When has something been too mean-spirited or cruel for you to enjoy?

[IOwnTheSpire]

You're missing what I'm saying. The show EXPLICITLY says that Tommen is NOT of age. Margaery is clearly taking advantage of his vulnerability and naivete. Natalie Dormer herself corroborated this AND condemned her character's actions. The problem with this scenario is that they portray what is clearly sexual abuse as being cute and light-hearted (or as the creators of the show said, cheeky).

There was a comedy show on British TV a while back called Brass Eye, which used to run fake exposes and stories in the style of a documentary or current affairs show. One episode, which I would link to but won't because it features nudity and I'm not sure on the policy, featured a "reenactment" of a Victorian man having sex with a child prostitute (played by a 25 year old actress) and shot in a highly pornographic style which emphasized the woman's bare breasts (which, the narrator helpfully reminded us, was inaccurate, as children don't have breasts), the joke being that the audience was being told that what they were watching was something unpleasant, but the visual impression didn't match the narration.

Dean Charles Chapman is eighteen. He in no way looks like a child. The visual impression given during those scenes was overwhelmingly positive because, while Natalie Dormer was about a decade older than Chapman, the actual visual impression is very much that nothing is wrong. The controversy comes entirely from context, and even then it's not actually clear why. Tommens age is never actually confirmed, I don't even recall when it was stated that he was underage (indeed, noone seems to know what the age of adulthood actually is in TV show Westeros, or why it should suddenly apply now when it didn't apply to Sansa Stark during her marriage with Tyrion, for example). A lot of the controversy seems to come from interviews Chapman did, in which he stated that he had interpreted his characters age at still being around 12, and thus found the scenes personally quite uncomfortable. The most obvious explanation is simply that he was wrong, or rather that his own character was poorly explained to him, which is a failure somewhere down the pipeline but does not in any way imply some intent to downplay child abuse.

In the previous episode, it was explicitly stated that Tommen is underage, which means by Westerosi law, he can't consummate a marriage. Another thing to keep in mind is that Chapman was cast as Tommen for Season 4 over the other much younger actor who DOES look like a child, which means the creators likely wanted to make the relationship sexual even though it wasn't necessary. [URL="http://theculturalvacuum.tumblr.com/post/117806525944/trading-kittens-for-coitus" (title,target)]This[/URL] article explains much of what I'm trying to say.

Oh ... is that all?

In terms of the kinds of things that happen in the show, some young king being bedded by his queen too early is hardly going to elicit any kind of reaction. What's more, to me it seemed like her actions were pretty clearly portrayed as manipulative rather than cute.

The manipulations themselves were portrayed as cute, not to mention Tommen being underage, what she's doing is illegal. Do you think if the genders of the characters were flipped, the reaction would be any different?

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

James Gunn's Super comes to mind. It's been a few years since I saw it, but mean-spirited and cruel were absolutely what I came away with after the credits rolled.

A couple of movies come to mind immediately. Dark Knight Rises is one of them, Zero Dark Thirty is another.

ZDT is a little more obvious, I think. I was unable to watch it all the way through, jumping ship shortly after the first torture scene. Way too gruesome for me.

Apologies if someone else has addressed this, given I've not checked out any posts or pages further into the thread, but I can't understand how anyone can suggest Zero Dark Thirty was either mean spirited or cruel. Besides, isn't it rather unfair and/or inaccurate to say that if you've not seen the whole film?

I think it's an incredible film, and whilst two notable scenes early on aren't exactly pleasant, they represent a kind of dramatitised journalism (of a culture and era of intelligence services, as well as the global climate re post-9/11 responses to terrorism. I see it as a bit of a companion piece to Spielberg's Munich - it's about a response to violence/horror on a collective and individual level) - the entire film is detached, sure, but only because it allows the viewer to parse what's going on and come to their own conclusions by the time the superb final shot plays out. It never leads by the hand, condemns, or judges (elaborating on what I think the film might 'say' or thematically imply would require spoilers, so I'll not go there. suffice to say the final shot is important to that).

As a pure piece of meticulously crafted cinema I think it's a must watch; from the acting, photography, sublimely understated score (by Alexandre Desplat), to how it doesn't pull its punches regarding tone. I've seen it a few times, now, and instead of mean spirited or cruel I'd call it cerebrally humane.

I've started watching everything by Lars "I'm a Nazi" Von Trier. On the one hand, I find his films weirdly fascinating and well made, but on the other I'm turned off by his overly bleak view of humanity. I wouldn't call myself an optimist, but his films are so cruel that they can be either unbearable or funny. I liked Melancholia, but antichrist left me feeling sick. It's not just that it was a cruel film, it was just so pointlessly disturbing. I don't really know where he was going with it.

