Sign In

Vaderisnothayden

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
30-Oct-2008
Last activity
27-Apr-2010
Posts
1352

Post History

Post
#400276
Topic
RedLetterMedia's Revenge of Nadine [TPM 108 pg Resp. [RotS Review+RotS Preview+ST'09 Reveiw+Next Review Teaser+2002 Interview+AotC OutTakes+Noooooo! Doc.+SW Examiner Rebuttal+AotC Review+TPM Review]
Time

TheBoost said:

Warbler said:

 

Vaderisnothayden said: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.    

in your opinion

Vaderisnothayden said:

Oh there are other criteria for evaluating movies, sure, but artistic value and emotional depth is the big one.

in your opinion

Warb, you're missing the point. VINH doesn't express opinions (if he even has such lowly feelings). He reveals fact.  

Bullshit. All I do is believe in my opinions. I do nothing that everybody else doesn't do. Or do you argue things while believing they're wrong or automatically count your opinions as mistaken just because somebody tells you they are?

Surely you have the intelligence to realize it's low-down to join in attacking somebody who is being abused?

Warbler said:

first of I want to apologize for my part in derailing this thread.    I saw Vaderisnothayden's comments on the Star Treks movie and just couldn't keep myself from commenting.   Sorry.    This will be my last post in this thread as 1. the discussion between VINH and myself isn't going anywhere.  We just disagree and that's that.  2. I no longer wish to contribute to the further derailment of this thread.    

Vaderisnothayden said: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.    

in your opinion

Vaderisnothayden said:

Oh there are other criteria for evaluating movies, sure, but artistic value and emotional depth is the big one.

in your opinion

Vaderisnothayden said:

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.

ok, how about listing say 5 movies that you feel are great and 5 movies that you like a lot?   

 

 

first of I want to apologize for my part in derailing this thread.    I saw Vaderisnothayden's comments on the Star Treks movie and just couldn't keep myself from commenting.   Sorry.    This will be my last post in this thread as 1. the discussion between VINH and myself isn't going anywhere.  We just disagree and that's that.  2. I no longer wish to contribute to the further derailment of this thread.  

Thank you for not being like certain other people. You have not insulted me at any point on this thread and for that I thank you. We can agree to disagree, no problem. :)

in your opinion

in your opinion

Well of course it's my opinion. I wouldn't be saying it if it wasn't. I never see the point in people saying "In your opinion", except for people to say "I think you're mistaken" without actually saying those words. I never claimed it was anything other than my opinion. It is my opinion, my opinion which I believe is right because I have thought it out very carefully and found it solid, same as you believe your opinions are right. Same as most people believe their opinions are right.

ok, how about listing say 5 movies that you feel are great and 5 movies that you like a lot?   

Maybe some other time. Right now, our discussion doesn't seem to be thrilling everyone on this thread, so I'd rather just draw it to a close.

TV's Frink said:

It's time for everyone to stop this pointless bickering

I agree. I am done with all that now.

Post
#400269
Topic
RedLetterMedia's Revenge of Nadine [TPM 108 pg Resp. [RotS Review+RotS Preview+ST'09 Reveiw+Next Review Teaser+2002 Interview+AotC OutTakes+Noooooo! Doc.+SW Examiner Rebuttal+AotC Review+TPM Review]
Time

zombie84 said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

So basically anybody who doesn't agree with your relativistic view of art is immature, egomaniacal, idiotic, etc? Nice to know. I won't bother discussing art with you in the future.

I wouldn't bother discussing it with anyone other than other deluded elitists convinced they know better than others just because they don't enjoy certain things. I doubt you could convince any reasonable person that their taste in things is somehow "incorrect."  "Sorry, sir, you may think that Star Wars is a good movie, but actually it's not. Trust me, I've thought about it a long time." At best, people will say they simply don't agree, and at worst you will offend them. "I'm sorry you don't agree. You're still wrong, however."

An absolutist view of any art, whether fashion, comics, cinema, or music, is pure lunacy. I don't know how any person can honestly convince themselves that this has any logical value. In order to do so you would have to believe that you are "correct" about certain opinions and others "incorrect", which is pretty self-absorbed. It also shows how people have absolutely no grasp of cultural and art history, otherwise the only explanation of why films from certain periods have similar characteristics and why people liked certain things during certain periods is "well, they're not as sophisticated as us now", while exempting the present moment from the same analysis. Except for the vintage material that you like yourself, of course, that stuff is "truely" good, not just illusionarily good because of herd-mentality. Because everyone is wrong except for you, right now.

Blah blah blah. In case you hadn't caught on, I stopped debating with you two pages back. I thought I made it clear enough, too. To have any chance of reaching somebody with views as far out as yours would take too much effort and I'm not going to bother (all the more so seeing as you can't stop being insulting). I don't get paid for posting, you know. But you stubbornly refused to recognize that I'd stopped debating with you and so you hijacked my discussion with Warbler to find material to use as an excuse to insult me further. What I find interesting is that you can't accept me as a valid human being. Once I'd indicated I had views at odds with your prized relativistic doctrine of art, out came a stream of abuse. According to you I'm an idiot, immature and an egomaniac, etc. All because I don't share your views. This incapability to accept as valid a person who disagrees with you is a nasty trait and one that I think indicates you have serious issues.

That said, you've got me back into debating with you a bit just to clear some things up. Congratulate yourself.

