Warbler said:
Vaderisnothayden, I'm curious what are your top ten movies(if you have such a list)? It might help me understand your tastes a little better.
Vaderisnothayden said:
I would disagree I do see depth in it. It is not super deep, but it is there. I think you have a misconception that a movie must be deep to be good. I disagree. It certainly helps, but I lot of things add up to decide whether or not a movie is good. Story, soundtrack, comedy, performances, characters, direction, action, etc. lots of stuff. I think you are falling into a trap saying "well if it doesn't have any depth, it must not be good". under that line of thinking alot of otherwise great westerns, comedies, action and adventure movies and sometimes dramas get labeled as bad. Amount of depth, imho is only one part of a very large and very complex equation as to what makes a movie good or bad.
If a movie has no emotional depth, then it doesn't have much artistic value.
I would disagree with that. artistic value is very subjective. maybe you don't any artistic value in a movie that doesn't have emotional depth, but that doesn't mean others don't see artistic value in movies without emotional depth.
Btw, I don't necessarily evaluate movie based on how much artistic value it has. I kind of evaluate it on how much does it entertain me, how much to I like the story, the plot, characters, scenes, direction etc. If its a comedy I evaluate how funny it is. If its an action film I evaluate the action sequences. Emotion depth is but one smart part of a larger equation.
Vaderisnothayden said:
I wasn't copying anyone else views. I formed my own, when I first watched the movie and then re-watched it over and over and over again as a kid.
As a kid. But when you got older it was time to form an adult opinion of it, and by that time you had probably run into other people who thought it was good, which would have encouraged you to keep to your original opinion rather than revising it.
not true at all. I never came upon a time where I said "ok I'm an Adult now, its time to form an adult opinion of the movie" If anything makes me keep my original opinion rather than revising it, its that its the opinion I originally formed. I can be very stubborn to admit that an opinion I originally formed was incorrect.
Vaderisnothayden said:
true popular does not equal good. But, its doesn't equal bad either. I think was it does equal is there being a greater than 50% chance of being good. There has to be a reason why something it popular, and its not always because we're all lemmings
Between the human capacity to get things wrong and the human capacity for herd-think, I think that explains the popularity of a lot of things. I don't think something being popular makes it any more likely to be good.
it may explain the popularity of a lot of things but not all. I just think that among the millions and millions of people that like WOK, there must be at least a few that are intelligent people, have good/similar tastes to my own, and are not affected by this supposed herd-think. What of those people? They like the movie. what are the odds that they could like a movie that has absolutely no merit to it?
Vaderisnothayden said:
maybe not, but I do think you say most people do not agree with your view.
Most Trek fans, not most people in general.
I would disagree. my gut instincts tell me otherwise.
Vaderisnothayden said:
I think we can be sure of the views of I'd say 50%-70% of the people who've seen the films.
I'm not so sure of that.
I am, and I'd be willing to put money on it.
Vaderisnothayden said:
most of these casual movie goers may not have seen the film.
Many have.
and I of those many. I'd be willing to bet most prefer Star Trek II to V.
Vaderisnothayden said:
oh, I think you'd be surprised to find out what they think of Khan. I be very surprised to find out they thought Khan was "awful beyond belief" or that Montalban's performance was "stomach turning".
Well, I've been gratified to find that some such people agree with my views.
how many? care to ask them to come to the forum? I'd be curious to ask them why they think Khan was awful beyond belief.
Vaderisnothayden said:
yeah you're right. I don't appreciate that argument to much. I am not a lemming. I make up my own mind about things. I listen to Sinatra style music. I started doing so when I was a kid. I guarantee you very few others in my school listened to my kind of music and I didn't appreciate the kinds of music they did listen too, I still don't. I also have my hair in a very conservative style for someone my age. I had it that way when I was in high school when long hair for guys was in style. It was not a popular hair style. I don't do things because the majority do it. Does what the majority do have an affect on me? yeah. I'm also sure it has an affect on you. But this idea that we much all be lemmings is comes off as arrogant. As zombie said "everyone else is crazy and you're not". Isn't just possible that when the majority likes something, that you don't, that maybe just maybe, they are seeing something that you are missing, that you are in the wrong and not them. Isn't that a possibility?
Well, I apologize for any offense given. Offense isn't my intent. Maybe you are one of those people who would have liked WOK even if the majority didn't, but I am sure there are a lot of people out there whose liking of WOK has a lot to do with the fact that it's liked by others. As for the majority having effect on my thinking, precious little, because all my life I have been the different one in so many areas. And I'm sorry, but I don't buy that I'm missing something in WOK that's of value.
