Battlestar Galactica Review

[Patrick Degan]

Oh come off it. This is not a matter of objective fact like the world being a sphere. Art and entertainment never is. It is an entirely subjective field, since what entertains one person bores another - this argument certainly reveals that to be true. Entertainment is all about popular acclaim. Art, literature, cinema, etc, succeed because they appeal to an audience. If you even try to pretend otherwise you are too stupid to bother with. If they become classics, and stand the test of time, it's because they retain appeal to changing audiences over time, and remain relevant and entertaining. Entertainment has no meaning without an audience.

In other words, you really have no defence for your position other than popular acclaim. Which really means you have no argument.

In other words, you really are stupid and arrogant enough to try and argue that entertainment is objective, and subject to completely objective standards. You really are stupid and arrogant enough to dispute the manifestly true statement that what entertains one person bores another. You really are stupid and arrogant enough to deny the obvious and indisputable fact that entertainment is aimed at an audience, and that said audience's appreciation is relevant, indeed critical to its success.

I see I overestimated you. I actually credited you with some sense.

Continuing to argue with you at this point would only serve to waste my time. As Shakespeare said: "For I mine own gained knowledge should profane/ If I would time expend with such a snipe..."

Uh huh... Exactly how far up your ass do you have that head of yours?

You know, anybody with more than two braincells to rub together would have seen right off that the "objective" criteria in play in judging the worth of movies, TV shows, or any other form of entertainment relates to standards of quality. This is what makes it possible to realise that something like, say, Blade Runner, is a SF classic while Matrix: Revolutions and Star Trek: Nemesis are shit.

So I guess by your standards, by sole virtue of box-office popularity, Batman Forever is an infinitely more intelligent, artistically better movie than Apollo 13.

It takes a truly stupid and arrogant person to say that mere popular acclaim immunises any production, artwork, or creator from criticism and relieves its defender in an argument from justifying his position. Saying "everybody else liked it, so you're wrong" proves exactly nothing, and that's what you tried to do, and you got called on your bullshit. So you can take your grandstanding and that snotty attitude of yours and cram them up your ass along with your head.

And since you're so fond of the Bard, here's a perfect quote to characterise your postings on this thread: ...a tale told by an Idiot/full of Sound and Fury, signifying Nothing.

[Perinquus]

Uh huh... Exactly how far up your ass do you have that head of yours?

You know, anybody with more than two braincells to rub together would have seen right off that the "objective" criteria in play in judging the worth of movies, TV shows, or any other form of entertainment relates to standards of quality.

Bullshit. In entertainment there is no objective standard of quality. Period. There cannot be. There is only widely held opinion. Even the most widely held "standards of quality" only exist in the minds of the people who hold them. It is simply not some independent, objective fact like the earth being round, or two plus two being four.

Sorry to pop your balloon, but that's how it is. You can take the most outstanding, highly regarded, universally acclaimed material, material that has stood the test of time, and in every possible sense of the word deserves to be called classic literature, and find people of taste and discernment who can't stand it. Perfect case in point - Shakespeare. J.R.R. Tolkien, a truly gifted, intelligent, visionary author if ever there was one, didn't care at all for the works of William Shakespeare. Shakespeare is widely regarded as the greatest author ever to have written in the English language - perhaps in any language - yet J.R.R. Tolkien, himself a great author, didn't like Shakespeare's work.

Now, according to you, there really are objective standards of quality in entertainment. Surely Shakespeare meets those standards. Now if Shakespeare was objectively a great author, then Tolkien's not liking him was not just an opinion that Tolkien was entitled to hold, Tolkien was wrong not to like him. If there is an objective standard of quality, and if Shakespeare meets it (and who could, if not Shakespeare?), then the only correct thing to do is to recognize and appreciate that quality. Yet Tolkien did not. Therefore, by objective standards, Tolkien was wrong not to like Shakespeare. Tolkien failed to recognize the obvious quality of the works of William Shakespeare, and therefore, Tolkien's taste in literature was deficient.

Even though some works are held to have greater artistic merit than others, there is still no universal agreement on this, and there never can be, because they are matters of opinion. Some people think people think Citizen Kane was the greatest, most artisticly well made movie in cinema history. Other people think it was a load of pompous, pretentious crap. Prove to me that one side or the other is correct. If there is an objective standard, this issue would admit of such proof. Some people think Richard Wagner wrote some of the most stirring and sublimely beautiful music ever. Other people think he wrote a bunch of overblown, bombastic garbage. Prove to me that one side or the other is correct. If there is an objective standard of quality, then you should be able to provide such proof. Some people think Ulysses, by James Joyce is the greatest work of fiction in 20th century literature. Other people - intelligent people - even Joyce's own brother, regarded it as incomprehensible gibberish. Prove to me the validity of either side's point of view. Surely you can provide such proof, if there is an objective standard of quality. Some people find nothing more enjoyable that a baseball game. Other people (myself included) find it intolerably boring. If you made me sit through an entire world series I'd be ready to put a gun in my mouth before the thing was half over. Prove to me that this is wrong of me, and that I should find baseball entertaining. Even what most people would consider a "good" game - a game between two good teams at the top of their form, playing their best - would bore me to tears. Prove to me that this is wrong of me, and that by some objective standard, baseball is good entertainment, and I should like it. Or conversely, prove that baseball is not good entertainment, and that all those people who like it are crazy, or have bad taste, or something. You say there is an objective standard. Define that standard. Give us all the universally accepted, objective standard of quality in art, music, literature, or entertainment in general.

Guess what slappy? There isn't one. Anyone with any sense realizes that at bottom, all entertainment value is based on the opinion of the audience. For all the definitions of artistic merit, quality, or what have you, it boils down to this: either entertainment appeals to the audience, or it doesn't. Your so called objective standards are just widely held opinions as to what is good or is not. Anything else is just pretense. People consider some work artistically lacking because it is aimed at an uncultured, uneducated or "lower" audience, which is why the Jerry Springer Show is not considered artistically on the same plane as The Godfather Trilogy. But it's still just opinion. "Quality" is only an issue here because we consider some people's opinions to be worth more than others.

You are trying to pretend your opinion of Battlestar Galactica is some sort of objective fact. It's not. You may not like it. That's certainly your priveledge, but for you to try and pretend your standards of taste are some sort of objective standard is just ludicrous in the extreme. The reason I am not going to argue this with you any further is that I can see only two reasons for you to cling to this line of argument. One is that even though you realize your position is untenable, and it really is ridiculous to deny that matters of entertainment are not quite concrete enough to admit of objective, clearly definable, indisputable standards, but you are simply too arrogant to yield a point, or admit that your position is not entirely correct. If that is the case, you will never admit you might be wrong (even if only partly wrong), no matter how obvious it is that your position is weak, and what would be the purpose of continuing to argue with you? Or alternately, no matter how obvious it is that people's tastes vary, and what one person considers good entertainment, another considers torture, you truly believe there is some objective standard of what is good entertainment and what is not. If that is the case you are stupid beyond belief, and what would be the purpose of continuing to argue with you?

