Consensus vs Personal Opinion

Dots1982

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Pointless?

If you think all movie dialogue has to have an exact point, other than characterisation and mood, I feel sorry for you!

Some of the best dialogue in movies and book is "pointless" by that standard.

I totally get that conversations in movies can have a point sometimes or a mood other times.

For example in this present conversation we are engaged in I have a point and you have a mood.

My point is that I'm trying to use the critique I use for every movie to get across why out of his last three movies I disliked two of them.

You on the other hand are trying to instill a mood of condescension.

I get it.

I just find his scripts in his last two movies to have too much dull or unnatural dialogue.

MilanPan!c

Dots1982 wrote: »

I totally get that conversations in movies can have a point sometimes or a mood other times.

For example in this present conversation we are engaged in I have a point and you have a mood.

My point is that I'm trying to use the critique I use for every movie to get across why out of his last three movies I disliked two of them.

You on the other hand are trying to instill a mood of condescension.

I get it.

I just find his scripts in his last two movies to have too much dull or unnatural dialogue.

Was this meant to be some sort of clever insult??

At any rate, most people fans and critics disagree with your critiques.

Dots1982

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Was this meant to be some sort of clever insult??

At any rate, most people fans and critics disagree with your critiques.

I don't see the point in you posting on discussion forums if you just take the majority view as the correct opinion.

johnny_ultimate

Play nice, folks. No need for the bickering.

MilanPan!c

Dots1982 wrote: »

I don't see the point in you posting on discussion forums if you just take the majority view as the correct opinion.

I don't think the first part if your sentence has anything to do with the second part.

When it comes to DOR the chances of every major critic and almost all movie fans being wrong about the quality of the dialogue, and some random guy on some random board having some especially meaningful insight that contradicts everyone else, is slim.

You don't like it - fine.

Your minority opinion being valuable to anyone except a few other DOR haters? Not that likely.

Dots1982

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I don't think the first part if your sentence has anything to do with the second part.

When it comes to DOR the chances of every major critic and almost all movie fans being wrong about the quality of the dialogue, and some random guy on some random board having some especially meaningful insight that contradicts everyone else, is slim.

You don't like it - fine.

Your minority opinion being valuable to anyone except a few other DOR haters? Not that likely.

This is a discussion forum to discuss a movie. If you act like this everytime someone disagrees with your view then it's not a good environment for you.

Dots1982

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I don't think the first part if your sentence has anything to do with the second part.

When it comes to DOR the chances of every major critic and almost all movie fans being wrong about the quality of the dialogue, and some random guy on some random board having some especially meaningful insight that contradicts everyone else, is slim.

You don't like it - fine.

Your minority opinion being valuable to anyone except a few other DOR haters? Not that likely.

You have your opinion & I have mine. I concede yours is the majority opinion. Let's just leave it at that.

MilanPan!c

Dots1982 wrote: »

This is a discussion forum to discuss a movie. If you act like this everytime someone disagrees with your view then it's not a good environment for you.

This is where I'm meant to say that my opinion, that you're wrong about what's best for me, is just as valid as yours...?

The truth is that not everything is relative.

I know you think all opinions are equally valid and valuable, but they're obviously not.

Consensus, even in artistic criticism, is valuable and meaningful.

Demanding that everyone acknowledge every fringe opinion as valid is frankly immature.

You think it's bad !=! It being bad.

MilanPan!c

Dots1982 wrote: »

You have your opinion & I have mine. I concede yours is the majority opinion. Let's just leave it at that.

Fair enough.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

You think it's bad !=! It being bad.

In the same way you thinking it's good doesn't make it good. How long are you gonna keep playing this card every time a person disagrees the consensus? A 90+ rating on RottenTomatoes doesn't mean "A film of indisputable greatness!" it means "Over 90% of so-called critics gave it a positive rating."

(I quite liked American Hustle btw)

MilanPan!c

e_e wrote: »

In the same way you thinking it's good doesn't make it good. How long are you gonna keep playing this card every time a person disagrees the consensus? A 90+ rating on RottenTomatoes doesn't mean "A film of indisputable greatness!" it means "Over 90% of so-called critics gave it a positive rating."

