do we actually NEED different forms of entertainment?

Recommended Videos

Torkuda

New member
Nov 7, 2013
219
0
0
I?ve seen many critics try to tell us what we do or don?t need from a movie or a show. Well, watching the Bleach series, a series known for its stupidity and not giving its audience what it ?needs?, I?ve actually started to wonder about something.

I watch Bleach because it is a relentless guy type story, where a single person and his friends constantly turn the tide against great evils. It makes me feel good. The evil is black and white and the philosophies of the good guys go relatively unchallenged. Good is shown to triumph through determination, but really the show, in the end, is showing good winning because it is good. I suppose the underlying message is supposed to be that good things are more worth fighting for so it only makes sense you could have more determination.

Yes, it?s easy as hell to tear down every argument the show makes. Determination has nothing to do with the real value of what you?re fighting for. Duh. However, the series does offer a reinforcement of the feeling that determination and values do matter. A primitive reinforcement, but let?s not forget, no matter how smart we are, those primitive parts of us are still there. We still need to feel that we can win and that there?s something worth fighting for.

On the other hand, of course we need our values challenged. Works like Watchmen are pretty good at this. To those of us living in the states, it asks, where is this ?American dream? really leading us? Can we actually be saved, or are we as a species so hopeless that salvation can only come by someone being worse to us than we are being to ourselves? And if that?s the case, are we really worth saving? These are things we have to think about as we try to improve our world as it actually exists.

Or even shows like Star Trek, which is often yelled at for showing socialism in an ideal unchallenged setting, where all other political systems are shown as inferior. Okay, so yea, socialism is a political system like every other, great in theory, but falls apart in practice. Be honest capitalists, it?s not like your system is any different in that regard. However Star Trek does explore how that system could be set up, and the reasons why we might do it. After all, only seeing socialism in a debate or only seeing it put down will give you a skewed understanding of it. Even if it is bad, you can?t understand how to challenge it if you never see how other people see it.

Heck you want a flaw with all of these shows? They teach the mistaken idea that any one person, group or even nation can actually save humanity. That?s complete and utter bull. We?re all different people with different views. You can?t change everyone?s mind through your own actions, no matter how forceful or logical. We?ve learned from Nazi?s still existing and still being just as nasty, that even if the majority believes one way, there will even then still be a minority that thinks about things the wrong way. Even a majority can?t set straight a minority. Let alone what one group or nation can do. You can?t save the world. Period. Even Watchmen got that wrong. It can?t be done. But still, if no one tries, we?re all going to be even more doomed and any chance we have of improving ourselves will fade. So actually, is it still good to show people saving the world as individuals, even if that is indeed impossible? Do all shows need to show us folks only saving one or two people in down to earth situations and social change only occurring when people get proper backing?

So actually, is it true that all of these kinds of programs have something to offer? Or is there really a kind of entertainment that offers us nothing?
 

Hero in a half shell

It's not easy being green
Dec 30, 2009
4,286
0
0
So you're saying that all stories in all entertainment across all media should just show... the underdog losing all the time and nothing changing because that's more realistic?

Sidestepping the points of entertainment being unrealistic fantasy escapism, there's a bigger flaw here:

Sometimes the underdog kicks ass, and although it doesn't happen all the time it does happen. Sometimes the good guys go out there and although they are underpowered and underfunded and undervalued, they are able to achieve victories you would have never thought possible, whether militarily, politically, in a sports game or just a school playground.

As unrealistic as it is to display the heroes as scrappy underdogs that win despite the odds, changing the stories so that the underdogs never ever win is just as unrealistic, and totally bogus.

Things do change for the better. Look at the advances in our quality of life recently. If you live in a first world country and can afford an internet connection, then it's almost certain that you have a higher quality of life than the Kings and Queens of England 100 years ago That's some damn fine human advancement right there folks.

And the people who achieved these feats? A handful of politicians, scientists, engineers and philanthropists whose determination, dedication, and hard work brought them through the problems they faced.

Life is tough, it isn't always like the movies, but individuals can have a drastic effect on the world if they dedicate themselves to the cause and give it their all. Just ask Norman Ernest Borlaug.
 

Torkuda

New member
Nov 7, 2013
219
0
0
Sleekit said:
Torkuda said:
Even Watchmen got that wrong. It can?t be done. But still, if no one tries, we?re all going to be even more doomed and any chance we have of improving ourselves will fade.
jebus...look wait til you've lived 30 years and try and learn to actually observe the world as it is.

the world is a far, far better place than even it was 30 years ago.

this is one of the most peaceful periods in human history and more than that it's following a very clear long term trend.

economically the world is far, far richer than we have even begun to scratch the surface of and again the long term trend is constantly onward and upward.

have a little faith and stop watching "24hr news"...
Actually I'll be 30 Tuesday friend. I love how whenever someone points out the flaw in thinking one person can save the world, everyone is quick to assume that person is being a negativist, rather than just a pragmatist. Sorry, the Waynes Brothers are never going to come along and write a song that makes us all love each other. It won't happen because it can't. Honestly, that's a GOOD thing. Because imagine if we lived in this fanciful world where a single song can make us all better people just by listening to it. Isn't the opposite then also possible? Can't someone then write a bad song and throw the world into chaos?