In order to do so you would have to believe that you are "correct" about certain opinions and others "incorrect", which is pretty self-absorbed.

Which is what you are doing now, with your "Vaderisnothayden's view is incorrect and zombie84's view is correct and any view of art the disagrees with zombie's is that of "deluded elitists convinced they know better than others just because they don't enjoy certain things"". People regularly feel their views are correct and opposing ones are incorrect. If they didn't they couldn't believe in their opinions. Get used to it.

It also shows how people have absolutely no grasp of cultural and art history, otherwise the only explanation of why films from certain periods have similar characteristics and why people liked certain things during certain periods is "well, they're not as sophisticated as us now", while exempting the present moment from the same analysis.

Again you attribute to me views I do not hold and assume I'm arguing things I'm not arguing.

zombie84 said:

If only he had written a manifesto we could have rendered the entire critic industry obsolete. There is only ONE truth!!!!! Watch out, RLM....

Well you seem to think the critic industry is pointless anyway. There is only The One Truth of Zombie84 and the critics are all "deluded elitists" or whatever.

Because everyone is wrong except for you, right now.

Actually, what you're arguing is that everybody is wrong except for zombie84. Everybody who thinks any work of art is better or worse and that it's not all subjective (which includes most critics and academics dealing with the arts, plus a whole host of other people) -all those people- are wrong and zombie84 is right, and because of that they're probably all "deluded elitists" and immature idiot egomaniacs.

All I've done is dared to have my own view, dared to have confidence in my own view, dared to hold to my view when an individual or individuals have told me my view is wrong, and dared to hold to to my view despite the fact that the majority among a certain group disagree with me (the last re Wrath of Khan in particular). For this crime you call me an idiot, an egomaniac and immature. From that I deduce that you must be very much a the-individual-must-submit-to-the-majority/independent-thought-is-bad type of person. I'm not. I believe strongly in the right of the indivudual to think for themselves and go their own way.

You have succeeded in opening my eyes about you. In the past I have noted to myself some faults in the thinking in The Secret History of Star Wars, such a tendency to overly quickly dismiss opposing evidence and to build theories on insufficient evidence, but I kept quiet about it, because the book is a great store of Star Wars info despite those problems. But now I am adding together the aggressive narrow-mindedness of your reaction to my views with the extreme nature of the views you state here and adding in the problems with the thinking in your book, and the picture that emerges from all that is... interesting. 

But I am done debating with you. I will try to avoid having any discussions with you in the future, because this has not been a pleasant experience. You turned a civilized discussion into a row, for which I don't thank you. Perhaps you should learn not to get spontaneously insulting with people you are having a discussion with. It would be a mark of maturity. Have a nice day.

Post
#399932
Topic
RedLetterMedia's Revenge of Nadine [TPM 108 pg Resp. [RotS Review+RotS Preview+ST'09 Reveiw+Next Review Teaser+2002 Interview+AotC OutTakes+Noooooo! Doc.+SW Examiner Rebuttal+AotC Review+TPM Review]
Time

Akwat Kbrana said:

I have a life, which is why I don't typically post massive walls of text arguing with people on the internet. Look, I have nothing against you personally. In fact, I usually agree with your opinions vis-a-vis the PT, and I gave you the benefit of the doubt for a very long time. When you posted your face comparison thread, I found it a little odd, but rather than jumping on the "Huh?" bandwagon, I decided instead to just steer clear. Why bother attacking someone on an internet message board? But that being said, I do find it a little irritating when I'm trying to follow and thread, and suddenly - BAM! - half my browser window is submerged in some stupid argument about something terribly pedantic that becomes impossible to even follow after the third or fourth post. Add the constant "misunderstandings" and hurt feelings, and it gets a little more than annoying.

So if you think I'm following you around sniping at you, then maybe you have misunderstood someone else for a shocking and unforeseeable change. Like I said, I have nothing against you personally. I just click "first unread post" on whichever threads I'm currently following whenever I visit the board. If I have something to contribute, I do so. If not, oh well. But when I see the entire thread derailed in this fashion, I feel compelled to add a sarcastic remark expressing my frustration over said derailment. If it seems like I'm sniping at you, it's probably because every time I visit this thread, you've pointlessly derailed it and bogged it down with argumentative nonsense.

You may see message boards such as this one as a place to flex your digital muscles and have a good quarrel with the idiots who don't see eye to eye with you, but some of us see it as a place for light, entertaining, and civil discussion about the series we all love. And when far more heat is generated than light, it's just annoying and obnoxious. Again, nothing against you personally; just frustration with thread derailment that is both uninteresting and ponderous.

Ok, let me see if I've got this right. You don't like long posts and you don't like it when people are serious about things and you don't like it when people criticise misogyny and you don't want to admit that you've deveoped a habit of going around after me sniping at me, never mind that's that's what you've been doing. And of course I'm wrong to see any hostile intent behind somebody targeting me for a lot of hostile sniping -because I guess that's friendly behavior or something.

As for the accusation of derailing the thread, the misogyny issue was a serious issue that needed addressing. Nor did I go about it all by myself. Certain posters persisted in debating with me about it for an extended period. Had they let it go, I would have been happy to drop it too. As for the Wrath of Khan discussion, that was not started by me. I merely joined in discussing what was being discussed here. Suddenly I had two people debating with me. If that discussion was a derailment of the thread, then surely they must bear some of the responsibility, seeing as they kept the dicsussion going as much as I did and posted long posts themselves. But of course, you just see as me solely responisible, because you (of course) have absolutely no hostile attitude toward me.