(I quite liked American Hustle btw)

I'm not jsut saying it's good, many thousands of people, the vast vast majority of viewers and critics are.

If it was just me, then you might have a point.

Consensus is meaningful.

We all know this, but some people want to pretend that all views are equally valid, even though they know that someone that says that Sharknado is a better movie than, say, Paths of Glory, or Badlands, is absolutely wrong.

You can defend the right of people to express idiotic drivel, but you KNOW as does ppretty much everyone, that Sharknado isn't as good as Godfather 2.

And yet... you pretend that this is all just equally valid opinions, that consensus is nothing more than arbitrary and that obviously fringe opinions negate obvious facts.

Some movies are better than others, and that's not an opinion.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

We all know this, but some people want to pretend that all views are equally valid, even though they know that someone that says that Sharknado is a better movie than, say, Paths of Glory, or Badlands, is absolutely wrong.

I wouldn't just shut out somebody's view altogether for making such a claim. In fact it'd make me very intrigued to what they have to say, and if it doesn't hold water for me then I'll dismiss their view.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

You can defend the right of people to express idiotic drivel, but you KNOW as does ppretty much everyone, that Sharknado isn't as good as Godfather 2.

I don't think it's as good either but you know what, I'd be willing to hear somebody out on that as crazy as it might seem.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

And yet... you pretend that this is all just equally valid opinions, that consensus is nothing more than arbitrary and that obviously fringe opinions negate obvious facts.

I'm not pretending that all opinions are valid. I'm calling out this spurious assumption that critical consensus means the be all and end all of discussion.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Some movies are better than others, and that's not an opinion.

Some movies are better than others from your perspective and to your sensibilities, but not everyone else's.

Basically I wish that people would take opinions based on the arguments made instead of a bunch of bull**** qualifiers like "well other people like it, it must be good."

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I'm not jsut saying it's good, many thousands of people, the vast vast majority of viewers and critics are.

Yeah the majority could never be wrong about anything, no wait they can and have been shown to be throughout history. Even many films that are considered classics today were panned initially, as well as certain critically acclaimed films being forgotten about (some early best picture winners becoming mere trivia questions).

But let's not get into that territory again.

MilanPan!c

e_e wrote: »

I wouldn't just shut out somebody's view altogether for making such a claim. In fact it'd make me very intrigued to what they have to say, and if it doesn't hold water for me then I'll dismiss their view.


I don't think it's as good either but you know what, I'd be willing to hear somebody out on that as crazy as it might seem.


I'm not pretending that all opinions are valid. I'm calling out this spurious assumption that critical consensus means the be all and end all of discussion.


Some movies are better than others from your perspective and to your sensibilities, but not everyone else's.

Basically I wish that people would take opinions based on the arguments made instead of a bunch of bull**** qualifiers like "well other people like it, it must be good."

I know what you wish, and don't care.

If you wanna discuss movies that aren't universally acclaimed, then sure we can try and puzzle them out.

But.

It's fairly obvious that you're either dishonest, or have no backbone.

If you honestly think there's some value in discussing the idea that Sharknado is better than Badlands then your opinion is completely useless to me - and probably to most movie fans.

There's NO legitimate argument to make for the case that every movie is potentially as good as every other.

That's one of those things that is NOT an opinion. That's a fact.

Battlefield Earth is not a better movie than Apocolypse Now. Planes is not a better movie than Citizen Kane.

You actually know this.

Pretending that you don't, as some sort of proof of your maturity is actually proof that your immature.

Be brave enough to say what you KNOW is true. Not all opinions are as meaningful or "right" as others.

Nazis, weren't right. Anyone who says they were isn't expressing something worth chatting about. Dinosaurs didn't exist alongside man. That's not a valid opinion.

Some people claim there's evidence for almost everything, and there's allllllll sorts of amazing wrong opinions.

Be brave.

Some movies are better than others. Definitively. That's not an opinion.

Dots1982

Arguing whether badlands is a better movie than sharknado is stupid. Anyone who thinks sharknado is better is stupid. That much I agree on.

