logo Sign In

The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga" — Page 21

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Guy Caballero
Show me all the blueprints. Show me all the blueprints. Show me all the blueprints.


The prequels are the wave of the future!

The wave of the future..................the wave of the future.......................the wave of the future..........................the wave of the future................

http://i.imgur.com/7N84TM8.jpg

Author
Time
Post link
Chewy, for whatever reason Go-Mer is terrible at following the logical progression of arguments. So, unless you can be patient and force him to stick to the actual arguments, I wouldn’t suggest arguing with him.


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

Tiptup, in matters of taste, I don't think anyone's crazy.

If that is truly the case then you’d have to be stupid. I don’t think you realize what you’re saying there. For instance: if someone prefers darkness, soundlessness, and bodiless nothingness, then how would that “taste” not be crazy by definition?


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

To me artistic preference is an opinion, not right or wrong.


Then you’d be wrong.

If you have an opinion, then it must be the result of real, objective circumstances on some level. All truth meets somewhere, Go-Mer, or else there would be no scientific coherence between your reality and mine. If you have a unique point of view (which you obviously do), then that point of view can be described and distinguished from my point of view to at least some degree, or else it would be impossible to argue that it is unique. Then, if a point of view is analyzed in that way, I can guarantee you that we will find things that are “right” or “wrong” about it.

Let’s look at an example: A guy loves puppies. He loves everything about them. He thinks they are adorable and wants be around puppies as long as he lives. Then he sees a movie that tears apart endless acres of real, living puppies limb from limb. Now, this film has a hateful attitude towards puppies, horribly killed endless numbers of real puppies, and expresses a point of view that probably wouldn’t care if puppies were erased from existence. Yet, let’s say that our puppy lover enjoyed this movie because, from his perspective, he loved how the movie had lots of puppies in it (and boy does he love puppies!). I’m sorry but there’s definitely something very wrong here. The very reason he likes the movie contradicts what the movie is about on the whole!

Don’t even try to give me the bullshit that artistic expression can’t be right or wrong. It can be all the time. Even I can admit that my most beloved forms of entertainment aren’t perfect. Everything made by people has mistakes and wrongs in it. To deny that fact is to deny who we are. Yet, on the other hand, some forms of entertainment are better than others and there’s nothing wrong with seeking out the best art we can find in an objective fashion.

Now, of course choice is always involved in this process, and we can always choose to be fond of things that do not deserve fondness. I don’t want to pretend that our points of view are enslaved by our perspective of our environment. Sentimental attachment is important in this regard, and if someone wants to argue for their preferences on this basis, despite admitting glaring faults or inferiority, then I can be totally fine with that. But, let’s not be idiotic enough to fool ourselves into thinking that there is no objective truth relating to beauty.

If you love the prequel trilogy, Go-Mer, then tell me your point of view and argue for it. If I then point out my problems with your point of view (problems that prevent me from seeing things the same way you do), don’t pretend like my problems don’t exist and simply be ignored! Try to argue why you don’t believe they are problems! If you can’t argue them away, then admit that they could be problems, but that you can ignore them. I would accept that from you.

If the puppy lover from my example is honest and fair enough to admit that his movie should have problems being liked from his perspective, then I’d be happy with that. Then the film’s negative attitude and treatment towards puppies is simply something he can ignore, and he can love how it shows him lots of puppies despite that clear problem. In that case he’d no longer be “wrong” because we both agree about the objective state of things. His puppy loving perspective ignores the puppy hating aspects of the movie and therefore works.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
When did anyone claim to love nothingness?

Go ahead and call me stupid, I feel taste is subjective.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
I think the hostility towards the prequels/saga around here is different, because it's seen as a "threat" to getting the original versions a decent release. If the "saga" is accepted and popular, then there's no need to bother with 77-83. I find it VERY hard to objectively look at the big 1-6 saga because I feel like it's fucking me out of the originals, my favorite movies ever. And Gomer, yes taste is subjective. So keep that in mind before filibustering about how the movies are better now and puppets can't possibly be better than CGI.
Sorry, I keep seeing ads for this Superman mega-set and these restored James Bond movies and I'm fucking pissed Star Wars '77 gets treated worse than Superman 4 and A View to a Kill.
Author
Time
Post link
I think you are right about some of the negativity for the new stuff being sort of in reaction to the way the originals have been marginalized.

