Culture & MediaThis is where all of pop culture culminates and chats over a cup of joe. Here you can find discussions relating to the latest and greatest television shows, movies, music and literature, and much more!
It's been said (by who? me, that's who.) that the worst thing a piece of entertainment can be is boring. More than bad, because bad can at least be laughed at, boring entertainment entertains no one never. Do you agree? Disagree? Anything else to say?
Boring's the worst, other than things which are just plain offensive. As you said, bad quality works can just be used as a laughing stock, but when something's boring that obviously implies there's no interest to be had there at all. Even something like a serious documentary wouldn't count as boring if you're interested in the subject/information, so for something to really be boring is an impressive (or should I say unimpressive!) feat. However, worse than being boring is something that's offensive. I've yet to come across anything that offensive so far other than one or two of Frankie Boyle's less PC routines, but I'd much rather sit through something boring rather than something offensive. Although since the point of entertainment is to entertain, boring works really should be bottom of the barrel.
Oh I absolutely agree. I can think of so many examples of awful things that I gain endless amusement from (Rebecca Black, 'Hot Problems' and Valentina Monetta's 'Facebook (Uh Oh Oh)' are excellent examples) but there's just nothing to like in boring things. If you're an entertainer and you're not getting any sort of reaction (good or bad) then you've failed, in my opinion.
If someone classifies something as boring, it's automatically 'bad,' at least in their opinion, is it not? Then again, 'boring' is a very broad, vague term. Boring doesn't deem something universally 'bad.' Some people could perceive plays/musicals as boring but it sure as heck doesn't make them bad by any means. Boring is technically a negative thing when it comes to entertainment, but if some people get some sort of enjoyment out of it, it's fulfilling its role as a piece of entertainment and that's all that needs to be said.
I'd much rather watch/read/listen to a horrible trainwreck of garbage entertainment than something staid and boring but technically competent. That's why I stopped watching Modern Family: it's fine and there's nothing really wrong with it, but it's just boring nowadays and completely reluctant to change anything about itself. As opposed to something like Glee (when I watched it, that is) that was often a complete trainwreck but was fascinating to watch just in terms of how much it vascillated even within a single scene. Of course, then it just became crap as opposed to fascinating, but those three seasons that I did tune in were just whiplash television!
Okay, to expand: boring in the sense of not being engaging or providing you with something to think or talk about. For example, a movie with a predictable plot, static characters, and stilted dialogue. Compare that to a movie with a many plot holes and hammy over-acting. Neither would be 'good' movies objectively, but the latter would have something you could be engaged in, perhaps for the novelty and strangeness of it or the unpredictability (of because it provides more fodder for you to ridicule it with).
The theory is that there are bad things out there, but some fall into the "so bad it's good" category for whatever reason appeals to you, and that a boring movie isn't even bad enough to be worth your time.
Hmm... I would then say in response to the OP that I disagree. There's something to appreciate in almost every production, like how I would only watch the old Star Wars films out of an interest in non-CG effects, not even valuing them as films at all since I do find them boring. The worst entertainment can be is inconsequential, but a lot of inconsequential things are quite exciting, admittedly.