Here's reality. WWI and WWII were two of the most devastating wars in human history, if not the most devastating period. WWII only ended in 1945, that's only 69 years ago. That means adults that were alive then are still alive now. And then let's not forget the regimes of Mao and Stalin. Some estimates say Stalin's government was responsible for around 49 (http://www.ibtimes.com/how-many-people-did-joseph-stalin-kill-1111789) million deaths. Mao's governemnt, maybe 78 million (http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html). Even some of the more barbaric civilizations in our history would have been shocked by that. Let's not forget, taking out one of the worst genocide orchestrators in history, Saddam Hussein, was controversial in this generation, with valid points being accessible as to why it shouldn't have happened. That's how bad off we are right now. Taking down a mass murderer was something we could NOT unite over and say "yea, that was a good thing".

But that's just facing reality. It's not a statement that things can't get better, it's just realizing that there is no magic formula. Communism, Statism, capitalism, none of these systems ever really saved us. What did make some of our lives better? Working together for a greater good I suppose. But did you catch the key word there? Together. Britain was wrong to think they could enlighten the world, just as wrong as the US is to think so now. Carl Marx's ideal system utterly failed. However, Martin Luther King's vision arguably did not fail. Why? Because people rallied behind it. Eventually we have to face reality. The world isn't suddenly going to be saved by any definition. Maybe over time, with commitment from enough people it can ultimately get better, but it can't just turn around. Does realizing this make me hopeless? No.

What, you can't be satisfied with helping one person? It's not good enough to feed one hungry person if you can't feed them all? It's bad that people living in the first world live well if people don't live as well in third world countries? A child with good parents isn't good enough if another is abused? I hate that bad things happen and we all want them to stop and we even want to dream that we can stop them just by throwing a switch or something like that, but we can't. However really, you can feed one hungry person. You can give one person reassurance. You can rescue a few children from bad homes. Even if that doesn't change the world, it's still worth it to do those things. Actually, I might say that our entertainment market floods us with so many images of that not being enough that we've started to think it isn't. Actually the math really does check. If all the rich and middle class decided to help their neighbors, this world would be a MUCH better place. If they all tried hopelessly to save the world themselves, they would all fail and get nowhere.

Still though, I have no objection to people having some kind of faith that maybe, just maybe, I'm wrong and there is a magic formula to save us all. If nothing else, it gives them hope and a reason to keep trying.
 

Torkuda

New member
Nov 7, 2013
219
0
0
Hero in a half shell said:
So you're saying that all stories in all entertainment across all media should just show... the underdog losing all the time and nothing changing because that's more realistic?

Sidestepping the points of entertainment being unrealistic fantasy escapism, there's a bigger flaw here:

Sometimes the underdog kicks ass, and although it doesn't happen all the time it does happen. Sometimes the good guys go out there and although they are underpowered and underfunded and undervalued, they are able to achieve victories you would have never thought possible, whether militarily, politically, in a sports game or just a school playground.

As unrealistic as it is to display the heroes as scrappy underdogs that win despite the odds, changing the stories so that the underdogs never ever win is just as unrealistic, and totally bogus.

Things do change for the better. Look at the advances in our quality of life recently. If you live in a first world country and can afford an internet connection, then it's almost certain that you have a higher quality of life than the Kings and Queens of England 100 years ago That's some damn fine human advancement right there folks.

And the people who achieved these feats? A handful of politicians, scientists, engineers and philanthropists whose determination, dedication, and hard work brought them through the problems they faced.

Life is tough, it isn't always like the movies, but individuals can have a drastic effect on the world if they dedicate themselves to the cause and give it their all. Just ask Norman Ernest Borlaug.
Actually I was saying that all entertainment has flaws, but I was asking if it all still seems to have a point anyway. Didn't I say I LIKED Bleach? Pretty hard to say a fan of that show could be much of a critic of underdog shows.
 

Flutterguy

New member
Jun 26, 2011
970
0
0
I see what you are saying, that a single perception or code of morals and reasoning cannot control our species. However the question at the end has me misconstrued. I'll try my best to answer.

