Controversial Opinion/Discussion thread

Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 22614
This is more prevalent in TV series but:

I am sick to fucking death of hearing the phrase "queer-baiting." It's so often bandied about by heterosexual women whining that their hot male ships aren't canon. It's hardly ever in reference to sapphic relations or relationships between unattractive/older men. It's obviously a "progressive" veil for fetishization of male queerness. I also hate that any remote affection or intimacy between attractive men absolutely must result in butt-fucking or else it's HOMOPHOBIA! Rabble rabble!

Fuck
Fuck
Fuck
Fuck off, you transparent hags. Sorry.
Mar 21, 2017 5:18 AM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 1424
Black PhilipI one at a piece of chicken, In front of a live chicken.

You sick fuck
Mar 21, 2017 7:24 AM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 1424
Netflix Marvel shows are vastly overrated. Daredevil has it's moments, and David Tennant's turn in Jessica Jones is worthwhile, but they rely too much on filler. There are better crime dramas(Narcos) and martial arts shows(Marco Polo) that are worth your time, but none of them benefit from being comic book properties.
Mar 21, 2017 7:34 AM
0 0
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 17981
Popcorn ReviewsI prefer 28 Days Later over Romero's Night of the Living Dead.

I prefer 28 Weeks Later over 28 Days Later.

But anyway, I think I made a thread years ago with some controversial opinions. Let's see if I can dig it up.

But in the meantime, one of my main controversial opinions is that I generally don't care about Scorsese.
Mar 21, 2017 1:10 PM
0 0
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 17981
I'm not gonna browse all those old forums, so here's the gist of my "controversial opinions" thread...

I don't like The Matrix. Yes, the original.

I didn't care for The Seventh Seal.

The Village >>>> The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable

I wouldn't hesitate to rate Terminator 3 equal, or maybe even over Terminator 2.

...and like I said above, overall, I don't care about Scorsese.


I think those are the most controversial.
Mar 21, 2017 1:24 PM
0 0
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 63645
Black Philip
Popcorn ReviewsAlso, I didn't care for Kubrick's The Shining.

Neither did Stephen King for that matter.



He needs to shut the fuck up.


And I hated Darabont's ending for The Mist. Fucking horseshit way to end a movie.
Mar 22, 2017 12:27 AM
0 0
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 6196
Death ProofAnd I hated Darabont's ending for The Mist. Fucking horseshit way to end a movie.

Okay, that's one of my favourite endings.
Mar 22, 2017 1:22 AM
0 0
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 736
I can't stand Curb Your Enthusiasm.
Mar 22, 2017 3:59 AM
0 0
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 736
Ocarina of Time is a highly overrated video game.
Mar 22, 2017 3:59 AM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 1424
The ending to The Mist makes the entire movie. The movie is obviously a reference to 9/11 and the paranoia that swept the nation (and how some played on that fear) with Thomas Jane's decision at the end being the ultimate expression of that fear. It's really powerful when you view it in that context.

Mar 22, 2017 4:02 AM
0 0
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 736
Qdoba is better than Chipotle in pretty much every single way.
Mar 22, 2017 4:03 AM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 1424
David ChromiakOcarina of Time is a highly overrated video game.

Feel free to elaborate?

And no, N'avi being a pain in the ass doesn't count.
Mar 22, 2017 4:08 AM
0 0
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 63645
The GuyThe ending to The Mist makes the entire movie. The movie is obviously a reference to 9/11 and the paranoia that swept the nation (and how some played on that fear) with Thomas Jane's decision at the end being the ultimate expression of that fear. It's really powerful when you view it in that context.



Wrong. King wrote the novella as far back as 1980. His influence for the story idea was nothing more than experiencing a heavy thunderstorm and then taking his son into town to go to the grocery store, then imagining what would happen if a pterosaur got loose there. Don't try making more out of a monster movie than it is.


Darabont ruined the movie with his tacked-on ending in a feeble attempt to goad more emotion from an audience. It would be like adding a scene to the end of Independence Day where the dog dies, just to milk a few more tears. God forbid he actually leave the original ending and give the audience a modicum of hope. I suspect he got asshurt over the early panning of The Shawshank Redemption with its uplifting ending and purposely decided to go darker with The Mist. Nothing worse than a butthurt Frenchman.
Mar 22, 2017 4:17 AM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11779
Ok, but Get Out isn't about prejudice. (Crash is a film about prejudice. The message is "it's bad".) It's about something else entirely.

