Sign In

Unpopular Opinion Thread — Page 13

Author
Time
 (Edited)

SparkySywer said:
How would you measure whether or not any of these things were good or bad? You’d need some set of standard, but those set of standards can’t be objective. You can’t prove what blocking should have been used, or how long a take should have been.

It’s the is-ought distinction (Hume’s guillotine), you can’t prove what ought to be solely based on what is. You can only make claims about what should and shouldn’t be based on some set of standards, which are subjective.

Every attempt to define an objective set of standards, or prove whether some art is objectively good or bad, falls short. A movie can be objectively artistically complex, or objectively popular, or objectively influential, or objectively a box office hit, or objectively thrilling, but none of these are inherently, objectively good.

Especially because a lot of the time, people want different things out of movies. Sometimes the same person wants different things at different times.

Sometimes people want schlock BS popcorn movies with cringe dialog. Sometimes people want pretentious arthouse kino from 1729. You really can’t prove either of them wrong.

You nailed it! Conversations [sic: arguments] about whether or not a movie is “good” are so incredibly boring too.

It’s hilarious and sad to me how people on the internet, like in this thread, only ever become friendly and civil when another party agrees with them, and then they can pat each other on the back for being so “objectively right” together. Imagine if discourse was actually about sharing our different interpretations and engagements on the same film with one another.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

NFBisms said:

It’s hilarious and sad to me how people on the internet, like in this thread, only ever become friendly and civil when another party agrees with them, and then they can pat each other on the back for being so “objectively right” together.

“Like in this thread”? I enjoy having civil disagreements and talking things out with people. Just because someone believes in objective quality doesn’t mean they can’t agree to disagree on something. I came to this site to get away from echo chambers, but it really seems like you’re doing that whole “patting each other on the back” thing right now.

You guys all eviscerated the prequels for years. This place was known as a center of George Lucas hate. And that’s not something I’ve ever approved of, but now it’s like you’ve gone in the opposite direction and are refusing to acknowledge the existence of bad movies. It feels hypocritical. I enjoy the prequels for what they are, but I’m fully aware that they’re poorly written, poorly constructed movies. And as I’ve said before, I think it’s important to point out bad writing when we see it, rather than trying to claim it doesn’t exist.

Author
Time

I think the question we have to ask is if Truth can only be measured scientifically (that is - measured in a quantifiable manner), or if there is another manner of coming to it. There might be truth and falsity in art, but we can’t approach uncovering it like we would in engineering, medicine etc. We need, perhaps, a different vocabulary all together.

“It is only through interaction, through decision and choice, through confrontation, physical or mental, that the Force can grow within you.”
-Kreia, Jedi Master and Sith Lord

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Let’s not get Fact confused with Truth. If it’s Truth you’re interested in, the philosophy class is down the hall or whatever Dr. Jones said.

I think the people I work with have terrible taste in music. I think they don’t know the difference between good music and bad music because they haven’t really considered what makes a piece of music worthwhile or meaningful or “good”. Or maybe they haven’t been exposed to enough music to have had transcendent moments which make them realize “wow, this is an achievement.”

I don’t really know what’s behind their taste in music. Maybe they have a different reason for listening to music altogether than I do. To me, it sounds like they just put on some generic crap that they can pretty much ignore while they scroll social media for memes or whatever it is they do.

So if their relationship to the medium has an entirely different purpose and meaning than mine, I can’t expect them to understand why I think their music is crap and why the music I like is superior in every way. These people have probably never bought a piece of physical media, never purchased an album by an artist they like. They just put on a curated playlist of whatever and maybe press the heart button when they hear something that temporarily relieves the anxiety of having to be incessantly processing information.

Maybe, regarding cinema, some people have a completely superficial relationship to the medium and want something that merely looks cool, or seems like it’s interesting or emotionally affecting or “good”.

Maybe some people are more interested in consuming content for its novelty and then immediately moving onto the next disposable crap dangled in front of them by an algorithm. Isn’t that how it should ideally work these days if consumers behave the way they’re trained?

What’s driving the creation of “content” is not the same as what inspired great works of art. Maybe that’s why all we get are sequels, reboots and remakes: there is measurable data on the “success” and “viability” of those projects and the people with the money will be able to make big gains on their investments.

Maybe we should work on drawing a distinction between art and content instead of the subjective/objective thing or trying to pin down “truth”.

“What’s wrong?”

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Servii said:

But, you’ll admit that some films are simply poorly made and poorly written, right? There may not be some inherent metric for judging a film’s quality, but the fact that we keep trying to create metrics to assess films (Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, IMDB, etc.) shows that we are aware of inherent quality differences between the movies we watch.