A Stephen Hawking lecture is informative, but does not have an entertaining thrill to shake a bad mood for most people. Then you have something like Bleach. Feeds basic emotional desire and looks cool from time to time. You still learn by watching bleach, but it is more a learning of the self and your reaction to the stimulant. Introspective shit ya dig. Logically you are learning, but quality of education is arguable.

Some things I personally can't stand would be that certain brand of youtube jokesters like pewdipie who just act incredibly dumb and overreact to everything. Some people actually emulate/quote that shit trying to be funny... Then shows like 'happy tree friends' which rely entirely on shock value. I deem these things as counter-educational, aside from teaching you to stop watching them.

All this being said, realistically look at popular hobbies. Casinos, lotteries, drugs, skateboarding, fighting, masochism, drinking, mountain climbing, smoking, binge eating.. We love to be at risk. We love watching mindless TV or playing DotA for a day straight not because we want to be learned. We do it because self destruction is fun. So is it any wonder the movie/game industries would largely represent just that?
 

Torkuda

New member
Nov 7, 2013
219
0
0
Flutterguy said:
Some things I personally can't stand would be that certain brand of youtube jokesters like pewdipie who just act incredibly dumb and overreact to everything. Some people actually emulate/quote that shit trying to be funny... Then shows like 'happy tree friends' which rely entirely on shock value. I deem these things as counter-educational, aside from teaching you to stop watching them.
To the rest of what you said, thank you for reading all of what I said, instead of just trying to find something to react to. I'm a pragmatist, not a negativist, thanks for noticing the difference.

Next, it's hard to argue for "junk entertainment" without having examples so I'll just look at "Happy Tree Friends". Actually that series can teach you do loosen up. We humans HAVE violent tendencies, isn't it better to find a constructive or at least safe outlet for those tendencies than unrealistically trying to repress them?
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
The answer to your question is summed up in one sentence: "Variety is the spice of life."

We can argue the validity of some shows until the cows come home and Red Green runs out of duct tape (which happened once), but the glaring answer is YES...because as humans with curiosity as one of our fundamental natures, we must always strive for new and different things as the alternative is to stop and stagnate as a species.
 

michael87cn

New member
Jan 12, 2011
922
0
0
I'm thankful to have a place to live, and food to eat. Let alone worry about my entertainment being perfect.
 

skywolfblue

New member
Jul 17, 2011
1,514
0
0
Torkuda said:
So actually, is it true that all of these kinds of programs have something to offer? Or is there really a kind of entertainment that offers us nothing?
I'd say a lot (not all) of modern TV programming offers nothing. Shows with no reason, rhyme, or redeeming value. Hollow time-wasters for empty channels that are there for no purpose other then to deliver Advertisements. Though I'm not sure they really qualify for the term "Entertainment" anymore.
 

MeChaNiZ3D

New member
Aug 30, 2011
3,104
0
0
Ok. That is not a good question and the OP makes it even worse because I have no fucking idea what you're asking.

If it amounts to "Are media that explore ideas in a somewhat flawed way worthwhile?", then yes, depending on how crucial the flaws are. In the case of one guy or group saving the world, that doesn't necessarily detract from the ideologies at hand. A much larger group with the same mindset could have pursued the same course except that people want to see action and character development and the focus of a smaller group of protagonists than, say, the entire Alliance. Which brings me to my second point, even without an intellectual point or an exploration, entertainment can be completely shallow and still serve the purpose of passing the time enjoyably, see also Pacific Rim.

If that isn't what you meant, maybe make yourself clearer? I did try.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,538
4,128
118
Not sure if I understand the OP.

Are you saying that there's no magic wand to wave and everything is fixed? In that, I agree.

Take Harry Potter for example. Bit of a spoiler, but he wins. Voldemort is defeated. Nobody seems to care about all the problems they had that put him in power in the first place, though. The social order isn't changed. Wizards still consider themselves better than muggles, elves, goblins, centaurs et al. They still get all the potentially evil wizards and stick them in evil house to be evil.

Just replace the bad ruler with the good one, and the system will toggle from bad to good as well. Doesn't work like that.

I'd also agree about the importance of small victories. The big bad evil is going to be defeated, that's what they are for. It's not remotely applicable in real life, though. Doing the right thing, supporting those who need and deserve it, and abandoning those who deserve that, that's what matters.
 

Torkuda

New member
Nov 7, 2013
219
0
0
thaluikhain said:
Not sure if I understand the OP.

Are you saying that there's no magic wand to wave and everything is fixed? In that, I agree.

Take Harry Potter for example. Bit of a spoiler, but he wins. Voldemort is defeated. Nobody seems to care about all the problems they had that put him in power in the first place, though. The social order isn't changed. Wizards still consider themselves better than muggles, elves, goblins, centaurs et al. They still get all the potentially evil wizards and stick them in evil house to be evil.

