Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Site Polls' started by rhett, Mar 27, 2014.
And yet you do not have anyone else backing you up.
Life is not a game.
It's a cereal.
Well you can't back up rambling incoherent nonsense.
This coming from the guy with a Slumber Party Massacre II avatar. I guess you would know.
Oh ouch. You got me there
No, you don't get it: you got yourself there.
I'm not the only one who sees the hypocrisy in your argument. You must admit that in your attempt to prove all opinions are subjective, you have not hidden your attitude that your whole argument is completely objective. Which is hypocritical. It's a perfect example of a contradiction in terms.
Think about it.
Taking an "objective" stance on things being "subjective" does not make something hypocritical. I'd be a hypocrite if I said nothing in the world is objective. BUT I am talking about a measuring point to find out if a film is 'good' or 'bad'.
God, why do I even bother?...
Now you've really lost me.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
First off, none of us are making "objective" statements. We are making definitive statements in that the definition of "objectivity" contains a set of descriptors that are impossible to achieve in reality. The basic stance of objectivity is that there are objects/properties that contain principles that are true regardless of the observer. But, for one, there is nothing in the universe that exists independent of an observer, see Heisenberg or the idea of quantum collapse for reference.
In the realm of some film's "goodness" there can be no objectivity as every individual will have a unique criteria for what defines "goodness". Even the idea of something approaching mere recognition of how well a film is crafted is going to be altered by each individual's definition of what the merits of that craft are.
From a popular standpoint, Bay's Transformer films are remarkably well crafted. The editing is actually quite interesting taken on its own merits. The sound design is amazing. The animation/CGI is ambitious in its detail. But, there are still a large number of people (myself included) who think they are utter crap because I'd much rather watch a Tarkovsky film. However, by the criteria of the box office, I am apparently quite wrong in that opinion.
Or to take from classical art, which is more "good" - Leonardo's linear perspective or the Chinese "flat" perspective? The answer depends on the way your culture taught you to read an image.
Everything that is created has baggage. Everything that is created has context. And every observer has a unique history that will affect how all that is interpreted. There is nothing that exists independent of that. Even the statement that someone made earlier that one can say that an apple is objectively "red" is not accurate as there is no way to prove that to every single person as the definition of "red" has implications. The best we can say is that this particular apple at this exact moment reflects light waves of X wavelength and that wavelength interacts with these particular cones and rods of the standard human's eye. After that, it's all open to individual interpretation.
And, if you think that any of those statements are objective, you are not using the word in accordance with the common definition of the word. Which actually would be a bit ironic.
An analogy, just for fun:
Freud: You want to have sex with your mother
Patient: I do not want to have sex with my mother.
Freud: Your denial is proof that I am correct.
Excellent post! Not sure it will do any good, but great.
And yeah, even when I typed the apple being objectively "red", in my head I was like "well, colorblind people wouldn't see 'red', but I'll go with it anyways"... I suppose 2+2=4 could be objective.
But either way,
Since I am feeling nit-picky, technically 2+2=4 is not objective either since all mathematics is based on axioms which by their own definition are statements that we assume to be true due to a lack of any contradiction. However, the aforementioned Tarkovsky actually did a funny bit of "proving" that 1+1=1 by adding a drop of water to an already existing drop of water and ending up with still one drop of water.
Ah! Tarkovsky strikes again. And dayem, that's a good point. I guess it'd be semantics now since we'd have to ask "is it an entity and another entity" or "adding together two entities"... That's a cool distinct observation. Never thought about it that way before.
Ouch, you guys are making my head hurt!!!!!
Nope, I don't. I have never argued our discussions to be anything more than just us chatting about what films we watched, our opinions on said films, and having some fun. From the beginning we never set out to deliver any more then that, and hope people can find some enjoyment in it, which it seems like some have. If you are looking for a podcast that really digs in and examines a film and all of the hidden messages and meanings in them, I will fully admit our podcast isn't for you.
Thankfully, there are several great podcasts out there that deliver just that, and even if we tried I know we wouldn't be able to compete with them, so we decided from the beginning to offer a different flavour. I've never been one to watch a film like that anyway. I get more excited about a fun scene or moment, than I do a hidden message inside. Not saying using your brain to watch a film is a bad thing though. I enjoy lots of movies with more to them than what's on the outside. That being said, I can enjoy a mindless slasher with gooey kills just the same. That's what is great about reviews, podcasts, ect. There is something out here for everyone! Sometimes I want to hear or read someone really analyze a film, really dig into meanings of the film. On the other hand, sometimes I just want to know if it's fun and whether or not it will entertain me for an hour and a half. I don't think a movie like Demons needs a ten page analysis in my opinion, and sometimes I feel people are reaching with their thoughts on certain films. But hey, who am I to judge if they got that out of the film?
I will fully admit, you are an intelligent person, and yes, you could probably out argue me with a more thorough and analytical essay on just about any film. I'm sure many on here could, which I have admitted several times. There are a lot of intelligent people on her, and lots of frequent intelligent discussions. That's why I continue to read and post here. That's also why it's so unfortunate that most of your thoughts get lost in the fact that you are rude, ignorant and disrespectful of others opinions. Opinions aren't right or wrong, they are just that, opinions. You can write ten paragraphs arguing all you want about how I am wrong and you are right, the bottom line is it isn't going to change how I feel about the film. Just because you didn't get something out of the film, doesn't mean no one else did, or should. And since there is no definite answer to who's right or wrong here, why start a fight over it? Once you learn that, and can accept that others aren't wrong, their opinions just differ from yours, people may take you more seriously. I don't think everyone disagrees with what you say, it's the way you go about it that really irks people. Instead of stating someone is wrong and writing up ten paragraphs on why they are wrong, just write up what you got out of the film. You really don't have to be a dick to get your point across, and no matter what you say or think, yes in the end they are just your opinions. Others seem to be able to disagree with each other without being nasty about it, why can't you?
And sorry for writing all of this, I ignored your post in the other thread as I said all I needed to say, but I thought since you attacked our podcast I thought I should throw out a rebuttal.
Must be that time of the month...
Second period joke in under a week. (I mean: the same period joke.)
Friday the 13th, Part V: A New Beginning
What? No Scanners: The Showdown?