Controversial Opinions

[Toaster Retribution]

On 2019-04-18 at 5:55 PM, TheOrlionThatComesBefore said:

Depends. If I added "Brandon is not anywhere close to being literary" and "literary is better than sci-fi", it might be more controversial here, but it isn't what I meant and kinda distracts from the point. 

I also imagine that it's a controversial opinion for those who have a knee-jerk reaction to this "ongoing controversy." I don't know how many of those are on this forum, but experience tells me there is a substantial number that will grow and become more vocal as the fanbase ages.

But, for the sake of controversy, how's this for a spicy take: the literary genre produces more good writers of a higher quality than the sci-fi genre.

Literary probably produces better writers, but I think scifi/fantasy makes better storytellers. 

On 2019-04-19 at 3:07 AM, Pagliacci said:

The Clone Wars is equal to if not greater than the original trilogy in my eyes.

 

I think I might just put this here....

If I were to make two adjustments to the sequel trilogy it be this: Replace Snoke with Thrawn (ignoring Rebels) and turn Poe into a supporting character. 

Each trilogy of Star Wars to me seems to have three main characters: Luke, Han and Leia; Anakin, Obi-wan and Padme; but it seems to me the sequel trilogy actually has four: Rey, Finn, Kylo Ren and Poe. I'd argue that Kylo Ren is less of a villain in the sense of Vader or Palpatine in that we spend more time seeing things from his point of view. I feel the sequel trilogy was perhaps weakened by having 4 instead of 3 main characters. I'd propose either merge Finn and Poe or relegate Poe to more of a supporting role.

The other drastic change would be to replace Supreme Leader Snoke with Grand Admiral Thrawn. The first reason being I feel it makes more sense that the remnants of the empire would rally behind a well known and established figure as their leader. Also it opens up some thematic opportunities that aren't provided by Snoke. Thrawn is a character who takes the cultures of his enemies and uses it against them, he weaponizes the past, which creates an interesting contrast to Kylo's infatuation with the past in TFA and later desire to be rid of the past in TLJ.

I don't know if this is 'controversial' enough but shrug.

Good idea. And adding Thrawn to anything shouldn’t be controversial. Thrawn is awesome. 

[Guest]

Superhero movies are boring.

[Tesh]

Instrumental music (AKA movie soundtracks) is better than "regular music." This does not include some Broadway musicals. The Phantom of the Opera, for example.

Harry Potter is full of inconsistencies and weird little... Things. I still like them, but they are way overrated. (Read Sanderson books instead)!

[Fatling]

On the subject of Thrawn, I thought I hated the Thrawn audiobooks narrated by Marc Thompson for the first chapter or so but then he really grew on me and now I love the Thrawn audiobooks

Also, Jar Jar Binks is one of my favorites. That scene in TLJ when they’re all standing in that cave and Luke shows up at first you can only see the silhouette of his long skinny legs and I got really excited and thought it was Jar Jar

Also, I just saw Avengers endgame and I was kind of disappointed because

Spoiler

when Capt. America (I hate that guy btw) was laying on the ground I was really hoping Captain Britain would show up to save the day. Also, that one Thanos minion that looks like Green Goblin got stabbed through the chest again. So sad.

 

[Elegy]

On 2.5.2019 at 7:12 AM, Tesh said:

Harry Potter is full of inconsistencies and weird little... Things. I still like them, but they are way overrated. (Read Sanderson books instead)!

Harry Potter being inconsistent and weird in terms of continuity isn't very unpopular, it's a fact tbh. It sorta adds to the charme though.

[Orlion Blight]

Saying "follow the money" or "it's all about the money!" or its variations tends to be a lazy, cynical view espoused by people who cannot or refuse to look into underlying, complicated causes. 

[IcaroRibeiro]

Game of Thrones is a piece of sh*t since season 4. I'm really happy this is going to end, maybe then Martin realize he needs to end his books

Edited September 8, 2019 by IcaroRibeiro

[Use the Falchion]

Star Wars ST as a whole is disappointing. And this is coming from someone who ADORES TFA and is a die-hard Finn-Fanboy, appreciates RJ's passion in TLJ, regularly posts on Star Wars forums, and reads as many of the new books as he can (Claudia Gray's stuff is SO GOOD). The PT told a better story as a whole, had FAR better music, and had the best animated show tie-in. Twice. 