I really don't have much time for him as an individual, and none of his films seem to be my cup of tea. The only one I've seen all the way through was Antichrist, and it actually kinda endeared me to him... I think he's a self-indulgent provocateur, who doesn't seem to even know himself whether he's just provoking for the sake or it (for attention, for a reaction), or whether he really believes in what he may say or put up on screen.

But to call Antichrist 'existentially doom-laden and atmospheric' would be an understatement... So as a pure cinematic spectacle is was kinda compulsive viewing, and I've certainly never seen anything quite like it. So despite thinking he's a bit of a pretentious misogynistic prick, I'm kinda glad someone's making films that--- er, distinct. It had me mulling it over for several days, and I'd like to see it again sometime.

Melancholia's the film of his I'd most like to see next.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

...

Oh ... is that all?

In terms of the kinds of things that happen in the show, some young king being bedded by his queen too early is hardly going to elicit any kind of reaction. What's more, to me it seemed like her actions were pretty clearly portrayed as manipulative rather than cute.

The manipulations themselves were portrayed as cute, not to mention Tommen being underage, what she's doing is illegal. Do you think if the genders of the characters were flipped, the reaction would be any different?

I didn't really get that perception; I felt she was trying to act cute in order to manipulate him, but her actions when not around him show her true intentions as a desire for power.

As for the reaction towards a gender flipped version, I'm sure it would be different, though I don't see what this hypothetical situation has to do with anything. Even if it were a dirty old many trying to fuck an underage boy it still wouldn't make the top ten list of "immoral things that happen on GoT".

 

[IOwnTheSpire]

...

Oh ... is that all?

In terms of the kinds of things that happen in the show, some young king being bedded by his queen too early is hardly going to elicit any kind of reaction. What's more, to me it seemed like her actions were pretty clearly portrayed as manipulative rather than cute.

The manipulations themselves were portrayed as cute, not to mention Tommen being underage, what she's doing is illegal. Do you think if the genders of the characters were flipped, the reaction would be any different?

I didn't really get that perception; I felt she was trying to act cute in order to manipulate him, but her actions when not around him show her true intentions as a desire for power.

As for the reaction towards a gender flipped version, I'm sure it would be different, though I don't see what this hypothetical situation has to do with anything. Even if it were a dirty old many trying to fuck an underage boy it still wouldn't make the top ten list of "immoral things that happen on GoT".

The problem I have is that those other immoral things are portrayed and conveyed in such a way so the audience knows how immoral they are. I saw zero indication, based on the writing and direction of the scene, that what Margaery did was meant to be seen as immoral.

The gender thing is because there's this idea still present in the modern day that when a boy is abused by an attractive woman, he's considered 'lucky', which I've never heard to describe a girl abused by a man. Many people, including some of the cast and crew, still talk about Margaery as though she's some good-hearted person, and I can't imagine a good-hearted person manipulating and abusing a young boy for her own ends.

 

[beastro]

Family Guy is this for me these days and for the past few years. I mean the constant referrals to anyone on the right as a nazi for the longest time (which only stopped after Seth McFarland and Rush Limbaugh became friends), the use of stereotypes as jokes in-and-of-themselves (often times that didn't even make sense) and the poor attempts at mocking people McFarland disagrees with just turned me off, even more so then the gross-out ever did.

It feels these days that Family Guy is trying to be South Park on a lower TV rating, only with none of the wit.

This is one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time, thank you. Mainstream American network TV, on Fox no less, is too mean to conservatives! I can see through what skin you have.

Spoiler

I kind of have to agree with Zontar. Not so much because I love conservatism so much, but because Family Guy is so heavy handed that it's not even funny any more. It's like FG brought an AR-15 to a paint ball fight - It doesn't matter if I'm on their side, because I didn't come here to be part of a shooting.

Old Simpsons, King of the Hill and other shows had a good nature about them that had you laughing along when you got targeted, regardless of who you were.

Family Guy during its original run once had that, albeit with more edge to it, but when it came back it got carte blance and ceased being amusing. A big part of comedy, especially on TV, is having censorship to work against and sneak things passed. It pushes the writers to refine their material and make it wittier than it otherwise would be.

 

[Fox12]

James Gunn's Super comes to mind. It's been a few years since I saw it, but mean-spirited and cruel were absolutely what I came away with after the credits rolled.

A couple of movies come to mind immediately. Dark Knight Rises is one of them, Zero Dark Thirty is another.

ZDT is a little more obvious, I think. I was unable to watch it all the way through, jumping ship shortly after the first torture scene. Way too gruesome for me.