This doesn't fit with the definition of racism I posited. This may seem to be a mere semantic point, and I generally agree that what matters is not anyone's preferred definition, but how we deal with the conceptual terrain marked by a definition. So long as you're speaking with a reasonable person of goodwill, you should be able to work within their definitions and make arguments. This is not, however, one of those cases.

Why should we work from/accept my preferred definition?

My reasons for resisting you're preferred usage (i.e., defining race as institutional power) have already been stated, but allow me to review and expand on these reasons.

"Racism" is a "go to" accusation that automatically carries a lot of weight in conversation because everyone recognize that racism is not just wrong, and not just morally wrong, but severely wrong in a moral sense. It is a nuclear or checkmate accusation. If you can successfully label someone as racist, then in terms of the denotation and connotation of the term, you have destroyed their ethos and effectively removed from the debate. If the accusation is fair, then this is generally appropriate. If the accusation is not fair, then you?re poisoning the well.

Now, if you, by definition, remove the possibility of your preferred group(s) from ever being described as racist, then they enjoy a significant privilege in dialogue which makes their discriminatory sins less recognizable (even potentially invisible). See my metaphorical discussion of cancer to see how this can create a bad situation where we do not account for and arrest the discrimination of the allegedly oppressed in time to prevent the "cancer" of discrimination from "metastasizing."

Your definition is at variance with common usage, and so clouds the issue by hijacking the denotation while still accessing the connotation associated with common usage. This is not only confusing, but also unfair.

It's not enough for you to respond to speak ex cathedra speaking on what the definition of racism is, as if I have not applied rational pressure to this definition. You owe me a rebuttal, not a restatement of your position.

To be clear, I will stipulate (at least for the time being) your analysis of the film. If you can offer an assessment of the film within my preferred vocabulary, then I might as well concede your analysis, because it is not relevant to the particular point I am making about the legitimacy of substitution tests, in general.

I didn't say racism is *the* (sole) function of power, I said it is *a* function of power.


And I say it is neither. Power is power. Racism is racism. People without power can be racist. People with power can be non-racist. Racism, as I have defined it, precedes the application of power.

Of course it involves prejudice, but it isn't just that. What we're observing in Get Out isn't mere prejudice.

Prejudice is a wider category than racism. People who judge by class are prejudiced not necessarily racist. The universe of prejudice is much bigger than the universe of racial prejudice. Racial prejudice is racism. Prejudice is a more general term.

It doesn't even seem evident that it extends from anything resembling personal prejudice. What we're seeing is the wholesale exploitation and theft of black minds and bodies.

There is no mutual exclusion in my definition. You're speaking as if my definition of racism stops at the level of personal prejudice, but stops short of institutional and cultural oppression. It does not. Racism is racism and power is power. They are not the same, but, they can coexist. There is indeed such a thing as institutional racism. And if you were to shift your usage ever so slight as to make a distinction between racism (as a very general concept) to institutional/cultural racism (which is more specific and does indeed involve the application of power), our disagreement would evaporate.

It isn't that nobody in the film realizes, "hey! black people are people, too!" The horror of the film isn't that, like, people are too quick to judge without realizing that we're all human beings just tryin' to get by (the kind of mealy-mouthed, weak-tea bullshit that Crash deals in), the horror lies in what one class of people does to another when they have power over them. They don't do it because of personal prejudice. They do it because they can. It's about power.

Like I said, I have no particular stake in your analysis of the film. If you want to say that what is troubling is not that it is simply about racism, but about institutional racism which allows and even encourages people who apparently ?know better? to participate in exclusion/marginalization/oppression, then I will stipulate to your analysis, at least until such time as I have seen the film for myself.

This is qualitatively different from some random asshole thinking that Asians are bad drivers, or that black people suck at tipping. There's that kind of racism, then there's Racism with a capital R: exploitation and subjugation based on racial categories, which is clearly (yes, among other things) a function of power.


