Who sucks?

[LadyJaye]

Instant karma's gonna get you.

What if I deflect it off on you? I mean, the cosmos might let me....

 

[heart]

John Lennon was a self-righteous douchebag.

Less preaching, more reading. Many of his political attacks lacked merit.

Emerson is SO >>>>>>>> Thoreau!

MORE FISTICUFFS!!

Emerson wanted to engage the culture more, to live within culture and be a positive force while not letting one's self become taken over by it and Thoreau seemed more to think that this was impossible, that we need to turn our backs on the culture and go inwards to find ourselves.

Emerson seemed more ENFJ and Thoreau more INFP, just my opinion.

 

[Tallulah]

John Lennon is not my hero or my role model, so I can dislike him as much as I want. There are human foibles that accompany everyone, but I found him very pretentious, preachy and intractable for a guy who had very few and shifting views on life. Not admirable.

John Lennon was a self-righteous douchebag.

Less preaching, more reading. Many of his political attacks lacked merit.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to agree here. Really, I can only take Lennon or McCartney as a pair. Individually, I'm not a fan of either one.

This is a personal one, but if I never hear Imagine again, it will be too soon. Not that it's a bad song, but that people act like it's the be-all, end-all song of the world, and every sucky artist in the universe feels it's their personal duty to cover it.

 

[heart]

This is a personal one, but if I never hear Imagine again, it will be too soon. Not that it's a bad song, but that people act like it's the be-all, end-all song of the world, and every sucky artist in the universe feels it's their personal duty to cover it.

Yes, I agree. I don't like it for the very same reasons.

"We Are World" ended up that way too.

 

[LadyJaye]

This is a personal one, but if I never hear Imagine again, it will be too soon. Not that it's a bad song, but that people act like it's the be-all, end-all song of the world, and every sucky artist in the universe feels it's their personal duty to cover it.

Would it redeem the song for you somehow if someone else sang it? Perhaps, Sally Field?

 

[heart]

Would it redeem the song for you somehow if someone else sang it? Perhaps, Sally Field?

How about a three-way sing-a-long of it by Sally Field, Michelle Pfeiffer and Sally Struthers.

 

[pure_mercury]

Emerson wanted to engage the culture more, to live within culture and be a positive force while not letting one's self become taken over by it and Thoreau seemed more to think that this was impossible, that we need to turn our backs on the culture and go inwards to find ourselves.

Emerson seemed more ENFJ and Thoreau more INFP, just my opinion.

I really liked Thoreau's attitude about power, in general. He was completely cynical about authority and all non-voluntary association, so that really speaks to me as someone who feels quite similar (but who, personality-wise, would prefer to be someone within the power structure, but delimiting it). I dig the air of melancholic irascibility.

"I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient."

 

[Martoon]

Y'know, I didn't really see a point in posting here, since I generally just ignore things I don't like, and I'm pretty apathetic about who else likes them or how overrated they are. But after reading over the thread, I realized there are, in fact, things that bug me. Yay, pathos.

(Disclaimer: Everything I say here is ultimately subjective, and I make no claims otherwise.)

Did you not notice there were fisticuffs?!

Commas. Stop teasing me with your complex ways, you vagarious minxes.

QFLOL

Raymond's brother was Eeyore written for adults who think like children...

Okay, I actually like ELR, but that was beautiful.

Also? Sally Field sucks. I hate her little scrunchy face as much as Pink hates Redford.

Can't really say I'm a fan of Sally, either, but lulah, your insatiably seething contempt for her amuses me immensely. She seems rather innocuous to me. Is there some childhood trauma we should know about?

morons, racists, or ignorant.

Redundant, redundant, redundant (well, okay, there's a subtle difference between 1 and 3, but #2 covers both of those).

I wouldn't knock it until you've seen Takahata's best films (Only Yesterday, Grave of The Fireflies).

The rest I can take or leave (usually leave).

Mature Content | Veoh Video Network

I gotta agree with colmena on the anime. It's a medium independent of the content, and it just happens that the majority of the content is either bad or really bad.

Just like I would say that television sucks, because the majority of what's on does nothing for me. But there are a few things scattered in there that are really good. Likewise for anime.