What I would like to know from Milan is whether you have ever not liked a movie that was critically well received?

johnny_ultimate

These posts were dragging the American Hustle thread way too off topic so they've been moved here.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I know what you wish, and don't care.

If you wanna discuss movies that aren't universally acclaimed, then sure we can try and puzzle them out.

But.

It's fairly obvious that you're either dishonest, or have no backbone.

Ad-hominem much? This is the kind of thing I'm calling out. People who attack others arguments based on things that are frankly irrelevant. You don't need to remind somebody who dislikes an acclaimed film that it is acclaimed, I would have thought that'd be blatantly obvious.

If you honestly think there's some value in discussing the idea that Sharknado is better than Badlands then your opinion is completely useless to me - and probably to most movie fans.

Speak for yourself.

There's NO legitimate argument to make for the case that every movie is potentially as good as every other.

That's one of those things that is NOT an opinion. That's a fact.

I'm not saying there is, I'm saying that we should maybe hear said arguments out before dismissing them, just so we don't create a hive-mind mentality.

Battlefield Earth is not a better movie than Apocolypse Now. Planes is not a better movie than Citizen Kane.

You actually know this.

I haven't watched either Planes or Battlefield Earth. I don't judge what I have not seen.

But I have to ask you: Is there some universal rule that says "This film is superior for X reason."? I think not, people bring their own personal biases when rating/reviewing/discussing films. Film criticism is not objective, hell that's why we discuss them. If you don't want to discuss films (instead resorting to accusations and external factors that have no bearing on the points made) then I question your presence here.

Pretending that you don't, as some sort of proof of your maturity is actually proof that your immature.

Wonderful! Another ad-hominem. Did I question your maturity/intelligence?

Be brave enough to say what you KNOW is true. Not all opinions are as meaningful or "right" as others.

Do I have to keep repeating that I never said they were?

Nazis, weren't right. Anyone who says they were isn't expressing something worth chatting about. Dinosaurs didn't exist alongside man. That's not a valid opinion.

You're arguing my point for me. Things aren't absolute, what was deemed right in one time can be reconsidered in another.

Some movies are better than others. Definitively. That's not an opinion.

Some movies are generally considered better than others. However a person can argue against these sacred-cows (what I'm fighting is the existence of sacred cows in the first place, that a film is somehow beyond questioning once it's reached some number on a website).

Should nobody even attempt to review/criticize classic films anymore then? I struggle to see the point you're even making here, beyond all the attacks on intelligence/maturity, straw men and claims that some films are objectively great without backing any of it up.

Please show me some hard math that proves a film as great and I'll back down.

e_e

When people call a film "terrible" or "great" they're really saying "I strongly believe it to be so.".

It's a matter of perception and it's not even remotely comparable to arguing that dinosaurs did/didn't exist alongside man. That's why we discuss art/entertainment and not easily disproven things like "But is the earth REALLY round?"

MilanPan!c

Dots1982 wrote: »

Arguing whether badlands is a better movie than sharknado is stupid. Anyone who thinks sharknado is better is stupid. That much I agree on.

What I would like to know from Milan is whether you have ever not liked a movie that was critically well received?

And now someone is talking sense.

I and anyone can dislike something good.

That's the crucial point.

Me liking or disliking something is unrelated to its inherent quality, which is where consensus comes into play.

MilanPan!c

e_e wrote: »

When people call a film "terrible" or "great" they're really saying "I strongly believe it to be so.".

It's a matter of perception and it's not even remotely comparable to arguing that dinosaurs did/didn't exist alongside man. That's why we discuss art/entertainment and not easily disproven things like "But is the earth REALLY round?"

That's just not true.

Many people aren't saying, "my opinion is that Sharknado is bad," but that "Sharknado is in fact bad".

It's so blatantly obvious that some art is bad.

And it's as equally obvious that some is good.

It's not all just about duelling opinions.

Not everything is just a popular or unpopular opinion.

Dots1982

MilanPan!c wrote: »

And now someone is talking sense.

I and anyone can dislike something good.