Well, now we?re getting closer to it. At least, you are speaking here of personal racial prejudice as racism with a little "r", but you're still reserving full-blown racism (with a capital "R" - the real stuff) for institutional and cultural racism. But at least with this much of an accommodation we may at least that "Anyone can be racist" if we cannot say "Anyone can be Racist." At the point, however, that we?re just quibbling about capitalization, we're better off just calling it racism. We don't want to be in a situation where we always have to ask "Did you mean that with a capital R' "?

(Another function of power is the creation and imposition of racial categories themselves, but that's for another post.)

No doubt, this is the same sort of power that creates and imposes, religious, gender, class, etc. distinctions as well. Nothing particular here with regard to power and race. And we must assume a very particular definition of power. Are we speaking of coercive power, creative power, legitimate power, cognitive authority, pastoral power? Not all senses of the term "power" really fit with this notion.

And this still fits with my analysis. A certain variety of power constitutes the category of race. The question of racism is one of prejudice on the basis of that category (regardless of the power level of the prejudiced party). And this still precedes the second moment of power, when that prejudice is used to marginalize, exclude, and suppress at the level of some institution or other cultural formation.

This is high-level racism that shouldn't be conflated with mere prejudice.

Of course not. But neither should we conflate low-level racism with mere prejudice. I can be prejudiced against Patriots fans, but that's nowhere near the same thing as making a personal charge of racism.

This kind of racism exists not because people are too quick to judge, or whatever, it exists because of the wildly uneven distribution of power in our society.

Sure, I would call it "institutional racism." You are calling it racism with a capital "R" and right above "high-level racism."

As for the characterization of "wildly uneven distribution of power" I am not sure that I buy it. On the one hand, I appreciate that this seems to imply that just having some uneven power does not make a society racist in your eyes. But I am not sure that I would say that today?s society is wildly uneven. People have Constitutional rights. There has been quite a bit of progress. We voted for a black president, twice.

Yes, it does seem benign to say "everyone can be racist,"

It's not that it's benign, but rather that it is accurate.

but don't the lower orders have a better reason to feel resentment towards those who exploit them?

Holy fucking shit. No, no one is justified in race hatred. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. It?s not about who started it or who has it worst or who is the original victim. It's about whether you're judging people on the basis of race.

It's far better to ask what sorts of things (like scapegoating) motivate racial prejudice. (That's if we're talking about prejudice, which the film isn't. Crash talks about prejudice. Crash sucks.)

Not sure where you're going here. I would say racism is racial prejudice. Prejudice too broad a category because it includes all the ways in which we might discriminate. The question is whether ?racism? is further limited to only speaking of systematic/institutional/cultural racism.

Tall Man seems to be trying to say that if Live and Let Die is racist for having all the black characters depicted as evil, then so too is Get Out
for having all the white characters exclusively, one-dimensionally evil.

I would like to think that we could watch a film where the villains happened to be black, or female, or Jewish, without people jumping (necessarily) to the conclusion that the film is saying that such people are villainous. I don't like it when films go to pains to have a bad white person or a cute multicultural mix of baddies to establish non-racist credentials. People are people. Some groups of people are villainous contingently and not essentially. A lot depends, however, as to whether one can reasonable read a message as being portrayed by the film. Is the film misogynistic or did it just happen to have a female villain?

This isn't so, partially because by making all the white characters bad, the film subverts the racist White Savior trope that plagues other potentially great black films.

OK, I think I get it. To offer the critique, the film might have to play a little unfair (stretching matters a bit to make a point). Or worse, if the shoe fits?

You're right, though, that substitutions do help: Get Out would be utter nonsense if the races were reversed.

That's not what I mean, although substitution has many purposes.

This is because of who holds the real power in our society. (I really hate Crash.)

I haven't seen the film and context matters. However, as a general rule, I would say that if wouldn't pick on one group on the basis of "X" you should not pick on any other group on that basis either. I don't know that I would object on the basis of substitution in this case. I'd need to see the film.

TLDR: There's personal prejudice, and then there's the racism (a qualitatively different phenomenon from racism qua personal prejudice) enacted by those who hold the real power in society. Get Out depicts the latter. Also fuck Crash.


Your usage has now reverted back to your original distinction under which you are reserving the term racism for large-scale phenomena.


