bigmattress: mattharvest: bigmattress: vanhalenfan32:
Shush. Anything put to film is a film...by definition. Everything you listed above is a film. Some are much better than others.

I hear what you're saying, and I agree, but you're saying it the wrong way.

/film snob, kind of

Well, the way you're using the term seems obsessed with the medium, and would demand that I ask what you think something shot 100% digital should be called?

Is it a film if it's just copied onto film? Does it stop being a film if it's copied off film to purely digital formats before distribution?

ANYTHING shot on film is a film. Dick Van Dyke, if it was filmed, was a film. Just because it was broadcast later doesn't mean it wasn't originally shot on film.

And I'd say anything shot 100% digitally would not be a film, so you got me there. But Dundee and likewise, crap as they may be, are films.

Original recording techniques is what matters there, just because it is later transferred to DVD doesn't mean it stops being a film. It just becomes a digital copy of a film.

It's just a pet peeve of mine when I hear people say "That's just a movie, but THIS IS A FILM". It makes no sense if they were both shot on film.

Frankly, you're using the term in a way that no longer conforms to English as a language.

The English language as spoken in the US now has connotations for the words "movie, film, flick" etc. that diverge. While you may not like that the connotations disagree with the literal meaning of the words, you're kinda out of luck given that the rest of the culture disagrees by-and-large.

TribeFan695: Bill Frist: a similar thing exists with people who just watch a few summer blockbusters a year versus someone like Ebert who has a vast knoweldge of film. The former people are really not qualified to discuss the quality of a film, because they dont' even have a basic lens to judge it in.

Ebert isn't the only person with this qualification, though. The fact that Transformers doesn't have a 0% T-meter proves that it at least has a little artistic merit in the eyes of some critics, if not the majority of them.

They're called "quote whores."

Bill Frist: vanhalenfan32: The Red Sox are a better team than the Yankees, not even just record. Their farm system is better, where as the Yankees is weak. They have a cohesive TEAM as opposed to a collection of all-stars. Therefore it is retarded to like the Yankees instead of the Red Sox.

I know you are trying to troll me here, but the argument doesn't make much sense because you don't like a team based purely on their record.

A better analogy might be that even if we can't 100% objectively prove which team in basebaell is the best right now (yanks? sox? dodgers?) as the records a lone can't settle this.... nevertheless ONE of those teams must truly be the best and for someone to argue that the Oriels are actually the best team because they subjectively experience them as the best team would be pretty silly.

yes. but an Orioles fan wouldn't be wrong or stupid for cheering/supporting the Orioles instead of the Sox, Yankees, Dodgers. I don't think the counter argument from anyone (with a brain) was ever that Transformers 2 was the best movie of 2009, just people saying they liked it despite what opposing critics/viewers thought. Different strokes for different folks.

Bill Frist:
Let's take an extreme example here.

Take a person who has studied the history of painting in depth. Then take a person who lived in under a rock their whole life and never saw a painting until today.

Are these two people equally qualified to discuss the artistic merit of a painting I show them?

To me, that idea is absurd. the latter person has no knowledge of the art world or art history and thus has no grounds to discuss technique, originality, influence, cultural resonance or anything else.... they can only relate their pure subjective experience.

Is that really all their is to art?

a similar thing exists with people who just watch a few summer blockbusters a year versus someone like Ebert who has a vast knoweldge of film. The former people are really not qualified to discuss the quality of a film, because they dont' even have a basic lens to judge it in.

The person more knowledgeable about the subject might have more insight to offer and more experience to compare and contrast the art with other work, but it doesn't mean that "rock person"'s opinion about the art piece is wrong.

If rock person said "I like this painting because it's colorful" and "art expert" said "This painting is very poor because of mismatched use of color" (or whatever), does that make rock person wrong? No. Rock person is correct because they do actually like it, and art expert is ALSO correct because they've seen other paintings and they find this one does not meet the technical criteria they were looking for (or whatever) and it's poor artwork. Perhaps in this regard, a neutral bystander would be more inclined to agree with the art expert based on their experience, but they may like the colors the way they are and simply enjoy the painting anyway.