That's the crucial point.

Me liking or disliking something is unrelated to its inherent quality, which is where consensus comes into play.

You were saying that having a minority opinion means it's only relevant to you and the other people that agree with you. That people with a majority opinion don't have to worry about what those that disagree with them say. That's a strange idea IMO.

Can you provide a clip or example of a scene from a David o russell movie you think is really good. That may convince me to agree with you more.

MilanPan!c

e_e wrote: »

Ad-hominem much? This is the kind of thing I'm calling out. People who attack others arguments based on things that are frankly irrelevant. You don't need to remind somebody who dislikes an acclaimed film that it is acclaimed, I would have thought that'd be blatantly obvious.


Speak for yourself.


I'm not saying there is, I'm saying that we should maybe hear said arguments out before dismissing them, just so we don't create a hive-mind mentality.


I haven't watched either Planes or Battlefield Earth. I don't judge what I have not seen.

But I have to ask you: Is there some universal rule that says "This film is superior for X reason."? I think not, people bring their own personal biases when rating/reviewing/discussing films. Film criticism is not objective, hell that's why we discuss them. If you don't want to discuss films (instead resorting to accusations and external factors that have no bearing on the points made) then I question your presence here.


Wonderful! Another ad-hominem. Did I question your maturity/intelligence?


Do I have to keep repeating that I never said they were?


You're arguing my point for me. Things aren't absolute, what was deemed right in one time can be reconsidered in another.


Some movies are generally considered better than others. However a person can argue against these sacred-cows (what I'm fighting is the existence of sacred cows in the first place, that a film is somehow beyond questioning once it's reached some number on a website).

Should nobody even attempt to review/criticize classic films anymore then? I struggle to see the point you're even making here, beyond all the attacks on intelligence/maturity, straw men and claims that some films are objectively great without backing any of it up.

Please show me some hard math that proves a film as great and I'll back down.

So we're clear, I don't have a huge deal of respect for people that don't think some art or movies are ACTUALLY good.

You don't need maths to prove art is good, but when a film is overwhelming loved my 8/10 viewers and even a higher percentage of critics, it's safe to assume its good.

Now, zeitgeist is a thing, and some good things is 1996 age badly, which is often correlated to just how much that thing is of it's time. But.

But.

Good is good.

Popularity and critical acclaim don't always go hand in hand, obviously. But when everyone loves something, including critics, around the world, it's good.

And that's obvious.

And when you argue against it you're forced into making absurd statements, like yours, where you claim you want to engage with people who think that Sharknado is better than Badlands.

Because you know, maybe 99% of humanity is wrong, and number one Sharknado fan has gleaned some secret truth that's worth exploring.

Seems reasonable. To no one.

MilanPan!c

Dots1982 wrote: »

You were saying that having a minority opinion means it's only relevant to you and the other people that agree with you. That people with a majority opinion don't have to worry about what those that disagree with them say. That's a strange idea IMO.

Can you provide a clip or example of a scene from a David o russell movie you think is really good. That may convince me to agree with you more.

No.

You've seen the movie. I've seen it. No need for clips.

If you're unable to understand why people like it, then you'll just have to live with the truth: you dislike a good movie.

Welcome to reality.

I dislike some good movies and music and books and I'm still alive to tell the tale.

e_e

Again with the needlessly condescending tone merely for me saying that a film's relative quality can be argued/discussed instead of being absolute. I thought this was just common sense to film fans/critics by now? Talk to anybody who watches films (either as a hobby or for a living) and they'll tell you films that they find wildly overrated.

Your qualifier for "good" is still vague and arbitrary. If it were really something so innate in the films themselves you'd think you could give me a clearer reasoning for it. Also your whole argument is based off absurd exaggerations, I was talking about American Hustle (which is a film that's barely been out a month and yet you seem to think is some untouchable classic by now) and you suddenly brought up the extremes of Sharknado/Planes vs. The Gofather, I said entertain the insane idea of comparing 'em (just to see where the hell it goes) and you act like I'm treating said opinion as if it's set in stone (which is exactly what I'm arguing against). You just have not got a solid argument here.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

If you're unable to understand why people like it, then you'll just have to live with the truth: you dislike a good movie.

