Controversial Opinions (For Everything Other Than DC Comics)

[TheRay]

But you get someone who does not know what they are doing and it is painful. For every great improve group there are 6 mediocre to bad groups.

They just have to find their rhythm. The same formula won't work for everyone.

[Agent Z]

The ability of creators like Zack Snyder to live rent free in people's heads is truly miraculous.

[DrNewGod]

The ability of creators like Zack Snyder to live rent free in people's is truly miraculous.

"People's" what?

[CSTowle]

The ability of creators like Zack Snyder to live rent free in people's heads is truly miraculous.

I think that's the case with anyone who has a unique style. For example, I've enjoyed one of Wes Anderson's movies but the schtick grows old really fast, and I generally don't go out of my way to watch his movies if I can avoid them. The thing about having a style and being unique is that the people who love you are going to really love you, but the people who hate you are going to also really hate you. There's a reason vanilla is the most popular ice cream flavor and McDonalds has served billions of people. It's not because they're the best, it's because they are so bland that they are "good enough" for people to settle on.

You can have success being bland, probably most famously like Steven Spielberg, but it's harder to stick out in the crowd and build a brand that way. Disney making every hero movie in the past decade or so a clone of "Guardians of the Galaxy" (if you've seen one, you've pretty much seen them all) is bland, but people eat that up and keep coming back to see "Guardians 11/12/13/etc." Making something like Joaquin Phoenix's "Joker" (though it borrowed heavily from older movies) is more of a shot in the dark, which can either be successful as that was or can be an example for studios to point to when someone wants to veer off of bland to keep them in line.

I really enjoyed Snyder's "Dawn of the Dead" remake, and I enjoyed the original quite a bit, so I had high hopes for him. That he directed so many superhero/comic book movies since should have helped my opinion of him but instead I've been disappointed to the point where I don't really want to see anything else he does. That's not hate, so much as "I know what you're doing, and it's not for me" (like Wes Anderson). However, I did feel that way about M. Night Shyamalan after "the Sixth Sense" and eventually he started making movies I could enjoy again (though "Glass" was a letdown after "Split"). So maybe there's hope.

[godisawesome]

I think I might make an argument that widespread appeal and success shouldn’t be quantified as “bland.”

Unoriginal, formulaic, etc., may be better terms for it, but while I get the idea that bland being a synonym for “tasteless” is meant to be an insult in the sense of it requiring no sophistication to the pallet, I don’t think that’s nearly as much of an issue for “bland” as being “tasteless” as in “there’s literally nothing there.”

Especially in entertainment; to me, there’s a point where finding popular movies, TV shows, or stories “bland” because they don’t interest a *specific* critic as much as they do the vast majority of the populace is more a sign of the critic being bitter about everyone else having a good time.

And yes, there’s a part of me that would argue that the dilineation that most professional critics make between “art” and “entertainment” is mostly just their specific demographic being snobby - for every formulaic “sappy” Spielberg movie, there’s three or four formulaic and pretentious “award bait” films that are primarily going to work with a demographic that is older, whiter, richer, more male, and generally sick of popular fare because they are required to watch it for their job rather than for enjoyment.

Yes, there are trashy popular movies. But proportionally speaking, there’s just as many trashy award bait movies - films that still have the same amount of shortcuts, familiar tropes, and blatant pandering. And sometimes it feels like people who have more “artsy” tastes get a bit prickly and defensive about their stuff, and start looking at stuff that has positively contributed to culture and sought to demean and devalue it because it’s more successful than their own.

...Not going to lie, a bunch of this comes from having seen people defend some tropes and clichés they prefer in popular works that wound up exposing how pathetic they were - like The Last Jedi’s defenders pretending it was somehow original or brave when really, it was exactly as derivative and copy-cat as the preceding films, The Force Awakens, but simply cynical and vacuously subversive instead fo creatively subversive (for which, as much as Abrams is known to be unoriginal, TFA would have to be given a clear edge.)

[CSTowle]

I'm sure there's some examples of critics dumping on popular movies/music/etc. out of spite or to seem edgy or "above it all", but it's also true that there are a lot of people in the entertainment industry whose goal is to smooth out any rough edges and try to keep things marketable to the widest possible audience. That's going to make things blander/ more vanilla/whatever term you prefer. Again, by design.

That's not to say there's no value to vanilla. Popcorn blockbuster movies help keep theaters open, which allows us to go out and see other movies more in our individual wheelhouses that wouldn't keep a theater open on their own. I may like hamburger/onions/garlic/tomatoes on my pizza, and my buddy buffalo chicken and ranch, and we may not want a slice of the other guy's pie but if the pizza place didn't offer cheese-only or pepperoni they likely wouldn't be in business to sell us our favorites.

And, in a pinch, while neither of us is going to rave over a slice of cheese pizza it's better than nothing. But I don't think there are many buffalo and ranch guys who'd crap on pepperoni just to appear more pizza savvy.

[godisawesome]

I'm sure there's some examples of critics dumping on popular movies/music/etc. out of spite or to seem edgy or "above it all", but it's also true that there are a lot of people in the entertainment industry whose goal is to smooth out any rough edges and try to keep things marketable to the widest possible audience. That's going to make things blander/ more vanilla/whatever term you prefer. Again, by design.