Game of Thrones will never be finished not because George RR Martin won't finish it (which he won't), but because he seemingly doesn't want anyone else to finish it for him, even if he left notes on how to do so - and that makes him incredibly selfish IMO. 

DC has better shows and comics than Marvel. Marvel kills it with the movies. Either way, Man of Steel is an underrated masterpiece of a superhero movie and BvS: Ultimate Edition is great. Justice League could have been great but outside circumstances messed it up (as well as Joss Whedon and Danny Elfman's ego when it came to the score). 

I'd rather Stormlight 4 be a shorter book so it's out quicker and Book 5 can be longer; I'd also prefer Sanderson take an extra year or two off - in addition to his normal Stormlight break - to finish all the other projects he's started (Apocalypse Guard with Dan Wells, Skyward 3&4, Mistborn 7, Alcatraz 6, figure out The Atzlanian, Warbreaker 2) than do Stormlight 5. I guess the point I'm getting at is that Stormlight is great and amazing and awesome and all the superlatives, but there are so many other stories Sanderson tells that I want to experience outside of Stormlight. 

[Pagliacci]

4 hours ago, Use the Falchion said:

Man of Steel is an underrated masterpiece of a superhero movie

I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on this.

[Use the Falchion]

18 minutes ago, Pagliacci said:

I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on this.

Jesus parallels aside, Man of Steel has a great soundtrack and tells the story of a man who can do anything but isn't sure he should. It modernizes Clark's origin story in an incredibly touching and relatable way. Jor-El wants his son Kal-El to be great because he sent him to a place to be great. John Kent simply wants Clark to be happy and accepted. And both are shown to be right. 

Speaking of Kryptonians, seeing the planet of Krypton in Man of Steel was amazing. It looked and felt alien and exciting. And Zod...Zod was a great first villain. Say what you want about the wanton destruction, but given that Clark had JUST learned to fly, this was literally his first outing as a hero, and his enemies didn't care about the casualties, it's not surprising. I think a lot of fans of Superman forget that the Man of Steel version doesn't have the years of experience they expect or training other superheroes might. He's new and untested, and was thrown into a situation of which he had no control and things got out of hand. Could he have done better? Yes, but that is what Man of Steel is all about - this movie is showing Clark's growing pains. He's not perfect, nor does he try to be. He's simply a guy doing his best and is off to a shaky start. Besides, if BvS is anything to go by, the collateral damage done by the fights was intentional to serve as a talking point later. 

So between a well-done origin story, a fight worthy of Superman (with a classic villain), a well-cast movie, and a truly epic soundtrack, I rate Man of Steel a masterpiece in the Superhero movie genre. Are there better superhero movies? Of course! But that doesn't take anything away from this one. 

What are your thoughts on the movie?

Edited May 5, 2019 by Use the Falchion

[Pagliacci]

1 hour ago, Use the Falchion said:

What are your thoughts on the movie?

Less positive, unfortunately.

My problem with the film is mainly in its structure. Simply put, the film lacks tension and Clark has no agency in his own narrative. The main question put forth by the film is "Can or should Clark be Superman?"

The problem is the non-linear structure of the film answers this question in the very first scene we see with Clark, when he saves the workers at the oil rig. So any tension regarding whether Clark will save people in the flashbacks is cancelled by the fact the film has already answered the question for us.

Regarding the city fight. My problem is less that the fight lead to wanton destruction so much as it is Clark (and the film) don't seem to care. MoS doesn't care about the people of Metropolis, it cares about how hard Clark can punch Zod. In the aftermath of the fight we don't see the devastation, Clark is never held accountable for his actions, Clark himself seems unaware of how many people died.

The film is so muddled by flashbacks in the first half (with annoying use of shaky cam in inappropriate moments) that the plot doesn't even begin until Zod sends his message down to the humans at the half-way mark. Clark isn't doing anything until the villains show up and hand him the plot.