Film’s qualities are subjective. We can personally think “some films are simply poorly made and poorly written”, and nothing is wrong with that, but that will only be a subjective opinion. What Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, IMDB, etc. are creating is simply a generalisation of multiple opinions, which ends up as a sort of a popularity score.

It’s like how we know the Mona Lisa is a better work of art than a child’s drawing. The child’s parents may have a greater subjective attachment to their kid’s art, but it’s almost universally understood that the Mona Lisa is better conceived and better executed as a work of art…

No, we do not know that the Mona Lisa is a better work of art than a child’s drawing. I will first have to see the child’s drawing, then I will judge. Saying things like “we know the Mona Lisa is a better work of art than a child’s drawing” and “it’s almost universally understood that the Mona Lisa is better conceived and better executed as a work of art” is either pretentious, or basically being brainwashed (herd behaviour), or both.

…even thought we have no way of quantifying that.

You have just contradicted yourself.

真実

Author
Time

Again why is this still a debate. Here are the objective things you can say about a film. The number of crystals in each piece of celluloid. The number of spoken words that are heard in the finished edit. The number of colours used in the chemical process. Subjectively the resulting film might well be a huge piece of crap. But enjoyment and taste aren’t things you can measure or count.

Yub Nub for life

Author
Time
 (Edited)

imperialscum said:

Servii said:

But, you’ll admit that some films are simply poorly made and poorly written, right? There may not be some inherent metric for judging a film’s quality, but the fact that we keep trying to create metrics to assess films (Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, IMDB, etc.) shows that we are aware of inherent quality differences between the movies we watch.

Film’s qualities are subjective. We can personally think “some films are simply poorly made and poorly written”, and nothing is wrong with that, but that will only be a subjective opinion. What Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, IMDB, etc. are creating is simply a generalisation of multiple opinions, which ends up as a sort of a popularity score.

It’s like how we know the Mona Lisa is a better work of art than a child’s drawing. The child’s parents may have a greater subjective attachment to their kid’s art, but it’s almost universally understood that the Mona Lisa is better conceived and better executed as a work of art…

No, we do not know that the Mona Lisa is a better work of art than a child’s drawing. I will first have to see the child’s drawing, then I will judge. Saying things like “we know the Mona Lisa is a better work of art than a child’s drawing” and “it’s almost universally understood that the Mona Lisa is better conceived and better executed as a work of art” is either pretentious, or basically being brainwashed (herd behaviour), or both.

…even thought we have no way of quantifying that.

You have just contradicted yourself.

How?

First off, I was implying in my example that people were able to see the child’s drawing, not just assume it was worse.

I’m not here to argue about the semantics of the word “objective.” I’m just telling you that good films exist and bad films exist. It doesn’t matter if there’s no absolute numerical value you can attach to a film. Some films are simply poorly constructed at their foundation. I didn’t understand that was somehow a controversial opinion on this site. We call films “good” or “bad” all the time. We argue about their relative merits and what they do right and what they do wrong. We don’t just shrug our shoulders and say it doesn’t matter because no film can be quantifiably proven to be better. That’s a self-deafeating mindset to have. When I look at a film that’s riddled with plot holes, just because someone else watching the same film ignores those holes doesn’t mean the plot holes aren’t there or that their existence is subjective. Those are gaps in logic in a film. And the more we try to claim that good or bad writing is just “in the eye of the beholder,” the more common bad writing becomes in media. And as long as a few people say they thought the writing was great, suddenly it becomes “subjective” and immune to legitimate criticism.

Author
Time

Servii said:

Cthulhunicron said:

The Star Wars universe is pretty limited, and I don’t think there’s really anywhere for the story to go.

Hypothetically, the universe has limitless potential for new stories to tell and settings to explore, but since the people in charge of this IP are unwilling to step outside of the franchise’s comfort zone and make anything too unfamiliar, it will continue to stagnate, and the universe will shrink. This isn’t just Disney’s fault or modern Lucasfilm’s fault, by the way. This was a problem under George, as well. The franchise is too fettered to its past.

Possibly. It just seems to me that if you attempt something drastically different with Star Wars…it kinda ceases to feel like Star Wars and just becomes generic sci-fi. If it just becomes a series about the Republic fighting against various different military threats from other planets, then it basically becomes Star Trek or Mass Effect.

I feel like what makes this franchise feel like Star Wars is the spiritual aspect, the emotional struggle of resisting the dark side of the force, and the family drama at the core of the story. You can attempt to keep this going indefinitely, I guess, but what do you do? Introduce another Jedi protagonist, descended from a Sith Lord?

