Controversial Entertainment Opinions/Discussion Thread - Part III

[Spring in Fialta]

I find that cinephiles are prone to listing all of his flaws when his name pops up in discussion.

They rarely say what they like about him, only what they don't like.

And this is due to the fact that he is overrated by casual filmgoers and it really irks the cinephiles.

Do you think that may be more of a reaction to someone gushing about Nolan's genius? I think if a cinephile reviews a Nolan film without outside prompt, they wouldn't be harping strictly on what doesn't work instead of the whole, such as in a film review.

 

[Shareefruck]

Yeah, but the idea of cancelled is that there's an explicit link to make between exposure and power. For example, CK's power was completely linked to how prominent his platform and appeal was, hence his name not carrying the weight it does anymore for a project or an artist, his own work now shunned (hence cancelled). In popular culture, your power depends on your exposure.

That line of question was in reference to maniacmario's gripe, which initially seemed to be about the term "cancel" being LESS appropriate for powerful people than for normal people (at least moreso than how they're currently used)-- I don't see that correlation and that's why I asked the question. Your explanation is about the opposite correlation (that the term "cancel" is MORE appropriate for powerful people because of how much exposure they have), and yeah, I probably agree with that, but it's not really the point of confusion I was questioning.

 

[Shareefruck]

Yeah, there's definitely a difference between choosing to focus on Nolan's flaws because of how he's perceived by others and actually underrating him.

Also, arguably his weakest period (the Batman/Inception/Interstellar period) coinciding with his most hyped up period magnifies that as well. I don't see many cinephiles rolling their eyes at Memento/The Prestige or Dunkirk/Tenet (which I haven't seen)

 

[Liminal Cat]

Perhaps the biggest problem with the word cancelled is that, like all useful and not at all confusing terms, it seems to have three different definitions that no one can agree on. This New York Times article seems to imply that it simply means that large swathes of online folks have criticized a celebrity / some person in power:

Everyone Is Canceled

Which, um, okay. That's quite a bit different from being fired or silenced.

Edit: Like, if you think that Bill Gates is in danger of being "cancelled" as in silenced, then you need to get your head examined. Same with Dave Chappelle and most other comedians. I'd say an actual instance of a comedian being cancelled would be Lenny Bruce being arrested for obscenity, but that's just me!

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I find that cinephiles are prone to listing all of his flaws when his name pops up in discussion.

They rarely say what they like about him, only what they don't like.

And this is due to the fact that he is overrated by casual filmgoers and it really irks the cinephiles.

Do you think that may be more of a reaction to someone gushing about Nolan's genius? I think if a cinephile reviews a Nolan film without outside prompt, they wouldn't be harping strictly on what doesn't work instead of the whole, such as in a film review.

Yeah, there's definitely a difference between choosing to focus on Nolan's flaws because of how he's perceived by others and actually underrating him.

Also, arguably his weakest period (the Batman/Inception/Interstellar period) coinciding with his most hyped up period magnifies that as well. I don't see many cinephiles rolling their eyes at Memento/The Prestige or Dunkirk/Tenet (which I haven't seen)

I guess I can use myself as an example of a "cinephile" who reacted recently to a post claiming Nolan was one of the true great directors:

I guess it really depends who the "true greats" are for you. To me, Nolan is one of the most capable directors right now (I have a hard time trying to think of someone who would have been able to make better superhero films for example). Still, he doesn't get near my own "true greats" directors - Raul Ruiz, Alain Resnais, Nuri Bilge Ceylan, Tsai Ming-Liang, Marguerite Duras, etc. etc. - for one very simple reason: Nolan's films work formidably but solely (or very much predominantly) on gimmicks. And if Tenet is a palindrome, that's just one more example of the kind of stuff on which he relies for effects, with most of the time very little depth on affects (with maybe Interstellar - his best film IMO - as the only exception, but it is still somewhat limited).

Result is I've liked most of the films I've seen from Nolan, and I'm always eager to see his next projects, but not a single one of them I've rated above 7/10.

As I said, I like him just the right amount. I really disagree that Batman and Interstellar are his weakest period, and I think Memento is relatively dumb and Dunkirk a little overrated, so maybe I'm not much of a cinephile either!

 

[Langdon Alger]

I’ve tried many times to get into Radiohead. The guy’s voice is irritating and the really good songs are too few for me. I listen to plenty of alternative/electronic/math rock, I don’t feel like I’m missing much.

