New Year's Day Weekend Thread: Late Friday estimates (DHD) - TLJ 19.5M, Jumanji 17.5M, PP3 6.7M, TGS 5.3M

[George Parr]

6 minutes ago, Alli said:

I think sometimes critics score a movie based on who is involved too or based on trends. I mean The Beguiled has 77% on metascore too which is huge. it just simply isn't a movie which deserves that high of a score.

 

How about the trend of scoring every Marvel film in the 90% on RT. Those movies are as formulaic as can be. they don't deserve those high percentages imo.  maybe the same can be said about TLJ.

What does "deserving" have to do with anything?

 

That's not even how RT works. A high percentage doesn't tell you anything about how good the movie is, it only tells you how many people liked it as a percentage. If most people like movies that offer them a solid level of entertainment, then who are you to tell them that they mustn't like these movies?

 

Something that offers an enjoyable experience while neither wowing most of the critics nor offending any of them, will most often get a great rating at RT, because RT is all about whether you liked or disliked a movie, not how great it is.

 

In broad terms, the same is true for the general audience as well. Most people look for something worthwhile to spend ~2 hours on. That's why movies that deliver this make a lot of money, even if they don't get the best ratings from the critics or are not particularly deep and thought-provoking.

[That One Girl]

1 minute ago, grey ghost said:

Don't curse at me, you fucking porg.

 

Is the quality of Picasso's art subjective or objective?

 

Yes or no.

 

It either is or it isn't.

 

 

 

Subjective

[SpiritComix]

13 minutes ago, JonathanLB said:

I agree. It’s not really the movie’s fault for me though, it’s a thoroughly mediocre movie in every respect besides the stunt work. It’s not like it’s as much “bad” as it’s so overrated that I hate it. If a movie has cheesy hokey villains with almost no dialogue, poor acting, bad costumes, and ZERO plot and yet inspires people to talk about its “post-feminist ideals and philosophy” it’s so laughable as to be hateable. There’s nothing there. The emperor has no clothes. The movie has nothing to say about anything! It’s the most plotless blockbuster wonder ever created and deserves none of its attention. It was entertaining enough the first time and wow the second time I saw it... I dropped it from B- to C-. 

WOW! Worst hot take(s) of 2018???

 

I can't... It's too much!

 

 

 

[Cap]

6 hours ago, Christmas baumer said:

What a dick move on your part. It's your mom for pete sake. And she's right. It's not all about you. We make sacrifices for our family and the people that we love. You just being a very selfish person right now. If you were my child I would be very disappointed in you

Duuuude. My mom and I have this conversation like three times a month, and it is 50/50 on who is being the brat/dick/selfish person by saying “Nope” to going to see a movie. It is just how we roll. 

 

ETA:

 

Just found out:

 

Our IMAX theater — which is the only IMAX in the state, and one of the biggest theaters in the state — is temporary closed today. It is so cold up here I suspect it has something with the pipes. I don’t know if they were able to get in showings this morning/afternoon.

Edited January 1, 2018 by captainwondyful

[That One Girl]

2 minutes ago, captainwondyful said:

Duuuude

 

-Anthony Hopkins, 2017

[grey ghost]

3 minutes ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

Well, there are movies like There Will Be Blood and Juno that I personally didn't really like that much when I saw them. The Tree Of Life has 84% - which is close to 90% - and I think it totally sucks.

 

Emphasis on "I personally didn't like them". As in ME, I DIDN'T LIKE THEM. Because I'm not a sheep that follows RT blindly and I can think on my own. If I dislike a movie with high reviews (or a vice-versa scenario), so be it, I don't care. But I will not give in to whatever idea there is that a movie is objectively good because a website says that a lot of people agree on it being good. Since when is art "objective", after all?

 

Consensus is obviously helpful and indicative that there is, in a well reviewed movie's case, higher chance of me liking a movie than not. However, it doesn't mean that a movie is objectively good, period.

Critical consensus has more credibility than the random, personal opinion.

 

That doesn't mean it's objective fact or that you can't personally disagree.