You may see message boards such as this one as a place to flex your digital muscles and have a good quarrel with the idiots who don't see eye to eye with you, but some of us see it as a place for light, entertaining, and civil discussion about the series we all love.

This warped view of me is further evidence of a hostile attitude on your part towards me. I do not see message boards as a place to quarrel. I see message boards as a place to express my views and have civil discussion. That is not say I amn't well familiar with the tendency of message board discussions to often degenerate into uncivilized rows due to some people being incapable of not stepping over the line in behavior. But I do wish that didn't happen and every time I get into a new internet discussion I hope it won't get nasty, but sometimes they do.

Post
#399920
Topic
RedLetterMedia's Revenge of Nadine [TPM 108 pg Resp. [RotS Review+RotS Preview+ST'09 Reveiw+Next Review Teaser+2002 Interview+AotC OutTakes+Noooooo! Doc.+SW Examiner Rebuttal+AotC Review+TPM Review]
Time

zombie84 said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

zombie84 said:

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.

You're gettting me wrong again. My point in the paragraph of mine you put in quotation marks was that just because people back then liked the film didn't mean people now would like it. The point of that was not invalidate its success back in the 80s but rather to simply argue whether people out there (non-Trek fans) would like it nowadays, seeing as you seem to convinced it would appeal to everybody.

But since there is almost no bad press/reviews about the film, what makes you say that? If you presented the film to people today as though it were a contemporary film, then yes they would probably find it's conventions dated. However, as any film from the 1980s is as dated as STIV is, and as many films from the 1980s are enjoyed by viewers today (who expect the films to abide by 80's conventions), there's little reason to think that there would be a massive re-evaluation. There hasn't been one, as far as any evidence suggests. As for Wrath of Khan, I think a decent amount of its fanbase wasn't even alive when it was released, considering how old it is, which seems to go against a theory that the film was liked in 1982 but would be re-evaluated as poor today. There isn't any wide re-evaluation going on, and hence no reason why we should be asking the question in the first place.

The problem is there are some pretty mistaken ideas about art and what's of artistic value.

See, there you go again. Artistic merit in cinema is based on the following criteria: if it's a movie, then it's pretty much art. There's never been a major motion picture made without some amount of skill in it somewhere, whether lighting technicians, camera assistants, dolly grips, or actors, even if its only miniscule skill or a poor effort. The medium defines it as such, and whether it's "good art" (read: real art, as you might define it) or "bad art" (read: not art, as you would define it), is entirely subjective to the tastes, criteria and personal preferences and opinions of the person qualifying it as such. People in the 1930s would never call a comic book "art." Which is bullshit--there's clearly artistry there, even if the artists skills are poor, calling it "Art" with a capital A just depends on whether or not you enjoy comic books.

Oh there are other criteria for evaluating movies, sure, but artistic value and emotional depth is the big one.

According to who? You?

How do you define "artistic merit"? If I say a film is artistic because the lighting is beautiful but you disagree because the lighting is not beautiful, why is one of us right and one of us wrong? If everyone defines artistry according to their own definition and terms, based on their own preferences and response to specific works, then there can be no objective definition.

How do you measure emotional depth? If the film speaks to you, moves you, or entertains you in some way. Ergo, there is no objective measurement. Teenage girls are 100% valid in saying that Twilight is the most emotionally deep film they've ever seen, because for them it is, it created an emotional response; I am also 100% valid to say it has no emotional depth whatsoever, because for me the film failed to stir any emotion or intellectual stimulation.  Basically: if "emotional depth" is a criteria, then that means we are measuring a personal feeling, a personal emotional response to a film. Whose response do we measure? Yours? And how the hell would be measure it anyway? Emotional depth is a personal judgement based on our perception of what consistutes emotion in the first place, and depth in the second place. This means that its 100% subjective. Emotional depth is created inside a person, not outside, which means there is no correct or incorrect answer.

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.

A view you had when you were young won't always be the same as when you are older, but that doesn't make it any more or any less valid. To the person you were when you are young, a film stirred something in you--now that you are a different person, a film might be more effective or less effective. And in 20 years you will be a different person again--and you may find that you like a film more, or less. Appreciation is subjective, and based on who you are--which is why not only can two different people have two different experiences, but the same person can have a different experience with himself at a different stage in his life, where he has grown different tastes, criteria and expectations from his art and entertainment. See the pattern here....

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. 

See, this is the same nonesense again. If they like the film, it has merit, by the very fact that it is liked. It doesn't have merit to you because you don't like the film, don't feel it has good writing, etc. But other people feel it does. This means that for them it has merit. There is no objective merit outside of what we think.

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.

This is a relative statement; enough people like one set and dislike another with regularity that it is a reasonable assesement to say it is a vast majority view, IMO. However, there are obvious exceptions, there are always minority views. Whenever you get a large enough pool of people--ST fans--the exceptions add up to equally large numbers. I don't doubt that you could find dozens of people who share your views--I mean, different people like different things, so they've got to be out there.