And I defy anyone having the slightest glimmer of anything resembling humanity buried somewhere in their soul to watch Grave of the Fireflies without crying. I'm serious.


Regarding Bollywood stuff, I'm sure I could never sit through the full 2 or 3 hours of a film. But there's something about the particular type of cheesy melodrama, the little romance between the hero and heroine as they invariably dance toward each other, that's charming to me. It's cute.

How about video-games?
Halo and Grand Theft Auto.

Seconded. Especially GTA and it's cheap path to fame via lame controversial content. I'd also throw in a whole lot of uninspired, derivative first-person shooters. Give people the opportunity for shootin' at folk, and they get instantly stupid and will pay for the same thing, over and over.


I'd also second:
KISS. The music itself is almost upbeat and skippy, which just makes them seem silly(er).
The Beatles. They had a few really good songs, for which the acclaim is appropriate, but then a whole lot of trite, weak numbers. And yeah, they sound more pedestrian today because we've heard so much that's influenced by them, but even in that context, they had a lot of songs that just lacked anything.
Ayn Rand. A few good seeds of truth there (the basic idea of not compromising who you are to cater to popular opinion and fads), but she's just way too extreme and unbalanced. And not anywhere near as rational as she'd like to believe. And the randroids that follow her are worse.
LOTR. A gifted writer, I'm sure, but way over-hyped. Admittedly, a lot of this is just my personal taste, since the whole medieval/magic setting just doesn't appeal to me.
Sex and the City. 'nuff said.
Screaming death metal. But I think that's a given.
Dana Carvey movies. Especially Master of Disguise. How do movies like that even happen? But I can't say I was a big fan of Wayne's World, either.
Most of SNL and Mad TV. There are a handful of really classic things, several so-so things, and than a whole lot of stuff that feels like the cast getting slightly drunk and pretending they're funny while the audience plays along.
J.K. Rowling. She's fairly imaginative, and the movies can be somewhat entertaining to watch (largely due to a generous effects budget), but the extremity of her success seems strange to me. And there's this weird point-of-pride thing in adults saying how much they like Harry Potter. I don't get it.
We Are the World. Absolutely. What an incredibly bland, droning song that, hey, must be good because everyone's in it.


And I'll add, in no particular order:
Piers Anthony. The guy cranks out a book every three weeks, and apparently has a world full of fans. I tried reading one of these once, and it read like, well, something that had been cranked out in three weeks. Throw in a sprinkling of blatantly gratuitous semi-eroticism, and you you've got yourself a best seller. I made it about a fourth of the way in, and couldn't take any more.
A lot of (but certainly not all) "classic" literature. Sure, there's been worst stuff since, but there are a lot of awful books that have been granted "classic" status, so we collectively agree that they're great works. And yes, Jane Eyre. Icky.
18th and 19th century period films that consist of snooty characters wearing really uncomfortable clothing. All the time. Even doing things outside. And everyone always speaks in these carefully measured tones, using painfully elaborate language no matter what the conversation is. They all just seem so constricted and formal, all the time, that my neck and shoulders start to tense up just watching them. And the Scarlet Pimpernel really annoys me. "Is he in heaven? Or is he in hell? That damned elusive Pimpernel" (spoken in a self-important, somewhat effete tone). Then everyone laughs and applauds, like something incredibly clever has been said. Did I miss something?
Little Man Tate. Only because this was such a beautiful concept for a film, but was so cheesy and contrived in it's execution.
Star Trek (oh, I'm goin' down now). This show, in all it's various incarnations, is harmless, so I would just ignore it. But as somewhat of a geek, I'm somehow expected to rave about it. And it just does nothing for me. Really flimsy characters who are basically designed to fill some role. And that's all they do. And it's way too predictable and safe. Lacks any semblance of grit or humanity.
Michael Moore. I don't necessarily disagree with everything he says (but don't necessarily agree with it all, either). But he has such cheap ways of saying it.
Bill Maher. The pretense of rational discussion, but he just does a lot of forceful reiterating.
Rush Limbaugh. Don't even know where to start. So I won't.
80's action cartoons. Cartoons are good because they're funny. These weren't.
Gas pumps where you set the handle lock thingy so you don't have to keep holding the handle, but the pump nozzle overflow detector is too sensitize, so it keeps shutting off. I hate that.
Girls Gone Wild videos. No, I don't think anyone is defending those or claiming them as great works, but I just get so sick of so many commercials, over and over, for something so insipid.
The Grinch movie. Dr. Seuss would be appalled. Actually, Ron Howard, et al, hounded his widow relentlessly until she finally caved and gave the rights. I'm sure she hated herself when she saw the final product.
Angelina Jolie. I don't get it. Not attractive, just somewhat funny looking to me. And yet she's somehow firmly established as being supremely hot. In any cliche reference needing an "obviously" super-hot woman, it's always Angelina's name that gets plugged in. Somehow, I'm missing the obvious.