I'm not saying you are, I'm simply saying you should consider the possibility. Let me give you an example. Everyone seems to think Citizen Kane is the best movie ever made. I have watched it several times. I just don't get what is so great about it. But I don't assume its bad and everyone else is wrong. I believe that I am missing something that everyone else is seeing. Not all the millions of people who think Citizen Kane is great can possibly be lemmings/affected by herd think. So I assume there must be something of merit in it.
even if you don't wish to continue the discussion, I still be very interested to hear your answer to my first question.
I would disagree with that. artistic value is very subjective. maybe you don't any artistic value in a movie that doesn't have emotional depth, but that doesn't mean others don't see artistic value in movies without emotional depth.
I think that's about like saying something can have emotional depth without having emotional depth. Without emotional depth you've got jack shit in terms of art. The problem is there are some pretty mistaken ideas about art and what's of artistic value. For example, you have people thinking political discussion and intellectual fiddle fiddle are of artistic value in and of themselves. Well they can be of value of some sort, but not artistic value unless they enhance the emotional depth, which they can sometimes.
Btw, I don't necessarily evaluate movie based on how much artistic value it has. I kind of evaluate it on how much does it entertain me, how much to I like the story, the plot, characters, scenes, direction etc. If its a comedy I evaluate how funny it is. If its an action film I evaluate the action sequences. Emotion depth is but one smart part of a larger equation.
Oh there are other criteria for evaluating movies, sure, but artistic value and emotional depth is the big one.
not true at all. I never came upon a time where I said "ok I'm an Adult now, its time to form an adult opinion of the movie" If anything makes me keep my original opinion rather than revising it, its that its the opinion I originally formed. I can be very stubborn to admit that an opinion I originally formed was incorrect.
Well I would argue that you should have come back when you were an adult and tried to assess it anew. I am constantly reviewing and testing my views and assessing things anew, giving myself the chance to form different views if it's warranted. I don't give my views an easy time.
it may explain the popularity of a lot of things but not all. I just think that among the millions and millions of people that like WOK, there must be at least a few that are intelligent people, have good/similar tastes to my own, and are not affected by this supposed herd-think. What of those people? They like the movie. what are the odds that they could like a movie that has absolutely no merit to it?
Considerable odds that some such people could like a movie with no merit. Even highly intelligent people make mistakes and people like things for the oddest reasons.
I would disagree. my gut instincts tell me otherwise.
I am, and I'd be willing to put money on it.
There's no point in debating this part. We're just going back and forth "yes" "no" here.
and I of those many. I'd be willing to bet most prefer Star Trek II to V.
I don't know how you can be so sure of their views.
how many? care to ask them to come to the forum? I'd be curious to ask them why they think Khan was awful beyond belief.
I'm not going to drag people from other parts of my life onto this forum. I don't like mixing the different areas of my life like that. I could be mistaken, but I detect a certain implication of "prove it" in your statement and I do not feel I need to prove anything. I don't think my statement should be so hard to believe that I'd need to prove it and I think I should be taken at my word, my statement being made in good faith. Were I the only person I'd ever met with my opinion I would still hold to it, but I'd be less confident that others out there would agree with me and a little more accepting of the "how did you come by such a crazy view?" reaction I've been getting here. But I know from experience that it doesn't just take being me to agree with my views on WOK. I know it's not just me with one view and everybody else with another, hence my not being so convinced by your and zombie's view that the non-Trek fans would all think the same of this film as the majority of Trek fans do.
Montalban's performance and the general writing and presentation of the character of Khan was a major problem with the film for those people I've met who feel the same way about this film as I do.
Everyone seems to think Citizen Kane is the best movie ever made. I have watched it several times. I just don't get what is so great about it. But I don't assume its bad and everyone else is wrong. I believe that I am missing something that everyone else is seeing. Not all the millions of people who think Citizen Kane is great can possibly be lemmings/affected by herd think. So I assume there must be something of merit in it.
You might be better off suspecting the movie's reputation comes from the human taste for being pretentious about art. There's some merit in Kane, specifically Orson's performance, but it is definitely a vastly overrated film. I'm not in the habit of letting other people do my thinking for me, which is what I'd be doing if I accepted the popular judegement on things.
I'm not going to list a top ten movies, because that sort of list is too hard to make up. There are movies I like more than others, but the list changes and there are different ways to judge such a list. For example, there are movies I think are great and movies I like a lot and while the two lists overlap they are not the same.