You appear to be the one confusing the analogy and being unable to understand what I've been saying. You are trying mightily to blur the distinction between playing a cover of a song and somehow playing the recording itself, by which you really mean playing a cover

No, I'm MAKING the distinction, you're the one blurring it.

Playing around with something already recorded is like playing around with a movie already made - see Fan Edits forum.

That was in response to me explicitely talking about performing and recording, BASED ON RECORDINGS.
NOT remixing.

So I try to clear it up:
Fan Edits = equivalent of remixing a recording.
Remakes = equivalent of transcribing a recording, and recording it again. I.e. cover.

I'm not blurring anything.

And when you say things like "NO, WRONG." and "no, dismissed" I just wonder who the hell do you think you are.

Someone who understands that, if we're going to make analogies between music and film, then
re-editing a movie > re-editing a recording, and
re-producing a movie > re-producing a recording?

Without chiasms?

I know you've convinced yourself. But an idea cannot be absolutely dismissed or declared wrong unless it is a factual issue.

It can if it's illogical.

There is no factual issue in contrasting remakes with edits. I'm arguing that they are fundamentally different. You believe that they exist on a scale of creativity.

No - if anything, remaking scripts and remaking plays are on a "scale of creativity".
Edits are a different thing altogether, all I said was that you could BLAME THEM FOR ALL THE THINGS YOU BLAME REMAKES FOR, aswell.

No idea why you brought up edits.
Oh wait, it was because you thought they were the cinematic analogy to playing after a recording. /facepalm

It's official because you say so?

No, I say because it's official :p

Why wouldn't it be very easy? Bringing a book to life on the screen is infinitely more creative than bringing a movie to life on the screen again.

Not sure what one has to do with the other, but I said was that if ecranizing a play, it would still be feasible to "blend out" other previous renditions of it and focus on your own version, while with remaking a movie, it's both virtually impossible, and pretty absurd.

All the while being influenced by a previous (famous) movie version, is still (as you said) very much a possibility.

If it's just about putting fingerprints on it, it is minimally creative, as I already argued.

It all depends on how big those fingerprints are.

Small, subtle differences and ideas are also often very appreciated (like with many recordings of classical music).
Having that said, if you look at King Kong and all the things that were altered, changed etc., I'd say it's a pretty huge fucking difference, and it was ANYTHING but "minimally creative".

So if you had previously thought that basing a movie on a movie was so incredibly limited, well, look at King Kong and see how it CAN get done.
And just for the record, yes, one exception DOES rebut your "maxim" (or is it maxime)?
The fact that it CAN be done creatively, means that the uncreative or lame examples are such due to poor ideas and execution, not the format (which is capable of so much more, and better).

You say I said, "all they can do is imprint their own fingers...doing the same with different fingerprints." This is about the 5th time you've made up a quote I didn't say. It is evidence that you do not understand what I'm saying because you feel the need to invent quotes. Those invented quotes do not represent what I've argued.

If something is already made and made well, why copy it just to put one's own fingerprints on it?

Heh. :)

See what a silly and rude thing it is to respond to an idea in that fashion?

I really don't mind.

I think the room for creativity is a major factor in whether a project is worthwhile.

Yea, but plain imitation with subtle fingerprints can already be worthwhile (to the artist, and consumer), as you see, for example, with a great bulk of classical music recordings, or amateur re-enactments of movie scenes.

And it goes a long way uphill from there.

I suspect you'd be in a distinct minority of people who would find it "cheesy."

Or maybe it was "campy", I honestly don't remember anymore.

But yea, landing in a magic village full of cute midgets, following some yellow path, lots of kitschy songs, an OTT green witch... pretty damn "cheesy".

Your views on violence against women

It was a RedLetterMedia reference, silly.
Even without that, you couldn't POSSIBLY have taken my remark about "slitting your wife's wrists" as a honest "view on violence against women", or... could you?

You either have the driest deadpan humor I've ever witnessed, or you're an unimaginably boring person.
I could make an educated guess based on the tone of the rest of your post, but I rather wouldn't.

I think it best to "agree to disagree"

Agreed.

RedFive said:

So where does "logic" fit into the left half?

If I say that, in a music-film analogy, re-editing would be equivalent to remixing, and re-recording would be equivalent to remaking, would that be an opinion? Or fact? Would it be a logical fact? Or an opinion backed up by logic?