That's not to say there's no value to vanilla. Popcorn blockbuster movies help keep theaters open, which allows us to go out and see other movies more in our individual wheelhouses that wouldn't keep a theater open on their own. I may like hamburger/onions/garlic/tomatoes on my pizza, and my buddy buffalo chicken and ranch, and we may not want a slice of the other guy's pie but if the pizza place didn't offer cheese-only or pepperoni they likely wouldn't be in business to sell us our favorites.

And, in a pinch, while neither of us is going to rave over a slice of cheese pizza it's better than nothing. But I don't think there are many buffalo and ranch guys who'd crap on pepperoni just to appear more pizza savvy.

If you don’t mind me continuing this partially out fo enjoyment for the analogy ...

...Food is different from entertainment because we end up eating it; not only is that a different kind of enjoyment and sensory process, but our bodies can biologically alter the way we feel and taste food - if you’ve been deprived of a certain kind of nutrient long enough, the body will make food that contains that nutrient tastes good, or overcome the disadvantages of spices.

But with entertainment... simply being more marketable or having greater widespread appeal should not be considered a knock against a film, no should the greater variety that some filmmakers create automatically imply it will be a worthwhile experience. And there are times where an ability to reach more people simply means it’s going to have greater cultural impact, and often *that* more than anything else is a key to true quality... and eventually injecting more variety into media through the little variations it will bring with it. Widespread appeal is as much a virtue as variety. And frankly, I always think Spielberg having so few Best Picture wins is a farce; more than a few Best Picture winners have been forgotten when his films were passed over, and there’s definitely an element of jealousy and spite to that and other such comparison.

A competent blockbuster is generally just as good as a competent award bait film - the difference is that the professional critic is themselves so starved for variety by their job they overvalue that particular feature for what are, ultimately, films that are just as forgettable and dime-a-dozen as the blockbusters they’re forced to sit through, simply produced less. And exceptionally well done blockbusters are equal in power to exceptional art films - which is where I get a bit snarky and doubtful about the delineation, because *that’s* where the snobbery comes in. For instance, the MCU has produced more than a few exceptional blockbusters - films that in terms of execution and mastery of dramatic language, should be regarded as peers to the ones that almost automatically get a nomination for a BAFTS, Oscar, or Film Competition.

Guardians of the Galaxy, for instance, while arguably the epitome of a fun blockbuster film, should be regarded as a peer of something like The Green Book or Manchester By The Sea and receive equal serious consideration - because to me, whatever advantages those other films may have through their “boldness” and variety to change up things and to try and focus on nuance and subtlety with the acting and camerawork are equaled and sometimes even surpassed by how much greater breadth *and* depth GOTG managed to hit the impact with.

In food, there are such things as mass produced gourmet meals - even if “true gas trophies” turn their noses up at them. But film as entertainment is a more equitable medium; the “ingredients” are capable fo being perfectly replicated and enjoyed by everyone. And sometimes, the masses are expressing better taste than the experts.

[CSTowle]

I don't believe in "better" taste, but do believe niche/unique stories/songs/recipes/etc. are more likely to inspire strong feelings (good or bad) than ones that are, again by design, smoothed out to appeal to the widest possible audience.

I can get behind the argument that a movie that's a B- for 85 percent of the moviegoing audience is more worthwhile than an A+ for 10% of the audience. That there's more aggregate value to your vanilla ice cream and McDonald's hamburger than a boutique sandwich you can only find in a single restaurant. I'd still say I'm more interested in seeking out that single restaurant and am at best settling for vanilla or a McDouble or Disney's GotG 23.

[TheRay]

Comedy and thought provoking should not be the only things we judge films by.

[Ragged Maw]

We need to make growing viable humans in vats using just one donor a reality by 2027. I am so fucking sick of people talking about childbirth as a “miracle”. I can’t wait to show all those romanticizing whelps that it can be mass replicated artificially and watch their ensuing existential meltdown.

[DrNewGod]

We need to make growing viable humans in vats using just one donor a reality by 2027. I am so fucking sick of people talking about childbirth as a “miracle”. I can’t wait to show all those romanticizing whelps that it can be mass replicated artificially and watch their ensuing existential meltdown.

I wouldn't wish it on the poor vat-baby. They'd spend the rest of their days dodging ravening hordes frantic to burn them at the stake.

[Ragged Maw]

I wouldn't wish it on the poor vat-baby. They'd spend the rest of their days dodging ravening hordes frantic to burn them at the stake.

There'll be quite the shitshow in Congress and on social media, to say the least. Heh heh heh.


And your user name is "Dr. New God", for pete sakes. Why not live up to the (implied) "Frankenstein complex" and help in this endeavor?

[DrNewGod]

There'll be quite the shitshow in Congress and on social media, to say the least. Heh heh heh.


And your user name is "Dr. New God", for pete sakes. Why not live up to the (implied) "Frankenstein complex" and help in this endeavor?

Fair assumption. It was actually a sneer at psychologists rather than biologists.

[TheRay]

I don't think sequels need necessarily be appropriate.

[Zelena]

It should be stressed out that characters written by a writer are not the same as characters written by another writer. And, often, they have very little in common.

Long-term series with different writers are in some way a fraud.