 

If a stranger wanted to know the best 10 films of the year, I'd tell them to use RT cause stuff like GotG2 and Alien Covenant top my list for very personal reasons 

[ThiagoMaia]

One more thing I'd like to add. It was actually something that a post by @JonathanLBgot me thinking about. He talked a few weeks back, about how the award movies recently have been more disconnected from the GA than they used to be in the past. It got me thinking that one of the reasons for this is that movie making as an art is constantly developing, in the sense that once someone has an idea, other people can copy it. And that's why, for example, even a crappy movie from today is going to have way more elaborate, and most times better, camera work, than a good movie from the 50s. Now, that is obvious, I know, but one thing we should keep in mind, is that the access to knowing what has come before depends on a person's interest on knowing it, and so a critic or a member of the academy, is going to have seem way more movies than a common movie goer, most people don't watch old movies, they usually only watch movies from their lifetime.

 

That leads to the fact that as time goes by, each generation of critics knows more movies than the previous, while the GA knows roughly the same amount. And as a result, GA can be pleased with the same things generation after generation, while movie critics are more inclined to like what is original and fresh.

 

Just my two cents on this matter. Of course this doesn't explain the whole issue, but it might be one of the factors.

[grey ghost]

6 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

 

Subjective

So how do we know if a Picasso is good or bad?

 

If it's critical consensus then why is film much different?

[Porthos]

26 minutes ago, NoLegMan said:

https://www.flickeringmyth.com/2018/01/rumour-rian-johnson-begin-shooting-first-new-star-wars-trilogy-june/ 

 

21 hours ago, Porthos said:

I really tend to doubt this since I don't even think the script has been worked on all that much.

Still, as rumors go, I'd rather hear positive ones than negative ones.

 

edit

 

Another reason to doubt this is that they haven't even started to film Ep 9 yet, never mind the mooted Kenobi film which is supposed to start filming in 2019.

 

Just don't see this leapfrogging all of the above when it comes to shooting.

 

Much more likely to believe that this source got its wires crossed and it's about Ep 9 shooting instead.

 

[That One Girl]

2 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

So how do we know if a Picasso is good or bad?

 

Your own opinion.

[Avatree]

only took two weeks for Jumanji to overtake Star Wars, I'm seriously impressed.

[MCKillswitch123]

15 minutes ago, grey ghost said:

Don't curse at me, you fucking porg.

 

Is the quality of Picasso's art subjective or objective?

 

Yes or no.

 

It either is or it isn't.

 

 

It's entirely subjective, just like any other kind of art, be it music, photography, literature, theatre, and yes, film as well.

 

It is widely considered by most people as high quality art. It doesn't mean that you have to agree with those people, because if you disagree with them, that's what should matter more: what you think. Art is something that's pretty much impossible to be universally agreed on, and it's meant to be that way. Even Picasso - or Da Vinci for that matter - must have his detractors out there, and whether I disagree with them or not, it's impossible to say that they are factually or objectively wrong.

 

The same thing applies with movies. If 90% of professional critics agreed that a movie is good, that may be seen as more credible source than an opinion of some shmuck regarding what they should expect going into a film that they haven't seen yet. That doesn't mean that they HAVE to obligatorily agree with those critics, though, cause they can just as easily end up siding with the shmuck who disagrees instead, and there would be nothing wrong with that. That's the nature of art.

 

So, the quality of Picasso's art depends entirely on your point of view, and if someone think that it's bad, then it really doesn't matter if a lot of people like it - to those people, it's bad. End of story. Exact same applies to films well scored on RT.

Edited January 1, 2018 by MCKillswitch123

[ThiagoMaia]

11 minutes ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

It's entirely subjective, just like any other kind of art, be it music, photography, literature, theatre, and yes, film as well.

 

It is widely considered by most people as high quality art. It doesn't mean that you have to agree with those people, because if you disagree with them, that's what should matter more: what you think. Art is something that's pretty much impossible to be universally agreed on, and it's meant to be that way. Even Picasso - or Da Vinci for that matter - must have his detractors out there, and whether I disagree with them or not, it's impossible to say that they are factually or objectively wrong.

 

The same thing applies with movies. If 90% of professional critics agreed that a movie is good, that may be seen as more credible source than an opinion of some shmuck regarding what they should expect going into a film that they haven't seen yet. That doesn't mean that they HAVE to obligatorily agree with those critics, though, cause they can just as easily end up siding with the shmuck who disagrees instead, and there would be nothing wrong with that. That's the nature of art.

 

So, the quality of Picasso's art depends entirely on your point of view, and if someone think that it's bad, then it really doesn't matter if a lot of people like it - to those people, it's bad. End of story. Exact same applies to films well scored on RT.