There. I think I'm done now.

 

[heart]

Gosh Matoon is the best hater!

The best and tightly phrased justifications for his hate of anyone in this thread.

I'm in awe at how poorly I hate in comparison and here I thought I was so adept.

I am really, really into period pieces but I loathe the Scarlet Pimpernel.

 

[colmena]

And I defy anyone having the slightest glimmer of anything resembling humanity buried somewhere in their soul to watch Grave of the Fireflies without crying. I'm serious.

From my favourite reviewer:

Surely anime's greatest triumph, "...Fireflies" IS nonetheless manipulative, it is not "anti-war" (whatever that means), and I wouldn't call it "depressing" either. It's beyond poignant however; an amazingly beautiful tragedy, woven with maybe the most affecting, poetic animated language ever constructed. When the tragedy comes, questions of fault seem beside the real point; whilst the firefly may die so soon, the images of its glowing will live on til the end of time.

As many have said, it's anime for those who don't like anime. It's diligently realist, but live-capture could never have been so affecting. As though the facade of animation is required to be able to deal with the subject matter.

There's also plenty of subtext to ponder over afterwards. I highly recommend getting the special edition DVD as it provides historical context as well as interviews with Takahata and acclaimed critic, Roger Ebert.

 

[Domino]

That Martoon! Gold-medal hater!

 

[Ivy]

Re: Thoreau. I'm sorry, camping a mile and a half from civilization (on land owned by Emerson, btw) does not self-reliance make. And it's easy to protest taxation and spend the night in jail when you have a rich aunt who can just pay them for you.

I actually like his spunk. He's just overhyped and idealized, IMO. Like most literary figures and artists. I think we just need to be careful not to turn them into gods. Emerson is assailable, I just have a personal affection for him that goes beyond the literature.

 

[pure_mercury]

Re: Thoreau. I'm sorry, camping a mile and a half from civilization (on land owned by Emerson, btw) does not self-reliance make. And it's easy to protest taxation and spend the night in jail when you have a rich aunt who can just pay them for you.

I like Thoreau more than Emerson because of the ideas and the literary style. I try not to lionize or criticize artists based on their lifestyles (it makes for interesting ways to appreciate their work, but it's ultimately tertiary, at best). That's why I never understood the Hunter S. Thompson love from the college set. I know the guy did a massive amount of drugs, but I doubt they have read anything besides Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (and possibly The Kentucky Derby Is Depraved and Decadent, which I really enjoyed). They like the maniac persona.

 

[Martoon]

Gosh Matoon is the best hater!

Ummm... thanks, I think. Not really a title I want. I didn't get involved in this thread for a long time, because I didn't feel that I'm that invested as a hater (I excel in apathy), and I saw the cost/benefit analysis of ranting on things that don't happen to appeal to me, but have no practical bearing on my life, as having a negative-sum result. It comes at the cost of offending (sometimes even hurting) people who happen to like some of these things, often to the point of being quite personally invested. And I can't really come up with a benefit.

I guess what I'm saying is, I really hate it when people do this. You all suck. Big time. <-- (Please note the winking smiley, indicating that this is said in jest. Very affectionate jest, in fact. I love you guys. See? No smiley there. I'm serious.)

But I thought I'd play along and give it a shot, and I'm a little surprised at what came out.

The best and tightly phrased justifications for his hate of anyone in this thread.

That I have to disagree with. There have been several posts in this thread that have much more eloquently made their point than mine did. And in any case, they're all trumped by Ivy's Fisticuffs of Inescapable Doom. Which in turn shrinks into the vanishing point next to the galaxy-consuming, white-hot, mind-rending cries of rage of a myriad hellspawns that is lulah's loathing of Ms. Field.