I hope that Lucas can surprise us in the coming year, and if he can do that, then I think it will truly be a time for celebration.

I'd like to see him do that, and then I hope that people who feel as you do will be able to forgive and enjoy the new stuff a little bit more just because it's no longer the reason you can't get the O-OT in higher quality.

I'm not expecting 100% reversals, but at the very least a little more tolerance all the way around.


Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I think you are right about some of the negativity for the new stuff being sort of in reaction to the way the originals have been marginalized.


So what you are saying is that no matter what Lucas did, the fans will never love him?
Author
Time
Post link
I am saying that if Lucas had made the O-OT available in as high a quality as the SE on DVD, more fans would have had no problem with him.

I think you are confusing my statement where I said that no matter what Lucas did, there would be people who didn't like it for what you have quoted in your sig. I certainly never said that.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
When did anyone claim to love nothingness?

There are definitely people in this world that claim to love nothingness according to their expressed tastes. Have you ever heard of nihilists? What about people who have such negative attitudes about certain forms of art that they'd throw out all of the good with the bad? In that limited sense there are people that prefer nothingness if they find no good alternatives.

Either way, Go-Mer, are you saying that you believe that someone is wrong if they prefer nothingness?


Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

Go ahead and call me stupid, I feel taste is subjective.


I see no need to call you stupid just yet, but thank you for the permission.

Otherwise, where did I claim that taste is not subjective? I devoted an entire paragraph to that fact in my last reply, Go-Mer. I guess that makes your previous post very stupid.

Why didn't you respond to my puppy-lover example?

We weren't arguing if taste is subjective, Go-Mer. We were debating if taste can be objectively understood and then judged as right or wrong. Those are two different things and if you need me to explain the difference for your benefit then I'll be glad to do just that.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
I see the distinction you are making now.

I personally don't feel qualified to judge others in all cases, so the idea that one could determine wether or not their "taste" was wrong when compared to other aspects of a person's character.

I find more often than not people tend to contradict themselves on a regular basis.

Is that wrong? I really can't say I know.
Your focus determines your reality.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

I find more often than not people tend to contradict themselves on a regular basis.

Is that wrong? I really can't say I know.


If a person truly contradicts himself or herself, then I would definitely say that is wrong. But, sometimes it may look as if a person is operating in a contradictory manner, and yet they are not. It's almost always difficult to tell, and I don't mean to sound as if I have the right to tear someone down for their partialities. (We are all predisposed towards making mistakes after all.) At the very most, I will vigorously attack opinions that I understand as wrong, but I’ll try to not accuse people of them in definite ways.


In my example the puppy lover enjoyed seeing puppies on film while completely failing to recognize the hateful aspects of the movie he enjoyed. However once he had the contradicting aspects pointed out to him, he then had options with regard to how he would then respond to that information. Pretending the problems don't exist by completely ignoring them or rationalizing them away shouldn't be among his possible choices though.

I believe it is best to focus on the good and enjoy films in light of whatever we deem important. That means that there can be flaws, such as contradictions, but that we can then try to overlook them and enjoy what we see as long so the flaws do not destroy any parts of the film that are actually important to us. (Importance, I believe, is the key since that best describes particular points of view.) If the movies produced within our culture have progressed to the point where we then begin to expect a certain level of quality in certain areas, then those aspects are important to us. If a film is found to be lacking to one degree or another in that way then we will most likely express displeasure. However, there may be points of view that do not give that much importance to those same aspects, and in that case we can find honest disagreements. An individual with the latter point of view can then acknowledge the possibility for real flaws in something he or she may enjoy, but then clarify that those flaws are not actually found in anything important to his or her enjoyment and that the flaws can therefore be ignored in a sense.


Anyways, most of the greatest philosophers and artists in history have believed that there is structure and unchanging principles to be found in every possible kind of beauty, at least to some degree. I believe it is best that we are never arrogant enough to believe that beauty can only be found within our own subjective minds. We don't have the right to define everything for ourselves like that. At the very least we can say that some things are objective and that we should seek out truth whenever we can.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005