Controversial Entertainment Opinions/Discussion Thread - Part III

[Shareefruck]

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

It sure sounds like he's acknowledging that he isn't necessarily lumping the quality of everything he mentioned together.

 

[kingsholygrail]

Linkin Park's first couple albums are pretty great.

 

[Shareefruck]

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!

Personally, my understanding of being cancelled never had anything to do with "You'll never work in this business again!" but rather individual instances of a thing they made being cancelled and whether or not that's just.

The fact that it's arguably morphing into complete and total cancellation of everything a person does would be pretty concerning, but I tend to think of that as what's viewed as the worst case scenario concern, not the baseline concern.

People who have a major problem with cancel culture seem to have a problem with both, not just the latter, from what I've seen. Personally, I'm somewhat on the fence-- I have more of an issue with the application being flawed/at the mercy of misunderstanding rather than the actual principle being unacceptable-- the masses that drive the trend tend to be really bad at fairly determining what acts are actually immoral and deserving of cancellation, especially when it comes to how comedy is communicated and comprehended in a more indirect way.

 

[John Price]

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.

I don't think you understand what cancel culture is. I think you are taking it way too literally.

 

[K Fleur]

The worst music genre on the planet is whatever genre that “Hey there Delilah” song is in. The “I’m just a guy, with a guitar, singing too a girl” genre.

Music for r/niceguys

 

[tarheelhockey]

Personally, my understanding of being cancelled never had anything to do with "You'll never work in this business again!" but rather individual instances of a thing they made being cancelled and whether or not that's just.

The fact that it's arguably morphing into complete and total cancellation of everything a person does would be pretty concerning, but I tend to think of that as what's viewed as the worst case scenario concern, not the baseline concern.

People who have a major problem with cancel culture seem to have a problem with both, not just the latter, from what I've seen. Personally, I'm somewhat on the fence-- I have more of an issue with the application being flawed/at the mercy of misunderstanding rather than the actual principle being unacceptable-- the masses that drive the trend tend to be really bad at fairly determining what acts are actually immoral and deserving of cancellation, especially when it comes to how comedy is communicated and comprehended in a more indirect way.

I don't see how cancel culture is any different, in practice, than the old fashioned tactic of writing angry letters and boycotting a product. 6 weeks later people forget that it ever happened, so the only real impact occurs in the brief window where it highlights an issue.

Companies are in full control of whether or not they take action as a result. If they choose not to take action, they accept that they are continuing to promote a product that has a bit of PR stink on it. Sometimes that's enough to force a change, sometimes it's not.

The idea that mobs are somehow running show business is hysteria, IMO. One would be very hard pressed to quantify the effect of cancel culture as compared to what happened 10 or 20 or 30 years ago when a celeb did something stupid. The pushback against current actions (again IMO) appears to be less about concerns for celeb well-being and more about fears of new social standards becoming institutionalized.

 

[Shareefruck]

I don't see how cancel culture is any different, in practice, than the old fashioned tactic of writing angry letters and boycotting a product. 6 weeks later people forget that it ever happened, so the only real impact occurs in the brief window where it highlights an issue.

Companies are in full control of whether or not they take action as a result. If they choose not to take action, they accept that they are continuing to promote a product that has a bit of PR stink on it. Sometimes that's enough to force a change, sometimes it's not.

The idea that mobs are somehow running show business is hysteria, IMO. One would be very hard pressed to quantify the effect of cancel culture as compared to what happened 10 or 20 or 30 years ago when a celeb did something stupid. The pushback against current actions (again IMO) appears to be less about concerns for celeb well-being and more about fears of new social standards becoming institutionalized.

I definitely think there's a difference in how organized and effective the effort is now, whether we want to write that off as an actual societal/attitude shift or just a natural consequence of technology bringing like-minded people together (and people realizing/wielding that power with a little more purpose as a consequence of that). While yeah, it might be anecdotal and I haven't seen evidence proving it, I haven't seen evidence disproving it either. Whether it's rising or not seems kind of irrelevant to me anyways, though, personally-- I just either object or agree on a case by case basis.

I don't disagree about the well being vs. broader concerns thing, but I don't think I would consider that any less reasonable. Personally, I'm definitely wired to err on the side of principle over practical effect/compassion.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I definitely think there's a difference in how organized and effective the effort is now, whether we want to write that off as an actual societal/attitude shift or just a natural consequence of technology bringing like-minded people together (and people realizing/wielding that power with a little more purpose as a consequence of that). While yeah, it might be anecdotal and I haven't seen evidence proving it, I haven't seen evidence disproving it either. Whether it's rising or not seems kind of irrelevant to me anyways, though, personally-- I just either object or agree on a case by case basis.

I don't disagree about the well being vs. broader concerns thing, but I don't think I would consider that any less reasonable. Personally, I'm definitely wired to err on the side of principle over practical effect/compassion.