Welcome to reality.

I'll try again: In what way is the film truly good? I'm sure there's some irrefutable science here but you're not giving me much to work off. :pac:

MilanPan!c

e_e wrote: »

I'll try again: In what way is the film truly good? I'm sure there's some irrefutable science here but you're not giving me much to work off. :pac:

I'll say what I said to you last time:

There's dozens of glowing reviews. Good read them.

MilanPan!c

e_e wrote: »

Again with the needlessly condescending tone merely for me saying that a film's relative quality can be argued/discussed instead of being absolute. I thought this was just common sense to film fans/critics by now? Talk to anybody who watches films (either as a hobby or for a living) and they'll tell you films that they find wildly overrated.

Your qualifier for "good" is still vague and arbitrary. If it were really something so innate in the films themselves you'd think you could give me a clearer reasoning for it. Also your whole argument is based off absurd exaggerations, I was talking about American Hustle (which is a film that's barely been out a month and yet you seem to think is some untouchable classic by now) and you suddenly brought up the extremes of Sharknado/Planes vs. The Gofather, I said entertain the insane idea of comparing 'em (just to see where the hell it goes) and you act like I'm treating said opinion as if it's set in stone (which is exactly what I'm arguing against). You just have not got a solid argument here.

My tone isn't needless.

I think it's appropriate. Nor is my definition of good particularly arbitrary.

As for the rest of your post, we've been around and around with this.

In the end either you think some movies are actually good, or you think that Godfather 2 isn't actually better than Sharknado; a lot of people just THINK it is.

I think you'd find, if you want to run a little poll, that people actually THINK it is, not that they think it's simply their opinion, and they could be wrong.

Once you've done that, argue with them for a while.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I'll say what I said to you last time:

There's dozens of glowing reviews. Good read them.

All of which are individual, subjective perspectives based on the biases and sensibilities that each critic brought to them. None of which are trying to prove that it's good.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

In the end either you think some movies are actually good, or you think that Godfather 2 isn't actually better than Sharknado; a lot of people just THINK it is.

Guess what, I THINK it is. I can make a case for it discussing the film at hand and not just go "but look! Everyone else likes it!" citing irrelevant external factors.

Thing is I don't let thousands of other people speak for me. It's funny that you mention Godfather II because that's not a film that got the critical love of the original when it was first released either, even Roger Ebert's review was on the mixed side. ...and it's not like that's being eternally considered a disappointment (I prefer it to the first) is it?

MilanPan!c

e_e wrote: »

All of which are individual, subjective perspectives based on the biases and sensibilities that each critic brought to them. None of which are trying to prove that it's good.

Individually they are.

You really have little idea what consensus means, do you?

When you go to a doctor, you listen to his opinion, because he's spouting consensus.

The same goes for every other job that requires expertise.

Here, here's one for you:

Is Beat Takeshi talented?

Is he ACTUALLY talented?

Could he NOT be?

Are you willing to say he's talented, factually?

I am.

I've seen his movies, own a book of his paintings, even seen some of his standup.

He's a hugely talented guy - that's a fact.

Anyone that says he's NOT, is wrong.

I doubt you can bring yourself to say that.

And that's sad,

Consensus is meaningful.

One opinion is just that - an opinion. Dozens of opinions and hundreds of ratings are more than "my" opinion.

Like I said, make a poll and see if you can get everyone to agree that they could be wrong, that Sharknado COULD FACTUALLY be better than Godfather 2.

See how many people actual will humour you then.

I also think it's a fact that Miyazaki is a brilliant filmaker; you don't.

Mononoke Hime is factually better than Scooby-Doo! Meets the Addams Family. You'd disagree. Maybe you'd think it worthwhile to have a meaningful discussion about their relative merits, because you could be wrong afterall.

MilanPan!c

e_e wrote: »

Guess what, I THINK it is. I can make a case for it discussing the film at hand and not just go "but look! Everyone else likes it!" citing irrelevant external factors.

