Unpopular Opinions – Nerfed Llamas Edition

Hi everyone! I have, on more than one occasion, taken folks to task for how they engage social media. There is a responsibility that one must consider before they start dropping their “hot takes” and “snarky truths.” The problem is that most people (judging by the collective dumpster fires that are Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram) don’t take this responsibility into consideration before posting their special brand of vitriol and/or rude commentary out for all the whole world to see. My argument was always that if you had a major argument to make, that you should frame it in a way that engages your opponents into a meaningful dialogue that hopefully will win them over to your way of thinking. This is not how social media works at all. I have also maintained that if you are going to just spout off your thoughts without regard for how other people might view those opinions, you should do so on your own space away from social media, say somewhere like a blog. Oh hey! Look! I have a blog. Looks like today is the day that I drop some of my uncouth thoughts on you. You may agree, you may disagree, and either way is just fine by me. If you have something to add to this discussion, hit me up in the comments section below.

So, without further ado, here are 10 of my unpopular opinions that I wish to get off my chest today:

Actors can play any role that they are hired for. Full stop. An actor does not have to be gay to play a homosexual, trans to play a transexual, or even a specific race for that matter. Actors are paid to pretend to be someone else and many of them are exceptionally good at playing a wide range of characters of many different backgrounds, races, and orientations. I’m all for high quality actors playing any part in any movie or TV show that I watch. In watching a ton of TV and movies, I feel that most castings in well made productions work out just fine with the actors convincingly pulling off their designated roles with style and skill. For one reason or another, some of these castings cause an uproar online with a vocal minority and they can make it seem like the world is ending because of a casting decision. The world is just fine and the actor in the role that you would have cast differently will likely do great in the film that you are now dreading. I have a lot of opinions about casting, fan reactions, and Hollywood in general, all of which you can read here: Actor Casting In Beloved Franchises.
Major motion pictures are a profit business first and art second. Give that a minute to marinate as it correlates directly opinion #1. If a movie is being produced by a major film studio, it is looking to turn a profit. In the hunt for positive cash flow, these studios will hire big name acting talent to secure the interest in audiences around the globe. This practice often includes hiring actors to play controversial roles. Now, the counter argument is that representation matters, and it most definitely does. At the same time, the bottom dollar on these big budget motion pictures matters more to the studios. So when an actor gets hired to play a controversial role, it’s not meant to upset anybody, it is specifically designed to sell more movie tickets. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn’t. Each movie is a gamble, even seemingly no-fail slam dunks like Solo – A Star Wars Story can struggle at the box office even without controversial casting. Independent films have the artistic liberty to hire more diverse casts, especially in regards to LGBTQ+ actors, because the budgets are smaller and the necessity to make big bucks is far less. Essentially, with the burden of turning a profit gone, an independent filmmaker can take a whole lot more risks. Independent films are usually art first, profit business second (if at all). An easy way to remember this is if a major studio produced the film directly, it is probably not primarily art but more a profit product with potentially artistic value (ranging from high art to low art depending on the film). If the film is independently produced before distribution, then the film is likely a valid piece of cinema art that may one day find a broader audience and become a profitable venture.
Beating people up for their political beliefs online is a sign of serious psychosis and you likely need professional help. INB4 somebody says I am arguing that you can’t be political online, stop and just continue reading before you say anything. You can believe whatever political belief that you want to and furthermore you can declare those beliefs all day and all night on social media if you want to. My issue is that many can’t seem to state their beliefs without calling names or throwing unnecessarily ugly shade at people that believe something different from them. Not every conservative is a Nazi and not every liberal is a Snowflake. If you have to put a snarkily pointed comment at any point in your political argument, then you have already lost all of your credibility in my book. The only way political discussion works is if people from all different sides of an issue work together to openly discuss the issue and then try to create a solution that will best help the most people. You close the door to civil dialogue the moment you rudely start verbally assaulting your opposition. If you want to see how it should be done, read my blog post on “The Lost Art Of Winning An Argument.”
Concert tickets are too expensive and by and large many performers aren’t worth the price of admission. I have attempted to buy tickets for a handful of live shows over the last couple months and ultimately didn’t buy them because I couldn’t justify the expense. $150 (after all taxes and convenience fees are added on) for 2 people to go see a niche artist in the cheap seats? $130 for 2 people to see a moderately successful stand up comic perform for about an hour? $160 for 2 people to see a decent recording artist at a stadium in the nosebleeds? No thanks. Some shows are worth the expense, but I remember seeing artists and comedians like the ones I wanted to go see for around $30 to $40 bucks a ticket, all fees included, and not that long ago either. The price of concert tickets is highway robbery nowadays and so are their hideous $50 tour shirts that I don’t buy either. I’m sure that someone will argue inflation and the rising costs of blah, blah, blah, and sure that accounts for some of the price increases, but lets be fair: greed is the real reason these ticket prices are as absurd as they are now.