Again, I ask, how is the rock person wrong?

vanhalenfan32: yes. but an Orioles fan wouldn't be wrong or stupid for cheering/supporting the Orioles instead of the Sox, Yankees, Dodgers.

Of course they wouldn't, but what dose that have to do with anything?

Michael Bay's mom isn't "wrong" to root for Transformers 2 to have a big box office either. I don't see how that relates to the question of the merit of the film (or the objective quality of a baseball team)

Still waiting for the movie



Yeah, I'm old.

mattharvest: Something is only objectively true if it would be true regardless of any context.

This is false. You're notion of objectivity and subjectivity is incorrect. It doesn't have to to with "context", but on whether or not the decision must be made by a conscious entity. IOW, can you create a framework where you don't need to apply any judgments in order to figure out whether something is true or false. The English language provides such a framework for its word. Numbers provide such a framework for math. And we can provide such a frameowork for words like "beauty" and "good" and "bad". Utilitarians, for example, would wholly reject your notion that there's no such thing as the objective good.

Bill Frist: http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/subjective_objective.html

I don't agree with the reasoning in that article. If you understand it - and I'm assuming you must, since you're linking it after all - you can make the arguments yourself here.

However, some specific complaints:

The second paragraph begins with a strawman, and it spends a lot of time attacking this strawman. The third paragraph does the same thing.

Relatedly, I cannot seem to even find rankings for that school to determine if it's of sufficient quality that I can trust its professors. I'm not saying it lacks such quality yet, but I cannot find anything to justify trusting it yet. It appears to be a community college?

Richard in a Box: The person more knowledgeable about the subject might have more insight to offer and more experience to compare and contrast the art with other work, but it doesn't mean that "rock person"'s opinion about the art piece is wrong.

Of course it doesn't automatically make him wrong, but the mere fact that said rock person exists doesn't make any opinion he has automatically "right" or automatically "as right" as anyone elses.

Did you read this link? I honestly think it is a nice summary:

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/subjective_objective.html

Blink: As a child, I was a complete Transformers fanatic. I enjoyed Transformers 2. Having said that, the move was almost completely awful. "almost" because the only thing you could enjoy was the action -- which was about 25% of the movie.

/plot made NO SENSE
//if there was a plot.

FTFY

Most of the running time for this movie was spent on pointless dialogue. Had it been 95%, or hell, even if it had been 65% action, I would have loved it.

Only Michael Bay can make two Transformers movies where the focus is on the humans, instead of the robots.

robsul82: They're called "quote whores."

What makes Ebert more credible than any of the other critics? Let's not forget that he gave Next Day Air 3 stars.

Bill Frist: vanhalenfan32: yes. but an Orioles fan wouldn't be wrong or stupid for cheering/supporting the Orioles instead of the Sox, Yankees, Dodgers.

Of course they wouldn't, but what dose that have to do with anything?

Michael Bay's mom isn't "wrong" to root for Transformers 2 to have a big box office either. I don't see how that relates to the question of the merit of the film (or the objective quality of a baseball team)

indeed you would not sir. indeed you would not.

robsul82: 2) It really seems like Roland Emmerich is saying "FARK MICHAEL BAY! WHO'S GOT THE DESTRUCTION? I GOT THE DESTRUCTION, BABY!" with every frame of that film.

How has Roland Emerich made a career out of destroying the White House and New York and not ended up on the Terror Watch List?

mattharvest: Relatedly, I cannot seem to even find rankings for that school to determine if it's of sufficient quality that I can trust its professors. I'm not saying it lacks such quality yet, but I cannot find anything to justify trusting it yet. It appears to be a community college?

I don't know anything about the college or the author, just something I foudn online.

Regardless, the paper is not making any original claims, just describing what philosophers think.

Most people have this mistaken notion that philosophers have agreed that "woah man, like, everything is relative" when in reality that is a minority position.

mattharvest:
Frankly, you're using the term in a way that no longer conforms to English as a language.

The English language as spoken in the US now has connotations for the words "movie, film, flick" etc. that diverge. While you may not like that the connotations disagree with the literal meaning of the words, you're kinda out of luck given that the rest of the culture disagrees by-and-large.

You may be right, but since this is what I do as a profession, I better stick to the technical terms lest I look like an uneducated moran to my peers.