The film is not without its good points. Those being the excellent casting (especially Zod) and Zimmer's score has its moments as well.

2 hours ago, Use the Falchion said:

Jor-El wants his son Kal-El to be great because he sent him to a place to be great. John Kent simply wants Clark to be happy and accepted. And both are shown to be right.

The film is very much interested in what Jor-El and John Kent want and their perspective, I agree. If only it cared about what Clark wanted.... or actually gave him anything to care about.

 

Also to touch on the Jesus thing briefly. It lacks any subtlety or nuance.* The problem is that MoS doesn't do anything interesting with this theme.

Sorry if this is a unintelligible ramble. My intent wasn't to make anyone feel bad for liking the film, just my two cents.

 

*

Spoiler

Though subtlety isn't necessary for a theme to be good. Fury Road is about as subtle as an electric guitar that belches fire but its themes work incredibly well

 

[Use the Falchion]

15 hours ago, Pagliacci said:

Less positive, unfortunately.

My problem with the film is mainly in its structure. Simply put, the film lacks tension and Clark has no agency in his own narrative. The main question put forth by the film is "Can or should Clark be Superman?"

The problem is the non-linear structure of the film answers this question in the very first scene we see with Clark, when he saves the workers at the oil rig. So any tension regarding whether Clark will save people in the flashbacks is cancelled by the fact the film has already answered the question for us.

Regarding the city fight. My problem is less that the fight lead to wanton destruction so much as it is Clark (and the film) don't seem to care. MoS doesn't care about the people of Metropolis, it cares about how hard Clark can punch Zod. In the aftermath of the fight we don't see the devastation, Clark is never held accountable for his actions, Clark himself seems unaware of how many people died.

The film is so muddled by flashbacks in the first half (with annoying use of shaky cam in inappropriate moments) that the plot doesn't even begin until Zod sends his message down to the humans at the half-way mark. Clark isn't doing anything until the villains show up and hand him the plot.

The film is not without its good points. Those being the excellent casting (especially Zod) and Zimmer's score has its moments as well.

The film is very much interested in what Jor-El and John Kent want and their perspective, I agree. If only it cared about what Clark wanted.... or actually gave him anything to care about.

 

Also to touch on the Jesus thing briefly. It lacks any subtlety or nuance.* The problem is that MoS doesn't do anything interesting with this theme.

Sorry if this is a unintelligible ramble. My intent wasn't to make anyone feel bad for liking the film, just my two cents.

 

*

  Reveal hidden contents

Though subtlety isn't necessary for a theme to be good. Fury Road is about as subtle as an electric guitar that belches fire but its themes work incredibly well

 

That's all fair! And don't worry about me feeling bad for liking it. I'm used to the looks!  

I thought the theme was never about "can or should Clark be Superman," given how we all know that he will be, but rather "is the world ready for Superman?" Or if we're going with the lack of subtlety, "is the world ready for salvation?" Clark's actions say yes but his own experiences say no, and he's torn. Zod is the villain to explicitly further this question. He arrives and Superman's reveal at the end is to say "it doesn't matter if they're ready or not, Superman/salvation is here, and this is your new world." Now HOW people react to that message is the main topic is BvS. And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it Clark's discovery of the old Kyrptonian suit (the Superman suit) what sent the beacon to Zod's ship to let them know where Clark was?

You're right about the whole agency thing. He doesn't really have any and giving him more would be more helpful.

As for the destruction of Metropolis, given that BvS was more or less all about that, I'd say not talking about it was more of an arc problem than a movie problem (I assume Snyder knew it'd be discussed, but he didn't think he'd get the vitriol he did for it). Oathbringer has a similar - albeit less controversial - example with Rlain disappearing halfway through the book. We notice him gone, and Sanderson knows we know, so we trust Sanderson has something planned. Comicbook fans didn't trust Snyder and felt justified in not doing so. 

As for Clark not being shown saving lives of the people around him after the fight, I'm torn. On one hand, I see your point. On the other hand, I can easy see Clark being unsure as to how to save people. Stopping a rig (which he didn't successfully do) is probably easier to him than stopping a building from falling. Or maybe, even worse, Clark tried to save people but they were afraid of him, so left because he didn't want to make it worse. 