The problem is that your stance that people's views on films are invalid because they are "wrong" about a films merit is not only just plain crazy, it is incredibly insulting and very, very ego-maniacal. Because what it boils down to is that either you are the gate-keeper for what consistutes "art", which makes you the Ubermensch, or you are not, which makes you wrong like us. And if you are wrong, then first of all who are you to be judging, but more imporantly who is right? How do you know who would be the "correct" view, anyway? Especially if every "majority view" is just a poor, proletariat herd-thinker, according to you?

I'm sorry, but this is such an immature, idiotic view of art and of human pyschology, and it's quite insulting to everyone that's not you. We judge things based on our perferences and tastes, which are influenced by the time and place we live in, our life experiences, and our inborn biases for certain things. No one is right and wrong, people just respond to things in one way and another. About the only thing we view objectively is whether the filmmaker was successful in finding an audience, because this is basically just tallying the hands of his or her intended audience who liked and who didn't like the film. This is mathematic and not anything qualitative, and therefore about the only thing that can be intellectually analysed. But it has nothing to do with the content.

In your ponderous studying of art and cinema, you might want to re-consider your philosophy here. There are different films because there are different people, and people like films you dislike and you like films other people dislike because...gasp! They are all just opinions. My girlfriend thinks Blade Runner and Star Wars are two of the worst films she has ever seen. They do nothing for her, and she's something of a cineaste no less. For her, the films are failures: the characters unidentifiable, the themes uninteresting, the dialogue poor, the effects uninteresting. For me, they are two of my favourite films for total inverse of everything she holds about the films.

And she's right. For her, the films have bad characters, uninteresting plots, and no emotional or intellectual interest. Welcome to the world of art.

So basically anybody who doesn't agree with your relativistic view of art is immature, egomaniacal, idiotic, etc? Nice to know. I won't bother discussing art with you in the future.

Post
#399914
Topic
Correct viewing order of ALL official Star Wars related movies / series ?
Time

Gaffer Tape said:

pittrek said:

I don't agree.

They're prequels, so they have to be watched before the original trilogy.

Hmm, then it seems like you're unaware of what the term "prequel" means.  It's a pre-sequel.  It's a sequel that, chronologically, happens to take place before the movie it is following.  Therefore, like any other sequel, prequels should be watched after the movies that precede it. 

Indeed. Watching the PT before the OT is totally wrong. I don't think there's any need to watch any Star Wars stuff in any special order except the original three films in their original forms. Anything else you care to classify as Star Wars can be watched in any order you like, because none of it matters. Except don't watch the PT before the OT, because that's Lucas's bullshit canon.

Post
#399891
Topic
My Wish as a Star Wars and Indiana Jones fan. George Lucas please stop destroying Star Wars and Indiana Jones. Anyone else feel the same way?
Time

Toad's Vietnam story was an insult to what people went through in Vietnam and what happened there, turning a serious issue into a lot of cheap comedy. And Toad's missing-in-action thing in the first film was clearly meant to be a serious recognition of how people one knew died out there in Vietnam, but the sequel turned it into a silly joke, thus robbing the original film of profundity and making a joke of the deaths of people in Vietnam. All because the people making the film didn't have the guts to kill off the character, I guess. At least they didn't retcon Milner's death out of existence, but they did just as bad by turning him into arsehole.

As for split screen stuff and form the story was told in, that adds nothing of value worth noting. Innovative form is useless without a good story, emotional depth or real content. The original film was overly sweetened and didn't ring fully true, but at least it had a certain degree of emotional depth. The sequel was just shallow dumb comedy.

Post
#399745
Topic
My Wish as a Star Wars and Indiana Jones fan. George Lucas please stop destroying Star Wars and Indiana Jones. Anyone else feel the same way?
Time

And talking about American Graffiti, has anybody here seen the bloody awful sequel? One of the good things about the original is it ended with this simple statement of tragedy, the deaths of Milner and Toad. That ending added a lot of depth to the film, which was sorely needed. The sequel turns Toad's missing-in-action into a silly joke, treats the Vietnam war as one big laugh, and turns Milner into a date-rape-type groper so you end up not giving a damn that he's killed. Meanwhile, the two characters who are republicans have to turn into sixties anti-police demonstrators, because while being a groper seems to be forgivable in the film's eyes, beng a republican is just not acceptable. Cliched politics abound and the film's idea of humor lacks anything resembling intelligence. Harrison Ford is good in his tiny cameo but they didn't even do the decent thing and credit him. Lucas didn't direct or write this travesty, so I guess he can't be blamed for everything. Or maybe he can, because he edited the screenplay and the film and let all the bullshit pass. I guess it's the first case of Lucas going back and screwing up his stories. But American Graffiti was never so good in the first place, so I guess this time it was no great tragedy, though the sequel makes the orignal look good by comparison. The sequel really makes a laughing stock of the story.

Post
#399654
Topic
Darth Solo's movie i seen last night opinion, be it an old or new filum.
Time

xhonzi said:

Watched Lars and the Real Girl last night.

Um....

Wow.

If you're complaining about the lack of originality in Hollywood, and you saw Transformers, Avatar etc. and didn't see this... well, shame on you.

It's a little weird at first, but if you stick with it, I think most of you will find it to be a very interesting movie.

I saw the trailer for that Lars movie and I nearly puked. No thank you. But then I'm not complaining about the lack of originality in Hollywood. Though I'd certainly agree with any view that looks down on Avatar and the recent Transformers movie.