What exactly is math rock?

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

What exactly is math rock?

 

[Shareefruck]

I guess I can use myself as an example of a "cinephile" who reacted recently to a post claiming Nolan was one of the true great directors:



As I said, I like him just the right amount. I really disagree that Batman and Interstellar are his weakest period, and I think Memento is relatively dumb and Dunkirk a little overrated, so maybe I'm not much of a cinephile either!

I have no opinion on Dunkirk or Tenet, but I don't think they draw the same criticism that that peak hype period does, is my point. Cinephiles seemed to react moderately positively to them, from what I can tell. Same with his earlier period. The backlash mostly came from the middle period in question, regardless of whether someone thinks they were good or not (I happen to think not). Obviously whether your opinions align with those observations has nothing to do with qualifying or disqualifying as cinephiles (I don't think it's fair to take my comments that way), but I haven't observed the opinion that "Memento is dumb" as a pattern I've noticed from those types, generally speaking.

Maybe others have observed differently, but anecdotally, that's what I've noticed.

I do think Dark Knight Rises and Interstellar in particular are pretty awful though, personally.

 

[Langdon Alger]

Ferris Bueller is a sociopath. Not sure if that’s a controversial opinion though.

 

[Didalee Hed]

U2 is mediocre

I couldn’t give less of a f*** if this band of bleh never were born.

 

[kihei]

If you want to take 5 or so minutes to get her side of it, she wrote this letter...

J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues - J.K. Rowling

More like 15 to 20 minutes in my case, but definitely worth the read.

 

[NyQuil]

Perhaps the biggest problem with the word cancelled is that, like all useful and not at all confusing terms, it seems to have three different definitions that no one can agree on. This New York Times article seems to imply that it simply means that large swathes of online folks have criticized a celebrity / some person in power:

Everyone Is Canceled

Which, um, okay. That's quite a bit different from being fired or silenced.

Edit: Like, if you think that Bill Gates is in danger of being "cancelled" as in silenced, then you need to get your head examined. Same with Dave Chappelle and most other comedians. I'd say an actual instance of a comedian being cancelled would be Lenny Bruce being arrested for obscenity, but that's just me!

I agree with this definition in the article you cited:

“It’s a cultural boycott,” said Lisa Nakamura, a professor at the University of Michigan who studies the intersection of digital media and race, gender and sexuality. “It’s an agreement not to amplify, signal boost, give money to. People talk about the attention economy — when you deprive someone of your attention, you’re depriving them of a livelihood.”

You can't culturally boycott an average person to any great degree because there's no attention being given to begin with.

This is why the rich and powerful are "cancelled" while Joe Trump and Jane Black Lives Matter aren't.

The article misses the mark when it says "we cancel people" but they aren't really cancelled.

In a few cases they literally are. I haven't seen a Cosby Show episode in years.

But that requires an almost uniform belief in the truth and magnitude of their transgression and in a lot of these cases, the "cancelling" occurs along political or topical lines that the entire entertainment-purchasing and attention-following population do not necessarily completely agree with.

 

[John Price]

You all think cancel culture don't exist yet many people in entertainment, sports, and politics were literally cancelled due to internet outrage

The most glaring example is Kevin Hart and James Gunn in entertainment as well as Apu in The Simpsons, Michael Jackson being written out of episodes like he never cameoed in the Simpsons episode when Homer went to the insane asylum...etc

It exists whether you like it or not. And it is because people online got very upset about something that was in reality a minor situation. "A white person cannot voice Apu. That is a STEREOTYPE. THAT IS A CARICATURE." Simpsons: "Screw it, we don't want the drama. Make Apu disappear."

 

[NyQuil]

You all think cancel culture don't exist yet many people in entertainment, sports, and politics were literally cancelled due to internet outrage

Are you even reading the thread?

It's like you cancelled all the posts that literally provide examples just as you have.

 

[John Price]

Are you even reading the thread?

It's like you cancelled all the posts that literally provide examples just as you have.

The example that pisses me off (and you should be angry too as a Simpsons thread poster) is Apu no longer existing because of cancel culture. Just because some Indian guy made a documentary about how Apu was insensitive and people latched onto that to cry over Azaria voicing Apu. Azaria voiced other ethnicities too, was that wrong? RIP Bumblebee Man.