Edited May 6, 2019 by Use the Falchion

[Orlion Blight]

Terminator 2 is a garbage movie. 

[Zelly]

Ya know,  I don't dislike Moash. Seriously. 

There's a lot of people who vehemently want his head on a pile, but I really like him as a story character (if not as a person).

[Pagliacci]

@Use the Falchion

On 07/05/2019 at 1:14 AM, Use the Falchion said:

I thought the theme was never about "can or should Clark be Superman," given how we all know that he will be, but rather "is the world ready for Superman?" Or if we're going with the lack of subtlety, "is the world ready for salvation?" Clark's actions say yes but his own experiences say no, and he's torn.

I feel my interpretation of the question and your interpretation of the question are tied together. Whether or not Clark should be Superman is tied to whether the world is ready or not.

 

On 07/05/2019 at 1:14 AM, Use the Falchion said:

Zod is the villain to explicitly further this question

As all good antagonists should, Zod is forcing Supes to make difficult choices. Alas, Clark doesn't make any choices until Zod shows up, which in my opinion makes Clark something of a passive and (in this case) weak protagonist.

 

On 07/05/2019 at 1:14 AM, Use the Falchion said:

Now HOW people react to that message is the main topic is BvS

That and about a bazillion other things. One of the main flaws of that film is it tries to juggle too many things at once.

 

On 07/05/2019 at 1:14 AM, Use the Falchion said:

And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it Clark's discovery of the old Kyrptonian suit (the Superman suit) what sent the beacon to Zod's ship to let them know where Clark was?

 

Yeah, that's true. Though keep in mind this was an accidental consequence of Clark's decision. He had no way of knowing that there would be any consequences. So he's still not really making any choices where he's conscious of the consequences.

 

On 07/05/2019 at 1:14 AM, Use the Falchion said:

As for the destruction of Metropolis, given that BvS was more or less all about that, I'd say not talking about it was more of an arc problem than a movie problem (I assume Snyder knew it'd be discussed, but he didn't think he'd get the vitriol he did for it)

Eh, I have to disagree here. A film should be able to stand on its own and MoS utterly fails to even acknowledge the death and destruction caused by the battle at the end of the film. I'd argue it's more of a movie problem than an arc problem. I feel MoS handles it rather immaturely actually. Mere minutes after the destructive battle the film sprinkles in jokes and forces in levity. For a film that seems to wallow in angst, it picked the least appropriate time to be jovial. In regards to what Snyder 'knew' we can't say. (Unless he explicitly stated somewhere in an interview that were the case. Still, it's an issue unaddressed by the film). Then we also have to consider Death of the Author but that's a whole other can of worms.

 

On 07/05/2019 at 1:14 AM, Use the Falchion said:

Oathbringer has a similar - albeit less controversial - example with Rlain disappearing halfway through the book. We notice him gone, and Sanderson knows we know, so we trust Sanderson has something planned.

I reckon the reason that's less controversial is because the Rlain thing is related to a secondary character whereas the MoS issue relates to the climax of the story. 

 

On 07/05/2019 at 1:14 AM, Use the Falchion said:

Comicbook fans didn't trust Snyder and felt justified in not doing so

If people felt the film was made poorly then yeah, they probably would've left the film not having much trust in him. If they'd disliked his previous work they may have been wary as well. I went into the film wary myself, considering how abysmal his Watchmen adaptation was.

 

On 07/05/2019 at 1:14 AM, Use the Falchion said:

As for Clark not being shown saving lives of the people around him after the fight, I'm torn. On one hand, I see your point. On the other hand, I can easy see Clark being unsure as to how to save people. Stopping a rig (which he didn't successfully do) is probably easier to him than stopping a building from falling. Or maybe, even worse, Clark tried to save people but they were afraid of him, so left because he didn't want to make it worse. 

That would have been an interesting route to take but the problem is Supes doesn't seem interested in helping people during any of his massive battles.

This is an absurdly late response and I'm sorry about that. 