Now obviously we have the Mandalorian, which I agree does feel like Star Wars and it also feels fresh and original, but it also feels like a small background story. I think there is potential for some spin-offs like this, but I don’t really see where Star Wars can go in terms of the larger picture. Theoretically anything can happen in this galaxy, but is it going to be interesting? If episode 10 is about a Trandoshan civil war, is anyone going to care? Will that feel worthy of being episode 10, or will it feel like something they should have just done in a novel?

Author
Time

That’s the problem with making stories instead of giant multimedia franchises. Stories naturally have a beginning, a middle, and an end. Which conflicts with the franchise-minded imperative to keep a constant stream of content going as long as possible, to wring every last cent out of the brand.

“That Darth Vader, man. Sure does love eating Jedi.”

Author
Time

rocknroll41 said:

Welp, now we’re just going in circles here.

Agreed. I think we are not going to achieve anything by keep trying to make him/her see some sense in this matter. 😃

真実

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Servii said:

I’m just telling you that good films exist and bad films exist.

Only in your mind young padawan.

Cthulhunicron said:

Possibly. It just seems to me that if you attempt something drastically different with Star Wars…it kinda ceases to feel like Star Wars and just becomes generic sci-fi. If it just becomes a series about the Republic fighting against various different military threats from other planets, then it basically becomes Star Trek or Mass Effect.

I think there’s only so much you can do without the space wizard elements bleeding in. The other components that give that “SW feeling” are generally the Western tropes and the underworld crime tropes. Sooner or later the outer reaches of these ideas are likely to be met. Even the design language and visual style of SW has a lot of limitations, which accounts for a lot of why the prequels don’t feel right.

Yub Nub for life

Author
Time
 (Edited)

ATMachine said:

That’s the problem with making stories instead of giant multimedia franchises. Stories naturally have a beginning, a middle, and an end. Which conflicts with the franchise-minded imperative to keep a constant stream of content going as long as possible, to wring every last cent out of the brand.

For that very reason, I think Star Wars is at it’s best when it’s anthological. That’s why I prefer stuff that feels loose and indefinite (the original film, TCW, TLJ, Solo, etc.). Whenever Star Wars tries to be grandiose and operatic, it works for a little while (ESB), but eventually runs itself into a dead-end corner (TRoS).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Budu1ux09Rs

Author
Time

imperialscum said:

rocknroll41 said:

Welp, now we’re just going in circles here.

Agreed. I think we are not going to achieve anything by keep trying to make him/her see some sense in this matter. 😃

Well, I think there is an interesting philosophical discussion to be had in regards to establishing the quality of a piece of art. Or whether or not there can be good taste and bad taste in art etc. But that is beyond the scope of this thread.

“It is only through interaction, through decision and choice, through confrontation, physical or mental, that the Force can grow within you.”
-Kreia, Jedi Master and Sith Lord

Author
Time

Episode numbers were a mistake.

The Mandalorian should never have brought in preexisting characters.

TLJ didn’t derail the sequel trilogy. TFA already did, halfway through its running time. TLJ just made people aware of the derailment.

Geonosis is the coolest looking planet shown in the saga.

Watto and Nute Gunray are worse than Jar Jar.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Servii said:

Episode numbers were a mistake.

The Mandalorian should never have brought in preexisting characters.

TLJ didn’t derail the sequel trilogy. TFA already did, halfway through its running time. TLJ just made people aware of the derailment.

Geonosis is the coolest looking planet shown in the saga.

Watto and Nute Gunray are worse than Jar Jar.

I agree with all of this (except for your fourth point)! Happy to find a like-minded individual!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Budu1ux09Rs

Author
Time
 (Edited)

rocknroll41 said:

Servii said:

Episode numbers were a mistake.

The Mandalorian should never have brought in preexisting characters.

TLJ didn’t derail the sequel trilogy. TFA already did, halfway through its running time. TLJ just made people aware of the derailment.

Geonosis is the coolest looking planet shown in the saga.

Watto and Nute Gunray are worse than Jar Jar.

I agree with all of this (except for your fourth point)! Happy to find a like-minded individual!

I’m glad to hear you say that!

I have a soft spot for Geonosis. The landscape and architecture are just really cool to me. Something about it has always struck me as especially memorable.

I always hated Gunray, though, and not in the way you’re supposed to hate a villain. He’s basically the main antagonist of TPM, and he’s woefully unfit to fill that role.

Also, one more take. That one moment of the Ewok dying and his friend mourning him in RotJ is sadder than the entire Order 66 scene in RotS.

Author
Time

Servii said:

Episode numbers were a mistake.

I agree, sort of. It hurt Star Wars in the long run, but it served an actually interesting purpose before the prequels existed. Back when the fact that the first movie was not Episode 1 was just a reference to old serials and not a gap that would eventually be filled in later.