Post
#399651
Topic
My Wish as a Star Wars and Indiana Jones fan. George Lucas please stop destroying Star Wars and Indiana Jones. Anyone else feel the same way?
Time

Knightmessenger said:

As long as he puts out the original versions of the trilogy as well as THX 1138 (and maybe even Indiana Jones [wires erased] & Grafitti [opening shot]), I'm fine. I don't think he'd destroying Star Wars by introducing new stuff, it doesn't (have to) mean the previous stuff cannot coexist.

I think it's disgusting how he's insisted on fucking over Graffiti and THX too, but I don't care all that much about those films. I find them overrated. The only film Lucas directed that I actuallly care about is Star Wars. Other than that, the ones I care about that he's involved in weren't directed by him. I don't have a big attachment to Lucas as a director.

I don't get the big fuss about Graffiti. It has its good points (Dreyfuss's performance and Milner's interaction with the kid in his car in particular) but it's a rather limited film and painfully over-sweetened, and at least three of the major characters are annoying most of the time. And that fake sky he stuffed in in the dvd looks so damn fake. It just does not look like it belongs in the picture. Which of course it doesn't. Why the FUCK did it need a new sky? What was so wrong with the old sky? Did he do it just so he could say "I fucked with all my films"?

Indiana Jones got more than just wires erased. There's that cgi shot added to Raiders. I wish he'd just leave it the fuck alone.

Post
#399648
Topic
RedLetterMedia's Revenge of Nadine [TPM 108 pg Resp. [RotS Review+RotS Preview+ST'09 Reveiw+Next Review Teaser+2002 Interview+AotC OutTakes+Noooooo! Doc.+SW Examiner Rebuttal+AotC Review+TPM Review]
Time

Akwat Kbrana said:

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.

You're beginning to sound really dumb constantly following me around sniping at me. Get a life already.

TheBoost said:

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!!!!

Agreeing with majority does not always mean one is herd-thinking. One can come to the same conclusions as the majority from an independent line of thinking. Among Star Wars fans this forum's members are less herdy than most, defying the Obligatory views of orthodox Star Wars fandom.

Post
#399647
Topic
RedLetterMedia's Revenge of Nadine [TPM 108 pg Resp. [RotS Review+RotS Preview+ST'09 Reveiw+Next Review Teaser+2002 Interview+AotC OutTakes+Noooooo! Doc.+SW Examiner Rebuttal+AotC Review+TPM Review]
Time

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.

Post
#399644
Topic
RedLetterMedia's Revenge of Nadine [TPM 108 pg Resp. [RotS Review+RotS Preview+ST'09 Reveiw+Next Review Teaser+2002 Interview+AotC OutTakes+Noooooo! Doc.+SW Examiner Rebuttal+AotC Review+TPM Review]
Time

zombie84 said:

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.

You're gettting me wrong again. My point in the paragraph of mine you put in quotation marks was that just because people back then liked the film didn't mean people now would like it. The point of that was not invalidate its success back in the 80s but rather to simply argue whether people out there (non-Trek fans) would like it nowadays, seeing as you seem to convinced it would appeal to everybody. I have no need to invalidate its success, but I fnd it very hard to believe that the average moviegoer today would think Wrath of Khan was great and as such I debated the point. The issue there was not about the validity of its success and whether that success proved anything, just the very idea that it would go down so well with modern moviegoers.

zombie84 said:

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."

Well you have your opinion and I have mine. Thank you for explaining yours.

Post
#397098
Topic
RedLetterMedia's Revenge of Nadine [TPM 108 pg Resp. [RotS Review+RotS Preview+ST'09 Reveiw+Next Review Teaser+2002 Interview+AotC OutTakes+Noooooo! Doc.+SW Examiner Rebuttal+AotC Review+TPM Review]
Time

To Zombie84: I am done with this discussion. I respect you because of the great work you have done in the area of Star Wars study, writing that book, etc. But I do feel you crossed the line with calling me an idiot. I am aware people could take offense at my vew attributing WOK popularity to herd-thinking, but I made it clear that the view was not offered as an insult to anybody. It was necessary to state that view to explain my view in general. Whereas I think calling me an idiot was totally unecessary and done solely for offense. I fear that this discussion could get less pleasant if it continues. I rather expect to be called an idiot again if it continues. I don't enjoy being called an idiot. So that doesn't incline me to continue the discussion. Also, we clearly have drastically opposed views on art and you are very confident in yours. It would take some work for me to satisfactorily explain my own views and it's much easier just to put an end to the discussion. Thank you for your good work on Star Wars.

Post
#397097
Topic
RedLetterMedia's Revenge of Nadine [TPM 108 pg Resp. [RotS Review+RotS Preview+ST'09 Reveiw+Next Review Teaser+2002 Interview+AotC OutTakes+Noooooo! Doc.+SW Examiner Rebuttal+AotC Review+TPM Review]
Time

zombie84 said:

How good a film depends on how entertaining it is, because at the end of the day thats why people are watching. Sometime this "entertainment" can be in form of admiring its mechanics (editing, cinematography) or characters (writing, acting), or plot (writing, directing) or any combination, but all art is about eliciting some form of appreciation in the viewer, whether that is emotional or intellectual.

Actually, the last post on STIV being made in the 1980s is a good example of how what makes "good art" is entirely subjective, and very tied to historical context. What people considered "good" about films in the 1920 and 1930s is very different than the 1970s and 1980s, for example. If you were to show many typical films from the former to the latter, they might complain that the acting is over-the-top, the plots not realistic, the sets fake looking, no challenging messages, etc. And if you show a film from the 1980s to people today, some might have the same reaction. Do you really think that any of todays "masterpieces" will be looked at any differently from many people in 2050s?