 

[Use the Falchion]

14 hours ago, Pagliacci said:

As all good antagonists should, Zod is forcing Supes to make difficult choices. Alas, Clark doesn't make any choices until Zod shows up, which in my opinion makes Clark something of a passive and (in this case) weak protagonist.

Here's where I see what you're coming from, and to a certain degree agree. But the movie shows Clark making choices. Clark always chooses to save people - from teenagers on a bus to the people on the oil rig. Clark always saves people. That's his choice. Now, do his actions drive the plot as much as they should (which is the crux of what you're saying)? Not really. But this Clark is in an Identity Crisis (pun totally intended), so I'm okay with that. In the end, his actions - whether or not they meant to - do drive the story forward, and that's a positive. 

15 hours ago, Pagliacci said:

One of the main flaws of that film is it tries to juggle too many things at once.

Agreed. That being said, had Synder's version of JL as a two part movie come to fruition, then maybe it would have been fine. That's how I feel with Avengers: Age of Ultron anyways. When it came out, the movie had a luke-warm reception. But looking back at it in a post-Infinity War/Endgame world, I see how the seeds planted have grown and I can appreciate it so much more. BvS will never really get that chance. Sure, we'll have some seeds grow like with Wonder Woman and Aquaman, but those will probably be it.

15 hours ago, Pagliacci said:

Yeah, that's true. Though keep in mind this was an accidental consequence of Clark's decision. He had no way of knowing that there would be any consequences. So he's still not really making any choices where he's conscious of the consequences.

To keep the Age of Ultron theme going, Tony didn't know Ultron was going to blow up in his face either. But it does, and they fix it and joke at the end. And in the next movie we see the fallout. 

Or maybe a Spider-Man version? Peter Parker's consequence of letting a villain go lead to the direct death of his uncle. 

Neither had any idea of the consequences, but there they are. That's not a flaw in storytelling, it's just an aspect of it.

15 hours ago, Pagliacci said:

Eh, I have to disagree here. A film should be able to stand on its own and MoS utterly fails to even acknowledge the death and destruction caused by the battle at the end of the film.

Again, in a post-Avengers world (which is when MoS and BvS came out), the rules have changed on that. Heck, one could argue when they started splitting up the Twilight and Harry Potter finales movies stopped standing on their own. 

15 hours ago, Pagliacci said:

I went into the film wary myself, considering how abysmal his Watchmen adaptation was.

Oof. I wasn't impressed with 300 (but it was one of my first R rated movies so I kinda liked it?), nor did I see Watchmen (was excited, read the comic in preparation for the movie, wasn't impressed), nor did I see Sucker Punch. All I heard were weird-to-bad things about Synder too. And I wasn't a giant Superman fan to boot - sure I liked Smallville and the Justice League cartoon, but that's where my knowledge ended. And yet I adore MoS and enjoy BvS:UE.

 

At the end of the day though, we can just agree to disagree. I did post this in controversial opinions for a reason

[Pathfinder]

15 hours ago, Use the Falchion said:

To keep the Age of Ultron theme going, Tony didn't know Ultron was going to blow up in his face either. But it does, and they fix it and joke at the end. And in the next movie we see the fallout. 

Or maybe a Spider-Man version? Peter Parker's consequence of letting a villain go lead to the direct death of his uncle. 

Neither had any idea of the consequences, but there they are. That's not a flaw in storytelling, it's just an aspect of it.

Just wanted to ring in on one thing here.

In Age of Ultron, Tony did not know Ultron would go out of control, but he definitely knew the possibility. Bruce said as much and warned him. Tony was just charismatic enough to convince Bruce to do it anyway. So Tony did have knowledge that his actions could go wrong, but he felt the pros outweighed the potential cons. He just ended up wrong.

Same thing with Peter Parker. Letting a robber with a gun go has some very clear consequences. The robber is free to potentially rob again, and someone potentially get hurt. Peter did not predict that it would be his Uncle, but it does not change that Peter is aware of the potential consequences of his actions by letting the robber go. At the time he was just acting selfish, and bitter which led to a immediate action not truly facing the potential consequences. 