As Ebert said..."We should respect differing opinions up to certain point, and then it's time for the wise to blow the whistle."

Just because the general populace has accepted one term over another doesn't make it right.

DamnYankees: mattharvest: Something is only objectively true if it would be true regardless of any context.

This is false. You're notion of objectivity and subjectivity is incorrect. It doesn't have to to with "context", but on whether or not the decision must be made by a conscious entity. IOW, can you create a framework where you don't need to apply any judgments in order to figure out whether something is true or false. The English language provides such a framework for its word. Numbers provide such a framework for math. And we can provide such a frameowork for words like "beauty" and "good" and "bad". Utilitarians, for example, would wholly reject your notion that there's no such thing as the objective good.

I've never, once, encountered the definition of objective you're operating on. The idea that a "decision" needs to be made is baffling, to say the least, since it introduces a whole host of extraneous topics to the discussion.

I think you're confused in that objective is that which is independent of conscious thought.

Balrog1: It they went back and edited out the twins from Tranformers 2 it would be vastly improved. I still like watching Optimus Prime kick butt.
God they were annoying. It was like the transformers version on jar jar binks. After the first 1/2 hour I wanted to kick someone in the face.

DamnYankees: mattharvest: Something is only objectively true if it would be true regardless of any context.

This is false. You're notion of objectivity and subjectivity is incorrect. It doesn't have to to with "context", but on whether or not the decision must be made by a conscious entity. IOW, can you create a framework where you don't need to apply any judgments in order to figure out whether something is true or false. The English language provides such a framework for its word. Numbers provide such a framework for math. And we can provide such a frameowork for words like "beauty" and "good" and "bad". Utilitarians, for example, would wholly reject your notion that there's no such thing as the objective good.

if there was a way to one-up the hilariously ridiculous butthurt in this thread - you 2 fellas managed to do that by leaps and bounds

TribeFan695: robsul82: They're called "quote whores."

What makes Ebert more credible than any of the other critics? Let's not forget that he gave Next Day Air 3 stars.

in this court objections & counter arguments will not be heard, To the back with you.

mattharvest: I think you're confused in that objective is that which is independent of conscious thought.

Your conception makes no sense, and let me illustrate:

I am attracted to my girlfriend.

Is this a subjective or objective truth?

Bill Frist: Of course it doesn't automatically make him wrong, but the mere fact that said rock person exists doesn't make any opinion he has automatically "right" or automatically "as right" as anyone elses.

Really? Because I'm pretty sure that saying "I like something" when that person likes is, is actually right.

Bill Frist: Richard in a Box: The person more knowledgeable about the subject might have more insight to offer and more experience to compare and contrast the art with other work, but it doesn't mean that "rock person"'s opinion about the art piece is wrong.

Of course it doesn't automatically make him wrong, but the mere fact that said rock person exists doesn't make any opinion he has automatically "right" or automatically "as right" as anyone elses.

Did you read this link? I honestly think it is a nice summary:

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/subjective_objective.html

Yeah, I honestly think it's not.

mattharvest: I think you're confused in that objective is that which is independent of conscious thought.

Well I've never heard the simplistic view of objectivity you are taking ever used in a philosophy class...shiat is a little more subtle and complicated than you want to make it.

TribeFan695: robsul82: They're called "quote whores."

What makes Ebert more credible than any of the other critics? Let's not forget that he gave Next Day Air 3 stars.

I didn't see the movie, but I did see a lot of hot pics of Megan Fox here. So I'll say this, for me, "good" tattoos on a hot chick make her even hotter.

I agree with Ebert's reviews roughly 98% of the time, so I trust his judgment on this flick. I may still see it someday when I have a hankerin' for a high explosion:plot ratio.

Bill Frist: mattharvest: I think you're confused in that objective is that which is independent of conscious thought.

Well I've never heard the simplistic view of objectivity you are taking ever used in a philosophy class...shiat is a little more subtle and complicated than you want to make it.

I agree. I also think your summary link is nicely done. Often, subjectivity and objectivity are merely two different ways of talking about the same thing.

DamnYankees: mattharvest: I think you're confused in that objective is that which is independent of conscious thought.

Your conception makes no sense, and let me illustrate:

I am attracted to my girlfriend.

