  |
| Author |
|
Roarkiller
Your Daddy-O
Registration Date: 06.03.03
Location: Home, resting...
Posts: 6077 |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by arren18
But it's subjective anyway. If I looked into a critic at Cannes and found out he/she liked very few of the same films as me, I'd be much more likely to trust the views of a "common man" with "close to zero studied knowledge". How terrible!
That's exactly the point. So bringing up a previous point, it doesn't matter if the review is done by a film professor or a baby, because irregardless of who the review was done by, there's no deciding factor to know if a film is "good" or "bad" at all!
__________________
I am me.
I am who I am.
I am Roarkiller.
No one else is me.
Roarkiller.net
Isakaya High RPG Site
quote:
Originally posted by fenkashi
Screw your opinions, they are not relevant ^^.
|
|
 07.18.2009, 05:44 AM |
   
|
Orphic Okapi
Baron
Registration Date: 04.08.07
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 1335 |
|
|
You guys. 
"Cries and Whispers" is better than "Battlefield Earth." Anyone who disagrees with this statement is an idiot. Therefore, "Cries and Whispers" is better than "Battlefield Earth."
And really, watch the two movies before you tell me I'm wrong.
__________________
 I like tea!
|
|
| 07.18.2009, 10:00 AM |
|
Roarkiller
Your Daddy-O
Registration Date: 06.03.03
Location: Home, resting...
Posts: 6077 |
|
|
Beauty and the Beast is better than Spirited Away.
Debate.
|
|
| 07.18.2009, 10:52 AM |
|
Artoo
Warawara
Registration Date: 07.19.07
Location: UK
Posts: 160 |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Orphic Okapi
You guys.
"Cries and Whispers" is better than "Battlefield Earth." Anyone who disagrees with this statement is an idiot. Therefore, "Cries and Whispers" is better than "Battlefield Earth."
And really, watch the two movies before you tell me I'm wrong.
No, that's your opinion, you're entitled to it. So you can't be 'wrong' anymore than you can be 'correct' 
__________________
Let us go forth together in search of the treasure of Lapis Lazuli! Have no fear. Space is deformed on the night of the new moon.
|
|
| 07.18.2009, 12:03 PM |
|
arren18
Administrator
Registration Date: 08.15.06
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 10675 |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Orphic Okapi
You guys.
"Cries and Whispers" is better than "Battlefield Earth." Anyone who disagrees with this statement is an idiot. Therefore, "Cries and Whispers" is better than "Battlefield Earth."
And really, watch the two movies before you tell me I'm wrong.
I've seen neither of them. But I still believe that I'm capable of disagreeing without being an idiot.
__________________
|
|
| 07.18.2009, 12:31 PM |
|
Orphic Okapi
Baron
Registration Date: 04.08.07
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 1335 |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Artoo
So you can't be 'wrong' anymore than you can be 'correct'
That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.
quote:
Originally posted by arren18
I've seen neither of them. But I still believe that I'm capable of disagreeing without being an idiot.
Watch the movies, and see if you still believe that.
I'm only trying to make one point here: dichotomies exist. Movies can be good and bad. Opinions can be right and wrong. Yes, there is some gray area in between, but on either end there are extremes that can be easily defined. Serial killers are bad. Does anyone want to argue otherwise?
Saying "Battlefield Earth" is better than "Cries and Whispers" is like kicking Mother Theresa in the face and giving a lifetime supply of candy to John Wayne Gacy (please ignore that they are both dead). You're just a vile person, no matter what angle you argue from. If you can watch both films and honestly tell me that you like "Battefield Earth" more, your opinion is wrong.
__________________
I like tea!
Post last edited by Orphic Okapi on 07.19.2009, 01:12 AM.
|
|
| 07.19.2009, 12:58 AM |
|
arren18
Administrator
Registration Date: 08.15.06
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 10675 |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Orphic Okapi
If you can watch both films and honestly tell me that you like "Battefield Earth" more, your opinion is wrong.
No it's not.
__________________
|
|
| 07.19.2009, 05:10 AM |
|
Theowne
Baron
Registration Date: 02.11.07
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1290 |
|
|
Kind of a silly argument. Yes, in some way, an opinion cannot be wrong in the sense that an opinion is just a belief held by an individual. Opinions which go against facts are wrong, but subjective ones, no matter how silly, cannot "inherently" be wrong. But are opinions equal, or do they have differing worth. I believe all opinions are not equal.