What about the other way round, remixing a recording is like reshooting a movie, while playing after a transcription of an audio recording, is like fan editing a movie?
Would that be also just an opinion? That can't be wrong? Would it be "disputable"?

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

how much creativity is involved in piecing already finished scenes from an already complete movie together?

A lot.

I was playing devil's advocate there, in case it wasn't obvious.

There obviously also is a lot of creativity and work in remaking a movie with altered personalities, some altered supporting characters, different actors, different story details, different perspectives and accents, different pace, editing, angles, tone, setting, or maybe a different moral twist inbetween.

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

how much creativity is involved in piecing already finished scenes from an already complete movie together?

A lot.

I was playing devil's advocate there, in case it wasn't obvious to anyone bothering to read through a massive wall of text.

It wasn't.  If it were obvious, I wouldn't have to read through a massive wall of text to understand it.

I said obvious to anyone who'd read it all... gee, learn to read!

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

RedFive said:

So where does "logic" fit into the left half?

If I say that, in a music-film analogy, re-editing would be equivalent to remixing, and re-recording would be equivalent to remaking, would that be an opinion? Or fact? Would it be a logical fact? Or an opinion backed up by logic?

What about the other way round, remixing a recording is like reshooting a movie, while playing after a transcription of an audio recording, is like fan editing a movie?
Would that be also just an opinion? That can't be wrong? Would it be "disputable"?

It doesn't matter -- you dismiss everything you disagree with because you think your opinions all belong to the left half.

Well I'm still not sure where "reasonably backed up opinions" fit in, so there's only so much I can take from that one.

RedFive said:

twooffour said:

Well I'm still not sure where "reasonably backed up opinions" fit in, so there's only so much I can take from that one.

Opinions.  It fits in with the opinions.

Hey, don't mind me asking, I just felt I needed to - because the sole reason you would appear to be lecturing me on "facts vs. opinions" is because I told someone that they were "wrong", and that somehow means I'm confusing the two.

Well, under the definition that an opinion can't be wrong, 'cos it's, like, an opinion, man - a reasonably backed-up opinion would, indeed, fit in with the facts.

If you're confused, you might wanna resolve it by splitting the right half in two categories:
-Subjective opinions, i.e. beginning and ending with mental states. (I.e. I like this song, it's good; it's good.)
-Attempts to make reasonable, accurate conclusions about reality (like suggestions, based on what you want, and how it would be achieved, see example in the picture) or virtual constructs (such as analogies).

I'm sure you can find a picture for that, too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o18iMDaxXcA#t=21

Yea, I dare arguing against a silly picture from the internet, how badass.

Listen, you clown, unless you can't be bothered, feel free to look at the graphic again. Does it mention "logic" anywhere?

So you seem to be the epistemology expert here, you tell me.
The "correctness" of a logical conclusion based on facts, and the "incorrectness" of a logical fallacy, that fits where? Does deducible count as "provable"?
Or is it "opinion", as it's a construct based on facts?

Here's the thing, the graphic is INCOMPLETE, and I was just asking to fill it in. Not even fucking arguing against anything.
It also leaves out the distinction between opinions aimed at getting a grasp of objective facts, and opinions as completely subjective states of mind (a part you clearly overlooked on purpose).
Why that matters? Because it's a fundamental difference whether I say "you're wrong" to someone for disliking a movie I'm a fan of, or for using a clear fallacy, like faulty analogy, in their argument, or making some kind of completely absurd conclusion.

You throw all that in the bag of "opinions", what you get is a mess.



But hey, you want me to argue? Very fine.

"Facts are certainties"
The definition of a fact is something that is, independent of the observer.
It's not a given that the knowledge, or comprehension of this "fact", can be called a "certainty".
Having a statistic in your hand is a certainty, the accuracy of that statistic, not so much.
Very fallible, all based on probabilities (including the accuracy of the methods of getting the statistic), very dependent on numerous independent confirmations, and so, very, disputable (down to the very methods of research and quality control).

Opinions are disputable, sure (and in case of the subjective opinions, there ain't even anything to dispute, merely exchange and express) - but so are many of the things listed as the "buzz-words" for "facts".


What about those on the other half?
"Always, never"... what? Ok, how about physical laws? Those are as close to "certain facts" as it gets, and physical laws apply "always" in given circumstances.


