Vaderisnothayden said:
::waves::
There we go! Can everyone feel the love? Good thing too, my click wheel nearly exploded.
VISNH: Apologies for calling you an idiot, but I think the discussion at hand is one of the great problems of not only film studies but art criticism in general.
The problem is that people have this notion that art isn't subjective. It clearly is. I understand that the situation is more complex than sweeping statements allow. But the biggest problem in art criticism, and to a lesser degree in media studies, is that the intelligentsia thinks it can state definitively if something is good or bad, on grounds that at the end of the day rely only on the degree of sophistication of their argument. Some teenage girl thinks Twilight is awesome. Someone may say, "why, its so simple and the characters are dumb!" and she may say, "no, they appeal to me, I think its a very good movie/book." At the end of the day, there is no reply to that. You can state why YOU think she SHOULD consider them to be stupid and hollow, but she can understand exactly what you are saying and still state "I just don't agree." And that's that. Hell, cinephiles can't even agree amongst themselves about films, and they are supposedly educated about all the mechanics, intellectualism, etc of films.
The illusion of the objectivity of taste is the great lie that cinema professors invented to justify their existance. Its elitism that stands on a pedestal of bullshit.
That's why it personally bugs me when people pretend that taste is something that exists outside of their perception, some greater truth to be discovered if only they can analyse something enough. But the bottom line is that people love stuff you think is shit, and you love stuff other people think is shit, and there would be a lot of time saved if everyone just realised, "hey, people have different tastes, interests, and criteria for what is appealing to them."
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.
The point is that you attempted to invalidate that films success by asserting it wouldn't be recieved as such today, the implication being that the film isn't really as good as its reputation holds. Which is a circular argument--it wasn't released today, it was released in the 80s and was very successful in the 1980s, and if it was made today it would be quite different.
You are mistaken. I am not trying to invalidate the film's success, because I do not believe its success is proof of anything. I have no need to invalidate its success. I am merely trying to point out that it is not necessarily as universally loved as you seem to think it is, and I am doing that because you seem to believe this is an important point and because I am not so confident that everybody loves or would love it.
Yes, you were. I said the film was financially and critically very successful. You said it was because the films "artificial" characterization was in style at the time it was released, and if people could evaluate it again they might change their minds. This is what you said:
"Well, that's back in the early 80s. The sort of artificial character portrayal that the film goes in for would make it less popular if it were released now, because films go in for that sort of thing less nowadays. And some people developed their view of the film back in the 80s and never got around to revising their view in recent times. Plenty ordinary moviegoers, if shown that film, would think it was pretty lame."
This is essentially saying it was only popular because standards were poorer (read: different) back then. But regardless: the film was released in the 80s and was successful in the 80s, by both fans and non-fans. It wouldn't be as popular now because its not in sync with 2010 tastes and styles--but it WAS in sync with 1987 tastes and styles, as you admitted, which is why it was popular.
Again, this brings me back to judging films based on temporal styles. A lot of people in the 1980s would say the film is pretty good, and clever, with witty writing, sophisticated effects, and well-developed characters, with a very relevant socio-political message. Today, they might not, because tastes have evolved and now people have different criteria, standards, and expectations of films in general. But this is like complaining a film from the 1920s has no color and sound. Its a reminder that evaluating the worth of anything in art and entertainment is strictly temporal to the context you are living in.
yeah, I agree, you have to take into account the time frame the movie was made in, especially when it comes to special effects.
Guys, let's please stay on-topic.
Like this:
Or this:
Thank you.
Hey Frink:
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.
Awww shucks...
Happy Wednesday, xhonzi! Go get yourself some Fish 'n' Chips
That dude in the picture looks almost exactly like me. Hip attitude, polo shirt with the collar turned up. Great teeth. Non pasty skin. Excited about cheap fish 'n' chips.
Mmmmmm... cheap fish 'n' chips.
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.
Wow, what a crazy thread this has turned out to be! Apparently herd mentality, like the intricate subtleties of face shapes, is something that only VINH is capable of detecting.
Every 27th customer will get a ball-peen hammer, free!
He can also dictate whether taste is good or bad, apparently.
Picture / Thread ... you make the call.
This thread covers a lot of ground. You all better beat it, I hear they're going to tear it down and put up an office building where it's standing. You can leave in a taxi. If you can't get a taxi, you can leave in a huff. If that's too soon you can leave in a minute and a huff. You know you haven't stopped talking since I came here. You must've been vaccinated with a phonograph needle.
Wait a minute!!!!!
Every single person on this board likes "Star Wars!"
So does most everyone!
We're all sheeple! Sheeple!!!! Wake up!!!!!!!!! WE ARE THE HERD!!!!
"Star Wars Is People !!!"
Oh man! All these years while I was watching Star Wars I have been watching people! Aw, I am gonna be sick!
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape
It makes me sad to think of all the people who might be missing out on the awesomeness that is this thread, merely because they have no interest in a TPM review.
Googling for "Star Wars is People" returns one result
"Saying that fur is people pretending to be animals is like saying Star Wars is people pretending to be aliens." -some guy named Gunfox"
So... fur is... good?
IT'S MY TRILOGY, AND I WANT IT NOW!
"[George Lucas] rebooted the franchise in 1997 without telling anyone." -skyjedi2005
"Yeah, well, George says a lot of things..." a young 1997 xhonzi on RASSM
"They're my movies." -George Lucas. 19 people won oscars for their work on Star Wars (1977) and George Lucas wasn't one of them.
none said:
Googling for "Star Wars is People" returns one result
"Saying that fur is people pretending to be animals is like saying Star Wars is people pretending to be aliens." -some guy named Gunfox"
It's a googlewhack!
Yay!
C3PX said:
Oh man! All these years while I was watching Star Wars I have been watching people! Aw, I am gonna be sick!
Not if you've been watching the PT. No people there.
Pixels are people too, they are subatomic people who reside in all people and teach us about people, people who are Star Wars and are the luckiest people in the world.
Sorry, it'd be a googlewack is it didn't use the quotes.
Grrrrrrrr!