If it is so subjective why is there so much agreement?

[TwoMisfits]

Man, last week, we got into economics and psychology discussions...this week, we are getting into "worth and value of art" in a philosophical sense...I think I'm gonna need multiple PHDs by next year to stay on top of these discussions:)...

 

Anyway, to try to keep this at the understandable level, when asked "what is the worth of art", normally we find value in art b/c it helps us understand something about the greater world, it helps us see the beauty (both seen and unseen) in the greater world, it helps us see some truth in ourselves and in the world at large, etc...

 

So, when you ask if art is subjective or objective, you aren't quite asking the right question...b/c the answer to that is both and it depends on how and why you're asking:)...

 

 

[That One Girl]

1 minute ago, ThiagoMaia said:

If it is so subjective why is there so much agreement?

 

It's called a lot of people sharing similar opinions.  Just because a lot of people agree doesn't make someone who disagrees any more wrong or right.

[LinksterAC]

18 minutes ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

It's entirely subjective, just like any other kind of art, be it music, photography, literature, theatre, and yes, film as well.

 

It is widely considered by most people as high quality art. It doesn't mean that you have to agree with those people, because if you disagree with them, that's what should matter more: what you think. Art is something that's pretty much impossible to be universally agreed on, and it's meant to be that way. Even Picasso - or Da Vinci for that matter - must have his detractors out there, and whether I disagree with them or not, it's impossible to say that they are factually or objectively wrong.

 

The same thing applies with movies. If 90% of professional critics agreed that a movie is good, that may be seen as more credible source than an opinion of some shmuck regarding what they should expect going into a film that they haven't seen yet. That doesn't mean that they HAVE to obligatorily agree with those critics, though, cause they can just as easily end up siding with the shmuck who disagrees instead, and there would be nothing wrong with that. That's the nature of art.

 

So, the quality of Picasso's art depends entirely on your point of view, and if someone think that it's bad, then it really doesn't matter if a lot of people like it - to those people, it's bad. End of story. Exact same applies to films well scored on RT.

There's a technical aspect of art that's objective, I think. 

In the case of film, there are certain ways to employ the camera, audio effects, music, editing, lighting, staging, acting, etc. to move the eye, induce certain emotional responses, communicate information, and so on.  They're pretty repeatable and measurable.  These things can be done correctly or incorrectly, and so there are objective ways to judge how "well" a film is made by looking at how well these tools are used.

Whether what's well executed appeals to the consumer of the art is a different story altogether, and I would agree that is, by definition, purely a subjective experience.  I think Michael Bay, for example, knows what he's doing on a technical level.  Despite that fact, I generally don't like his movies because I don't like how he applies his technical know-how.

I'll admit it's sometimes hard to parse out whether a high level of technical ability is being displayed in some things that are considered "great art."  For example, I seriously wonder sometimes if Jackson Pollock is a hack, and scratch my head at his work.  That said, I think this difficulty in assessing technical execution varies from medium to medium, and that it's easier to figure out in film.

Edited January 1, 2018 by LinksterAC

[ThiagoMaia]

3 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

 

It's called a lot of people sharing similar opinions.  Just because a lot of people agree doesn't make someone who disagrees any more wrong or right.

Ok let's try this then: can you please elaborate on what you mean by: "it's all subjective" and why you are so sure that it being subjective is objectively true?

 

I'm honestly asking, ok? Like to have well defined terms in discussion. 

Edited January 1, 2018 by ThiagoMaia
Kindness

[That One Girl]

Just now, ThiagoMaia said:

Ok let's try this then: can you please elaborate on what you mean by: "it's all subjective" and why you are so sure that it being subjective is objectively true?

 

Read literally any of my other posts I've posted on the past few pages.  I'm tired of talking about this.

[grey ghost]

19 minutes ago, That One Guy said:

 

Your own opinion.

So a Picasso is trash if CJohn or Armond White says so?

 

Do you have any you want to give away.

 

I'll throw them away for you. 

[ThiagoMaia]

1 minute ago, That One Guy said:

 

Read literally any of my other posts I've posted on the past few pages.  I'm tired of talking about this.

Ok, sorry, I read them, still didn't get a good understanding of what "subjective" means in the sense you're using it. But if don't want to talk anymore, not going to press you.