"Might" Sounds like an opinion, but it can often be as close to "certainty" as it gets. We might give the patient this and that treatment, and with a certain probability, he MIGHT respond well.
Is it an "opinion", or the best current FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE?


So this is something for you to ponder.
Mainly whether you should continue to treat some random internet graphic (with a fat false dichotomy in it, at that) as the Holy Bible.

Or, hey, you know, just say "tl;dr" and then some stupid shit like "lol he's trying to redefine common academic definitions in order to justify his opinions about ANH".
Whatever floats your boat, mate, but beware - it may only float in your mind.

too lazy and indifferent, didn't read?

(j/k)

CP3S said:

twooffour said:

Yea, I dare arguing against a silly picture from the internet, how badass.

Listen, you clown, unless you can't be bothered, feel free to look at the graphic again. Does it mention "logic" anywhere?

It is a picture on the internet, but it isn't from the internet. You'll find that same breakdown of fact and fiction in 2nd grade reading text books all over the country. It isn't really "badass". "Nonsensical" or "weird" are more the words I'd have used. I mean, you are actually disputing the established meanings of "fact" and "fiction".

Not sure what "clown" you're talking to; but I'll answer your question about "logic" and how it relates to "fact" and "fiction". Logic is independent from fact or fiction and can fit into either category. Regardless of the logic involved, a fact is a fact and an opinion is an opinion. You can arrive at an opinion via logic, but it is still an opinion. You'll find facts that are as illogical as hell, but they are still facts. So it goes.

 

But hey, you want me to argue? Very fine.

I never said I wanted to argue. Can't be bothered. I'd rather just be amused while watching you try so hard.

It is a picture on the internet, but it isn't from the internet.
It was taken from the internet, probably just Google. Not some academic source, I'd take.

You'll find that same breakdown of fact and fiction in 2nd grade reading text books all over the country.
Well excuse me if I'm not completely satisfied with the comprehensiveness of a simplified graphic for fucking 2nd graders.

I mean, you are actually disputing the established meanings of "fact" and "fiction".
No, you're disputing the established topic of this sub-discussion, which is FACT and OPINION, not "fiction".
Having that said, please quote a single line from my last response, or ANY post ever posted by me, where I actually challenged the meanings of fact, fiction, or opinion.

All I challenged were the unprecise definitions in this lacklustre 2nd grader graphic, in relation to the... established meanings of fact and opinion.


Regardless of the logic involved, a fact is a fact and an opinion is an opinion.
Yes, and the knowledge of a fact (given that it's not a fact that is directly and unambiguously observable, and basically obvious) stands and falls with accurate, and fallacious logic, just as the accuracy of an opinion stands and falls with logic.

The supposed "knowledge" of facts (and that's really what you should distinguish between, opinion and KNOWLEDGE) can be completely wrong if derived through hair-raising logical fallacies, and so can any opinion relating to anything tangible, be it facts, logical or imaginary/fictional constructs, or moral values and well-being.


So when you accuse me of selling my "opinions" as "facts", what you probably really mean, is that I treat my flawed opinions based on fallacies, subjective biases and leaps of logic, as opinions well grounded in reason.
Or, alternatively, maybe it's externalizing my personal tastes on the outside world, i.e. attributing my mental reactions to certain objects, to the objects themselves.

I dunno, have I done the former (which would be basically just poor argumentation)? Have I done the latter?

Or maybe I've pretended to know something, while I actually just guessed or presumed?
So which is it now?

Because just saying "wrong", or "no, that's how it is", isn't necessarily a factual statement, it may as well be "this is how it makes sense, because this and that".


Although I wonder what examples you people REALLY can up with, when it comes down to it.
So far, I've seen you getting repeatedly butthurt about disclaimed jokes, or reacting with bewilderment at me calling a completely messed up analogy "wrong".
Seems like you people are much less about intellectual honesty or calling things their names, than about political correctness and beating around the bush.

WHY should I beat around the bush if I see a nonsensical argument (and can explain why it's nonsensical, or flawed)? How long should I beat around the bush saying "well, in my opinion...", before losing it?

This is beyond silly beyond silly. All of it. Next time you see me proclaim myself as "right" about something, tell me how my statement is actually flawed, or inherently subjective by definition with no external qualifier. Quit whining about "oh, he said wrong, he's so arrogant" while citing little more than stripped-down quotes of which a half is comprised of jokes anyway

And just as a hint, if I say something was a joke 5 times, it probably was.