[Patrick Degan]

Uh huh... Exactly how far up your ass do you have that head of yours?

You know, anybody with more than two braincells to rub together would have seen right off that the "objective" criteria in play in judging the worth of movies, TV shows, or any other form of entertainment relates to standards of quality.

Bullshit. In entertainment there is no objective standard of quality blah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah....

Sorry to pop your balloon, but that's how it is. You can take the most outstanding, highly regarded, universally acclaimed material, material that has stood the test of time, and in every possible sense of the word deserves to be called classic literature, and find people of taste and discernment who can't stand it blah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah....

Now, according to you, there really are objective standards of quality in entertainment. Surely Shakespeare meets those standards. Now if Shakespeare was objectively a great author, then Tolkien's not liking him blah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah....

Even though some works are held to have greater artistic merit than others, there is still no universal agreement on this, and there never can be, because they are matters of opinion blah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah....

You are trying to pretend your opinion of Battlestar Galactica is some sort of objective fact. It's not. You may not like it. That's certainly your priveledge, but for you to try and pretend your standards of taste are some sort of objective standard is just ludicrous blah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah..... If that is the case you are stupid beyond belief, and what would be the purpose of continuing to argue with you?

Well, thank you for your grand exercise in pseuointellectual posturing and for the continuing demonstration that not only can't you defend your position logically but also that you simply can't resist acting like a spoiled brat when somebody calls you to task for your bullshit —which you're pulling the "everybody else liked it, so you're wrong" dodge most certainly was.

So again, take the grandstanding and the snotty attitude and shove them up your ass.

[Perinquus]

Uh huh... Exactly how far up your ass do you have that head of yours?

You know, anybody with more than two braincells to rub together would have seen right off that the "objective" criteria in play in judging the worth of movies, TV shows, or any other form of entertainment relates to standards of quality.

Bullshit. In entertainment there is no objective standard of quality blah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah....

Sorry to pop your balloon, but that's how it is. You can take the most outstanding, highly regarded, universally acclaimed material, material that has stood the test of time, and in every possible sense of the word deserves to be called classic literature, and find people of taste and discernment who can't stand it blah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah....

Now, according to you, there really are objective standards of quality in entertainment. Surely Shakespeare meets those standards. Now if Shakespeare was objectively a great author, then Tolkien's not liking him blah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah....

Even though some works are held to have greater artistic merit than others, there is still no universal agreement on this, and there never can be, because they are matters of opinion blah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah....

You are trying to pretend your opinion of Battlestar Galactica is some sort of objective fact. It's not. You may not like it. That's certainly your priveledge, but for you to try and pretend your standards of taste are some sort of objective standard is just ludicrous blah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah..... If that is the case you are stupid beyond belief, and what would be the purpose of continuing to argue with you?

Well, thank you for your grand exercise in pseuointellectual posturing and for the continuing demonstration that not only can't you defend your position logically but also that you simply can't resist acting like a spoiled brat when somebody calls you to task for your bullshit —which you're pulling the "everybody else liked it, so you're wrong" dodge most certainly was.

So again, take the grandstanding and the snotty attitude and shove them up your ass.

So that's how you prove these objective standards of yours exist eh smegbreath? I am swept away by the force of your argument.

[StarshipTitanic]

What the fuck do you expect me to do, fucking rewrite and replan the whole fucking first episode to show you what the fuck I mean? Of course, I really WOULD like to do that, but I don't have the goddamn time to point out and fix all the flaws in new BSG. I'd be here til I was eighty.

Judging by what you said below, you'll only be adding scenes that look cool and add nothing.

Of course the drama's the same, you dope. The SCALE is different. If you can plan two different battles that deliver exactly the same amount of drama but one offers more eye candy for the viewers at the same time, you'd have to be a drunk warthog to use the smaller one. Unfortunately, new BSG's producers ARE a bunch of drunk warthogs and narrowed the extent of the story so far that they neatly and efficiently cut themselves off from being able to effectively show the demise of the Colonial military and even the Colonies themselves.

Therefore, the scene is unnecessary. I find it interesting how you stress this point when even the original barely touched upon the subject (and did it badly to boot). The new show did a far better job with the suffering of the Colonials, something the original show was also unable to handle well.

[Patrick Degan]

Bullshit. In entertainment there is no objective standard of quality blah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah....

Sorry to pop your balloon, but that's how it is. You can take the most outstanding, highly regarded, universally acclaimed material, material that has stood the test of time, and in every possible sense of the word deserves to be called classic literature, and find people of taste and discernment who can't stand it blah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah....

Now, according to you, there really are objective standards of quality in entertainment. Surely Shakespeare meets those standards. Now if Shakespeare was objectively a great author, then Tolkien's not liking him blah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah....

Even though some works are held to have greater artistic merit than others, there is still no universal agreement on this, and there never can be, because they are matters of opinion blah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah....

You are trying to pretend your opinion of Battlestar Galactica is some sort of objective fact. It's not. You may not like it. That's certainly your priveledge, but for you to try and pretend your standards of taste are some sort of objective standard is just ludicrous blah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblah..... If that is the case you are stupid beyond belief, and what would be the purpose of continuing to argue with you?

Well, thank you for your grand exercise in pseuointellectual posturing and for the continuing demonstration that not only can't you defend your position logically but also that you simply can't resist acting like a spoiled brat when somebody calls you to task for your bullshit —which you're pulling the "everybody else liked it, so you're wrong" dodge most certainly was.

So again, take the grandstanding and the snotty attitude and shove them up your ass.

So that's how you prove these objective standards of yours exist eh smegbreath? I am swept away by the force of your argument.

No, that's how I respond to some little prick with pretentions to intellectual competence who takes a whole page to say "everything is opinions and every opinion is valid". I simply thought you needed a little judicious editing.

And since you deny in toto the concept of artistic value judgement, let's see if you're up for a little challenge: demonstrate to the satisfaction of any intelligent person that a piece of shit movie like Porky's III can be considered as having the same artistic value and quality as Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Gone With The Wind, or any other screen classic you care to name by the film's own merits rather than "popular acclaim" or "personal opinion" or "different approach" as support for your case.

You're on.

[Kuja]

Judging by what you said below, you'll only be adding scenes that look cool and add nothing.

Therefore, the scene is unnecessary.[/quote]

Jesus H Christ covered in honey and buried in an anthill, you're a dumbass. You just don't get what I'm trying to say do you? IF THE TWO SCENES ARE EQUAL IN DRAMA YET ONE OFFERS BETTER VISUALS, GO WITH THE ONE THAT OFFERS BETTER VISUALS. YOU HAVE LOST NOTHING AND HAVE GAINED SOMETHING. THAT'S WHAT TV IS ABOUT - SHOWING THINGS.

Besides, I'm trying to do this under that assumption that Moore would still want his PRECIOUS focus of the new BSG characters, and show as little of the main battle as possible. Were I in charge, I'd have scrapped his POS script and made the Colonial fleet the focus from Moment One.

I find it interesting how you stress this point when even the original barely touched upon the subject (and did it badly to boot).