 

[NyQuil]

The example that pisses me off (and you should be angry too as a Simpsons thread poster) is Apu no longer existing because of cancel culture. Just because some Indian guy made a documentary about how Apu was insensitive and people latched onto that to cry over Azaria voicing Apu. Azaria voiced other ethnicities too, was that wrong? RIP Bumblebee Man.

In some ways, the problem with the Simpsons isn't that Apu was cancelled, it's that the show has gone on for so freaking long that some of the foundational aspects of it don't align all that well with social views today.

A show like Friends is now taking heat for the jokes that were made at Chandler's transgendered father/mother's expense. Mainly because it's so popular on Netflix (my nieces love it) and so it hasn't exactly left the zeitgeist.

I think the reaction is a bit overblown, but I don't really have a problem with comedy evolving and adapting to accommodate changing social views.

Breakfast at Tiffany's is considered a classic, but when you watch something like this, you kind of have to raise your eyebrows. I don't think they were being deliberately cruel at the time, but by today's standards it would be regarded as a pretty racist portrayal.



Do you think you would have a one-note convenience store owner like Apu if you started a sitcom today? Probably not. Someone like Dr. Hibbert or Smithers doesn't raise as many alarm bells because they occupy positions of prominence and are less stereotypical.

Is it that much harder to defend when it's a white guy providing the voice? Sure it is. Especially if it's coinciding with greater scrutiny on the lack of minority casting in general.

There's two dimensions to the minority casting question.

(a) From an economic opportunity perspective - there aren't that many minority roles, so having white people play them is sort of a double whammy.

(b) From an acting performance perspective - there are people out there who believe that only someone of a similar background can truly understand the role that is required. I take issue with this, personally, because that's what acting is all about.

From a practical standpoint, the Simpsons succeeds to some extent because a few people can voice a huge number of roles.

But personally I think that people will relax a bit with actors playing other ethnicities once there is more balance among acting opportunities.

 

[NyQuil]

I do think that you can watch something with the recognition that we don't hold these same views anymore.

Eliminating everything from public consumption that doesn't necessarily align with societal progress is counter-productive IMO.

We should be teaching generations that "it used to be this way, it isn't anymore" as opposed to "nothing like this ever happened".

I don't subscribe to the belief that if something is shown on TV or streamed, it implicitly means that all of it is being endorsed.

 

[member 51464]

I do think that you can watch something with the recognition that we don't hold these same views anymore.

Eliminating everything from public consumption that doesn't necessarily align with societal progress is counter-productive IMO.

We should be teaching generations that "it used to be this way, it isn't anymore" as opposed to "nothing like this ever happened".

I don't subscribe to the belief that if something is shown on TV or streamed, it implicitly means that all of it is being endorsed.

It isn't like all episodes with Apu have been scrubbed from The Simpsons, right? For ~$7 a month someone can get Disney+ and watch every episode with him. So it doesn't act as if it never happened.

Also, if society is relying on TV tropes to teach generations, we are screwed.

 

[NyQuil]

It isn't like all episodes with Apu have been scrubbed from The Simpsons, right? For ~$7 a month someone can get Disney+ and watch every episode with him. So it doesn't act as if it never happened.

This is true.

Some shows have been completely taken off the air. The Cosby Show from what I can see, for obvious reasons.

It still must be weird to be Malcolm Jamal Warner or Phylicia Rashad.

Also, if society is relying on TV tropes to teach generations, we are screwed.

Don't get me started.

 

[John Price]

It isn't like all episodes with Apu have been scrubbed from The Simpsons, right? For ~$7 a month someone can get Disney+ and watch every episode with him. So it doesn't act as if it never happened.

Also, if society is relying on TV tropes to teach generations, we are screwed.

The episode with Michael Jackson was cancelled.

Same with South Park and Muhammad. On HBO Max you can't watch any of those episodes.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

In some ways, the problem with the Simpsons isn't that Apu was cancelled, it's that the show has gone on for so freaking long that some of the foundational aspects of it don't align all that well with social views today.

A show like Friends is now taking heat for the jokes that were made at Chandler's transgendered father/mother's expense. Mainly because it's so popular on Netflix (my nieces love it) and so it hasn't exactly left the zeitgeist.