From what I've seen, it's just the amplification effect that social media has had on individual voices.

20 years ago, if a company did something offensive people would call and write, and if they got REALLY mad they'd lead boycotts. Today, people basically do the same thing, writing angry social media posts and leading boycotts. The difference is that prior to social media, all of those letters went into the trashcan at Customer Service. Nowadays they're shared to the public. In both cases, the boycotts tend to be extremely temporary.

I dunno. It's not like this stuff means nothing, but it doesn't seem to mean much. It's the difference between writing an angry letter to the manager, versus going to the Customer Service counter and making a scene. The latter is much more visible, but it's not much more meaningful if the only thing they do in either case is give you a coupon to shut you up.

 

[Shareefruck]

From what I've seen, it's just the amplification effect that social media has had on individual voices.

20 years ago, if a company did something offensive people would call and write, and if they got REALLY mad they'd lead boycotts. Today, people basically do the same thing, writing angry social media posts and leading boycotts. The difference is that prior to social media, all of those letters went into the trashcan at Customer Service. Nowadays they're shared to the public. In both cases, the boycotts tend to be extremely temporary.

I dunno. It's not like this stuff means nothing, but it doesn't seem to mean much. It's the difference between writing an angry letter to the manager, versus going to the Customer Service counter and making a scene. The latter is much more visible, but it's not much more meaningful if the only thing they do in either case is give you a coupon to shut you up.

But magnified outrage as a result of social media has led to firings to protect from the PR nightmare (as opposed to being disregarded like they normally may have been before), so I don't see how it's analogous to giving you a coupon to shutup, or how the effect shouldn't be seen as significantly more of a factor. They're temporary in a not-career-ending sense (in most cases, anyways), but being removed from a project seems pretty significant and meaningful.

I think that pattern is definitely present/apparent (even if the desire for it isn't necessarily new), I just sometimes agree that it's justified and sometimes don't depending on the validity of the accusation.

 

[Jussi]

HFBoards should be cancelled. So much racism and misogyny. But above all, so many assclowns.

 

[holy]

Drake has helped increase the violence in Toronto with his co-signs and doesn’t get any real flack for it.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

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.

I think it'd be hard to argue that art doesn't inform life as much as the opposite, if not more. People often think and understand in terms of trope...certain of their narratives play up to them...

 

[Stylizer1]

I miss Bryan Callen on Fighter and the Kid.

 

[kihei]

I think I am in the George Harrison camp on this free speech one: all things must pass. Groups are negotiating for power in the larger society. Been going of forever. In my long lifetime, such change has been for the better, and one's free speech is no more threatened than by the prohibition that you can't holler "fire" in a crowded theatre just for the hell of it.

 

[John Price]

X-Men Apocalypse was a good movie and just as good as Days of Future Past.

 

[Langdon Alger]

HFBoards should be cancelled. So much racism and misogyny. But above all, so many assclowns.

Bob, is that you?

 

[deadinthewater]

The worst music genre on the planet is whatever genre that “Hey there Delilah” song is in. The “I’m just a guy, with a guitar, singing too a girl” genre.

Music for r/niceguys

Oh man, that song would irritate the hell out of me anytime I heard it.

 

[Fixxer]

This is the best Goldeneye version. So glad Nintendo released a collection of new games in 3D...

 

[John Price]

This is the best Goldeneye version. So glad Nintendo released a collection of new games in 3D...

Yoshi

 

[Shareefruck]

So I was thinking about a point someone I talked to made about how a band member dying can result in them becoming overrated by mythologizing them and making them seem better than they otherwise would be, and while I have observed that phenomenon (in boths bands I love and hate), I would actually completely disagree with what people conclude from this and argue in the opposite direction, in that I think this should ACTUALLY be a point of appreciation rather than criticism (as harsh as that sounds in human terms, because we're talking about someone dying here).

A band's career being prematurely cut short can legitimately make the band DESERVE to be considered better, in my opinion, because how something begins and ends is a huge part of how good it is. It's almost exactly the same as how a TV show that gets canceled after one or two seasons but is perfect and cohesive the whole way through is actually a better show than one that overstays its welcome and goes on forever, all else being equal-- the cancellation can be a blessing for the viewer/listener experience (not so much for the people involved, obviously, where it can be tragic).

A band like Joy Division would probably end up being a worse band if they were hypothetically wildly successfully and had the luxury to stop existing on their own terms once they ran out of gas as older men. But this reality being true doesn't expose them for being overrated, the fact that this possible pitfall was avoided is just an outcome that legitimately improves the music and rightfully SHOULD improve perception of the band, in my opinion.

I agree that sentimentality being a huge factor would make something overrated in theory, but a lot of what people often dismiss as sentimentality is actually just the above, IMO. I bet the praise/reputation that artists like Lennon, Cobain, Curtis, Mercury, and Hendrix get would be similar if they just stopped making music/being in the spotlight early instead of dying early (aka. sentimentality/tragedy is removed from the equation).