The question is whether there is an objective standard with which to evaluate art, literature, and etc. As far as I'm concerned, what separates humans from animals is the capability for sophisticated thought. The great scientists made full use of this, but the great artists do as well. And I do believe that people who evaluate films intelligently under this definition have greater weight in their opinions. That's the reason why even if my niece insists that "Barbie goes to the zoo" is the best movie ever, I will still consider that objectively speaking, Schindler's List is the better film. I have no use for relativism with this idea that everyone's opinion is subjective and there are no truths in comparing these things. Then no accomplishment is superior to any other because everything is relative to something else. I don't believe that.
And re: earlier comparison of Beauty/Beast with Spirited Away. Problem is these are two well made films. The closer in quality you get, the more subjective arguments become.
Post last edited by Theowne on 07.19.2009, 05:53 AM.
|
|
| 07.19.2009, 05:50 AM |
|
Artoo
Warawara
Registration Date: 07.19.07
Location: UK
Posts: 160 |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Orphic Okapi
I'm only trying to make one point here: dichotomies exist. Movies can be good and bad. Opinions can be right and wrong. Yes, there is some gray area in between, but on either end there are extremes that can be easily defined. Serial killers are bad. Does anyone want to argue otherwise?
Movies thought of as 'bad' by numerous people are not analogous to serial killers in so many ways it's hardly worth saying that that comparison is flawed.
Opinions can be right and wrong in certain instances, where the opinion is a subjective take on something that can later be determined objectively (the opinion that the Earth is flat for example, before it was proven not to be), but you can never 'prove' a film is bad, and therefore the opinion is only ever an opinion, not incorrect and not correct.
For example, I think The Phantom Menace is a really great film. I could write pages and pages on why I think that, but many people disagree - that is their opinion, but that doesn't make mine wrong for me.
Of course you can discuss films in the context of a recognised / perceived consensus about a film - if I wrote about how I loved The Phantom Menace it would be from a position of recognising that many people consider it a bad film in their opinion. But it can't be inherently bad, as you said yourself.
quote:
Originally posted by Theowne
I have no use for relativism with this idea that everyone's opinion is subjective and there are no truths in comparing these things. Then no accomplishment is superior to any other because everything is relative to something else. I don't believe that.
No, you can still recognise that many people seem to value / like / respect / love a film in greater numbers, or by more highly regarded critics as great in their opinion. That is a wonderful achievement.
You make your points well I think, but opinions on film are always still subjective. The most educated, intelligent film critic might still just like a film that you and most of us might find terrible, for any number of infinite reasons that makes total sense to them. It just depends what criteria (consciously or otherwise) you are using to judge the film. Even if you say all that matters is the acting, script, direction, music and cinematography (for example) there are still almost infinite combinations of defining what makes each individual part of those things good or bad in one's opinion. And that is using a very narrow set of criteria.
__________________
Let us go forth together in search of the treasure of Lapis Lazuli! Have no fear. Space is deformed on the night of the new moon.
Post last edited by Artoo on 07.19.2009, 06:54 AM.
|
|
| 07.19.2009, 06:53 AM |
|
Roarkiller
Your Daddy-O
Registration Date: 06.03.03
Location: Home, resting...
Posts: 6077 |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Orphic Okapi
Serial killers are bad. Does anyone want to argue otherwise?
Yeah, I do. If the victims of that serial killers are all wanted by the FBI/CIA/Interpol for crimes like rape, mass fraud or terrorism, I doubt the line would be very clear.
Unfortunately, for the above argument, there's a clear difference: laws. Every country has a definite set of laws to follow, written black and white.
As argued, film criticism has none. In other words, there are no set rules that define a "good" or "bad" film. Every review is subjective, because they are subject to each individual's opinion. If your claim that a majority saying that a movie is good automatically means it's factual, take a good look at the number of "rave reviews" for the Harry Potter Series, Spiderman series, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, even Pokemon movies.
Hell, would you believe it, one Pokemon movie was even submitted for nomination for the Oscar's Best Animation. Can you believe it? A POKEMON movie!
Oh, and regarding the comparison between "Battlefield Earth" and "Cries and Whispers". Here's another comparison for you then.
