The Panda Posted August 16, 2014 Author Share Posted August 16, 2014 I thought we were talking about movie quality?I was, I was making a comparison,Life Itself was a movie that really didn't appeal to me but I could tell as a documentary it was well-made and informative in form, I just personally didn't care about what it was informing me about. However there are many Ebert fans who do and would greatly appreciate it (much more than me) so I'd recommend it to them. Kind of like how a tampon isn't a product useful to me, yet it's still an overall useful product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dashrendar44 Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) There is no point in trying to determine a film's objective quality. Simply because...there is no such thing. Its a fool's errand. Good films are defined by factors that extend far beyond that which can be objectively defined. You seem to think otherwise...you are wrong. You can certainly point to consensus, but even then...it's still not an objective standard of quality. Some people can't stand this notion that things can't be so neatly and scientifically defined...but it's simply the truth of the matter. Turkish Star Wars is a masterpiece and better than Star Wars. Edited August 16, 2014 by dashrendar44 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 Artist has a 95%+ on RT, and I think it is absolute dogshit. Am I supposed to think it's good because the critics came all over it?... Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 I was, I was making a comparison,Life Itself was a movie that really didn't appeal to me but I could tell as a documentary it was well-made and informative in form, I just personally didn't care about what it was informing me about. However there are many Ebert fans who do and would greatly appreciate it (much more than me) so I'd recommend it to them. Kind of like how a tampon isn't a product useful to me, yet it's still an overall useful product. Isn't one of the main goals of a film to engage, inform, or entertain? It failed at this task with you. You're not wrong. This just is not an objectively quantifiable thing we are talking about. The tampon example is not apt. You find it useless because you don't have a vagina. That is a defined product with a specific use...film, is not a good comparison to that. Entertainment products don't engage by function the way a tampon does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Panda Posted August 16, 2014 Author Share Posted August 16, 2014 A tampon is a utilitarian tool, with one specific purpose.Film is creative expression, meant to play on a viewer's specific emotion and baggage as much as to exist within its actual framesBad exampleFilms have specific purposes, it was a rough example yes, but the director and producers have a purpose for the film (one to make money but an artistic one as well).Guardians of the Galaxy had the purpose to entertain the audience as a comedic portrayal of Marvel's cosmic universe. It succeeded in that goal with flying colors, it may have had a few flaws but they didn't hinder it from completing its intention, so a good movie. That doesn't mean you can't dislike it, but nobody can really deny that it didn't complete that goal with the vast majority of its audiences and critics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) Films have specific purposes, it was a rough example yes, but the director and producers have a purpose for the film (one to make money but an artistic one as well).Guardians of the Galaxy had the purpose to entertain the audience as a comedic portrayal of Marvel's cosmic universe. It succeeded in that goal with flying colors, it may have had a few flaws but they didn't hinder it from completing its intention, so a good movie.That doesn't mean you can't dislike it, but nobody can really deny that it didn't complete that goal with the vast majority of its audiences and critics. Vast majority doesn't equal objective standard. Tampons work with people who have vaginas. Movies work with people who have eyes and ears. That's the comparison. But "good" is not defined by the ability to see and hear a film, but a deeper level of entertainment. That some people didn't enjoy Guardians, and weren't entertained...I mean, come on, subjectivity right there. Now if you're arguing a movie is good if we can see it, and hear it...I agree, your movie is a bad movie if it fails to be audible and visible. That's an objective standard. But well, that's not what anybody is talking about here. Edited August 16, 2014 by kowhite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck0 Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) If tele sees this mess he will flip! btw imho all of this revolves around liking something for its artistic qualities vs liking something because it touches you on a personal level. Sometimes both of those qualities can come together and you get a perfect movie, but most of the time there is an either or scenario. In the end i would say that comparing a movie that you like artistically to one you enjoy on a more personal level is really difficult and outright saying that one is superior to the other becomes pretty meaningless Edited August 16, 2014 by chuck0 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 Films have specific purposes, it was a rough example yes, but the director and producers have a purpose for the film (one to make money but an artistic one as well).Guardians of the Galaxy had the purpose to entertain the audience as a comedic portrayal of Marvel's cosmic universe. It succeeded in that goal with flying colors, it may have had a few flaws but they didn't hinder it from completing its intention, so a good movie. That doesn't mean you can't dislike it, but nobody can really deny that it didn't complete that goal with the vast majority of its audiences and critics.But that simply means many people liked it. It doesn't mean it's objectively good. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K1stpierre Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 Obviously you can never come upon a fact when it comes to this like you can with science. But that doesn't mean objectivity is impossible.For example, I am a male thus I have no uses for tampons, but I recognize they are a very good and valuable product even though I personally have no use for them.Highly true. Tampons are god's gift.Though, I've seen guys use tampons for nosebleeds. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewy Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 Good and bad are inherently subjective terms, to pretend you can objectively apply them to a medium as diverse and individualistic as film is way off-base 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 Guardians isn't better than Boyhood because of countless reasons, mostly that Boyhood is one of the few truly flawless films I have ever seen.But BOYHOOD isn't flawless. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Panda Posted August 16, 2014 Author Share Posted August 16, 2014 Isn't one of the main goals of a film to engage, inform, or entertain? It failed at this task with you.You're not wrong. This just is not an objectively quantifiable thing we are talking about.The tampon example is not apt. You find it useless because you don't have a vagina. That is a defined product with a specific use...film, is not a good comparison to that. Entertainment products don't engage by function the way a tampon does.Then take Shakespeare for example (yes I know a cliche writer to choose), there are many people who don't like Shakespearean plays but you'd be a fool to think they're bad.That's because anyone with half a brain can tell he's an excellent playwriter even if you don't necessarily like to read them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewy Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 Then take Shakespeare for example (yes I know a cliche writer to choose), there are many people who don't like Shakespearean plays but you'd be a fool to think they're bad.That's because anyone with half a brain can tell he's an excellent playwriter even if you don't necessarily like to read them. But "ii think it's bad" and "i didn't like it" mean the same exact thing... You'd be a fool to equate "i think it's well made" with "it's good" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Wiseau Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 Then take Shakespeare for example (yes I know a cliche writer to choose), there are many people who don't like Shakespearean plays but you'd be a fool to think they're bad.That's because anyone with half a brain can tell he's an excellent playwriter even if you don't necessarily like to read them. sorry for disturbance dear panda..but only I decide if Shakespeare is any good or not..not snobbish old British fucks with due respect and I don't care for him..he's not good because he's not entertaining for me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 Then take Shakespeare for example (yes I know a cliche writer to choose), there are many people who don't like Shakespearean plays but you'd be a fool to think they're bad.That's because anyone with half a brain can tell he's an excellent playwriter even if you don't necessarily like to read them.All anyone cares about is whether a piece of entertainment works for them or not. If Shakespeare doesn't work for you, then he's "bad", in your opinion. Yes, most everyone else may think he's brilliant, but on the individual level, your opinion is your opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Panda Posted August 16, 2014 Author Share Posted August 16, 2014 But "ii think it's bad" and "i didn't like it" mean the same exact thing...You'd be a fool to equate "i think it's well made" with "it's good"But isn't something well-made inherently good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 Take it away, y'all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 Then take Shakespeare for example (yes I know a cliche writer to choose), there are many people who don't like Shakespearean plays but you'd be a fool to think they're bad.That's because anyone with half a brain can tell he's an excellent playwriter even if you don't necessarily like to read them. And Shakespeare is still not objectively good, because there's no such thing. Because everyone else thinks so...is not an argument for objectivity. Nonetheless, I think I've contributed enough to this derail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainJackSparrow Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 If Tele likes it or not. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewy Posted August 16, 2014 Share Posted August 16, 2014 But isn't something well-made inherently good? It's well-made. Good is a whole nother matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