Conversely there is no way Superman could have known donning the suit would have resulted in Zod coming. So there wasn't a chance to say to himself "hmmm, if I put this on, something bad could happen, but I will do it anyway".

[Toaster Retribution]

General Grievous is one of the best Star Wars villains.

[Ixthos]

7 minutes ago, Toaster Retribution said:

General Grievous is one of the best Star Wars villains.

To be fair, he was a bit shorter than I expected :-P

[Eluvianii]

I don't see Star Wars as that big of a thing. I like them as entertaining movies about spaceships and magic I can watch on a weekend just for fun. Therefore, I like all of them and can see past their issues since I'm not expecting a life-changing experience from them (I don't even know why people do expect that in the first place.).

On the same note, I don't get all the complaints about bad writing in Doctor Who. I had them too, at first, when I thought the series had a consistent overarching plot. Now I see it as just adventure for the sake of adventure and it doesn't need to be more than that, really. Still one of my favorite shows of all time.

And still on that note, just in general, I think we should learn to enjoy "bad" stories. Like, people are too elitist about what they seek in a story. I can finish virtually any story as long as I mildly like one or two of the main characters, sometimes I just want to distract myself for a while. If among all of those a masterpiece comes out, I'll certainly appreciate it but it isn't a requirement to enjoy something.

[Elegy]

10 hours ago, Eluvianii said:

And still on that note, just in general, I think we should learn to enjoy "bad" stories. Like, people are too elitist about what they seek in a story. I can finish virtually any story as long as I mildly like one or two of the main characters, sometimes I just want to distract myself for a while. If among all of those a masterpiece comes out, I'll certainly appreciate it but it isn't a requirement to enjoy something.

Gotta disagree with this big time. It's not elitist to have standards, and there's way too much stuff out there and not enough time to go through every piece of media just because there's things that are mildly likable. I've gotten used to not bothering with mediocrity anymore and it's made my life better. That said, of course the story is not the only thing that determines the quality of, say, a series or a movie. But I don't see why I should waste my time with works that don't have any truly outstanding aspects to them (be it cinematography, art design, things like that. Like I said, it doesn't have to be a story, I'd even say that I've grown out of story-based movies, although I still enjoy those if they're well-done).

And I don't see that as elitism. Moreover, it's the acceptance of mediocrity in art that has brought us to the oversaturation of mediocrity that's, in my opinion, happening in pretty much all art forms - then again, I guess that might be listed as a "controversial opinion" of mine, since disliking something that's mainstream is controversial by definition.

[Eluvianii]

1 hour ago, Elegy said:

Gotta disagree with this big time. It's not elitist to have standards, and there's way too much stuff out there and not enough time to go through every piece of media just because there's things that are mildly likable. I've gotten used to not bothering with mediocrity anymore and it's made my life better. That said, of course the story is not the only thing that determines the quality of, say, a series or a movie. But I don't see why I should waste my time with works that don't have any truly outstanding aspects to them (be it cinematography, art design, things like that. Like I said, it doesn't have to be a story, I'd even say that I've grown out of story-based movies, although I still enjoy those if they're well-done).

And I don't see that as elitism. Moreover, it's the acceptance of mediocrity in art that has brought us to the oversaturation of mediocrity that's, in my opinion, happening in pretty much all art forms - then again, I guess that might be listed as a "controversial opinion" of mine, since disliking something that's mainstream is controversial by definition.

I was the exact opposite of this. When I was a teenager I only wanted to watch/read/play masterpieces (whether or not I was good at judging what is a masterpiece and what is not is a completely different matter) and turned down things like comedies simply because they were comedies.

With time I realized this made me enjoy things way less, like when you start having too high standards they just keep going up and suddenly almost nothing is good enough and you get annoyed all the time because you can't see how people could like something like that.

In the end I'm just happier accepting each story for what it is but that's only my own experience.

[Elegy]

21 minutes ago, Eluvianii said:

I was the exact opposite of this. When I was a teenager I only wanted to watch/read/play masterpieces (whether or not I was good at judging what is a masterpiece and what is not is a completely different matter) and turned down things like comedies simply because they were comedies.