Is this a subjective or objective truth?

It is objectively true or false that you are attracted to her. The difficulty in measuring it is irrelevant to the truth-value of the statement.

It is also subjectively true that you experience attracting to your girlfriend (assuming you're not lying).

They're two entirely different statements. Subjective truth, at best, indicates the existence of an objective truth. They're most certainly not mutually exclusive.

However, you've moved the goalposts a great deal here; we weren't talking about subjective truths with regards to the quality of art, but rather whether the definition of art, good art, bad art, etc. are subjective.

There are times when I agree with Ebert 100%, and times when I'd like to wharrgarrbl at him myself (particularly in response to anything he's said about Clive Barker.) But the fact is, he's right - he's paid to write about his opinion, and he does.

/Got nothing else. Still enjoy reading his column, even if he does hate on Clive.

vanhalenfan32: Therefore it is retarded wicked retahded to like the Yankees instead of the Red Sox.

This.

Richard in a Box: Bill Frist: Of course it doesn't automatically make him wrong, but the mere fact that said rock person exists doesn't make any opinion he has automatically "right" or automatically "as right" as anyone elses.

Really? Because I'm pretty sure that saying "I like something" when that person likes is, is actually right.

He is right, if he isn't lying, about his personal experience.

He is not necessarily right in his judgment of the quality of the film.

These are seperate things you know...

Bill Frist: mattharvest: I think you're confused in that objective is that which is independent of conscious thought.

Well I've never heard the simplistic view of objectivity you are taking ever used in a philosophy class...shiat is a little more subtle and complicated than you want to make it.

Hilarious, given that I never heard your bizarrely Byzantine version of it used in a philosophy class, nor have I ever heard someone honestly call what I'm describing simplistic.

How hilarious to argue on the internet it seems to be.

I would like to get the people who claim the plot was "simple" and "they had no trouble following it" with -- well, everyone else in the world and see where their minds meet.

I haven't seen it but I did see Starship Troopers. Talk about your plot holes and groan-inducing dialogue. However I think it's pretty conceded now that ST was a parody.

Hmm...wake me up when the Megan Fox tape finally gets leaked...

Also, the level of his writing in these -





Fark, this too -

I made it probably about a hundred posts in. Are we still talking about the movie? I read the last couple of posts as well, is it all just arguing about judgment and whether anyone is more qualified than another to judge art?

Flaming Yawn: I would like to get the people who claim the plot was "simple" and "they had no trouble following it" with -- well, everyone else in the world and see where their minds meet.

I haven't seen it but I did see Starship Troopers. Talk about your plot holes and groan-inducing dialogue. However I think it's pretty conceded now that ST was a parody.

Hmm...wake me up when the Megan Fox tape finally gets leaked...

When did anyone actually claim ST wasn't intentionally a satire (not parody) except for critics? Near as I can remember, everyone involved in the film insisted that it was an intentional satire as opposed to a direct adaptation of the novel.

I mean, the "Would you like to know more?" clips should have made it blindingly obvious...

shivashakti: Goddamn, I fear for the future of this country.
There are a lot of stupid people out there.

Look, if you like crappy movies, there's nothing wrong with that. You like what you like. But why knock Ebert? The guy uses a different set of standards to rate movies than someone who would enjoy Transformers 2.

So, you like movies with giant robots that transform into cars and planes and such. You like movies with action and explosions and hot chicks. So what? Why do you care, then, what Ebert thinks? Why even pay attention to it?

Considering that maybe only 1% of the people in this thread have disagreed with him, why be such a cry baby about it? 99% of the people agreeing with you isn't good enough?

There's a lot of philosophy discussion going on in here. You must be unemployed.

/trolling
//doing it wrong

Ikimasen: I made it probably about a hundred posts in. Are we still talking about the movie? I read the last couple of posts as well, is it all just arguing about judgment and whether anyone is more qualified than another to judge art?

After a dozen "bash Transformers" threads, it appears that the only thing anyone has left to talk about is whether you can bash Transformers objectively by saying it actually is bad (and not artistic, etc.) or whether they're limited to saying "I feel it was a bad movie, I didn't enjoy it", etc.

mattharvest: It is objectively true or false that you are attracted to her. The difficulty in measuring it is irrelevant to the truth-value of the statement.