Mar 22, 2017 5:17 AM
0 0
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 736
The Guy
David ChromiakOcarina of Time is a highly overrated video game.

Feel free to elaborate?

And no, N'avi being a pain in the ass doesn't count.

Sure. N'avi was a huge pain in the ass and there was a lot of hand holding in the game, but there's more to it than that for me.

Right off the bat, I have to bring up the fact that everyone I've talked to seems to say the same thing; that when they first played it, it blew their minds. I didn't have this reaction at all. Ocarina of Time was exactly what I expected from the first 3D Zelda, and I was even a little disappointed in some of the areas. This is purely difference of opinion, I know, but I think because so many people apparently got their minds blown by this game when they played it for the first time as a kid, they tend to rank it higher than it deserves.

Next, it's not my favorite Zelda game. Granted, it's a good game. I am not arguing that it's bad in any way, but it's the most straightforward, and has a very milquetoast storyline. My favorite game is Link to the Past, and I actually enjoyed Skyward Sword a lot more than Ocarina. (I'm finding that I'm one of the very few people that really enjoyed Skyward Sword.)

And third, there was only chunks that I enjoyed playing. This is personal preference again, I know, but I find Ocarina of Time to be inconsistent. Some parts I love playing and everything that happens is fun and charming, some parts drag on and simply felt tedious. And while the boss battles are good, I can't think of one boss battle from that game that I remember loving more than any other boss fight.

I will also admit, I haven't played every Zelda game. Still need to play Majora's Mask, Wind Waker and Breath of the Wild.
Mar 22, 2017 6:18 AM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 1424
Death Proof
The GuyThe ending to The Mist makes the entire movie. The movie is obviously a reference to 9/11 and the paranoia that swept the nation (and how some played on that fear) with Thomas Jane's decision at the end being the ultimate expression of that fear. It's really powerful when you view it in that context.



Wrong. King wrote the novella as far back as 1980. His influence for the story idea was nothing more than experiencing a heavy thunderstorm and then taking his son into town to go to the grocery store, then imagining what would happen if a pterosaur got loose there. Don't try making more out of a monster movie than it is.


Darabont ruined the movie with his tacked-on ending in a feeble attempt to goad more emotion from an audience. It would be like adding a scene to the end of Independence Day where the dog dies, just to milk a few more tears. God forbid he actually leave the original ending and give the audience a modicum of hope. I suspect he got asshurt over the early panning of The Shawshank Redemption with its uplifting ending and purposely decided to go darker with The Mist. Nothing worse than a butthurt Frenchman.

Completely disagree. It's worth noting that King is a big fan of the ending. And the movie wears it's 9/11 parralels on its sleeve.?
If the ending upset you then it worked!
Mar 22, 2017 6:42 AM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 1424
David Chromiak
The Guy
David ChromiakOcarina of Time is a highly overrated video game.

Feel free to elaborate?

And no, N'avi being a pain in the ass doesn't count.

Sure. N'avi was a huge pain in the ass and there was a lot of hand holding in the game, but there's more to it than that for me.

Right off the bat, I have to bring up the fact that everyone I've talked to seems to say the same thing; that when they first played it, it blew their minds. I didn't have this reaction at all. Ocarina of Time was exactly what I expected from the first 3D Zelda, and I was even a little disappointed in some of the areas. This is purely difference of opinion, I know, but I think because so many people apparently got their minds blown by this game when they played it for the first time as a kid, they tend to rank it higher than it deserves.

Next, it's not my favorite Zelda game. Granted, it's a good game. I am not arguing that it's bad in any way, but it's the most straightforward, and has a very milquetoast storyline. My favorite game is Link to the Past, and I actually enjoyed Skyward Sword a lot more than Ocarina. (I'm finding that I'm one of the very few people that really enjoyed Skyward Sword.)

And third, there was only chunks that I enjoyed playing. This is personal preference again, I know, but I find Ocarina of Time to be inconsistent. Some parts I love playing and everything that happens is fun and charming, some parts drag on and simply felt tedious. And while the boss battles are good, I can't think of one boss battle from that game that I remember loving more than any other boss fight.

I will also admit, I haven't played every Zelda game. Still need to play Majora's Mask, Wind Waker and Breath of the Wild.