Apologies if someone else has addressed this, given I've not checked out any posts or pages further into the thread, but I can't understand how anyone can suggest Zero Dark Thirty was either mean spirited or cruel. Besides, isn't it rather unfair and/or inaccurate to say that if you've not seen the whole film?

I think it's an incredible film, and whilst two notable scenes early on aren't exactly pleasant, they represent a kind of dramatitised journalism (of a culture and era of intelligence services, as well as the global climate re post-9/11 responses to terrorism. I see it as a bit of a companion piece to Spielberg's Munich - it's about a response to violence/horror on a collective and individual level) - the entire film is detached, sure, but only because it allows the viewer to parse what's going on and come to their own conclusions by the time the superb final shot plays out. It never leads by the hand, condemns, or judges (elaborating on what I think the film might 'say' or thematically imply would require spoilers, so I'll not go there. suffice to say the final shot is important to that).

As a pure piece of meticulously crafted cinema I think it's a must watch; from the acting, photography, sublimely understated score (by Alexandre Desplat), to how it doesn't pull its punches regarding tone. I've seen it a few times, now, and instead of mean spirited or cruel I'd call it cerebrally humane.

I've started watching everything by Lars "I'm a Nazi" Von Trier. On the one hand, I find his films weirdly fascinating and well made, but on the other I'm turned off by his overly bleak view of humanity. I wouldn't call myself an optimist, but his films are so cruel that they can be either unbearable or funny. I liked Melancholia, but antichrist left me feeling sick. It's not just that it was a cruel film, it was just so pointlessly disturbing. I don't really know where he was going with it.

I really don't have much time for him as an individual, and none of his films seem to be my cup of tea. The only one I've seen all the way through was Antichrist, and it actually kinda endeared me to him... I think he's a self-indulgent provocateur, who doesn't seem to even know himself whether he's just provoking for the sake or it (for attention, for a reaction), or whether he really believes in what he may say or put up on screen.

But to call Antichrist 'existentially doom-laden and atmospheric' would be an understatement... So as a pure cinematic spectacle is was kinda compulsive viewing, and I've certainly never seen anything quite like it. So despite thinking he's a bit of a pretentious misogynistic prick, I'm kinda glad someone's making films that--- er, distinct. It had me mulling it over for several days, and I'd like to see it again sometime.

Melancholia's the film of his I'd most like to see next.

Melancholia tackles the same themes, but it is a bit more understated, and a bit more organized. Antichrist felt like Eli Roth trying to be artsy. Between the two, I definitely preferred melancholia. It's also a lot more surreal and dream like. Say what you will about Lars, he's certainly a one of a kind, haha.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

I'll echo the sentiment of a lot of other posts and say GTA V as well. I loved all the other games (which were pretty damn mean spirited at times), but they focused so many of the missions on the all-important plot that the horrific characters were harder to live with. I tended to put a small amount of my personality on Niko, Claude, and Tommy, but the three characters were so clearly defined (and obnoxious) in GTA V that it was hard to become engaged with the game. The game seemed determined to make the player not like it, like when Trevor bashes in the face of a previous series protagonist for basically no reason (and it's the first thing he does in the game). And you have to torture a guy, for basically no reason. And the minigame where the strippers "want" you to touch them. These felt more distasteful than the prostitute murders from the previous games, if only because these actions was basically mandatory. If you take away the choice element, it loses its novelty and is just vaguely uncomfortable. It crosses the line from interactive experience to "press button to commit atrocity to proceed to next level," which is what people used to incorrectly accuse the games of being.

 

[Chanticoblues]

I really don't have much time for him as an individual, and none of his films seem to be my cup of tea. The only one I've seen all the way through was Antichrist, and it actually kinda endeared me to him... I think he's a self-indulgent provocateur, who doesn't seem to even know himself whether he's just provoking for the sake or it (for attention, for a reaction), or whether he really believes in what he may say or put up on screen.

But to call Antichrist 'existentially doom-laden and atmospheric' would be an understatement... So as a pure cinematic spectacle is was kinda compulsive viewing, and I've certainly never seen anything quite like it. So despite thinking he's a bit of a pretentious misogynistic prick, I'm kinda glad someone's making films that--- er, distinct. It had me mulling it over for several days, and I'd like to see it again sometime.

Melancholia's the film of his I'd most like to see next.

Melancholia bored the balls off of me. Most of the thing is just an unpleasant wedding bookended by a pair of nihilistic perfume commercials. I'd recommend going older if you can. Europa and Breaking the Waves are both pretty good, though I can't say the same about a lot of his other works that came after.

