What's worse, bland or awful?

In my opinion when making something I'd rather do something bland because once I made a post everyone hated and had to leave the thread because I was unworthy, if I only made a bland and forgettable post I could have kept going and having fun being worthy

However when watching something I'd rather watch something bad because then I can laugh at all the ways they massed up. Like RWBY and how ThErE's nO sUcH ThInG aS mAgIc despite everyone using it all the time

Edited by Foreman on Nov 30th 2020 at 8:34:14 AM

In terms of being a content creator, I'd have to go with bland - if you make something awful, then at least there's a chance that someone will see it, think "how can I fix this?", and then proceed to make something that unequivocally slaps. If you try to play it safe and end up making something bland, however, that probably won't have as much of a lasting impact on people, except for maybe one or two who will spend a long, long time pondering all the different ways you could have been not as bland.

...Y'know, which I've definitely never done. Maybe.

Bland. At least with awful things there's usually something to make fun of.

Edited by Routeferret on Jan 12th 2021 at 3:24:58 PM

Being boring is often the worst thing that a work can be. As long as something is entertainingly awful, bland tends to be worse, but the main exception is if something is awful without any entertainment value whatsoever, so it makes you feel worse for witnessing it.

There is a charm in something that is awful. Boring has nothing to show what is interesting because it doesn't have one in the first place.

A few examples of “awful” are fun to experience in art and culture, such as Ed Wood’s films or the Portsmouth Sinfonia or “My Pal Foot Foot” by the Shaggs. Otherwise, neither is worth wasting time with, though bland might be more tolerable.

Unless it's bland and awful at the same time.

If something is awful, chances are there's some So Bad It's Good comedy that might be able to be taken from it.

If something's just bland there is no joy in it. It's just bleh and forgettable.

Awful.

My favorite fictional character is bland as hell, all he does is sit around and projectile vomit, but it's actually refreshing to not have to worry abt all these complex personalities. But awful could be complicated or bland, but still be awful. Bland can be good in a way. So I choose Awful.

It's pretty hard to decide which one is worse, but as others say, awful can possibly be So Bad, It's Good. Bland could possibly become a case of "So Boring, It's Good". Overall, it's a tie!

You're talking 'bout Rocky, that rock, right? Rocky's from a work you probably don't know...

Edited by callmeamuffin on Dec 27th 2020 at 5:14:45 AM

,

I don't think I wanna know. That sounds grotesque and terrible.

Feel like dumping my opinion here, because for me awful is MUCH worse than bland in every way.

Bland is completely harmless and inoffensive to me, especially since A) I don't get bored very easily, and B) what may be "generic" in a genre to me is probably fresh and new to someone unfamiliar with it. At worst, I tend to have a "meh" reaction towards things I find bland/boring/generic - nothing special, but nothing truly wrong with it. Heck, a lot of the time I can name at least one thing I like from something that could be considered bland.

Awful, on the other hand, represents to me a true level of genuine badness - the kind that makes me want to pull my hair and say "What were they thinking?!" Whereas a bland work will make me shrug and say "it's alright, I guess", an awful work will make me ask myself "GAH! WHY DOES THIS EXIST?! WHO WOULD MAKE SUCH A HORRIBLE THING?!" Thankfully, it takes a lot for me to consider something truly awful - a certain level of insufferable horribleness with no redeeming features for me to brand something as genuinely bad.

Bland. If it's awful you have something to talk about.

Since it's the season, I feel I need to bring up the transcendantly terrible and joyous experience of Thankskilling.

I feel it is the peak...no, beak bad movie experience.

They're both bad as each other!

Real answer,awful,I take can take something bland but something awful is worse

Awful is the more worse option here, objectively speaking.

Although chances are, if something is bland, it is also likely very awful as well.

(I'd rather be bored out of my mind than infuriated by a lack of quality.)

Also, if a work is awful, then people might not even want to acknowledge it, whereas a bland work is at least noticed and acknowledged.

Edited by BrightLight on Dec 30th 2021 at 1:33:57 AM

Bland. Something that is awful can be amusing in a funny way (Raimi's Spider-Man 3 comes to mind.) but bland is just unforgivably boring and forgettable (ASM 2)

Like nearly everyone else, I agree that it's better for something to leave a tremendous impression on you rather than bore you to tears, regardless of quality. I hated Feed with every inch of my being, and I am proud to announce that I will remember it for life. Light and Dark The Adventures of Dark Yagami is among the worst things I ever read in my life, and I loved every minute of it. In short, it's best to have fun with awful works, even if you just love to hate them.

It depends. Sometimes awful can be offensive, but other times it can be deliciously absurd. But bland is usually just boring.