Thing is I don't let thousands of other people speak for me. It's funny that you mention Godfather II because that's not a film that got the critical love of the original when it was first released either, even Roger Ebert's review was on the mixed side. ...and it's not like that's being eternally considered a disappointment (I prefer it to the first) is it?

Go on and make the poll... if you're willing to argue that Sharknado COULD be better that 2001 (if you don't want Godfather 2).

I'd love to see how many people think it could be.

e_e

Hang on a minute there, your logic is flawed from the outset. The doctor is not spouting "consensus" he is using science to inform the best outcome for you.

Film criticism is more art than science.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Go on and make the poll... if you're willing to argue that Sharknado COULD be better that 2001 (if you don't want Godfather 2).

I'd love to see how many people think it could be.

Again completely missing the point. We are still talking about perception of art here, other people's is of no relevance when I'm sharing mine.

MilanPan!c

e_e wrote: »

Again completely missing the point. We are still talking about perception of art here, other people's is of no relevance when I'm sharing mine.

We're not talking about individual perceptions of art. I have never been. You'd like to. We're not.

You may want to rail against the majority who enjoyed a good movie, but that's got nothing to do with me.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Nolan is really overrated IMO:

Memento: Bleugh (to be clear - I found it pretentious and preposterous)
Inception - Pretty good, but not the best movie ever, though his best movie
Batman 1 - Dull
Batman 2 - Best of the bunch, but again, not the best movie ever
Batman 3 - Overly long and incredibly dour and self-aggrandising

I actually like the Prestige, but boy it needs a lot of fat trimmed off... he needs a new editor IMO.

I also realise that most people disagree with me. These may be good movies I dislike.

What are you talking about?! Don't you see the acclaim these films have gotten as well as their box office takings?! It's obviously good!

Now Milan I liked how you had the strength of your convictions at the beginning there but you had to flip it at the end there with "oh it must be good". You told me to be brave, why can't you be in outright dismissing films that you think are overrated? Nobody is going to scold you for it or call you wrong (other than fanboys of course). You don't think they're good movies, and that's fine.

MilanPan!c

e_e wrote: »

Hang on a minute there, your logic is flawed from the outset. The doctor is not spouting "consensus" he is using science to inform the best outcome for you.

Film criticism is more art than science.

And now you've completely misstated how diagnosis works.

I'm starting to wonder if you really don't know what consensus even means.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

We're not talking about individual perceptions of art. I have never been. You'd like to. We're not.

No you're forcing in objectivity where it doesn't belong.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

You may want to rail against the majority who enjoyed a good movie, but that's got nothing to do with me.

I don't want to rail against anyone, I want to open up a dialogue and not have people shut out my opinion with "You're wrong because people like it!" You don't seem to be fond of discussing films, that's a shame.

poundapunnet

I'ma go ahead and say it, I think Sharknado and other Syfy films will be due for a serious academic critical discussion at some point in the future, I'd even bet money on it. They're bonkers bad but over the past few years they've actually evolved into something pretty easy to read a lot into, surface wise and in deeper ways about their underlying ideology and commentary on how narrative is constructed for an audience that's grown up in an age of irony. I watch them all the time and those kinds of films have come a long way since Jaws 3. I'm overstating it, but only a little. There's a doctoral thesis in them, seriously.

More on topic, critical and audience consensus doesn't make a film automatically good or bad and I've argued on here time and time again against film snobbery against popular opinions. But if popular consensus is the only thing you have to back up your argument then it's a very frustrating argument to have and not really appropriate to a discussion board. Aren't we here to hear each other's opinions and analysis? I can go off to rottentomatoes and read what the critics think any time, places like this are designed to be a bit more interactive than "this is what the NY Times says shut up nyayanaya"

MilanPan!c

e_e wrote: »

What are you talking about?! Don't you see the acclaim these films have gotten as well as their box office takings?! It's obviously good!

Now Milan I liked how you had the strength of your convictions at the beginning there but you had to flip it at the end there with "oh it must be good". You told me to be brave, why can't you be in outright dismissing films that you think are overrated? Nobody is going to scold you for it or call you wrong (other than fanboys of course). You don't think they're good movies, and that's fine.