Fair enough. In defense of Ocarina I will say that it was groundbreaking in it's 3-D world building. There was nothing else like this game when it came out, especially in terms of open world, and in many ways it still holds its own today.
It's easily one of my favorites, although I lost interest in the series after Twilight Princess.
Mar 22, 2017 6:52 AM
0 0
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 63645
The Guy
Death Proof
The GuyThe ending to The Mist makes the entire movie. The movie is obviously a reference to 9/11 and the paranoia that swept the nation (and how some played on that fear) with Thomas Jane's decision at the end being the ultimate expression of that fear. It's really powerful when you view it in that context.



Wrong. King wrote the novella as far back as 1980. His influence for the story idea was nothing more than experiencing a heavy thunderstorm and then taking his son into town to go to the grocery store, then imagining what would happen if a pterosaur got loose there. Don't try making more out of a monster movie than it is.


Darabont ruined the movie with his tacked-on ending in a feeble attempt to goad more emotion from an audience. It would be like adding a scene to the end of Independence Day where the dog dies, just to milk a few more tears. God forbid he actually leave the original ending and give the audience a modicum of hope. I suspect he got asshurt over the early panning of The Shawshank Redemption with its uplifting ending and purposely decided to go darker with The Mist. Nothing worse than a butthurt Frenchman.

Completely disagree. It's worth noting that King is a big fan of the ending. And the movie wears it's 9/11 parralels on its sleeve.?
If the ending upset you then it worked!



It was also just a few years after his accident, so any ideas King had for that time period are suspect. Look how he ruined the last couple of books of The Dark Tower.


You might see 9/11 parallels but all it comes down to is a monster movie. You're injecting meaning into something that doesn't hold that meaning.


It upset me because I liked the original ending better and Darabont is an asshurt dick who just wants to depress everybody.
Mar 22, 2017 1:05 PM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11779
Black Philip
I so didn't read that.

In your case, I'm so not giving a shit.

Mar 22, 2017 1:10 PM
0 0
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 736
The Guy
David Chromiak
The Guy
David ChromiakOcarina of Time is a highly overrated video game.

Feel free to elaborate?

And no, N'avi being a pain in the ass doesn't count.

Sure. N'avi was a huge pain in the ass and there was a lot of hand holding in the game, but there's more to it than that for me.

Right off the bat, I have to bring up the fact that everyone I've talked to seems to say the same thing; that when they first played it, it blew their minds. I didn't have this reaction at all. Ocarina of Time was exactly what I expected from the first 3D Zelda, and I was even a little disappointed in some of the areas. This is purely difference of opinion, I know, but I think because so many people apparently got their minds blown by this game when they played it for the first time as a kid, they tend to rank it higher than it deserves.

Next, it's not my favorite Zelda game. Granted, it's a good game. I am not arguing that it's bad in any way, but it's the most straightforward, and has a very milquetoast storyline. My favorite game is Link to the Past, and I actually enjoyed Skyward Sword a lot more than Ocarina. (I'm finding that I'm one of the very few people that really enjoyed Skyward Sword.)

And third, there was only chunks that I enjoyed playing. This is personal preference again, I know, but I find Ocarina of Time to be inconsistent. Some parts I love playing and everything that happens is fun and charming, some parts drag on and simply felt tedious. And while the boss battles are good, I can't think of one boss battle from that game that I remember loving more than any other boss fight.

I will also admit, I haven't played every Zelda game. Still need to play Majora's Mask, Wind Waker and Breath of the Wild.

Fair enough. In defense of Ocarina I will say that it was groundbreaking in it's 3-D world building. There was nothing else like this game when it came out, especially in terms of open world, and in many ways it still holds its own today.
It's easily one of my favorites, although I lost interest in the series after Twilight Princess.

I was not a fan of Twilight Princess. I didn't even finish it. If I had to rank my favorite Zelda games, it would be 1. Link to the Past 2. Skyward Sword 3. Ocarina of Time.

I'm dying to play Majora's Mask and Breath of the Wild. (Probably not going to be getting a Switch anytime soon to play BotW, though.) I'm going back and playing all the games on my video game bucket list that I never got to play. Just recently beat Super Mario RPG, next up is either Majora's or The Last of Us.
Mar 22, 2017 2:13 PM
0 0