With time I realized this made me enjoy things way less, like when you start having too high standards they just keep going up and suddenly almost nothing is good enough and you get annoyed all the time because you can't see how people could like something like that.

In the end I'm just happier accepting each story for what it is but that's only my own experience.

I see what you mean, but at the same time I believe you're making two different statements at once, one that I agree with and one that I don't. The one I agree with being the one about comedies: I didn't mean that the aforementioned standard should be "comedies are not deep" or stuff like that. I agree that writing off stuff that way is ill-advised. Yet that's a different thing than hanging onto a story one doesn't actually care for. Of course, I'm solely explaining my own experience right here and I'm not trying to make anyone change their viewing habits. I personally don't have time for mediocrity, perhaps because I'm kinda deep into 6 different art forms at once and therefore can only really bother with the best quarter of each.

Edit: To clarify, I initially replied because you phrased it as an imperative ... being more content with stuff you don't actually like is not something I'd ever advise, so that's why I replied - not to give instructions (in case I come across that way).

Edited September 6, 2019 by Elegy

[Eluvianii]

4 hours ago, Elegy said:

I see what you mean, but at the same time I believe you're making two different statements at once, one that I agree with and one that I don't. The one I agree with being the one about comedies: I didn't mean that the aforementioned standard should be "comedies are not deep" or stuff like that. I agree that writing off stuff that way is ill-advised. Yet that's a different thing than hanging onto a story one doesn't actually care for. Of course, I'm solely explaining my own experience right here and I'm not trying to make anyone change their viewing habits. I personally don't have time for mediocrity, perhaps because I'm kinda deep into 6 different art forms at once and therefore can only really bother with the best quarter of each.

Edit: To clarify, I initially replied because you phrased it as an imperative ... being more content with stuff you don't actually like is not something I'd ever advise, so that's why I replied - not to give instructions (in case I come across that way).

Oh no, I didn't mean it like that. The decision actually came partly because I didn't want to stop enjoying simple stories, and it has worked because I do, quite a bit (sometimes more so than I would be proud to admit). But yeah, the point was that I don't need too much persuasion to get into something and honestly enjoy it. Where the standards would come into play is whether or not that something will acompany me through the years. I can watch, say, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and enjoy it, knowing that it won't have any effect on me save for making me laugh for a couple hours (it also got me into the original book so that's a plus but I digress). On the other hand, there's The Neverending Story for example. It's the first fantasy book I read apart from Harry Potter so it was the first step on making me aware of the genre. It's also a book that, although intended for children, always has something I didn't find on my last read every time I reread it. It's a book I know will follow me to my grave.

I fully enjoy both of the aforementioned stories, the difference is that one changed my life and the other didn't. It's not that I watch/read whatever because I've given up on finding good things, that would be ridiculous.

Just out of curiosity, which art forms do you mean? We obviously disagree quite a bit but it would be interesting to see how similar our interests are.

[Elegy]

I don't think we disagree quite as much as you make it sound: If something makes you laugh a couple of hours (even without having a huge impact on your life), then that's an outstanding quality in itself. In my opinion, Edgar Wright's Cornetto trilogy for instance is amazing - not because the films are deep, but because they, as I see it, are extremely good at being funny. In that way, they're outstanding to me. The standards I meant are by no means the difference between "deep and impactful" and "not deep and impactful", but between "it was really good at something" (for example being funny) and "it was kiiinda good enough to make me keep watching it". To make people laugh for several hours is a huge achievement in my opinion, and comedy and entertainment is an art that's often underrated. So good entertainment definitely fulfills the standards that I meant.

4 hours ago, Eluvianii said:

Just out of curiosity, which art forms do you mean? We obviously disagree quite a bit but it would be interesting to see how similar our interests are.

Film, music, literature (which is my field of study), visual arts (photography, painting and drawing, but the former less than the latter), comics (mostly manga, but not exclusively), and theatre (mostly stage musicals). I play video games regularly, but I'm not deep enough in the scene to add it as no. 7. Of these, I make music and write books myself (nothing released though), and I'd love to make short films, but the logistics are too demanding, sadly. Since we're here, I'm pretty sure we agree about Sanderson being an amazing writer, so there's that at the very least.