I have no reason to think that the 90% percent of people that think Memento is good are wrong. That would be stupid.

I didnt like it. I can tell you why. Neither of those things mean it's not good.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

And now you've completely misstated how diagnosis works.

I'm starting to wonder if you really don't know what consensus even means.

Well your analogy was vague enough to begin with.

Of course I know what consensus is, the consensus is that American Hustle is a good movie (I think it is) but that it's the consensus doesn't make it indisputable fact.

MilanPan!c

poundapunnet wrote: »

I'ma go ahead and say it, I think Sharknado and other Syfy films will be due for a serious academic critical discussion at some point in the future, I'd even bet money on it. They're bonkers bad but over the past few years they've actually evolved into something pretty easy to read a lot into, surface wise and in deeper ways about their underlying ideology and commentary on how narrative is constructed for an audience that's grown up in an age of irony. I watch them all the time and those kinds of films have come a long way since Jaws 3. I'm overstating it, but only a little. There's a doctoral thesis in them, seriously.

More on topic, critical and audience consensus doesn't make a film automatically good or bad and I've argued on here time and time again against film snobbery against popular opinions. But if popular consensus is the only thing you have to back up your argument then it's a very frustrating argument to have and not really appropriate to a discussion board. Aren't we here to hear each other's opinions and analysis? I can go off to rottentomatoes and read what the critics think any time, places like this are designed to be a bit more interactive than "this is what the NY Times says shut up nyayanaya"

I have my opinions about these movies. This thread was started - not about movies - and not my me - but about the idea that no movies or art are ACTUALLY good.

Do you agree with that?

MilanPan!c

e_e wrote: »

Well your analogy was vague enough to begin with.

Of course I know what consensus is, the consensus is that American Hustle is a good movie (I think it is) but that it's the consensus doesn't make it indisputable fact.

People dispute facts all the time. Doesn't mean they're right.

You can spend as much time as you want trying to convince people that no movies or art are actually good, if you like. Have fun.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I have no reason to think that the 90% percent of people that think Memento is good are wrong. That would be stupid.

I didnt like it. I can tell you why. Neither of those things mean it's not good.

Good for you, but I don't watch movies that way. In fact I'll watch anything if I've heard positive things about it and when it IS a failure of perception on my part I still praise aspects of the film (like I am with American Hustle, not in my top 50 of the year but it was worth my time) and sometimes give it another look in the future.

poundapunnet

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I have my opinions about these movies. This thread was started - not about movies - and not my me - but about the idea that no movies or art are ACTUALLY good.

Do you agree with that?

Certainly an argument to be made for that position but it's a bit philosophical, and "good" is a term that changes from person to person, place to place and time to time. A lot of people would have a huge problem describing Birth of A Nation or The Triumph of the Will as good, even though objectively they're amazing films, without even getting into their impact on the course of film history. Do we introduce a moral element into whether something is good or not?

Or, as I was discussing in another thread recently, comparing say Jurassic Park to Funny Ha Ha in terms of "which is better than the other" would be a pointless exercise.

But, by and large I'd agree that some films are better than others. More importantly I'd say that one should be able to back one's position up without having to resort to popular consensus, if you're so right it should be an easy argument to make based on the primary material: the film itself. And that's especially true of discussion boards like this.

e_e

poundapunnet wrote: »

More importantly I'd say that one should be able to back one's position up without having to resort to popular consensus, if you're so right it should be an easy argument to make based on the primary material: the film itself. And that's especially true of discussion boards like this.

...and this is all I was trying to say.

e_e

Unbelievable the amount of strawmen that MilanPanic is dishing out. Let me just sum it up simply:

• Good/Bad exists.
• It's more of an idea than a literal fact and it's a matter of perception.
• They can be argued for/against. There is no proof to any of this.

What is so bloomin' outrageous about saying this? :pac:

MilanPan!c

e_e wrote: »

Unbelievable the amount of strawmen that MilanPanic is dishing out. Let me just sum it up simply:

• Good/Bad exists.
• It's more of an idea than a literal fact and it's a matter of perception.
• They can be argued for/against. There is no proof to any of this.