I'm in awe at how poorly I hate in comparison and here I thought I was so adept.

Also inaccurate. You are a class A hater. I mean that.

I am really, really into period pieces

Lol. Somehow, that doesn't surprise me. Possibly informed by every avatar you've ever had.

How about a three-way sing-a-long of it by Sally Field, Michelle Pfeiffer and Sally Struthers.

Wow. Just... wow. Okay, that would push me over the edge. Both Sallys, and the Pfeiffer? I must purge this from my mind. And I blame you if I fail.

Emerson is assailable, I just have a personal affection for him that goes beyond the literature.

Ivy and Emerson, sittin' in a tree...

 

[Ivy]

I like Thoreau more than Emerson because of the ideas and the literary style. I try not to lionize or criticize artists based on their lifestyles (it makes for interesting ways to appreciate their work, but it's ultimately tertiary, at best). That's why I never understood the Hunter S. Thompson love from the college set. I know the guy did a massive amount of drugs, but I doubt they have read anything besides Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (and possibly The Kentucky Derby Is Depraved and Decadent, which I really enjoyed). They like the maniac persona.

IMO you can't divorce the author from the work. It's not the only or even always the most important consideration, but the ideas didn't just appear in a vacuum.

Sign me,
Not a New Critic

 

[pure_mercury]

IMO you can't divorce the author from the work. It's not the only or even always the most important consideration, but the ideas didn't just appear in a vacuum.

Sign me,
Not a New Critic

I try to focus on the work as much as possible. Especially with music. There are plenty of tools who have made great music, and plenty of nice people who should be silenced forever. Also, the fanbase can be very annoying for artists with some talent (Radiohead, Chuck Palahniuk, Tim Burton, etc). Acknowledge the themes and subtexts, but don't make critical decisions based on perceptions of the artist.

 

[Ivy]

That said, they ALL have personal foibles and you're correct that it doesn't make sense to demonize them based on those, or elevate them based on their awesome personalities. Still, their lives can be extremely interesting and some of them actually did seem to be larger-than-life.

Hemingway, IMO, is an interesting study in this. Some of his personal details should make him seem like a douche, but the totality of them are so over-the-top that it just adds to a fucking rock star devil-may-care asshole you can't help but adore. (Or I can't, anyway.) Wouldn't have dated or married him if you paid me, but good Lord he was a beautiful jackass.

 

[pure_mercury]

That said, they ALL have personal foibles and you're correct that it doesn't make sense to demonize them based on those, or elevate them based on their awesome personalities. Still, their lives can be extremely interesting and some of them actually did seem to be larger-than-life.

Hemingway, IMO, is an interesting study in this. Some of his personal details should make him seem like a douche, but the totality of them are so over-the-top that it just adds to a fucking rock star devil-may-care asshole you can't help but adore. (Or I can't, anyway.) Wouldn't have dated or married him if you paid me, but good Lord he was a beautiful jackass.

Good writer, awesomely interesting life. The two are distinct (not totally separate, but still distinct) in my mind.

 

[Ivy]

I try to focus on the work as much as possible. Especially with music. There are plenty of tools who have made great music, and plenty of nice people who should be silenced forever. Also, the fanbase can be very annoying for artists with some talent (Radiohead, Chuck Palahniuk, Tim Burton, etc). Acknowledge the themes and subtexts, but don't make critical decisions based on perceptions of the artist.

I can ride with this, to a degree, but isn't a work always part of a larger context? Not just the author's life and personality. I find Mary Shelley's life to be fascinating but I can't stand her as an author, for the most part, but at the same time she is an "important" author because of where/when/why she wrote and who she affected, if not a particularly good one IMO.

 

[Ivy]

Good writer, awesomely interesting life. The two are distinct (not totally separate, but still distinct) in my mind.

Sounds good. I like to think we can consider literature and art using different frameworks for different purposes. If I'm understanding you correctly you're saying you prefer not to evaluate the quality of the work in light of the author's details, and I definitely agree with that. Sometimes the author's details or the context of the work within a culture or canon make work that isn't otherwise all that interesting, worth reading. To me. But it doesn't make it good. See: Paradise Lost.