www.ditl.org

I didn't say that he didn't get it--in fact I specifically requested he elaborate on his statement. Please do not put words into my mouth. I did not say he was an idiot for thinking a bad movie was good. I said, through the use of a quote, that even bad movies can be financially successful and insinuated that therefore the movie's success is not evidence of quality.

Additionally, yes, you actually can measure the raw quality of art according to certain metrics; I was not under the impression that this is a controversial statement. I can absolutely state that the new Star Trek is an objectively awful film, and then proceed to explain how with evidence of the awful dialogue, nonsensical plot, bad acting, razor-thin characters, and so forth; I have chosen not to do so here because, as I said earlier, I wouldn't be saying anything that hasn't been said a thousand times over on this very forum. If you seriously believe that it is impossible to make objectively true statements regarding art and the quality thereof, then you're right, we really don't have anything further to discuss. I mean, if you ran across someone who thinks that Freddy Got Fingered is a better film than Schindler's List, would you simply chalk that up to a difference of opinion?

Besides, I didn't say it was wrong to like an awful film. I like the Rush Hour series. But I don't pretend it isn't awful.

EDIT: Actually, looking back over my previous post, I can see how I insinuated what you claim when I invoked a quote from a movie in which Patrick Stewart appeared. It was not my intention to call you an idiot, and I apologize for apparently having done so. I will not edit it out of my post, though, as I do not consider it proper to hide my inappropriate comment as though it was never made. I will try to be more careful with my words in the future. That said, the overall thrust of my post remains correct.

I Am Spartacus wrote:... I can absolutely state that the new Star Trek is an objectively awful film...

No you can't, the quality of a film is 100% subjective.

I mean, if you ran across someone who thinks that Freddy Got Fingered is a better film than Schindler's List, would you simply chalk that up to a difference of opinion?

Yes, because that's what it is.

Wow. I really don't know what to say to that... Actually there are a lot of things that come to mind, but I have no idea how to put them without coming across as insulting, so I'm not going to bother, except to state that if you (and your fellow Abrams-fans) really believe that, then there is truly no point in further discussion, and I take my leave.

So we are Abrams fans because we disagree with you?

The way you are posting you act as if Star Trek as an awful film (or any film for that matter) is a matter of fact not opinion. People who watch films and consider it bad or good is a matter of opinion not fact.

I Am Spartacus wrote:Additionally, yes, you actually can measure the raw quality of art according to certain metrics

Sure. But deciding that those metrics are of any importance is entirely subjective.

For example, I could say "The objective metric of a film's worth is length. Longer films are better than shorter ones." By this standard, Trek XI is a slightly better film than Blade Runner, at 127 min compared to 117. That's a completely objective measure... but deciding that that measure important is an utterly arbitrary and subjective thing to do.

You didn't like the film. That's fine. But it's an opinion, no better or worse than any other.

There's a guy who does movie reviews called Confused Matthew. Whilst I respect his opinion on movies, he tends to approach films from a fairly narrow point of view; for instance he did a review of 2001 in which he rails on and on about how "there's no plot, nothing is happening, these aren't characters, this is boring". Now I'm perfectly fine with him not liking 2001, and I actually agree with a lot of his criticisms; there are indeed long stretches of 2001 where little if anything happens, the characters are indeed so thin as to not deserve the label for the most part.

But I think 2001 is a work of genius precisely because the director has cut away most of the elements that normally go into a film - and yet made his point anyway. Which of us is right? We both are! We just judged the film on different criteria.

If Trek XI doesn't have the things you look for in a movie, that's fine. It does have what I wanted. Feel free not to like it, but don't pretend that you are right in any objective sense. You simply aren't.

If you seriously believe that it is impossible to make objectively true statements regarding art and the quality thereof, then you're right, we really don't have anything further to discuss. I mean, if you ran across someone who thinks that Freddy Got Fingered is a better film than Schindler's List, would you simply chalk that up to a difference of opinion?

Yes, I absolutely would.

As an aside, whilst I've never seen Freddy Got Fingered, I thought Schindler's List was a pretty poor film in several respects. So I'm halfway there already.

You're saying that there are objective metrics by which to judge the absolute quality of a work of art - unfortunately for that hypothesis, any such "metrics" one can use for such a purpose are no more than quantifications of (wait for it...) opinions. I am not much of an Abrams fan, and I am rather ambivalent towards XI. However, that doesn't preclude the fact that stating your opinion of the movie as "fact" is both ludicrous and the height of hubris.