To me, Pokemon 2000 is a FAR better movie than either "Howl's moving Castle" or "Monsters Inc", and anyone who thinks otherwise is plain wrong.
Now you try arguing otherwise.
__________________
I am me.
I am who I am.
I am Roarkiller.
No one else is me.
Roarkiller.net
Isakaya High RPG Site
quote:
Originally posted by fenkashi
Screw your opinions, they are not relevant ^^.
|
|
| 07.19.2009, 08:52 AM |
|
Orphic Okapi
Baron
Registration Date: 04.08.07
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 1335 |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theowne
And I do believe that people who evaluate films intelligently under this definition have greater weight in their opinions. That's the reason why even if my niece insists that "Barbie goes to the zoo" is the best movie ever, I will still consider that objectively speaking, Schindler's List is the better film.
I feel like I've made this point about seventy times already, but maybe I'm not making myself clear? The only difference is that I would classify an opinion that holds no weight as "wrong," which seems to rub a lot of people the wrong way. Why? "Barbie Goes To The Zoo" is clearly not the best movie ever. About as clearly as Hitler was not the greatest person ever.
No, I'm not comparing a Barbie movie to Hitler.
quote:
Originally posted by Artoo
Movies thought of as 'bad' by numerous people are not analogous to serial killers in so many ways it's hardly worth saying that that comparison is flawed.
They're similar in that everyone thinks they're bad. Which was the only purpose of the comparison. Of course, just because everyone thinks serial killers are bad doesn't make them bad; that's just silly.
quote:
Originally posted by Roarkiller
As argued, film criticism has none. In other words, there are no set rules that define a "good" or "bad" film. Every review is subjective, because they are subject to each individual's opinion.
Wrong. Film has a lot of rules. That's why there are film schools. There are set rules that define a "good" and "bad" film, just like there are set laws that define "good" and "bad" behavior. Of course, there is a lot of gray area in between.
quote:
Originally posted by Roarkiller
If your claim that a majority saying that a movie is good automatically means it's factual, take a good look at the number of "rave reviews" for the Harry Potter Series, Spiderman series, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, even Pokemon movies.
My claim is that if a majority of well-educated adults like a film, it is good. There are not that many rave reviews on the Harry Potter movies, except maybe for the new one, which was actually good. The only Spiderman movie with good reviews was the second one, which was also the only good one. TMNT got terrible reviews. Everyone hated the Pokemon movie. Rave reviews from 12-year-old fans do not count.
quote:
Originally posted by Theowne
Kind of a silly argument.
Way to be aloof there. Wouldn't want anyone to think you're actually interested in the discussion, now would you?
__________________
I like tea!
Post last edited by Orphic Okapi on 07.19.2009, 01:42 PM.
|
|
| 07.19.2009, 01:40 PM |
|
Theowne
Baron
Registration Date: 02.11.07
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1290 |
|
|
Wrong side of the bed today, Orphic? Here I was thinking I was adding some balance to a one sided argument against ya....Well, guess I'm not doing anything right.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Theowne
Kind of a silly argument.
Way to be aloof there. Wouldn't want anyone to think you're actually interested in the discussion, now would you?
That would be what the other 227 words in my post were for....
|
|
| 07.19.2009, 06:09 PM |
|
Artoo
Warawara
Registration Date: 07.19.07
Location: UK
Posts: 160 |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Orphic Okapi
They're similar in that everyone thinks they're bad. Which was the only purpose of the comparison. Of course, just because everyone thinks serial killers are bad doesn't make them bad; that's just silly.
I don't think the two things are analogous. Saying films are bad is a subjective judgement based on fluid and ultimately indefinable criteria - whereas saying serial killers are bad is based on a static, factual criteria amongst civilised society that serial killing, the repeated murder of others by an individual, is 'bad' from a clear, precise idea formed by a shared moral perspective (which I would of course agree with) and written in law, a societal 'contract' if you will.
We say killing is bad because we recognise it would be bad for ourselves - it follows a clear, rational line of reasoning that isn't usually unduly affected by other factors that have an undetermined impact upon the central one. Though sometimes there are such factors - as Roarkiller says, we don't (as human beings in total) seem to have the same clarity about killing being wrong in wars for example - and many argue that the death penalty is right (personally I vehemently disagree, but I know many take the opposite view).
quote:
Originally posted by Orphic Okapi
Wrong. Film has a lot of rules. That's why there are film schools. There are set rules that define a "good" and "bad" film, just like there are set laws that define "good" and "bad" behavior. Of course, there is a lot of gray area in between.