Celebrities charging hundreds of dollars for autographs and photographs is one of the primary reason I don’t go to cons anymore. I used to love going to various anime and comic book conventions and meeting a few celebrities. Certainly there were other reasons to go to a con, but meeting the celebrities was always a ton of fun. Back in the day, the price of admission got you the autograph by default as the celebrity was paid to be there for that purpose. Somewhere along the line, a few started charging money for autographs and photo ops. Even though the initial prices weren’t too bad, it started a trend that spiraled out of control, and now your $40+ dollars ($200 if we are talking San Diego Comic Con) to get in the door gets you no favor with the celebrity guests at all. I love you Stan Lee, and I absolutely respect your legacy in pop culture but I’m not going to pay you $100 to scribble your name on a stock head shot photo. It’s just not going to happen. Here’s a fascinating read from Time Magazine on the insane prices for autographs at a fan convention.
Tobey Maguire was a great Peter Parker, Andrew Garfield was a terrific Spider-Man, and Tom Holland is the best all around Peter/Spidey combo on film, but the only legitimately great film about the character is Spider-Man 2 (2004). You can not change my opinion on this. The only people who could possibly change my mind are Marvel Studios should they choose to make an amazing Spider-Man film starring Tom Holland. Don’t get me wrong, Homecoming was a lot of fun (even if not a great representation of the Spider-Man mythos) but Spider-Man 2 was just about superhero movie perfection. I’m not talking from a “lining up with comics continuity” perspective as no comic book movie does that, but from a film that captures the spirit of the full potential of what a classic Spider-Man story should be. Spider-Man 2 is for me, to this day, still one of the greatest superhero films that I have ever seen. An absolute joy to watch from beginning to end.
BioWare made a huge mistake with Mass Effect Andromeda and Anthem is not the best game for them to release directly after Andromeda. Note, I did not say that Anthem would be bad, nor did I say that it would fail. On the contrary, I think Anthem looks like a quite capable shared world shooter that has a lot of potential. My concern is that many BioWare fans are still stinging from the crushing disappointment that was Mass Effect Andromeda (which whether you enjoyed Andromeda or not – I did – it was still a disappointment to a mass audience) and are wanting a traditional BioWare RPG and not a big online always co-op shooter with light RPG and story elements. Anthem is such a huge departure from what BioWare usually produces, that I fear that if the game is a huge success it will fundamentally change the type of games that BioWare makes. A potential repercussion of this would be that many fans of BioWare’s previous games will be replaced with a different fan set and as such the studio will continue to develop games for the newer fans. The studio has already mentioned that they are looking to make some smaller unique games as well, and all of this said while their flagship fantasy RPG Dragon Age is still in its nascent stage. I am genuinely concerned that we are about to lose traditional single player RPGs made by BioWare because of the shifting of video games in general from the single player model to the newer “Games As A Service” multiplayer model. I hope that I am wrong, as BioWare is one of my favorite developers and Mass Effect is my favorite gaming series. Regardless, I still have my fingers crossed that BioWare can produce new types of games like Anthem and still churn out quality RPGs like Mass Effect and Dragon Age at the same time.
All First Person RPG/Adventure games should have an optional Third Person mode. Yeah. I said it. First Person perspective in long form RPG and adventure games suck, hard. I know that the decision to go First Person is supposed to immerse me into the game world more deeply, but it has the opposite effect for me as it makes the game instantly impersonal and cold. I spent all of that time creating a character that I’ll never get to see except during the odd cutscene, which makes me wonder why I even bothered in the first place. Also, I find that standard FPS mechanics don’t work nearly as well outside of shooters, especially if there is any kind of platforming or exploration where camera control while you are moving is key. There is also a motion sickness issue (not that I suffer from it, but many gamers do) and it makes some people pass on a great game because they can’t tolerate FPS style gaming. I just find it odd in this day and age, with games costing the same to produce as a big budget Hollywood movie, that both a First and Third Person perspective can’t be put in a game. Bethesda Game Studios has put both perspectives in their games for years, why can’t the rest of the industry jump on this bandwagon?
Nate Drake and Lara Croft are essentially serial killers and why is no one talking about this? Seriously, both of them are archaeologists/explorers and neither of them should be killing people for any reason. Yet, game after game we have to watch these everyday civilians kill hundreds, literally hundreds of nefarious bandits, henchman, and other villains in order to obtain the treasure that they seek. Look, I get that there will be an occasional kill from self defensive, but the amount of murder that you have to do in these games is beyond over the top. I suppose that I am expecting something more like Indiana Jones, where it’s more about escaping the violence rather than tackle it head on. Regardless, the crazy amount of senseless killing in the Uncharted and Tomb Raider series has really taken me out of the experience to the point that I don’t play them anymore. INB4 someone paints me as an anti-violence gamer, I enjoy many games that involve killing enemies and in those games it makes sense. In Assassin’s Creed you are literally an assassin. In Mass Effect you’re an elite military agent that is hunting down a galaxy threatening force with an endless army of hive mind soldiers at their disposal. In Fallout you are one of a small number of survivors after a nuclear explosion and you have to fight some of the other survivors just to stay alive in the crazy post-apocalyptic landscape. In games where pervasive violence makes sense, I’m all for it. In games about civilians exploring foreign countries and slaughtering as many indigenous people along the way… not so much.
Mayonnaise does not belong on sandwiches or pretty much in any food ever made in the history of ever. No, it isn’t just a Southern thing. I’m from the south and I still can’t stand that bland, off-white, nasty tasting gloppy mess. You can’t just slap some Vaseline on my sandwich and then tell me that it tastes good. It’s gross and my reaction to mayonnaise being on anything is more or less the same as Bruce Willis’ character Jimmy “The Tulip” Tudeski in “The Whole Nine Yards”…