoilers in a public setting on the off chance that someone who you might be unaware of might overhear it and be displeased.... that's just a stupid level of consideration to expect and feel owed, IMO-- and it seems like an attitude a lot of people have.

Is there, really? I don't buy that whatsoever.

 

[Shareefruck]

Is there, really? I don't buy that whatsoever.

People are expected to put spoiler tags around everything, spoiler alert this and spoiler alert that, you hear people make up rules about how you can't talk about a thing within 24 hours of it airing, and how the statute of limitations on spoilers runs out after blahblahblah years. And I often see people react with indignance as if they were wronged by someone, whenever they get accidentally spoiled about something. Definitely seems like a prominent thing in our culture to me. (seemed to become a thing around the same time "binge-watching" became a thing)

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Is there, really? I don't buy that whatsoever.

Yeah, same. I've never been discussing a show or a movie with someone walking down the street and feeling the need to avoid spoiling anything because someone might hear it nor have I ever heard that argued.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

People are expected to put spoiler tags around everything, spoiler alert this and spoiler alert that, you hear people make up rules about how you can't talk about a thing within 24 hours of it airing, and how the statute of limitations on spoilers runs out after blahblahblah years. And I often see people react with indignance as if they were wronged by someone, whenever they get accidentally spoiled about something. Definitely seems like a prominent thing in our culture to me. (seemed to become a thing around the same time "binge-watching" became a thing)

I think they're just easy to do things that shows a minimum of consideration for others and I really don't see the big deal. And I'm not a big spoilers guy myself. Yeah, if it's an accident and someone goes off on you they're being an ass but I do think it's nice and considerate to do your best to at least put spoiler alert when you're discussing something that a lot of people might not have seen yet. It's just common courtesy.

 

[Shareefruck]

It's not a big deal, I agree, and like I said, I go along with it even if I don't agree with it, but push come to shove, I do think it's morphed a bit into spoiled entitlement masquerading as common courtesy. It just feels like something that's been driven forward by people who don't think they should encounter spoilers rather than people just being considerate and not wanting to spoil others, and I think that's pretty backwards.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Here's one - considering Woody Allen's filmography (and I haven't seen some of the more highly praised one's like Hannah and her Sisters) I think movies like Bananas, Zelig (the best one IMO) and Love and Death are superior works to Annie Hall and Manhattan. I absolutely love it when Woody Allen dives into complete absurdism with unhinged and incoherent disregard for the conventional. The courtroom scene in Bananas is perfection. Fielding Mellish is such a great character.



'' I object, your honor! This trial is a travesty. It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham. I move for mistrial. Do you realize there's not a single homosexual on that jury? ''

'' Yes there is! ''

'' Oh really? Is it the big guy on the left? ''

I love the way he moves his little head while saying that. A little quirk that adds a lot of charm to the scene.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

It's not a big deal, I agree, and like I said, I go along with it even if I don't agree with it, but push come to shove, I do think it's morphed a bit into spoiled entitlement masquerading as common courtesy. It just feels like something that's been driven forward by people who don't think they should encounter spoilers rather than people just being considerate and not wanting to spoil others, and I think that's pretty backwards.

I see a little bit of tunnel vision in this. In essence, I agree with you simply because I don't really care about spoilers but to a lot of people who might primarily get off on the twists and turns that a story might have - and there are a lot of them - I can sympathize with the feeling. I can understand that what gives me my kicks isn't the same for others so I think their requests are relatively reasonable.

 

[Shareefruck]

That's a really good one, especially the three you chose specifically. Also, Hannah and Her Sisters is a very good movie and you should see it. The three sisters mirror sibling quirks very well and got me emotional, personally.

About the other thing, I think I sympathize more with people who just want to talk about the stuff, and get annoyed by having all these rules thrown at them, and typically get pushed into a corner and have to go along with doing the more overly sensitive/cautious/considerate thing, even though on balance, I think they're reasonably entitled to their behavior than the people who don't want to be spoiled are.

I mean, yes, there needs to be some middle-ground, but as a tie-breaker, I tend to side with the spoiler more than the spoilee. They're not identical situations, but I react to it similarly to how I react to people wanting protection from being offended by things. You're not owed that, and common courtesy in that area should only be volunteered, not expected or enforced.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

That's a really good one, especially the three you chose specifically. Also, Hannah and Her Sisters is a very good movie and you should see it. The three sisters mirror sibling quirks very well and got me emotional, personally.

About the other thing, I think I sympathize more with people who just want to talk about the stuff, and get annoyed by having all these rules thrown at them, and typically get pushed into a corner and have to go along with doing the more overly sensitive/cautious/considerate thing, even though on balance, I think they're reasonably entitled to their behavior than the people who don't want to be spoiled are.

I mean, yes, there needs to be some middle-ground, but as a tie-breaker, I tend to side with the spoiler more than the spoilee. They're not identical situations, but I react to it similarly to how I react to people wanting protection from being offended by things. You're not owed that, and common courtesy in that area should only be volunteered, not expected or enforced.

Sure, but it's just so darn easy that I'd kind of look sideways at someone who wasn't willing to do it.

 

[MetalheadPenguinsFan]

Is that controversial? I know Vulgar is a popular album, but I always thought Pantera fans didn't have an overwhelming consensus on their best album.

Most Pantera fans AFAIK will say "Vulgar Display of Power" was there best yep.

 

[Devourers]

Might not be too controversial an opinion, but I don't mind spoilers 99% of the time. It's the 1% where it completely nullifies the content that I care. Like for example a big twist you aren't expected to see and changes the entire film/episode in the last 10 minutes. Even Vader being Luke's father wouldn't bug me finding it out prior to seeing the film. The film is still great even if you know that.

I guess it can seem pretty arbitrary (how I'm explaining it), but if it's an M. Night Shyamalan twist that completely negates any reason to see the movie yeah I'll be annoyed. Pretty much any other details that don't change the movie I won't mind really.

On the flip side, some folks don't even want to hear the name of the characters cat in the movie and will call it a spoiler.

 

[x Tame Impala]

I don't understand the issue. It's just a simple matter of courtesy. Especially with streaming services being what they are, the maximum effort required is "Hey have you seen this yet? No, ok never mind then"

 

[ArGarBarGar]

People are expected to put spoiler tags around everything, spoiler alert this and spoiler alert that, you hear people make up rules about how you can't talk about a thing within 24 hours of it airing, and how the statute of limitations on spoilers runs out after blahblahblah years.

That's hyperbolic and exaggerating what actually goes on from my experience. I think if someone spouts off a major "twist" or "event" from a show/movie that literally just came out in a place where people aren't expecting it, then people are going to get annoyed if they haven't gotten to experience it, yet. And no I don't think the realities of human schedules make it their fault for having been spoiled.

And I often see people react with indignance as if they were wronged by someone, whenever they get accidentally spoiled about something. Definitely seems like a prominent thing in our culture to me. (seemed to become a thing around the same time "binge-watching" became a thing)

Define this feeling of indignation, because our definitions of the term may vary a great deal.

I feel you have a greater feeling of indignation because people don't want to have things spoiled for them in certain cases. Personally I don't understand where it comes from.