I reiterate an old point: we SAW the Atlantia go up in the original. We SAW the Radiers closing the net on the original fleet. We SAW Adama make the desicion to leave them and go help the colonies. We didn't SEE any of that in new BSG. Something is better than nothing, n'est pas?

The new show did a far better job with the suffering of the Colonials, something the original show was also unable to handle well

And how did you come to that conclusion?

[Perinquus]

No, that's how I respond to some little prick with pretentions to intellectual competence who takes a whole page to say "everything is opinions and every opinion is valid". I simply thought you needed a little judicious editing.

And since you deny in toto the concept of artistic value judgement, let's see if you're up for a little challenge: demonstrate to the satisfaction of any intelligent person that a piece of shit movie like Porky's III can be considered as having the same artistic value and quality as Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Gone With The Wind, or any other screen classic you care to name by the film's own merits rather than "popular acclaim" or "personal opinion" or "different approach" as support for your case.

You're on.

Oh no. You first. You see, I already challenged you to define your objective standards of quality, and to tell how, for example, different people, each people of refinement, intelligence, and discernment could have such different reactions to a film like Citizen Kane, just to take one example. Some consider it the pinnacle of cinematic art, while others consider it the height of pretentious, artsy-fartsy drivel. I already challenged you to explain how this is possible if some objective standard obtains, and you blithely ignored that challenge. Why should I then respond to your challenge if you are not willing to pay me the courtesy of responding to mine?

[Patrick Degan]

You see, I already challenged you to define your objective standards of quality, and to tell how, for example, different people, each people of refinement, intelligence, and discernment could have such different reactions to a film like Citizen Kane, just to take one example. Some consider it the pinnacle of cinematic art, while others consider it the height of pretentious, artsy-fartsy drivel. I already challenged you to explain how this is possible if some objective standard obtains, and you blithely ignored that challenge. Why should I then respond to your challenge if you are not willing to pay me the courtesy of responding to mine?

I did answer your challenge —and like every other point that's been debated, you simply decided to ignore and dismiss it.

But let's see if some comparisons can help:

Porky's (1982)

We follow a bunch of high school kids through a period in their puberty. Their lives mainly consist of watching the girls in the shower and making life a living hell for their teachers and for each other. The movie is packed with practical jokes and eccentric characters, like Pee Wee with the short dick (which he measures every morning) who met up for sex with the school "mattress" Wendy already wearing a rubber, or the fat teaching bitch Beulah Balbricker who is determined on making life a living hell for the boys. The name "Porky's" is the name of a striptease bar the boys get thrown out of and humiliated in in the beginning of the movie. They have their minds set on revenge, but that's not easy as the owner's brother is sheriff. Only by forgetting their internal differences can they defeat Porky and his gang.

(The IMDb doesn't even have an entry for Porky's III —which says something in and of itself— but there really isn't too much difference between the four films in series, so let's just use it as a test for Perinquus' standards)

Citizen Kane (1941)

Multimillionaire newspaper tycoon Charles Foster Kane dies alone in his extravagant mansion, Xanadu, speaking a single word: "Rosebud". In an attempt to figure out the meaning of this word, a reporter tracks down the people who worked and lived with Kane; they tell their stories in a series of flashbacks that reveal much about Kane's life but not enough to unlock the riddle of his dying breath.

Yep —certainly as much substance there as Porky's...

Casablanca (1942)

In World War II Casablanca, Rick Blaine, exiled American and former freedom fighter, runs the most popular nightspot in town. The cynical lone wolf Blaine comes into the possession of two valuable letters of transit. When Nazi Major Strasser arrives in Casablanca, the sycophantic police Captain Renault does what he can to please him, including detaining Czech underground leader Victor Laszlo. Much to Rick's surprise, Lazslo arrives with Ilsa, Rick's one time love. Rick is very bitter towards Ilsa, who ran out on him in Paris, but when he learns she had good reason to, they plan to run off together again using the letters of transit. Well, that was their original plan....

Yep —every bit as powerful a plot as Porky's...

Vertigo (1958)

Traumatized by a fatal incident while on the job, a detective finds himself spending his retirement days in peace and conversing with a female friend of his. An old friend of his hires him to follow his wife whom he feels is doing things behind her back that he doesn't know about. But things take a turn for the bizarre when he falls for her...or so he thinks.

Yep —as complex an idea as Porky's...

Notorious (1946)

Following the conviction of her German father for treason against the U.S., Alicia Huberman takes to drink and men. She is approached by a government agent (T.R. Devlin) who asks her to spy on a group of her father's Nazi friends operating out of Rio de Janeiro. A romance develops between Alicia and Devlin, but she starts to get too involved in her work.

Yep —as gripping and suspensful as Porky's...

Gone with the Wind (1939)

Scarlett is a woman who can deal with a nation at war, Atlanta burning, the Union Army carrying off everything from her beloved Tara, the carpetbaggers who arrive after the war. Scarlett is beautiful. She has vitality. But Ashley, the man she has wanted for so long, is going to marry his placid cousin, Melanie. Mammy warns Scarlett to behave herself at the party at Twelve Oaks. There is a new man there that day, the day the Civil War begins. Rhett Butler. Scarlett does not know he is in the room when she pleads with Ashley to choose her instead of Melanie.

Yep —as sweeping and epic a tale as Porky's...

Unforgiven (1992)

William Munny - a notorious killer - has settled down on a farm with his two children. His animals are sick, and times are very hard. When he finds out there is 500 dollars to be made from killing two cowboys - who deserve it - he reluctantly takes it on. He calls on his old partner, Ned, who rides with him and "The Schofield Kid", the young boy who told Munny about the money. They enter the town, which is watched over by an evil sheriff - Little Bill. A gritty and realistic tale of how the West really was.

Gee, certainly impossible to make a choice between Clint Eastwood's masterful western epic and Porky's...

Shichinin no samurai (1954)

A veteran samurai, who has fallen on hard times, answers a village's request for protection from bandits. He gathers 6 other samurai to help him, and they teach the townspeople how to defend themselves, and they supply the samurai with three small meals a day. The film culminates in a giant battle when 40 bandits attack the village.

*********

A village is constantly attacked by well armed bandits. One day after an attack they seek the wisdom of an elder who tells them they cannot afford weapons, but they can find men with weapons, samurai, who will fight for them, if they find samurai who are in down on their luck and wondering where their next meal will come from. They find a very experienced samurai with a good heart who agrees to recruit their party for them. He selects five genuine samurai and one who is suspect but the seven return to the village to protect it from the forty plus bandits.

One can certainly see how Porky's is easily its match...

The Wizard of Oz (1939)

When a nasty neighbor tries to have her dog put to sleep, Dorothy takes her dog Toto, to run away. A tornado appears and carries her to the magical land of Oz. Wishing to return, she begins to travel to the city of Oz where a great wizard lives. On her way she meets a Scarecrow who needs a brain, a Tin Man who wants a heart, and a cowardly lion who desperately needs courage. They all hope the Wizard of Oz will help them, before the Wicked Witch of the West catches up with them.