Death of the Author

Author
Time

Servii said:

rocknroll41 said:

Servii said:

Episode numbers were a mistake.

The Mandalorian should never have brought in preexisting characters.

TLJ didn’t derail the sequel trilogy. TFA already did, halfway through its running time. TLJ just made people aware of the derailment.

Geonosis is the coolest looking planet shown in the saga.

Watto and Nute Gunray are worse than Jar Jar.

I agree with all of this (except for your fourth point)! Happy to find a like-minded individual!

I’m glad to hear you say that!

I have a soft spot for Geonosis. The landscape and architecture are just really cool to me. Something about it has always struck me as especially memorable.

I always hated Gunray, though, and not in the way you’re supposed to hate a villain. He’s basically the main antagonist of TPM, and he’s woefully unfit to fill that role.

Also, one more take. That one moment of the Ewok dying and his friend mourning him in RotJ is sadder than the entire Order 66 scene in RotS.

I’d argue that’s the whole point of Nute Gunray’s character. He’s supposed to be unfit and incompetent compared to Palpatine. He’s only a puppet after all. Similar to Hux but better executed and less comical.

I do agree though that The Last Jedi does bring out the flaws in The Force Awakens like a sore thumb.

Geonosis is an interesting planet too. It’s definitely one of the more interesting planets in the saga.

"Pleasure’s fun. It’s great, but you can’t keep it going forever; just accept the fact that it’s here and it’s gone, and maybe then again, it will come back, and you’ll get to do it again. Joy lasts forever. Pleasure is purely self-centered. It’s all about your pleasure: it’s about you. It’s a selfish, self-centered emotion, that is created by a self-centered motive of greed. Joy is compassion. Joy is giving yourself to somebody else, or something else. And it’s a kind of thing that is, in its subtlety and lowness, much more powerful than pleasure. You get hung up on pleasure; you’re doomed. If you pursue joy; you will find everlasting happiness.” - George Lucas

Author
Time

I feel like a lot of people THINK they like TFA, but really they just like it cause it did just barely enough to be passable, while also avoiding anything inevitable that it knew would piss people off, thus putting all the burden onto Episode 8.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Budu1ux09Rs

Author
Time
 (Edited)

rocknroll41 said:

I feel like a lot of people THINK they like TFA, but really they just like it cause it did just barely enough to be passable, while also avoiding anything inevitable that it knew would piss people off, thus putting all the burden onto Episode 8.

JJ Abrams is very much a people pleaser. He sets up plot points and mysteries that win over people’s initial interest, while deliberately ignoring or glossing over the less popular implications of those plot points. He’s not a great long term planner, but he’s very good at getting people excited.

Author
Time

Servii said:

rocknroll41 said:

I feel like a lot of people THINK they like TFA, but really they just like it cause it did just barely enough to be passable, while also avoiding anything inevitable that it knew would piss people off, thus putting all the burden onto Episode 8.

JJ Abrams is very much a people pleaser. He sets up plot points and mysteries that win over people’s initial interest, while deliberately ignoring or glossing over the the less popular implications of those plot points. He’s not a great long term planner, but he’s very good at getting people excited.

True, but “drumming up excitement” at the expense of telling a genuine story longterm goes against my ethos, hence why I’ve grown to dislike TFA/TRoS, and at the same time grow to like TLJ.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Budu1ux09Rs

Author
Time

I don’t really think TFA screwed over TLJ & TRoS that hard. Redoing the Rebels v Empire conflict was a mistake, but they could have brought in the Republic military as late as in Episode 9, and there’s more interesting subtext to the conflict you can read into TFA and TLJ.

They don’t develop on the new concepts of the ST that much, but TLJ picks up the slack enough that I don’t think it’s a problem. At least in TFA’s case.

The Knights of Ren should’ve been cut, because there’s not really anything you could do with them. That’s kind of indefensible, but it’s not that big a deal either.

I don’t really know what else could be a case of TFA screwing over the rest of the ST, though.

Death of the Author

Author
Time

I think I agree with Servii’s point that we can’t make all art pieces immune to criticism because “taste is subjective,” but I don’t think there’s been any shortage of critical voices trying to hold creators accountable for making bad art.

The problem is that in order for films to be made, a lot of money has to be invested in something that doesn’t exist yet, and the people putting their money up want a return on their investment. Those same people have opinions about what “works” and “doesn’t work”.
So a lot of bad art gets made because it’s the result of so many compromises and promises and meddling.

People keep showing up to see these lame superhero movies, and they keep getting made because people show up.

Does bad art get made because the people making it lack talent, vision, and inspiration, or does the audience genuinely want bad art and the creators are merely providing an expensive service of schlocky entertainment?

Is there a difference between art and content?

“What’s wrong?”