But my opinion about the neighborhood boy being potentially the best ever would be purely my subjective view based on my own thought from watching him play with other kids who probably aren't that good. If the neighborhood kid had beaten Micheal Jordan during his prime in a one-on-one match, then now I would have something objective to base my opinion on
I meant actually, not potentially. And obviously, he can't have beaten Mike or my point is meaningless :D
Yea, it's some amateur kid who's really bad, but then some jackass fanboy comes up and says he's the best ever, and Michael Jordan is a hack.
So that'd be a pretty fucking stupid "opinion", wouldn't it?
You'd have to decide that case by case. If I say, "This has got to be the most beautiful sunset I have ever seen!" and you respond with, "Pfft, I've seen better." Our contrary opinions have just bumped heads. I could look at you incredulously and say, "Yeah right, better than this?" And then proceed to tell you all the reasons why I think it is the most beautiful one I have ever seen, and you could respond with all the reasons it pails in comparison to other sunsets you've witness. But how silly and vain of an argument would that be? We are clearly dealing with subjective data, the beauty of a sunset can't be quantifiable, because it is in the eye of the beholder.
If we're dealing with something that could potentially be proven, but can't, then it'd be a bit more reasonable to debate it, but we'd probably just still be bumping the heads of our opinions together. If I say Wilt Champerlain is the best basketball player ever, and doubleKO says Micheal Jordan was the best ever, we could argue this out, do research, and come up with stats, but ultimately the data doesn't exist to prove it either way. Records were kept differently back when Wilt played to the time Jordan played, so it is hard to measure the two against each other fairly and with certainty. So it remains an opinion on both of out parts, but each of our opinions are based on facts (they were both extremely good players) as well as subjective feelings (my affinity for Wilt against KO's affinity for Micheal). A debate about this can be fun, enjoyable, and even rewarding, but as far as determining anything, it is as fruitless as the sunset debate.
QFT.
I'd say both kinds of arguments can be fruitful, but the first example is pure sentiment, while the other has things like facts, facts in relation to values (what makes a better player?), facts that are difficult to quantify, but also potential biases that are clearly wrong, and observations that are clearly correct.
So if you establish a virtue in relation to which, say, the characters in the prequels fall short, I think you could reasonably argue that they are actually pretty bad (in comparison to, say, Men in Black).
But if someone realizes all of the features that makes them bad, but likes them for some reason, then that's where you've reached the point where you've been bumping heads.
I think that's it really, there's a lot that can evade your attention, perception and reasoning, but at some point you reach core preferences that are just there, and that's it.
Anakin may have a shitty arc, and EpI isn't an experimental avantgarde movie - but if someone finds the lack of a round arc satisfying and liberating, like some random kid just blows up the donut for no reason and that's somehow entertaining or resembles some real life accident, then whatever.
So if you take my argument against Moth3r before I was banned, I did say that if he actually finds Jar Jar funny, he can float in his boat for all I care.
The beef I had is that, to me, he seemed to just have made a completely careless statement comparing two movies based on little more than both being "silly" and "fun" at places.
Without giving a shadow of thought to whether the silliness was positive, or negative, its proportions, how well the characters worked, etc.
I liked Jar Jar myself when I was a kid, and I still love the stupid robots in EpIII although almost everyone else seems to hate them.
So I have no delusions about my tastes being objective in this regard.
You can. I think what was getting people upset was the abrasive way you'd do it, with remarks such as, "Well, its official now, accept it" etc.
Ah, well, yea, but that's not so much being intellectually dishonest, as just being a douche :p
I don't always do that, but there are certain "triggers" that create a desire to phrase things like this.
For example, if I start arguing against someone, and they start repeatedly telling me how "that's just my opinion", and "i have mine, and you have yours, and we should respect each other", you just want to jab them somehow :D
*agreeing with the rest*
Who can prove me objectively wrong either way?
Well I don't really want to dig up the remake argument right now, as I don't remember it very well, but I think my problem was that he wasn't calling certain remakes bad, he was trying to establish some philosophy/system, under which creating a remake of a movie is somehow inherently unjustified.
So I say, look, man, it IS justified, for those who make it (genuinely), and for those who want to watch it, because the "alternate fingerprints", or subltle to heavy changes in tone, setting, accents and angles, i.e., can be a sufficient and worthy motivation to rewrite/reshoot a movie, and to have interest in watching it.
(The human mind likes recognition, so seeing the same thing in a slightly different version can be appealing.)
He also brought up several reasons why remakes can work badly, to which I all agreed.
So basically, I found his reasoning in establishing some over-arching philosophy to be flawed and arbitrary, especially as I think that creators and audiences make their own values and preferences (so basically I was the one arguing for subjectivity.. hehe).
I also couldn't get for the love of God why this "lack of creativity" should apply to remakes, but not to fan edits to somehow.
Just found the whole argument to be nonsensical, and I simply don't like beating around the bush saying "but I surely just don't understand your view" when it clearly seems to me that someone hasn't thought things through (and I'm articulating why).
No certainty about being right there, just (at that moment) no reason to believe otherwise ;)
So I hope that clears it up a bit.