Why it's simply remarkable —there seems to be no way to distinguish this movie from such a fine artwork as Porky's...

Amadeus (1984)

Antonio Salieri believes that Mozart's music is divine. He wishes he was himself as good a musician as Mozart so that he can praise the Lord through composing. But he can't understand why God favored Mozart, such a vulgar creature, to be his instrument. Salieri's envy has made him an enemy of God whose greatness was evident in Mozart. He is set to take revenge.

The comparisons with Porky's seem breathtaking...



So... if you're point is being understood correctly, there really is no difference between any of these films and they're all on the same artistic and creative level as one another.

Is that your final answer?

[Perinquus]

All that is a very elaborate evasion. You never did respond directly to my challenge. That is, you never did answer the question I asked you. I did not ask you to compare a popcorn movie comedy like Porky's (which is obviously aimed at a different audience than Casablanca or Citizen Kane, et al) with all these classic films. You are comparing cheese and chalk.

What I asked you to do, and what you deliberately avoided doing, was to answer the question of how different people, who are equally intelligent, educated, refined, etc. could have such different reactions to the same movie, like Citizen Kane, or Gone With the Wind, for example, with some liking them and some hating them.

Obviously, if there is some objective standard of quality, or some objective standard of what constitutes a "good" movie", then everybody of intelligence and discernment should like these films, just as everybody with any intelligence must admit the truth of other objective facts, like the world being round or two plus two being four. Explain that. That was the question I asked you.

[Patrick Degan]

All that is a very elaborate evasion. You never did respond directly to my challenge.

Lie.

That is, you never did answer the question I asked you. I did not ask you to compare a popcorn movie comedy like Porky's (which is obviously aimed at a different audience than Casablanca or Citizen Kane, et al) with all these classic films. You are comparing cheese and chalk.

YOURS has been the exercise in evasion here. My question was:

And since you deny in toto the concept of artistic value judgement, let's see if you're up for a little challenge: demonstrate to the satisfaction of any intelligent person that a piece of shit movie like Porky's III can be considered as having the same artistic value and quality as Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Gone With The Wind, or any other screen classic you care to name by the film's own merits rather than "popular acclaim" or "personal opinion" or "different approach" as support for your case.

And your response was the same sort of pettifogging bullshit as that idiotic tangent of yours about JRR Tolkien disliking Shakespeare.

What I asked you to do, and what you deliberately avoided doing, was to answer the question of how different people, who are equally intelligent, educated, refined, etc. could have such different reactions to the same movie, like Citizen Kane, or Gone With the Wind, for example, with some liking them and some hating them.

Except that isn't the issue when it comes to deciding, on a definable scale of artistic merit, which films are rightly considered superior and which inferior if not utter shit. That some dispute whether Kane or GWTW or whichever classic deserves the top slot is relatively trivial.

Obviously, if there is some objective standard of quality, or some objective standard of what constitutes a "good" movie", then everybody of intelligence and discernment should like these films, just as everybody with any intelligence must admit the truth of other objective facts, like the world being round or two plus two being four. Explain that. That was the question I asked you.

And since there are indeed movies that are recognised as classics which have withstood the test of time and criticism for years if not decades, such a standard does indeed exist, despite your best efforts to deny it for the last three fucking days.

Oh, and BTW, if it is indeed your position that there can be no objective standard for judging artistic merit, then how, pray tell, do you explain this little statement of yours:

As an active heterosexual, just let me say that while I think Britney Spears is utterly devoid of anything resembling talent, while her "music" could peel paint off the walls, while she is not the most stunning creature I have ever laid eyes on, she is, truthfully, a very attractive young lady, and I, for one, would not kick her out of bed for eating biscuits.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/posting.ph ... e&p=833397

And

So if you had no idea who she was, if you didn't know that she was a manufactured, no-talent pop star, and you just saw her walking down the street one day, you would not find her attractive?

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/posting.ph ... e&p=835131

And

Check out "North by Northwest". It's more of a suspense thriller, but there's plenty of adventure. Cary Grant gets mistaken for a U.S. government agent, and is marked for assassination by enemy agents. It's got a cool scene with a cropduster trying to kill Grant, and a great chase over the Mount Rushmore monument at the end. It's also got humor, especially the scene where Grant engineers an escape from enemy agents who have him trapped inside an art auction, while they're blocking all the exits.

The film shows why Alfred Hitchcock was one of the greatest directors ever to sit behind the camera.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/posting.ph ... e&p=816194

How is it that you found it possible to make such positive pronouncements of "best" and "worst" back then that you insist is not possible now? What standard did you apply to declare Brittney Spears a "manufactured no-talent pop-star" who was "utterly devoid of talent" and whose singing "could peel the paint off of walls" or to pronounce Alfred Hitchcock "one of the greatest directors ever to sit behind the camera"? Compared to WHO? How did you arrive at your conclusions? You surely must have made a comparison at some point and one based on some sort of standard.

Could you have possibly employed an... objective standard?

Kindly explain this contradiction.

[Perinquus]

Oh, and BTW, if it is indeed your position that there can be no objective standard for judging artistic merit, then how, pray tell, do you explain this little statement of yours:

As an active heterosexual, just let me say that while I think Britney Spears is utterly devoid of anything resembling talent, while her "music" could peel paint off the walls, while she is not the most stunning creature I have ever laid eyes on, she is, truthfully, a very attractive young lady, and I, for one, would not kick her out of bed for eating biscuits.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/posting.ph ... e&p=833397

And

So if you had no idea who she was, if you didn't know that she was a manufactured, no-talent pop star, and you just saw her walking down the street one day, you would not find her attractive?

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/posting.ph ... e&p=835131

And

Check out "North by Northwest". It's more of a suspense thriller, but there's plenty of adventure. Cary Grant gets mistaken for a U.S. government agent, and is marked for assassination by enemy agents. It's got a cool scene with a cropduster trying to kill Grant, and a great chase over the Mount Rushmore monument at the end. It's also got humor, especially the scene where Grant engineers an escape from enemy agents who have him trapped inside an art auction, while they're blocking all the exits.

The film shows why Alfred Hitchcock was one of the greatest directors ever to sit behind the camera.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/posting.ph ... e&p=816194

How is it that you found it possible to make such positive pronouncements of "best" and "worst" back then that you insist is not possible now? What standard did you apply to declare Brittney Spears a "manufactured no-talent pop-star" who was "utterly devoid of talent" and whose singing "could peel the paint off of walls" or to pronounce Alfred Hitchcock "one of the greatest directors ever to sit behind the camera"? Compared to WHO? How did you arrive at your conclusions? You surely must have made a comparison at some point and one based on some sort of standard.

Could you have possibly employed an... objective standard?

Kindly explain this contradiction.

It's not a contradiction. I'm offering my OPINION you incredible, blithering idiot! Just because I don't qualify every single such statement with the preface "I think that...", or "In my opinion...", or "As far as I am concerned..." doesn't change that fact. It's my opinion - as borne out by the obvious and indisputable fact that there are lots of people out there who don't agree with me. I don't say these things to qualify my statements because the fact that it is opinion is such an obvious truth there is no need to say it every time. God almighty! Do I really have to explain this?!? Most people seem to be intelligent enough to understand this without needing to have it spelled out for them.