You claim that because we disagree with you, we are all weak-minded sheep who derive our judgement of the film through nothing more than press outtakes and commercial media. That's funny, because the examples you gave are in fact examples of you doing precisely that. I don't watch gay porn, so I don't know what Freddy Got Fingered is; however, much as I liked Schindler's List, there were definite and apparent flaws in it. However, it was critically acclaimed and reasonably successful, so you automatically accept it as a paragon of "good" filmmaking without any critical thought whatsoever.

In the final analysis, any judgement of a film must needs be made solely by one's own critical thought process - which, in turn, is irremediably colored by one's own personal prefrences and natural bents. That's fine, because that's the only way things can be, and your opinion of XI might be fully and rationally formed. To present said opinion as "fact" is, however, either: idiotic; megalomaniacal; ignorant; or an element of tongue-in-cheek irony, of which no other trace was discernable in your commentary.

Mikey wrote:...I don't know what Freddy Got Fingered is;

The Tom Green movie with Rip Torn, and a scene featuring Tom Green and a horse that I won't spoil. Or mention again.

Ah, that explains my lack of familiarity. As Family Guy portrayed Tom Green as saying, "Does anybody like me now? Can I stop doing this?!"

I'm still stuck on trying to figure out if there is any value judgment metric that isn't based on opinion.

Everything I come up with is just an opinion based on another opinion.



The only objective thing I can come up with is movie profit. And I don't think money has much to do with a movie being good or not.

All value judgments are inherently subjective.

As Family Guy portrayed Tom Green as saying, "Does anybody like me now? Can I stop doing this?!"

Probably the best portrayal of Tom Green ever. At least I hope it is. Frankly totally fucked up attention whore desperate for approval is less disturbing than the possibility that he really is just that messed.

I'm still stuck on trying to figure out if there is any value judgment metric that isn't based on opinion.

Everything I come up with is just an opinion based on another opinion.

That's because it's the way it works. Judging the value of a work of art is entirely subjective. It just is. Doesn't matter how you try to parse it you can't turn a subjective judgement into an objective one. Pretending your subjective opinion is objective fact is just having your head so far up your ass you can see daylight.

Tyyr wrote: That's because it's the way it works. Judging the value of a work of art is entirely subjective. It just is. Doesn't matter how you try to parse it you can't turn a subjective judgement into an objective one. Pretending your subjective opinion is objective fact is just having your head so far up your ass you can see daylight.

Pretty much what I'd say, except better-written and phrased. Beauty's in the eye of the beholder, as they say.

Tyyr wrote:Pretending your subjective opinion is objective fact is just having your head so far up your ass you can see daylight.

Reminds me of an email I got once in the early days of DITL. Some fella commenting that whilst the site was very impressive in some ways, it didn't conform to a particular set of standards some organisation I'd never heard of had created regarding the preferred way to make web pages. If it had been a coding issue, I could see that - but no, these standards were things like "All content text should be of such and such a size, and such and such a colour", or claiming that menu lists should be on a particular part of the screen, graphics should be used in a specific way and not take up more than a specific percentage of the screen, and so on.

I tried to point out to him that this was all terribly arbitrary, and just one group's opinion, but he just wasn't having it. as far as he was concerned rules had been created, and anybody who broke them had a site that "looked wrong". Surreal stuff... in the end I told him to shove it.

GrahamKennedy wrote:

Tyyr wrote:Pretending your subjective opinion is objective fact is just having your head so far up your ass you can see daylight.

Reminds me of an email I got once in the early days of DITL. Some fella commenting that whilst the site was very impressive in some ways, it didn't conform to a particular set of standards some organisation I'd never heard of had created regarding the preferred way to make web pages. If it had been a coding issue, I could see that - but no, these standards were things like "All content text should be of such and such a size, and such and such a colour", or claiming that menu lists should be on a particular part of the screen, graphics should be used in a specific way and not take up more than a specific percentage of the screen, and so on.

I tried to point out to him that this was all terribly arbitrary, and just one group's opinion, but he just wasn't having it. as far as he was concerned rules had been created, and anybody who broke them had a site that "looked wrong". Surreal stuff... in the end I told him to shove it.

Holy crap! I had no idea that I was a member of a site which was in violation of the rules set by some group... with no public mandate... and with no authority over (or responsibility for) anything - ever. How do you live with yourself running such an outlaw site?

I like to put it out there and live life on the edge. It's just the kind of guy I am.