What is so bloomin' outrageous about saying this? :pac:

And yet, you still think there's literally no such thing as a good movie, book or art. And you think that opinion of yours is... Hilariously... A fact.

Which is just about the only fact you seem willing to get behind.



Good luck with that.

MilanPan!c

poundapunnet wrote: »

Certainly an argument to be made for that position but it's a bit philosophical, and "good" is a term that changes from person to person, place to place and time to time. A lot of people would have a huge problem describing Birth of A Nation or The Triumph of the Will as good, even though objectively they're amazing films, without even getting into their impact on the course of film history. Do we introduce a moral element into whether something is good or not?

Or, as I was discussing in another thread recently, comparing say Jurassic Park to Funny Ha Ha in terms of "which is better than the other" would be a pointless exercise.

But, by and large I'd agree that some films are better than others. More importantly I'd say that one should be able to back one's position up without having to resort to popular consensus, if you're so right it should be an easy argument to make based on the primary material: the film itself. And that's especially true of discussion boards like this.

First we'll note that e_e quoted part of your post and fully ignored the part where you say what I've said, that some things are better than others.

But aside from that, morality is definitely a dimension in this. But. Should we label cinematography as "bad" because the moral of the "story" is evil propaganda?

That's hard.

Though most film schools show Leni, so. Maybe good film technique and good film must be separated out if want to truly learn what's "good".

And sure, I've seen Triumph and still haven't succumbed to Naziism.

poundapunnet

MilanPan!c wrote: »

First we'll note that e_e quoted part of your post and fully ignored the part where you say what I've said, that some things are better than others.

But aside from that, morality is definitely a dimension in this. But. Should we label cinematography as "bad" because the moral of the "story" is evil propaganda?

That's hard.

Though most film schools show Leni, so. Maybe good film technique and good film must be separated out if want to truly learn what's "good".

And sure, I've seen Triumph and still haven't succumbed to Naziism.

But doesn't that just show that "this good, that bad" is a bit of a reductionist approach? And in hundreds of very good films from the first several decades of filmmaking the viewer has to put aside sexual or racial sensitivities to be able to enjoy them, which is difficult to varying degrees depending on the viewer and on the film. If a native american person says "John Ford westerns are bad, morally and artistically because of how native americans are depicted" and I say "they're gorgeous, enjoyable, brilliantly written films with some uncomfortably dated bits", who's right?

And I think e_e quoted that part of my post because a big part of his point (not to put words in his mouth) is that it's not so much your position of objectively measuring the quality of films that he's disagreeing with as the way you're making the argument: relying on popular critical consensus rather than your own personal assessment of their strengths and weaknesses.

I think we all might need to just take a step back and a deep breath here, it's an interesting topic but it's getting a bit heated and I don't want to see it locked!

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

And yet, you still think there's literally no such thing as a good movie, book or art. And you think that opinion of yours is... Hilariously... A fact.

Which is just about the only fact you seem willing to get behind.



Good luck with that.

All you have here is a snarky and condescending attitude, not to mention putting words in my mouth.

You're veering dangerously close to arrogant elitism here by calling somebody's own view "hilarious". That you can't post with evidence and simply insult the intelligence and maturity of other posts is frankly irritating. You've more than proven here that you have nothing contribute to this, or any, discussion on film. The onus has been repeatedly on you to prove that a film can be scientifically good and you've consistently disappointed in that regard. All that's in your arsenal here is false claims, misrepresentations of other people's points and condescension.

e_e

MilanPan!c wrote: »

First we'll note that e_e quoted part of your post and fully ignored the part where you say what I've said, that some things are better than others.

...and you still haven't grasped what I'm saying.

Let me bold and capitalize it for you: PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO SAY IT, BUT IT IS NOT AN INDISPUTABLE FACT! IT'S A MATTER OF PERCEPTION!!!

Unless you cut out the patronizing attitude this'll be the last post of yours I'll be responding to in this thread, life is too damn short.