Here, I'll make it real simple for you. Yes, there are standards of of quality and taste. But they are subjective standards, not objective standards, which is why you simply won't be pinned down and answer the question I asked you - on some level, you must realize you can't.

[Patrick Degan]

Oh, and BTW, if it is indeed your position that there can be no objective standard for judging artistic merit, then how, pray tell, do you explain this little statement of yours:

As an active heterosexual, just let me say that while I think Britney Spears is utterly devoid of anything resembling talent, while her "music" could peel paint off the walls, while she is not the most stunning creature I have ever laid eyes on, she is, truthfully, a very attractive young lady, and I, for one, would not kick her out of bed for eating biscuits.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/posting.ph ... e&p=833397

And

So if you had no idea who she was, if you didn't know that she was a manufactured, no-talent pop star, and you just saw her walking down the street one day, you would not find her attractive?

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/posting.ph ... e&p=835131

And

Check out "North by Northwest". It's more of a suspense thriller, but there's plenty of adventure. Cary Grant gets mistaken for a U.S. government agent, and is marked for assassination by enemy agents. It's got a cool scene with a cropduster trying to kill Grant, and a great chase over the Mount Rushmore monument at the end. It's also got humor, especially the scene where Grant engineers an escape from enemy agents who have him trapped inside an art auction, while they're blocking all the exits.

The film shows why Alfred Hitchcock was one of the greatest directors ever to sit behind the camera.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/posting.ph ... e&p=816194

How is it that you found it possible to make such positive pronouncements of "best" and "worst" back then that you insist is not possible now? What standard did you apply to declare Brittney Spears a "manufactured no-talent pop-star" who was "utterly devoid of talent" and whose singing "could peel the paint off of walls" or to pronounce Alfred Hitchcock "one of the greatest directors ever to sit behind the camera"? Compared to WHO? How did you arrive at your conclusions? You surely must have made a comparison at some point and one based on some sort of standard.

Could you have possibly employed an... objective standard?

Kindly explain this contradiction.

It's not a contradiction. I'm offering my OPINION you incredible, blithering idiot!

Really, you musn't look into a mirror when you type.

Just because I don't qualify every single such statement with the preface "I think that...", or "In my opinion...", or "As far as I am concerned..." doesn't change that fact. It's my opinion - as borne out by the obvious and indisputable fact that there are lots of people out there who don't agree with me. I don't say these things to qualify my statements because the fact that it is opinion is such an obvious truth there is no need to say it every time. God almighty! Do I really have to explain this?!? Most people seem to be intelligent enough to understand this without needing to have it spelled out for them.

Yawn... Yet another of your bullshit evasions. You were making positive pronouncements —without qualification as to a value judgement on talent and artistic accomplishment or lack thereof. Words mean things. What's the matter; can't be bothered to stand by your own statements even once?

Here, I'll make it real simple for you.

At this point, you're in serious need of people making things simple for you.

Yes, there are standards of of quality and taste. But they are subjective standards, not objective standards, which is why you simply won't be pinned down and answer the question I asked you - on some level, you must realize you can't.

It is you who is very desperately trying to avoid being pinned down, which is why you're now backpedaling and trying to nitpick every point to death to find wiggle-room. If you're going to sit there and seriously state that somebody like Alfred Hitchcock cannot objectively be considered one of the greatest directors who ever lived based on his talent, execution of said talent and the observed results of that talent and its execution, then either you don't know what the fuck you're talking about or you're just saying this to weasel out of responsibility for your own words, which means you're lying now.

Likewise, if you're going to say now that Brittney Spears is not demonstrably a no-talent hack, despite her very obvious, observable lack of any real singing ability, then either you don't know what the fuck you're talking about or you're just saying this to weasel out of responsibility for your own words, which means you're lying now.

There are some people who would say that Alfred Hitchcock was a poor movie director. WHO THE FUCK CARES?! An entire body of excellently directed, scripted, and acted movies says otherwise, and the work stands on its own merits. The same way the paintings of Goya or Rembrandt or Picasso or Dali or Matisse or Turner or Pollock or any other great master stand on their own merits as artworks; far superior to pale copies or the product of an advertising graphics department or some commercial hack like Rodrigue or the results wrought by some bumpkin with a paint-by-numbers set.

Talent, execution of said talent and the observed results of said talent and its execution. That's what marks the difference between a Hitchcock and a Larry Buchanan, a Picasso and a velvet Elvis painting, a Natalie Cole and a Brittney Spears. Any arguments over Best of the best is mere trivia compared to the very real difference in scale from Best to Worst.

[StarshipTitanic]

Jesus H Christ...blah blah blah blah

Except your scene requires a total reconstruction of the plot, which is far more plausable than the original.

I'm so sorry you didn't get your eyecandy, Kuja. Is that better? Let's try this: Concession accepted.

Were I in charge, I'd have scrapped his POS script and made the Colonial fleet the focus from Moment One.

Because we all know the title of the show is THE COLONIAL FLEET BITES IT,guest starring the Battlestar Galactica

I reiterate an old point: I WANNA SEE DA PURTAY PIKTURES!!1

So what is it going to be, Kuja? A carbon-copy of the original or an eyecandy extravaganza? Tell me when you decide.

And how did you come to that conclusion?

On your fingers count how many episodes deal with starving, poor Colonials that have nothing. Then add in the amount of civilian ships destroyed throughout the series. You are still on one hand.

Now count how many times we've seen carefree gambling, feasting, and shuttles used for civilian traffic.

In the new one we see orbital bombardment, desperate people shot off escaping shuttles, and half the refugee fleet blown away.

[Perinquus]

Just because I don't qualify every single such statement with the preface "I think that...", or "In my opinion...", or "As far as I am concerned..." doesn't change that fact. It's my opinion - as borne out by the obvious and indisputable fact that there are lots of people out there who don't agree with me. I don't say these things to qualify my statements because the fact that it is opinion is such an obvious truth there is no need to say it every time. God almighty! Do I really have to explain this?!? Most people seem to be intelligent enough to understand this without needing to have it spelled out for them.

Yawn... Yet another of your bullshit evasions. You were making positive pronouncements —without qualification as to a value judgement on talent and artistic accomplishment or lack thereof. Words mean things. What's the matter; can't be bothered to stand by your own statements even once?

Of course I stand by it you imbecile. Of course I make value judgements. I never once stated I didn't. There isn't a man or woman alive on earth who doesn't make value judgements. This, like those statements of mine you quoted being opinion, falls into the "well no shit" category. The difference is, unlike you, I recognize that many of the value judgements we make, and virtually all of them in the arts and entertainment, are based on subjective criteria. What the fuck is it about this that you cannot understand?