Ok. We agree so far.

mattharvest: It is also subjectively true that you experience attracting to your girlfriend (assuming you're not lying).

Huh? How can whether or not I'm experience something be "subjectively" true? I'm either experiencing it or I'm not. There's no subjectivity involved.

mattharvest: However, you've moved the goalposts a great deal here; we weren't talking about subjective truths with regards to the quality of art, but rather whether the definition of art, good art, bad art, etc. are subjective.

Well, they are only subjective in that people fight for them *to* be subjective. I mean, if you had enough people clamoring for the subjectivity of the word "table", I suppose you could also include that in the list. This strikes me as a self-fulfilling prophecy on your part.

Haven't read many of the posts here. (usually do)


The dude is indeed getting old. But that also brings a different flavor to reviews. I still balance him against most movies I watch, and enjoy.

Even when I don't agree I feel like I learn something. even when I don't agree, I feel like it. Even when I...

huh?

bigmattress: It's just a pet peeve of mine when I hear people say "That's just a movie, but THIS IS A FILM".

There's still some value there though. It's a pretty quick and relatively reliable way to tell if someone is a douchebag.

mattharvest: Ikimasen: I made it probably about a hundred posts in. Are we still talking about the movie? I read the last couple of posts as well, is it all just arguing about judgment and whether anyone is more qualified than another to judge art?

After a dozen "bash Transformers" threads, it appears that the only thing anyone has left to talk about is whether you can bash Transformers objectively by saying it actually is bad (and not artistic, etc.) or whether they're limited to saying "I feel it was a bad movie, I didn't enjoy it", etc.

Nuts. I wanted to share the funny thing a friend of mine said about Transformers.

Bill Frist: He is not necessarily right in his judgment of the quality of the film.

These are seperate things you know...

No, I don't. Please explain.

It's been implied and not-so-implied that my opinion (and others) about Transformers 2 is wrong. Can you explain why my opinion about Transformers 2 is wrong? Can anyone here explain it?

/Trolls, spare me the ad hominems, please. :)

Just because something is hard or complicated doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Ikimasen: I made it probably about a hundred posts in. Are we still talking about the movie? I read the last couple of posts as well, is it all just arguing about judgment and whether anyone is more qualified than another to judge art?

There will be another thread to discuss the movie tomorrow. After all a brand new day is a new chance that "this will be the thread that finally convinces everyone in the world the movie is awful" and then they can get back to trying to get everyone to join the Republican party, the only TRUE right side.

In other words, what is the objective way to determine the quality of a film?

FTFA:

"The opening grosses are a tribute to a marketing campaign, not to a movie no one had seen. If two studios spend a ton of money on a film, scare away the competition, and open in 4,234 theaters before the Fourth of July, of course they do blockbuster business."

Maybe if I use Roger's words, the naysayers will be less inclined to whine. I doubt it, but you never know.

robsul82: TribeFan695: robsul82: They're called "quote whores."

What makes Ebert more credible than any of the other critics? Let's not forget that he gave Next Day Air 3 stars.

I'm supposed to take a critic's words for gospel because he won an award 34 years ago?

Richard in a Box: Bill Frist: He is not necessarily right in his judgment of the quality of the film.

These are seperate things you know...

No, I don't. Please explain.

Saying "I liked this film" means nothing more than you had a pleasurable enjoyment of the film.

Saying "This film is a good film" implies much more, unless you operate in some weird bubble where you think good means nothing more than your subjective expierence.

Are you telling me that you've never read a book and thought it was an important and well written book even though you personally didn't enjoy reading it that much? Or convesrtely seen a shiatty movie but enjoyed it because you were brain dead at the end of the week and just wanted to see some big explosions, even though you knew the acting, writing and directing where crappy?

TribeFan695: robsul82: TribeFan695: robsul82: They're called "quote whores."

What makes Ebert more credible than any of the other critics? Let's not forget that he gave Next Day Air 3 stars.

I'm supposed to take a critic's words for gospel because he won an award 34 years ago?

Haven't you been following along? There are right and wrong opinions about films! I'm waiting with baited breath to hear how I can empirically determine what is a good movie henceforth! :)