Taste is subject to trends and fashion, it changes over time, and what people consider artistic, or noteworthy, or entertaining, or whatever is entirely temporal. Anything with expliciti sex and/or violence in it was considered "trash" until the 1970s, and even then it was rejected by many people for its moral ineptness and such. Ever since the 1970s, if there was no "hard" subject matter, a lot of people looked at it as fluff, and not very serious.

Art is subjective, and the trends in its appraisal change as much as the fashion styles on runways, because there essentially is no difference.

 

It's not a question of whether I would judge the film by the standard of now but a question of many people doing so.

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

I edited the statement you were replying to, because I felt what I said didn't get my meaning across well enough.

 

How good a film depends on how entertaining it is, because at the end of the day thats why people are watching. Sometime this "entertainment" can be in form of admiring its mechanics (editing, cinematography) or characters (writing, acting), or plot (writing, directing) or any combination, but all art is about eliciting some form of appreciation in the viewer, whether that is emotional or intellectual.

There are different forms of appreciation. Some are deeper than others. Stuff that does not go deep enough does not rate as art no matter how entertaining it may be. 

Actually, the last post on STIV being made in the 1980s is a good example of how what makes "good art" is entirely subjective, and very tied to historical context. What people considered "good" about films in the 1920 and 1930s is very different than the 1970s and 1980s, for example. If you were to show many typical films from the former to the latter, they might complain that the acting is over-the-top, the plots not realistic, the sets fake looking, no challenging messages, etc. And if you show a film from the 1980s to people today, some might have the same reaction. Do you really think that any of todays "masterpieces" will be looked at any differently from many people in 2050s?

No. But I don't draw the same conclusions from the whole thing that you do. I look at it rather differently.

Taste is subject to trends and fashion, it changes over time, and what people consider artistic, or noteworthy, or entertaining, or whatever is entirely temporal. Anything with expliciti sex and/or violence in it was considered "trash" until the 1970s, and even then it was rejected by many people for its moral ineptness and such. Ever since the 1970s, if there was no "hard" subject matter, a lot of people looked at it as fluff, and not very serious.

Art is subjective, and the trends in its appraisal change as much as the fashion styles on runways, because there essentially is no difference

I believe there is more to the matter than that, but I am not interested in getting into the complexities of it here and now.

Post
#397093
Topic
RedLetterMedia's Revenge of Nadine [TPM 108 pg Resp. [RotS Review+RotS Preview+ST'09 Reveiw+Next Review Teaser+2002 Interview+AotC OutTakes+Noooooo! Doc.+SW Examiner Rebuttal+AotC Review+TPM Review]
Time

zombie84 said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

 

As to non-ST fans, WOK is usually the only film any of them can stand in my experience, and STIV was by far one of the more critically and commercially successfull of the series, which implicates a strong non-fan approval (I would say precisely because it is the least Star Treky all the films).

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 a circular argument. It was recieved well in the 80s because thats when it was made. Its probably true that it wouldn't be recieved well today because it doesn't adhere to current fashions and trends--because its 30 years out of touch with those very fashions and trends! Because it was...you know, made in the 80s? You can only evaluate a movie's construction in the context of when it was made, not 30 years into the future. If it were made today, it would be quite different, and very likely conform to the fashions and trends in filmmaking that you feel is lacking in the film (because, you know, they didn't exist). This is basically like complaining that a movie from the 1920s doesn't have sound or colour.

You're totally missing my point. You said people of a non-fan type would like the film, so I pointed out a reason why they wouldn't. It doesn't matter whether their reason would be just. All that matters is that they wouldn't like the film.

Post
#397092
Topic
RedLetterMedia's Revenge of Nadine [TPM 108 pg Resp. [RotS Review+RotS Preview+ST'09 Reveiw+Next Review Teaser+2002 Interview+AotC OutTakes+Noooooo! Doc.+SW Examiner Rebuttal+AotC Review+TPM Review]
Time

zombie84 said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

 

Some films may be crap to you, but liked by others. You are not correct any more than other people are, because it's all just taste. Its incredibly presumptuous that discussion of movies goes anywhere beyond what I like and you like, as if there is some greater truth that exists outside of our perceptions.

That's the it's-all-subjective viewpoint. I don't subscribe to that view.

Well then you are an idiot. If a film is entertaining to someone then its entertaining for them, it doesn't matter whether you share that view or not. You can back up your claims with arguments for sophistication of plot and character, but sometimes entertainment doesn't need to be sophisticated, otherwise we wouldn't have Jacky Chan, The Three Stooges, or low-budget horror, in all cases where the lack of sophistication is partly the appeal. But at the end of the day there is no objective truth beyond your perception of what you like and why, art is not some objective object that you can measure scientifically in this respect, its effectiveness is an emotional resonance created in people, sometimes for different reasons, but none of them any more or less valid than anyone elses.

Don't confuse the study of film and its mechanics, and the justification of why you like the film because of those mechanics, with something that makes your opinion somehow more real. It's not real, it's still just a subjective view at the end of the day, regardless of how you articulate it.

 If a film is entertaining to someone then its entertaining for them, it doesn't matter whether you share that view or not.