I don't have to qualify those statements as being opinion you fucking moron, because it's obvious they're opinion. It is an age old convention of writing or speaking that you don't continually have to qualify or refer back to the obvious. This has been understood since time out of mind. Haven't you ever heard of a given dumbass? It's a convenience that saves unnecessary wordage. You don't have to refer back to or qualify everything constantly, because it is assumed that your audience is intelligent enough to understand such things. But then, I am addressing you, so I guess this doesn't apply. Get a fucking grammar textbook and look up object omission and understood arguments in functional grammar.

Jesus Christ! I still can't believe I am having to spell all this out for you. When you read a movie review in your local paper, are you somehow under the impression that the critic is relating fact just because he says, "this movie was banal, slowly paced, and poorly acted", instead of saying "in my opinion, this movie was banal, slowly paced, and poorly acted"? I've never heard critics qualify their pronouncements like that, they just say it as if it were fact. Maybe you think it is, but everyone I know is smart enough to figure out that the critic is giving an opinion, not fact.

Yes, there are standards of of quality and taste. But they are subjective standards, not objective standards, which is why you simply won't be pinned down and answer the question I asked you - on some level, you must realize you can't.

It is you who is very desperately trying to avoid being pinned down, which is why you're now backpedaling and trying to nitpick every point to death to find wiggle-room. If you're going to sit there and seriously state that somebody like Alfred Hitchcock cannot objectively be considered one of the greatest directors who ever lived based on his talent, execution of said talent and the observed results of that talent and its execution, then either you don't know what the fuck you're talking about or you're just saying this to weasel out of responsibility for your own words, which means you're lying now.

No, he can't be said objectively to be one of the greatest. Why? Because entertainment is not objective. Do you even know what objective means asshole? I can't believe I am actually finding it necessary to do this, but here, I'll give you Webster's definition.

Here are definitions for the word objective as an adverb:

1. of or having to do with a known or perceived object as distinguished from something existing only in the mind of the subject, or person thinking.

2. being, or regarded as being, independent of the mind; real; actual.

3. determined by and emphasizing the features and characteristics of the object, or thing dealt with, rather than the thoughts, feelings, etc. of the artist, writer, or speaker; as, an objective description, painting, etc.

And here it is for the word when used as a noun:

1. anything external to, or independent of the mind; something objective; reality.

Do you understand what an objective fact is stupid? Something is objectively true when it is independent of the mind. When it is real. When it is objective. When someone is wrong about an objective fact, you can prove them wrong by showing them evidence that is independent of the mind. If some numbskull thinks the world is flat, you can produce reams of scientific evidence to prove he is wrong. If he thinks creationism is true, you can provide similar mountains of evidence to show he is mistaken. If he's actually dumb enough to doubt two plus two equals four, you can pull four quarters out of your pocket and do the addition right before his eyes. These are objective facts, they are independent of perception, and they can be proven to be incontrovertibly true with evidence.

On the other hand, if someone watches a Hitchcock film and doesn't like it, how do you purpose to prove to him that he is wrong? This is not an objective fact. The esteem certain directors hold is entirely in the minds and the perception of the filmgoing audience. It is not objective dumbass. It is subjective.

[Patrick Degan]

Just because I don't qualify every single such statement with the preface "I think that...", or "In my opinion...", or "As far as I am concerned..." doesn't change that fact. It's my opinion - as borne out by the obvious and indisputable fact that there are lots of people out there who don't agree with me. I don't say these things to qualify my statements because the fact that it is opinion is such an obvious truth there is no need to say it every time. God almighty! Do I really have to explain this?!? Most people seem to be intelligent enough to understand this without needing to have it spelled out for them.

Yawn... Yet another of your bullshit evasions. You were making positive pronouncements —without qualification as to a value judgement on talent and artistic accomplishment or lack thereof. Words mean things. What's the matter; can't be bothered to stand by your own statements even once?

Of course I stand by it you imbecile. Of course I make value judgements. I never once stated I didn't. There isn't a man or woman alive on earth who doesn't make value judgements. This, like those statements of mine you quoted being opinion, falls into the "well no shit" category. The difference is, unlike you, I recognize that many of the value judgements we make, and virtually all of them in the arts and entertainment, are based on subjective criteria. What the fuck is it about this that you cannot understand?

You're just so full of your own bullshit, aren't you?

I don't have to qualify those statements as being opinion you fucking moron, because it's obvious they're opinion. It is an age old convention of writing or speaking that you don't continually have to qualify or refer back to the obvious. This has been understood since time out of mind. Haven't you ever heard of a given dumbass? It's a convenience that saves unnecessary wordage. You don't have to refer back to or qualify everything constantly, because it is assumed that your audience is intelligent enough to understand such things. But then, I am addressing you, so I guess this doesn't apply. Get a fucking grammar textbook and look up object omission and understood arguments in functional grammar.

Strip it down, and this is still you trying to weasel away from your own words.

Jesus Christ! I still can't believe I am having to spell all this out for you. When you read a movie review in your local paper, are you somehow under the impression that the critic is relating fact just because he says, "this movie was banal, slowly paced, and poorly acted", instead of saying "in my opinion, this movie was banal, slowly paced, and poorly acted"? I've never heard critics qualify their pronouncements like that, they just say it as if it were fact. Maybe you think it is, but everyone I know is smart enough to figure out that the critic is giving an opinion, not fact.

An opinion based on what he actually saw and the movie's very evident defects. You're skirting dangerously close to solipsism.

Yes, there are standards of of quality and taste. But they are subjective standards, not objective standards, which is why you simply won't be pinned down and answer the question I asked you - on some level, you must realize you can't.

It is you who is very desperately trying to avoid being pinned down, which is why you're now backpedaling and trying to nitpick every point to death to find wiggle-room. If you're going to sit there and seriously state that somebody like Alfred Hitchcock cannot objectively be considered one of the greatest directors who ever lived based on his talent, execution of said talent and the observed results of that talent and its execution, then either you don't know what the fuck you're talking about or you're just saying this to weasel out of responsibility for your own words, which means you're lying now.

No, he can't be said objectively to be one of the greatest. Why? Because entertainment is not objective.

Oh, really? I suppose the very evident manifestations of his accomplished works doesn't count as evidence for the claim of Hitchcock as one of the recognised great directors in cinematic history? You truly have no clue how anal and stupid you sound at this point, do you?

Do you even know what objective means asshole?

Yes, I know what "objective" means, thank you. It's why I can state, quite objectively, that you're one of the biggest assholes I've ever run into on the internet —as your every post is helping to prove at this point.

Here are definitions for the word objective as an adverb:

1. of or having to do with a known or perceived object as distinguished from something existing only in the mind of the subject, or person thinking.

In other words, people only imagine the movies they're seeing —they don't actually exist as artistic artefacts viewable by everybody.

2. being, or regarded as being, independent of the mind; real; actual.

Film exists independently of the individual human mind.

3. determined by and emphasizing the features and characteristics of the object, or thing dealt with, rather than the thoughts, feelings, etc. of the artist, writer, or speaker; as, an objective description, painting, etc.

The film continues to exist quite seperately of the thoughts and feelings of the creator and is viewable by everyone.