Even the 'rules' of cinema are really just guidelines that can and often have been disregarded or subverted, sometimes on purpose, sometimes by accident, and then it's down to your opinion if it improved the film or not. Intentionally subverting the 180 degree rule for example, might be used to intentionally confuse or disorientate the audience for effect. According to you this automatically makes it a 'bad' decision for the film because it's breaking a 'rule', yet it might improve the film for some or most people. It's still subjective, even if the rules are followed or not. Following the rules to the letter does not automatically make a good movie - disregarding them does not automatically make a bad one.
In general/real life there are set laws for behaviour that differ from country to country and also contradict each other. I think that underlines the flawed nature of your argument. For instance, I could legally be served alcohol in the UK at the age of 18. In some states of the US I believe the age limit is 21. Who is right? So me doing exactly the same thing in one place would be 'right' and yet in another place 'wrong'. I think this is in some ways similar to people having different views on films - mentally and/or emotionally you might be in a different 'place' to others who watch the same film, and consequently end up with a totally different reaction to it.
quote:
Originally posted by Orphic Okapi
My claim is that if a majority of well-educated adults like a film, it is good. There are not that many rave reviews on the Harry Potter movies, except maybe for the new one, which was actually good. The only Spiderman movie with good reviews was the second one, which was also the only good one. TMNT got terrible reviews. Everyone hated the Pokemon movie. Rave reviews from 12-year-old fans do not count.
Hmm, that sounds a bit ageist. I would argue the filmmakers have failed in at least one aspect of their project if more adults enjoyed a Pokemon movie than the kids it was aimed it did, I think it's a bit daft to say rave reviews from a target audience count for nothing - even if you didn't like the film, surely you would concede that a film whose primary aim was to be enjoyed by and satisfy a 12 year old audience needs to do that even if it doesn't appeal to adults as much?
I was recently listening to a review of the new Harry Potter film by Mark Kermode (well known film critic here, highly educated in film, tends to make the opinion-as-fact kind of statements you do, you'd probably get on well!). He said he thought it was the second-best one (after ...Azkaban)... so is he wrong, or do you simply disagree? What if a 12 year old agrees with you about a film, but the film critics don't?
If you respond to only one thing in this rambling reply of mine, please make it this: are you even allowed to have your own opinion about films, - what happens when you find yourself 'wrong', that is to say when you think a film is absolutely great but then read a load of poor reviews from the majority of educated adults who you seem to regard as collectively infallible?
Then there is the issue of context. What might be considered a wonderful film today may be less well regarded in the future. Certainly a homophobic racist film might have been highly lauded in the past, but would fare far less well nowadays - who knows how films of today might be re-evaluated in the future when society's reactions change. So is a homophobic, racist film from 100 years ago still 'good' or is it now 'bad', and when did it flip from being one to the other? Is it when the educated adults died of old age and the 12 year olds grew up? Because in that case 'good' and 'bad' are terms that seem quite changeable when applied to film.
(As an aside to everyone, please let's not get in name-calling and snarkiness, I think it's an interesting discussion otherwise).
__________________
Let us go forth together in search of the treasure of Lapis Lazuli! Have no fear. Space is deformed on the night of the new moon.
Post last edited by Artoo on 07.19.2009, 06:47 PM.
|
|
| 07.19.2009, 06:42 PM |
|
Orphic Okapi
Baron
Registration Date: 04.08.07
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 1335 |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theowne
Wrong side of the bed today, Orphic? Here I was thinking I was adding some balance to a one sided argument against ya....Well, guess I'm not doing anything right.
Sorry about that . . . Wrong side of the bed indeed. Although I was intended to come off a bit more teasing than outright nasty, which is how it ended up sounding. Thanks for the support.
quote:
Originally posted by Artoo
I don't think the two things are analogous. Saying films are bad is a subjective judgement based on fluid and ultimately indefinable criteria - whereas saying serial killers are bad is based on a static, factual criteria amongst civilised society that serial killing, the repeated murder of others by an individual, is 'bad' from a clear, precise idea formed by a shared moral perspective (which I would of course agree with) and written in law, a societal 'contract' if you will.