I guess I'd consider Von Trier mostly unpleasant. Haneke too---I can't think of any other filmmaker that's been praised as much for being mean and didactic toward their own audience.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Melancholia bored the balls off of me. Most of the thing is just an unpleasant wedding bookended by a pair of nihilistic perfume commercials. I'd recommend going older if you can. Europa and Breaking the Waves are both pretty good, though I can't say the same about a lot of his other works that came after.

I guess I'd consider Von Trier mostly unpleasant. Haneke too---I can't think of any other filmmaker that's been praised as much for being mean and didactic toward their own audience.

Nah, from the clips and interviews, Melancholia's definitely one I'd like to see sometime. I like Dunst - especially when she has more of an auteur director to work with - and the whole cosmic angle makes it look (in both senses of the word) interesting.

Just watched the trailer for Europa... and 'weird as fuck' comes to mind. Breaking The Waves actually looks pretty great, though, and endearingly normal for Lars. Huh, that was Emily Watson's debut, as well.

As for Haneke? He's always a name that's lauded, seemingly universally, but I've only seen about thirty minutes of one of his films; Amour, and that at least was rather beautiful and humane.

 

[Chanticoblues]

Dunst is very good in Melancholia. If there's one thing I like about Von Trier it's all the committed performances he gets out of his actors. Breaking the Waves is definitely one of his more grounded films, and out of "I'm going to take a woman and break her down in front of an audience" series its the most sympathetic and balanced.

Amour is one of Haneke's warmer films for certain. Even then, I can't help but feel that he's very attracted to suffering, and even a movie about a pair of old people still falls victim to his shock theatrics. It's practically nothing compared to Benny's Video or Funny Games, though.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Seriously, screw The Departed. I don't care what anyone says, that was one of the most abrupt and crappy endings I ever had the displeasure of viewing. I mean what the hell was even the point of it then?
"Ooooh look at me I'm so dark and edgy and I make everything pointless because that's how life is"
Then piss off and kill yourself already, there's a limit to how much anyone could tolerate crap like this. I mean did ANYONE get the message of the ending? Life sucks and you're just a pawn?

Spoiler

But then what's this about the other rat getting killed as well? And who the hell is Mark Walberg's character anyways?

Do movies need to have a message? Some stories are just tragedies. Did the good guy have to die? No, but that's not always how it works in real life. Walberg was the only one suspicious of Damon, so after both his partner and the guy working under him are murdered, he takes it upon himself to enact vengeance. I do agree though (well, not in the sense that I didn't enjoy the movie), the ending is pretty damn cruel with how sudden the deaths are.

Anyway, a recent example for me would be the assistant's death in Jurassic World. It was completely off in tone from the rest of the movie. She has this brutally torturous death that feels ridiculously over the top compared to any other death in the film. It's like they thought we should be hating her for some reason.

 

[Leg End]

It could be that I gave up way too early, but I didn't make it past the tutorial of Hotline Miami. Within the first second of pressing the start button, the game is telling you to kill people, and the absolute first thing you do is go kill two innocent people who are fleeing from you.
Sorry, no, that's not my fantasy.

If you're meaning the tutorial, I don't remember them fleeing. If it helps, they're Russian mobsters.

The whole Steven Universe fandom controversy (when people bully a fan artist for drawing fanart of the show incorrectly to the point of suicide) has left me a foul taste toward the show.

Dammit Tumblr.

Also no I ain't acting melodramtic by stop watching the shows will make any difference.I still watching it well when it returns! I just find it strange that I watched the show and get an enjoyment from the action, comedy or the character development, some people out there are probably watching it as if it's a gift from gods!

ALL HAIL LORD SUCROSE
But being serious, I'm glad you're still hyped to see it.

Lastly yes I know every fandoms out there has a dark side but I don't recall anything similar to this. I mean not even the Derpy incident from MLP had resulted in someone trying to commit suicide!

That said... when I heard about the SU thing, it was legitimately the first time in my life where I though "okay... the dissenters might be onto something." Every popular thing is gonna attract its fair share of assholes. That's just simple math. but when I heard that, it really made me question what the hell the show does that attracts that kind of toxicity? Porn and some overdefensiveness here and there is one thing, but that was an example of a fanbase punching itself. I just don't get it.

It's an instance of a show attracting everybody, including a very specific type of SJW that enjoys the show but doesn't quite *get* that the show hates them and is not what they think it is. Anyone that can watch the show and enjoy it while telling someone to end their own life because of body depictions has clearly missed the entire point. The fanbase is so large it has pretty much everyone in it, which pretty much happens to anything that has one and it hits a certain level.