And here it is for the word when used as a noun:

1. anything external to, or independent of the mind; something objective; reality.

Which a film or painting on exhibit certainly is.

Do you understand what an objective fact is stupid?

Perinquus is an asshole —objective fact. The evidence: the last three days of his ravings on this thread.

Something is objectively true when it is independent of the mind. When it is real. When it is objective. When someone is wrong about an objective fact, you can prove them wrong by showing them evidence that is independent of the mind. If some numbskull thinks the world is flat, you can produce reams of scientific evidence to prove he is wrong. If he thinks creationism is true, you can provide similar mountains of evidence to show he is mistaken. If he's actually dumb enough to doubt two plus two equals four, you can pull four quarters out of your pocket and do the addition right before his eyes. These are objective facts, they are independent of perception, and they can be proven to be incontrovertibly true with evidence.

On the other hand, if someone watches a Hitchcock film and doesn't like it, how do you purpose to prove to him that he is wrong? This is not an objective fact. The esteem certain directors hold is entirely in the minds and the perception of the filmgoing audience. It is not objective dumbass. It is subjective.

Individual tastes of style may vary to a degree, but evidence of achievement and accomplishment does not. Even somebody who doesn't like Hitchcock films would never attempt to argue that he is a worse director than Ed Wood or William "One Shot" Beaudine, because their work —compared to Hitchcock's— is evidently, objectively, worse than Hitchcock's or anybody's. It truly amazes me that you have gone to these lengths to try to nitpick an argument to death simply so that you can avoid being pinned down on one question; to where you would attempt to expand relatively minor individual variances in preference into the expansive argument that no actual value judgements of worth and quality can exist, or that artworks can not be validly judged by their merits or lack thereof.

[Perinquus]

Of course I stand by it you imbecile. Of course I make value judgements. I never once stated I didn't. There isn't a man or woman alive on earth who doesn't make value judgements. This, like those statements of mine you quoted being opinion, falls into the "well no shit" category. The difference is, unlike you, I recognize that many of the value judgements we make, and virtually all of them in the arts and entertainment, are based on subjective criteria. What the fuck is it about this that you cannot understand?

You're just so full of your own bullshit, aren't you?

You are apparently incapable of comprehending the difference between objective and subjective criteria - even when the definition is provided for you.

I don't have to qualify those statements as being opinion you fucking moron, because it's obvious they're opinion. It is an age old convention of writing or speaking that you don't continually have to qualify or refer back to the obvious. This has been understood since time out of mind. Haven't you ever heard of a given dumbass? It's a convenience that saves unnecessary wordage. You don't have to refer back to or qualify everything constantly, because it is assumed that your audience is intelligent enough to understand such things. But then, I am addressing you, so I guess this doesn't apply. Get a fucking grammar textbook and look up object omission and understood arguments in functional grammar.

Strip it down, and this is still you trying to weasel away from your own words.

No it means you are the only person I've encountered on this board so far who is honestly too stupid to be able to tell the difference between opinion and fact, and is too stupid to know when someone is providing one or the other, and who apparently needs to have it explained to him, as if to a three year-old child, which one the author of the statement means each and every time.

Jesus Christ! I still can't believe I am having to spell all this out for you. When you read a movie review in your local paper, are you somehow under the impression that the critic is relating fact just because he says, "this movie was banal, slowly paced, and poorly acted", instead of saying "in my opinion, this movie was banal, slowly paced, and poorly acted"? I've never heard critics qualify their pronouncements like that, they just say it as if it were fact. Maybe you think it is, but everyone I know is smart enough to figure out that the critic is giving an opinion, not fact.

An opinion based on what he actually saw and the movie's very evident defects. You're skirting dangerously close to solipsism.

Defects according to whom dickhead? Some people like lots of action, other people like talky dramas. Some people like fast paced thrillers, other people like character driven mood pieces. Some people like simple, straightforward stories, others prefer artsy films loaded with symbolism. Some people like escapist entertainment, others like films to have a message or moral. Who says whose preferences are the "right" ones? Why is it when a critic gives a negative review "based on what he actually saw and the movie's very evident defects" so many people often go to see the movie and thourougly enjoy it. Why weren't these "very evident defects" so evident to them? Why weren't these "very evident defects" so evident to you last time you saw and enjoyed a movie that some critic gave a bad review? That's why this is all subjective - a fact you apparently lack the intellectual capacity to see.

Yes, there are standards of of quality and taste. But they are subjective standards, not objective standards, which is why you simply won't be pinned down and answer the question I asked you - on some level, you must realize you can't.

No, he can't be said objectively to be one of the greatest. Why? Because entertainment is not objective.

Oh, really? I suppose the very evident manifestations of his accomplished works doesn't count as evidence for the claim of Hitchcock as one of the recognised great directors in cinematic history? You truly have no clue how anal and stupid you sound at this point, do you?

You don't realize how much you sound like that, since you have clearly demonstrated either an unwillingness or an inability to comprehend the difference between subjective and objective standards. Sure Hitchcock is recognized as one of the greatest directors. But he's recognized as such according to subjective criteria. Just because his has wide appeal and and acquired a huge following doesn't make it less subjective. Just because Hitchcock's work has remained appealing to new generations does not make it less subjective. Now you're the one who's appealing to popularity - because so many people like it, Hitchcock is an objectively great director. That still doesn't make it fit the definition of objective.

Do you even know what objective means asshole?

Yes, I know what "objective" means, thank you. It's why I can state, quite objectively, that you're one of the biggest assholes I've ever run into on the internet —as your every post is helping to prove at this point.

I can be the biggest asshole on the North American continent; it doesn't change the fact that people's estimation of Hitchcock as a director is subjective not objective.

Film exists independently of the individual human mind.

But people's evaluations and opinions about it don't you moron.

The film continues to exist quite seperately of the thoughts and feelings of the creator and is viewable by everyone.

You continueto show your stupidy, and to reveal your inability to understand one thing after the other - in this case an inability to understand the difference between the film itself (which is an object, and yes, can and does exist objectively), and someone's evaluation of the film, which is not an object, and does not exist objectively, because such evaluation takes place and exists entirely in one's mind.

Which a film or painting on exhibit certainly is.

And which someone's opinion of it certainly is not. Duh!

Do you understand what an objective fact is stupid?

Perinquus is an asshole —objective fact. The evidence: the last three days of his ravings on this thread.

Actually no, that's your opinion as well, since there are a number of people who know and like me well, and so would dispute that assertion with you. However your stupidity is an objective fact, since you clearly cannot understand very simple concepts such as the difference between an object that exists in the physical world, and people's opinions of that object, which exist entirely in their minds.

Individual tastes of style may vary to a degree, but evidence of achievement and accomplishment does not. Even somebody who doesn't like Hitchcock films would never attempt to argue that he is a worse director than Ed Wood or William "One Shot" Beaudine, because their work —compared to Hitchcock's— is evidently, objectively, worse than Hitchcock's or anybody's. It truly amazes me that you have gone to these lengths to try to nitpick an argument to death simply so that you can avoid being pinned down on one question; to where you would attempt to expand relatively minor individual variances in preference into the expansive argument that no actual value judgements of worth and quality can exist, or that artworks can not be validly judged by their merits or lack thereof.