I'm talking about how good a film is, not how entertaining it is.

 but sometimes entertainment doesn't need to be sophisticated

No, but it needs to have quality if it's to be good art.

But at the end of the day there is no objective truth beyond your perception of what you like and why, art is not some objective object that you can measure scientifically in this respect, its effectiveness is an emotional resonance created in people, sometimes for different reasons, but none of them any more or less valid than anyone elses.

This is a complex subject about which you are very certain of your view. But I have my own reasons for not subscribing to that view.

Well then you are an idiot.

Are personal attacks really necessary? I don't see how that statement was necessary to making your point. It seems to have just been stuck in for the sake of making an attack on me.

Don't confuse the study of film and its mechanics, and the justification of why you like the film because of those mechanics, with something that makes your opinion somehow more real. It's not real, it's still just a subjective view at the end of the day, regardless of how you articulate it

Again, a complex subject. Your view is a popular one, but it is not the only possible view. 

Post
#397087
Topic
RedLetterMedia's Revenge of Nadine [TPM 108 pg Resp. [RotS Review+RotS Preview+ST'09 Reveiw+Next Review Teaser+2002 Interview+AotC OutTakes+Noooooo! Doc.+SW Examiner Rebuttal+AotC Review+TPM Review]
Time

zombie84 said:

Some films may be crap to you, but liked by others. You are not correct any more than other people are, because it's all just taste. Its incredibly presumptuous that discussion of movies goes anywhere beyond what I like and you like, as if there is some greater truth that exists outside of our perceptions.

As to herd mentality, you are basically writing off anything that is popular, which is not constructive or any sort of specific argument, nor is it proveable in any case. As to non-ST fans, WOK is usually the only film any of them can stand in my experience, and STIV was by far one of the more critically and commercially successfull of the series, which implicates a strong non-fan approval (I would say precisely because it is the least Star Treky all the films). Anyway, it's hard to even divide non-fans and fans in the ST world because usually anyone that likes some of the films is considered a fan, and most people who don't consider themselves a fan in some degree don't like ANY of them, hence the disussion about ranking popularity becomes moot.

The herd argument is stupid and in bad taste though. It's not much an argument as it is unfalisifiable paranoia.

 

Some films may be crap to you, but liked by others. You are not correct any more than other people are, because it's all just taste. Its incredibly presumptuous that discussion of movies goes anywhere beyond what I like and you like, as if there is some greater truth that exists outside of our perceptions.

That's the it's-all-subjective viewpoint. I don't subscribe to that view.

you are basically writing off anything that is popular

No I am not. Things can be popular and be good. All I am saying is that something being popular doesn't mean it's good. 

As to non-ST fans, WOK is usually the only film any of them can stand in my experience, and STIV was by far one of the more critically and commercially successfull of the series, which implicates a strong non-fan approval (I would say precisely because it is the least Star Treky all the films).

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.

anyone that likes some of the films is considered a fan, and most people who don't consider themselves a fan in some degree don't like ANY of them

A fan in the sense that I'm talking about would like Trek in general and interact with other fans. I don't think liking a particular Trek film makes somebody a Trek fan.

The herd argument is stupid and in bad taste though. It's not much an argument as it is unfalisifiable paranoia.

In your opinion (which is a stupid thing for me to say really, because of course it's your opinion). I don't believe so.

Warbler said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Zero depth =bad movie. The love story was plastic.

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. 

Vaderisnothayden said:

Millions of people thought the world was flat, thought racism was good, and sexism, etc. Millions of people liking something in no way says it's good.

yes, the majority isn't always right,  that is why I said "there is a good chance"  not a 100% certainly.   

Vaderisnothayden said:

Khan is supposed to Indian?  I never got that.

Yes. Khan Noonien Singh. Yes, he's Indian. As in from India.

I stand corrected then.

Vaderisnothayden said:

well if its so obvious, how come you are first person in the years since its released that I've run into that feels this way about Montalban's performance?

Because people are subconsciously motivated to copy each others' views. I'm not the only person who feels this way about Montalban's performance, but I do know that a lot of Trek fans feel the way you do.

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.

Vaderisnothayden said:

TOS is crap????     to me and every other TOS fan, that is blasphemous.   It is certainly not crap.  Are the special effects crap?  maybe.   But you have to realize they were made in the 60's and they didn't have much of a budget.   I find many of the episodes have a powerful message.   Take City on The Edge Of Forever.   That is certainly not crap.   I don't how you can call TOS crap.   If it was, explain how  5 series and 11 movies have come out of it.  

 

As you are probably aware by now, I don't care whether or not an opinion is blasphemous by the view of some group or not. I choose the views that seem right to me, not the ones other people approve of. The special effects are a small part of the problem with TOS. I couldn't care less whether the episodes have a powerful message or not. I don't feel messages necessarily add to the quality of art. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't and sometimes they actually take from the quality of art. City on the Edge of Forever is sorely overrated. You don't know how I can call TOS crap, but I don't know how anybody can watch that stuff and not think "This is shitty". It's good-natured crap. It has some good ideas. It has some good character interaction and Nimoy was great in it. It was politically advanced for its time and may have had a positive cultural influence, quite apart from leading to some good spinoffs. But it's still crap. That's just the reality of it. How somebody can be a fulll fan of that show now and think it's on the overall good is something I can't fathom. I'm not saying all this to bother you. This is just what I believe. You are perfectly entitled to like TOS and think it's good if you want to, but don't expect me to.

wow.  all I can say it that we are miles and miles apart in our opinions of TOS.   wow. 