As far as the actual topic here, I can't think of anything but maybe modern Spongebob. I'll keep thinking.

 

[s0denone]

Family Guy and South Park always baffle me; I keep wondering how could so many people like that.

But if they like those cartoons, good for them. What really I can't stand is people on the internet giving a like+ to pointless acts of douchebaggery towards other people, children or animals.
There's a video of a guy crushing a poor parrot's cage and the parrot yelling at him. That video got something like 80.000 likes and I would give a punch of the face to those 80.000 people.

I think Family guy is often daft, while South Park can be legitimately funny, if ham-fisted, satire.

On the point of the parrot cage, though, here is the original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM8aBESf8EI
The parrot getting riled up is not the one whose cage it is, and the guy doing it is making a point: That parrots need corners in their cages, so round cages belong in the trash. He is a from a parrot rescue, bud.

http://www.saskatoonparrotrescue.ca/

Maybe reconsider whether you want to punch all those people )

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

I've reconsidered it and I still want to punch them.

They were laughing at a parrot seeming pissed at having his cage smashed. That's what they were laughing at; not a parrot rescue center making a point.

To be honest, they probably planned out the video going "and then we'll smash the round cage, because we're bird enthusiasts and we're sick of people putting their birds in round cages" and then the parrot flipped out and that turned out to be funnier than the original idea.

Seriously, man, they probably didn't even keep that parrot in that cage. They would've had a square cage sitting off-camera that the parrot actually lived in.

Then again I also want to punch in the face anyone who thinks a parrot mimicking human swearing is "funny".
Pro tip: if he learnt to swear it means that parrot's owners are bad people who either swear way too much or who willingly thought to teach the parrot offensive words.

This may surprise you, but swear words are often pretty funny, and parrots swearing is even funnier. Swearing a lot doesn't make you a bad person. Uncouth, maybe. Not face-punch-worthy.

If I had to do some comparative ethical analysis here, punching someone in the face for teaching their parrot to swear is probably a lot worse than teaching a parrot to swear in the first place.

 

[s0denone]

I've reconsidered it and I still want to punch them.

They were laughing at a parrot seeming pissed at having his cage smashed. That's what they were laughing at; not a parrot rescue center making a point.

Then again I also want to punch in the face anyone who thinks a parrot mimicking human swearing is "funny".
Pro tip: if he learnt to swear it means that parrot's owners are bad people who either swear way too much or who willingly thought to teach the parrot offensive words.

I once read on a vet site that a good way to tell if a parrot is well-kept is to see if they learnt to mimick the "smooch" noises.

So we establish that the guy is from an animal rescue, and that they created a video that went viral, in order to raise awareness for the fact that birds need cages with corners. Sure, a lot of people just thought it was funny because the parrot had a seemingly aggressive reaction, but you have to understand that this guy is doing his best to better conditions for that parrots as well as many others.

Pebble, the name of the crazy parrot in the video, has starred in several other youtube videos with the same guy. Some are quite adorable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hto_uvmLq-8

I think you're severaly mistaking the reason people like the video. I have extremely limited experiences with parrots, so it was just surprising and funny to me, how the parrot started going ballistic. People having infantile senses of humour and laughing at a bird saying "fuck" is something you're free to chastise them for, but that seems petty.

I don't think anyone thought it was funny in a mean way, as in laughing because the parrot was mad its cage was being smashed. At the very least, it has to be a minority, and they still contribute to raising awareness for the "round cages", not to mention the parrot rescue. No sense being riled up

Seriously, man, they probably didn't even keep that parrot in that cage. They would've had a square cage sitting off-camera that the parrot actually lived in.

If you just read one-line video description, you can see that the cage is from "JoJo", another rescued parrot, and that "Pebble"(the parrot going crazy) is just "supervising".

 

[WindKnight]

It's an instance of a show attracting everybody, including a very specific type of SJW that enjoys the show but doesn't quite *get* that the show hates them and is not what they think it is. Anyone that can watch the show and enjoy it while telling someone to end their own life because of body depictions has clearly missed the entire point. The fanbase is so large it has pretty much everyone in it, which pretty much happens to anything that has one and it hits a certain level.

As far as the actual topic here, I can't think of anything but maybe modern Spongebob. I'll keep thinking.

It wasn't "SJW's" in that case... someone wanted the artist 'out of the way' so they could have a chance with their partner, and that's why they started the harassment.

 

[Leg End]

It wasn't "SJW's" in that case... someone wanted the artist 'out of the way' so they could have a chance with their partner, and that's why they started the harassment.

That is just absolutely disgusting. Totally, infinitely goddamn disgusting.