I guess I would disagree that you can only judge films by "fluid and ultimately indefinable criteria." I think the criteria has evolved over time--just as human moral law has evolved over time--but the current criteria is pretty definable. Being emotionally manipulative, didactic, or gratuitous is a bad thing; our society, or, at least, the part of our society seriously concerned with filmmaking as art, has agreed upon this from a shared perspective. The only difference is the lack of a "societal contract."
quote:
Originally posted by Artoo
Even the 'rules' of cinema are really just guidelines that can and often have been disregarded or subverted, sometimes on purpose, sometimes by accident, and then it's down to your opinion if it improved the film or not. Intentionally subverting the 180 degree rule for example, might be used to intentionally confuse or disorientate the audience for effect.
I would argue the 180 degree rule is no longer "enforced." It's a case of cinema evolving. Ozu pretty much proved it was a bad rule, and that breaking it did not cause any problems. There are still rules that should always be followed, like the rule of thirds.
I don't know if I buy your argument about laws in different countries, but frankly, I'm really tired and I'm having a bit of trouble wrapping my head around it and figuring out exactly what I want to say. I'll try to respond to it later.
quote:
Hmm, that sounds a bit ageist. I would argue the filmmakers have failed in at least one aspect of their project if more adults enjoyed a Pokemon movie than the kids it was aimed it did, I think it's a bit daft to say rave reviews from a target audience count for nothing - even if you didn't like the film, surely you would concede that a film whose primary aim was to be enjoyed by and satisfy a 12 year old audience needs to do that even if it doesn't appeal to adults as much?
If only twelve-year-olds can enjoy it, it's not a good film. But it's very possible to make a film for twelve-year-olds and have adults enjoy it. Nearly all of Miyazaki's films were made for children, but they are frequently enjoyed by adults because they are good films.
quote:
I was recently listening to a review of the new Harry Potter film by Mark Kermode (well known film critic here, highly educated in film, tends to make the opinion-as-fact kind of statements you do, you'd probably get on well!). He said he thought it was the second-best one (after ...Azkaban)... so is he wrong, or do you simply disagree?
Whoops! I never actually saw Azkaban. Sorry about that, I take back whatever I said about the Harry Potter films. But yes, I'm familiar with the work of Mark Kermode, and I think it would be possible for us to have a disagreement over something like the Potter films. If it came to something serious--if he said, for example, Uwe Boll was a better director than Bergman--then he would be wrong.
quote:
If you respond to only one thing in this rambling reply of mine, please make it this: are you even allowed to have your own opinion about films, - what happens when you find yourself 'wrong', that is to say when you think a film is absolutely great but then read a load of poor reviews from the majority of educated adults who you seem to regard as collectively infallible?
It hasn't happened to me yet. I have, occasionally, enjoyed certain parts of movies that were widely panned. Step Up 2, for example, was a horrible movie, and received horrible reviews. But when the characters stopped talking and started dancing, I liked it. Unfortunately, the whole movie wasn't dancing, and I had to cringe through the rest of it.
If it ever happens, what would I do? Write a review. Get my opinion out there. People have swayed my opinion on films before (in which case, yes, I was wrong until I saw the light). Maybe I could do the same for others.
quote:
So is a homophobic, racist film from 100 years ago still 'good' or is it now 'bad', and when did it flip from being one to the other?
It was always bad, because everyone's opinion on race and sexual orientation back then was wrong. 
__________________
I like tea!
Post last edited by Orphic Okapi on 07.19.2009, 10:58 PM.
|
|
| 07.19.2009, 10:56 PM |
|
arren18
Administrator
Registration Date: 08.15.06
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 10675 |
|
|
Azkaban is my least favourite Harry Potter film. Maybe I should be tried in front of a jury.
__________________
|
|
| 07.20.2009, 04:37 AM |
|
Orphic Okapi
Baron
Registration Date: 04.08.07
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 1335 |
|
|
It was really worse than the fifth one? How did it manage that?
__________________
I like tea!
|
|
| 07.20.2009, 08:13 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
Online Ghibli
Ghibli Tavern is powered by WoltLab, hosted by Teragon Networks
|
|