I think the reaction is a bit overblown, but I don't really have a problem with comedy evolving and adapting to accommodate changing social views.

Breakfast at Tiffany's is considered a classic, but when you watch something like this, you kind of have to raise your eyebrows. I don't think they were being deliberately cruel at the time, but by today's standards it would be regarded as a pretty racist portrayal.



Do you think you would have a one-note convenience store owner like Apu if you started a sitcom today? Probably not. Someone like Dr. Hibbert or Smithers doesn't raise as many alarm bells because they occupy positions of prominence and are less stereotypical.

Is it that much harder to defend when it's a white guy providing the voice? Sure it is. Especially if it's coinciding with greater scrutiny on the lack of minority casting in general.

There's two dimensions to the minority casting question.

(a) From an economic opportunity perspective - there aren't that many minority roles, so having white people play them is sort of a double whammy.

(b) From an acting performance perspective - there are people out there who believe that only someone of a similar background can truly understand the role that is required. I take issue with this, personally, because that's what acting is all about.

From a practical standpoint, the Simpsons succeeds to some extent because a few people can voice a huge number of roles.

But personally I think that people will relax a bit with actors playing other ethnicities once there is more balance among acting opportunities.

and to your point about passage of time. many of the things the "woke" crowd likes have the potential to be seen just as dated or offensive 50 years from now.

My issue with the cancel culture isnt with those actively trying to cancel people/things. That's their right as an American and part of free speech. My issue is with the corporations that placate them and embolden them to reach even further each time. It's essentially a game of "if you give a mouse a cookie". Problem is there is no end to the reaching the cancel culture will try. No matter what you wont be good enough.

We've seen it already with adding diversity to casts. There have been cancel calls because a POC got a role in a movie, and the cancel culture came for them because "why not a GAY poc??"

The peak of the ridiculousness is Paw Patrol...they got a freaking puppy cop taken off a kids show because it was a cop. what in the hell

 

[Liminal Cat]

The most glaring example is Kevin Hart and James Gunn

James Gunn was so cancelled that Disney decided to hire him back and now he's directing both Suicide Squad (2021) and Guardians of the Galaxy 3.

Kevin Hart was so cancelled that he starred in Jumanji: the Next Level and Hobbes and Shaw and four comedy specials after it was found out that he would beat the shit out of his son if he found out that he was gay.

If I said that I would beat the gay out of my son, my ass would be so fired and I would never work in my line of work ever again.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You all think cancel culture don't exist yet many people in entertainment, sports, and politics were literally cancelled due to internet outrage

The most glaring example is Kevin Hart and James Gunn in entertainment as well as Apu in The Simpsons, Michael Jackson being written out of episodes like he never cameoed in the Simpsons episode when Homer went to the insane asylum...etc

It exists whether you like it or not. And it is because people online got very upset about something that was in reality a minor situation. "A white person cannot voice Apu. That is a STEREOTYPE. THAT IS A CARICATURE." Simpsons: "Screw it, we don't want the drama. Make Apu disappear."

Wait, are you saying Kevin Hart, Michael Jackson, and the Simpsons have disappeared and no longer make money?

At worst, those assets maybe lost a small margin off their multi-million dollar annual profits.

Pearl-clutching hysteria over cancel culture is even less productive than actual cancel culture.

 

[Ceremony]

Vampire Weekend (who I actually like overall but I don't think they're as original or inventive as people make them out to be), Phoenix (somewhat enjoyable. certainly catchty.), The Killers, things like that...you could also make a case for kinda, sorta, not really indie pop but with the same inclincations such as early Strokes (who I think were very good but were also hailed and overhyped for how New York they were, as if that matters), Arctic Monkeys, etc. I could also say something like Fun (who are absolutely brutal and one of the worst bands I ever heard) and The Kooks, but I don't think they ever had the critical acclaim that I would seem considerable enough to mention, although they've had big time success among people that go beyond the Britney Spears, Katy Perry, Beyonce crowd (which I find much less offensive/annoying).

The Killers are nowhere near as bad as Vampire Weekend or The Kooks.

 

[Shareefruck]

Also, if society is relying on TV tropes to teach generations, we are screwed.

You hear this kind of thing all the time ("if people look to comedians for news, we are screwed", etc), but just because it's a ridiculous absurdity, doesn't mean it isn't also unfortunately true.