 

[Eisen]

The worst music genre on the planet is whatever genre that “Hey there Delilah” song is in. The “I’m just a guy, with a guitar, singing too a girl” genre.

Music for r/niceguys

Buskers, and yes, they are annoying. With the exception of Billy Bragg.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

So I was thinking about a point someone I talked to made about how a band member dying can result in them becoming overrated by mythologizing them and making them seem better than they otherwise would be, and while I have observed that phenomenon (in boths bands I love and hate), I would actually completely disagree with what people conclude from this and argue in the opposite direction, in that I think this should ACTUALLY be a point of appreciation rather than criticism (as harsh as that sounds in human terms, because we're talking about someone dying here).

A band's career being prematurely cut short can legitimately make the band DESERVE to be considered better, in my opinion, because how something begins and ends is a huge part of how good it is. It's almost exactly the same as how a TV show that gets canceled after one or two seasons but is perfect and cohesive the whole way through is actually a better show than one that overstays its welcome and goes on forever, all else being equal-- the cancellation can be a blessing for the viewer/listener experience (not so much for the people involved, obviously, where it can be tragic).

A band like Joy Division would probably end up being a worse band if they were hypothetically wildly successfully and had the luxury to stop existing on their own terms once they ran out of gas as older men. But this reality being true doesn't expose them for being overrated, the fact that this possible pitfall was avoided is just an outcome that legitimately improves the music and rightfully SHOULD improve perception of the band, in my opinion.

I agree that sentimentality being a huge factor would make something overrated in theory, but a lot of what people often dismiss as sentimentality is actually just the above, IMO. I bet the praise/reputation that artists like Lennon, Cobain, Curtis, Mercury, and Hendrix get would be similar if they just stopped making music/being in the spotlight early instead of dying early (aka. sentimentality/tragedy is removed from the equation).

I think that's an assumption that I would never be comfortable making (and as far as I know, wasn't Curtis already juggling with being done soon enough anyways?), especially if someone wants to judge a band or artist solely on their peak (I'm not like that, but I seem to recall that you are, no?). 'Something is better because they likely would have gone off the rails' seems unfair to bands who did not have a premature death halt their activities and also seems to suggest that an artist or an act can't/will never know when to realize they're washed and call it quits.

 

[Shareefruck]

I think that's an assumption that I would never be comfortable making (and as far as I know, wasn't Curtis already juggling with being done soon enough anyways?), especially if someone wants to judge a band or artist solely on their peak (I'm not like that, but I seem to recall that you are, no?). 'Something is better because they likely would have gone off the rails' seems unfair to bands who did not have a premature death halt their activities and also seems to suggest that an artist or an act can't/will never know when to realize they're washed and call it quits.

There might be a bit of disconnect there. "Something is better because they likely would have gone off the rails" was the point/criticism that I was responding to and rephrasing, not the point I was arguing. I'm saying that even if I acknowledge that people who use this argument against bands like Joy Division (one I love)/Nirvana (one I don't) are correct in that this may be more likely to be the case than not, I would still disagree that this reality would make them overrated. My argument isn't that I stand by the certainty of the hypothetical itself. (I'm saying "yeah, maybe that could be true, but ____")

That said, I do tend to feel that something ending before it starts to fall off is a better result than something ending after it does, and that circumstances beyond your control intervening naturally favors the former while total freedom and luxury to do something for as long as you want to naturally favors the latter.

The peak issue that you brought up is interesting to consider. For me, a band's peak cohesive work will always outweigh their long-term quantity of solid but unspectacular output, but on a broader level, if the artist's entire body of work is JUST that peak period and nothing else, that's even better, IMO (these two feelings are based on the same principle-- basically, that I'm more fascinated by the idea of something pulling off perfection and focusing on that than I'm fascinated by the rough process and journey that it typically involves). In other words, if you start from a band's peak output and work your way down, as it gets less and less essential, I want less and less to consider it part of the band's canonical output-- and if their body of work does that discerning job for you, then I'd love that even more and end up having a higher opinion of the band (not out of bias, but just because I legitimately think that makes it better).

Whether or not ending abruptly to ensure a tight body of work that has a high peak is worth sacrificing the possibility that an even higher peak might exist in what would get cut out is hard to wrap my head around. I guess the reason why that idea doesn't sway me in the other direction too much is because I lean towards thinking that something hitting that standard to begin with is so unlikely that I wouldn't expect it to be surpassed if the career continues indefinitely.

As for Curtis considering ending early anyways, to me that still seems like external circumstances (like his physical health) resulting in that decision rather than it coming out of total freedom/luxury.

 

[Osprey]

This thread is so made for Shareefruck that we might as well rename it to the Shareefruck Thread.

I'm also in favor of the changing the review thread to Last Movie Kihei Watched and Rated.

 

[Shareefruck]

I do love this kind of thing.