Vaderisnothayden said:

If it was, explain how  5 series and 11 movies have come out of it.  

Well, as I have said, something being popular doesn't mean it's good. All you need to get 5 shows and 11 movies is for Trek to be popular and then you have the motivation to make more and continue the franchise. But Trek evolved. The movies eventually improved on TOS and then there was TNG, which was a far superior show, and then the 90s Trek evolved out of that, which had good stuff. But I've no illusions about the quality of the show it all evolved out of. When I watch TOS it's solely for Nimoy's excellent performances.

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

Vaderisnothayden said: You'd be surprised how much herd thinking is behind human thinking. It has an effect far beyond what people think. People are far more susceptible to it than they realize. It's not a simplistic argument at all.

I would sort of agree with that.   My father has an old saying "the mob is easily led".  But I pretty certain that I have formed my own opinions on Star Trek II,  I  am not following "herd thinking"

Vaderisnothayden said:

I wouldn't be so sure about the views of 98% of people who've seen the films. I don't think you can have knowledge of that high a percentage and nor do I think you have grounds to guess the views of that high a percentage. I wouldn't be so sure that "almost no one else" agrees with my view.

maybe not, but I do think you say most people do not agree with your view.   I think we can be sure of the views of I'd say  50%-70% of the people you've seen the films.

Vaderisnothayden said: 

There are so many crap films that a lot of people believe are good.

in your opinion. 

Vaderisnothayden said: Among fans. There are so many casual moviegoers out there who don't talk about the films at conventions or on message boards or whatnot.

most of these casual movie goers may not have seen the film.  

Vaderisnothayden said: Exactly, in ST circles. Where people are just perfectly set up to have their views influenced by other ST fans. What about outside ST circles? Some ordinary moviegoer who goes to a Trek movie -they have opinions too and you don't know all their opinions. They're the ones least likely to make special exceptions for Trek movies and tolerate shit like Khan.

 

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".  

 

Vaderisnothayden said: I'm going to stop debating the herd mentality thing, because people won't appreciate the argument much

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?      

 

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. But the movies that I think have or lack emotional depth may not be the ones you might expect. As for performances, if they're good enough they'll add to the emotional depth.

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.

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.

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 think we can be sure of the views of I'd say  50%-70% of the people you've seen the films.

I'm not so sure of that.

most of these casual movie goers may not have seen the film. 

Many have.

in your opinion.

Obviously.

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.

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.

 

Post
#397055
Topic
RedLetterMedia's Revenge of Nadine [TPM 108 pg Resp. [RotS Review+RotS Preview+ST'09 Reveiw+Next Review Teaser+2002 Interview+AotC OutTakes+Noooooo! Doc.+SW Examiner Rebuttal+AotC Review+TPM Review]
Time

zombie84 said:

Or how about films are considered good by many people because they are good films? That people just honestly believe that? People are very vocal about their love and hate for certain films, especially in the ST circles where people will bash STV to death and then profess great love of STII. This argument doesn't hold much water, nor is it possible to prove in any case.

Anyway, having read much about the films, talked to many people about the films, even been to a Star Trek convention, I can say that of the hundreds of people I've interacted with about them, I have never heard of that before. I'm not being literal in saying that 98% of people believe that, but certainly I've never encounted anyone who shares your view, nor even heard of such a thing from others, so at the very least its an incredibly minority stance on the films. As I said, nothing wrong with that, to each his own, I just find it a bit strange, and not because I'm some brainwashed sheep.

 That people just honestly believe that?

 

People can just honestly believe something and still be thinking in a way that is influenced by the herd. A lot of herd influence is not something the influenced people are consciously aware of.

Or how about films are considered good by many people because they are good films?

There are so many crap films that a lot of people believe are good.

 

so at the very least its an incredibly minority stance on the films.

Among fans. There are so many casual moviegoers out there who don't talk about the films at conventions or on message boards or whatnot.

especially in the ST circles

Exactly, in ST circles. Where people are just perfectly set up to have their views influenced by other ST fans. What about outside ST circles? Some ordinary moviegoer who goes to a Trek movie -they have opinions too and you don't know all their opinions. They're the ones least likely to make special exceptions for Trek movies and tolerate shit like Khan.

This argument doesn't hold much water

I think that's a matter of opinion.

I'm going to stop debating the herd mentality thing, because people won't appreciate the argument much, but don't expect that my opinion on the matter is going to change. I don't mean any offense to anybody with the herd-think viewpoint, I just believe in it and I brought it up because I felt it was unavoidable at that stage of the discussion.

 

Post
#397045
Topic
RedLetterMedia's Revenge of Nadine [TPM 108 pg Resp. [RotS Review+RotS Preview+ST'09 Reveiw+Next Review Teaser+2002 Interview+AotC OutTakes+Noooooo! Doc.+SW Examiner Rebuttal+AotC Review+TPM Review]
Time

You'd be surprised how much herd thinking is behind human thinking. It has an effect far beyond what people think. People are far more susceptible to it than they realize. It's not a simplistic argument at all.

I wouldn't be so sure about the views of 98% of people who've seen the films. I don't think you can have knowledge of that high a percentage and nor do I think you have grounds to guess the views of that high a percentage. I wouldn't be so sure that "almost no one else" agrees with my view.