Just replace the bad ruler with the good one, and the system will toggle from bad to good as well. Doesn't work like that.

I'd also agree about the importance of small victories. The big bad evil is going to be defeated, that's what they are for. It's not remotely applicable in real life, though. Doing the right thing, supporting those who need and deserve it, and abandoning those who deserve that, that's what matters.
Really I'm just looking at flawed entertainment and asking if it still serves a purpose. To Harry Potter, actually I don't like that series, but I'll give this a shot. Harry is shown living in a flawed system and flawed world. However he saves his friends and that world anyway because it's the right thing to do. What if a radical Christian mother has her child kidnapped? You think you should just let that one go? Our morals are more challenged in a setting that's not our ideal, than they are in an ideal system.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,538
4,128
118
Torkuda said:
Really I'm just looking at flawed entertainment and asking if it still serves a purpose. To Harry Potter, actually I don't like that series, but I'll give this a shot. Harry is shown living in a flawed system and flawed world. However he saves his friends and that world anyway because it's the right thing to do. What if a radical Christian mother has her child kidnapped? You think you should just let that one go? Our morals are more challenged in a setting that's not our ideal, than they are in an ideal system.
Ah, you mean dealing with grey areas, instead of obvious right vs wrong?

...

Actually, I really hate it when things try to be both. For example, the DS9 episode, where they eventually decided that they wouldn't institute any security measures at all against the terrible enemy that could destroy them, because doing so would be changing their society, and being resistant to change is somehow always good. That is absurd.
 

Torkuda

New member
Nov 7, 2013
219
0
0
thaluikhain said:
...

Actually, I really hate it when things try to be both. For example, the DS9 episode, where they eventually decided that they wouldn't institute any security measures at all against the terrible enemy that could destroy them, because doing so would be changing their society, and being resistant to change is somehow always good. That is absurd.
Can't talk to that. Don't know what episode you're referring to and I was never a fan of DS9. I will say that many Star Trek episodes go over board with the "prime directive". Course then, what's the point of a law, especially a "prime" or supreme law (like America's constitution) if you don't follow it? Also, maybe the Star Trek system is too rigid. Real question is, would have thought much about the flaws of rigid systems, if you didn't see them demonstrated so clearly for you? Many people look at "prime directive" episodes and assume that the writers of Star Trek mean to portray it as always right. Actually seems to me those episodes are MEANT to make you think. And if you do, they've taught you something. After all, rigid systems exist out there, even in governments and communities we appreciate. Sometimes they have a point. We rigidly insist adult child sex is wrong. Sometimes they're stupid. We rigidly insisted for a while that homosexuality was on the same level... somehow.
 

Torkuda

New member
Nov 7, 2013
219
0
0
King Whurdler said:
So, because the views espoused by your ESCAPIST FANTASY are flawed, they're not worth anything? Would you rather it be in a vacuum where only one viewpoint is shown to everyone so we can all unanimously agree? Honestly, I think you just sound like a nihilist with this one.

No, the ideals behind our shows might not be perfect, but as previously stated, it's better than sitting in the same place, doing the same thing, every day, from birth till death. The handy little adage I like to stick to is: 'if we don't innovate, we stagnate!'
I love how in reality I'm defending imperfect entertainment, but people are reading so little of what I say they're talking about how I want perfection.
 

balladbird

Master of Lancer
Legacy
Jan 25, 2012
972
2
13
Country
United States
Gender
male
Torkuda said:
I watch Bleach because it is a relentless guy type story, where a single person and his friends constantly turn the tide against great evils. It makes me feel good. The evil is black and white and the philosophies of the good guys go relatively unchallenged. Good is shown to triumph through determination, but really the show, in the end, is showing good winning because it is good. I suppose the underlying message is supposed to be that good things are more worth fighting for so it only makes sense you could have more determination.
Eh, Bleach tries to change up its morality at times. During the end of the arrancar arc alone you had a debate over the concept of beauty wherein the villain espouses it comes from the soul and the hero claims it comes from appearances alone (the hero won.) the villain believes combat should be conducted with honor and decorum, while the hero holds fast to an "ends justify the means" philosophy (and wins.) There's also one of the best examples of a temporary reversal of black/white morality I've seen in shonen in a good long while, where even the perspective of the comic starts to portray the villain as if he were the hero, showing his thoughts and feelings as though he were fighting against a formidable enemy, and ending with the canonically "good" using the rationale that war makes all people evil to justify slaying a noble enemy. (See the Shunsui vs. Starrk fight)

I suppose I'm being pedantic, though. for the most part it's as you say... I just devoted waaaay too much time in the years from 2007-2011 reading bleach. XD