Wood or Beaudine could objectively be said to be less successful than Hitchcock. But artistically they are only called worse because more people think they are worse. Your "objective" standards are nothing more than the prevailing opinions of the greater portion of the filmgoing audience.

[Kuja]

Except your scene requires a total reconstruction of the plot, which is far more plausable than the original.

Oh yes, a push-button method of wiping out the Colonial defence fleet is MUCH better than an actual battle. Saves wear and tear on the Raiders, don't you know?

I'm so sorry you didn't get your eyecandy, Kuja. Is that better? Let's try this: Concession accepted.

Ah yes, I forgot, some of us like hearing about a war through updates from the fax machine instead of seeing it.

Because we all know the title of the show is THE COLONIAL FLEET BITES IT,guest starring the Battlestar Galactica

Strawman.

So what is it going to be, Kuja? A carbon-copy of the original or an eyecandy extravaganza? Tell me when you decide.

Strawman.

On your fingers count how many episodes deal with starving, poor Colonials that have nothing. Then add in the amount of civilian ships destroyed throughout the series. You are still on one hand.

Now count how many times we've seen carefree gambling, feasting, and shuttles used for civilian traffic.

Right, we all know that New BSG showed everyone splitting up their resources evenly. Oh wait, it didn't. Stop making invalid comparions.

In the new one we see orbital bombardment,

We see nukes explode on the ground while a Baststar sits in orbit. I see no nukes actually being fired off by the Basestar. Wow, that's some great orbital bombardment there. Almost makes you think they spent a whole fifty seconds planning the scene, huh?

desperate people shot off escaping shuttles,

Right after gratuitous sex scene number 361 and gratuitous baby killing number 427 and some more of Apollo's whining...

and half the refugee fleet blown away.

Which was never even shown thanks to one of the cheapest copouts in the entire show. Hey, we see a girl playing with her doll, you KNOW she's gonna die, the suspense is building, when are the nukes gonna hit, and we...white out. How utterly, utterly diapointing.

[Patrick Degan]

Of course I stand by it you imbecile. Of course I make value judgements. I never once stated I didn't. There isn't a man or woman alive on earth who doesn't make value judgements. This, like those statements of mine you quoted being opinion, falls into the "well no shit" category. The difference is, unlike you, I recognize that many of the value judgements we make, and virtually all of them in the arts and entertainment, are based on subjective criteria. What the fuck is it about this that you cannot understand?

You're just so full of your own bullshit, aren't you?

You are apparently incapable of comprehending the difference between objective and subjective criteria - even when the definition is provided for you.

I comprehend it just fine. I simply don't extend those definitions to the point where I pretend that movies or any other form of artwork is nothing but random Rorschach inkblots subject to nothing more than personal interpretation. Your defect, Anal One.

I don't have to qualify those statements as being opinion you fucking moron, because it's obvious they're opinion. It is an age old convention of writing or speaking that you don't continually have to qualify or refer back to the obvious. This has been understood since time out of mind. Haven't you ever heard of a given dumbass? It's a convenience that saves unnecessary wordage. You don't have to refer back to or qualify everything constantly, because it is assumed that your audience is intelligent enough to understand such things. But then, I am addressing you, so I guess this doesn't apply. Get a fucking grammar textbook and look up object omission and understood arguments in functional grammar.

Strip it down, and this is still you trying to weasel away from your own words.

No it means you are the only person I've encountered on this board so far who is honestly too stupid to be able to tell the difference between opinion and fact, and is too stupid to know when someone is providing one or the other, and who apparently needs to have it explained to him, as if to a three year-old child, which one the author of the statement means each and every time.

Still having delusions of adequacy, I see. It is you who cannot understand the difference between an objective judgement of value on a scale and personal subjective impression.

Jesus Christ! I still can't believe I am having to spell all this out for you. When you read a movie review in your local paper, are you somehow under the impression that the critic is relating fact just because he says, "this movie was banal, slowly paced, and poorly acted", instead of saying "in my opinion, this movie was banal, slowly paced, and poorly acted"? I've never heard critics qualify their pronouncements like that, they just say it as if it were fact. Maybe you think it is, but everyone I know is smart enough to figure out that the critic is giving an opinion, not fact.

An opinion based on what he actually saw and the movie's very evident defects. You're skirting dangerously close to solipsism.

Defects according to whom dickhead? Some people like lots of action, other people like talky dramas. Some people like fast paced thrillers, other people like character driven mood pieces. Some people like simple, straightforward stories, others prefer artsy films loaded with symbolism. Some people like escapist entertainment, others like films to have a message or moral. Who says whose preferences are the "right" ones? Why is it when a critic gives a negative review "based on what he actually saw and the movie's very evident defects" so many people often go to see the movie and thourougly enjoy it. Why weren't these "very evident defects" so evident to them? Why weren't these "very evident defects" so evident to you last time you saw and enjoyed a movie that some critic gave a bad review? That's why this is all subjective - a fact you apparently lack the intellectual capacity to see.

Fuck but you're an anal-retentive idiot, aren't you? Why is the simple concept that some movies are objectively good and some simply objectively awful so totally beyond your understanding? This is operative regardless of genre preference. Are you seriously going to sit there and argue that a movie like Gigli —the Ben Affleck/J-Lo disaster which was so awful and embarassing for everybody involved that Affleck was actually apologising for it on TV— cannot possibly be regarded an awful movie on the basis of its self-evident failures of script, direction, and self-indulgence? These failures don't exist except entirely in the mind of the observer? This film was not only a total failure but became a national laughingstock and you're still going to argue that such a judgement simply cannot be because the film actually was awful?

No, he can't be said objectively to be one of the greatest. Why? Because entertainment is not objective.

Oh, really? I suppose the very evident manifestations of his accomplished works doesn't count as evidence for the claim of Hitchcock as one of the recognised great directors in cinematic history? You truly have no clue how anal and stupid you sound at this point, do you?

You don't realize how much you sound like that, since you have clearly demonstrated either an unwillingness or an inability to comprehend the difference between subjective and objective standards.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Sure Hitchcock is recognized as one of the greatest directors. But he's recognized as such according to subjective criteria. Just because his has wide appeal and and acquired a huge following doesn't make it less subjective. Just because Hitchcock's work has remained appealing to new generations does not make it less subjective. Now you're the one who's appealing to popularity - because so many people like it, Hitchcock is an objectively great director. That still doesn't make it fit the definition of objective.

That's insane. If Alfred Hitchcock had been an incompetent hack totally incapable of making even a halfway watchable movie, his films would never have been worth even a first-look and would be totally forgotten. Obviously, it was because he knew his craft and how to put together movies worth repeated examination that anybody can base an opinion of greatness upon them; disputes over the exact degree of that greatness notwithstanding.

I can be the biggest asshole on the North American continent; it doesn't change the fact that people's estimation of Hitchcock as a director is subjective not objective.

No, that estimation is based upon the fact that his movies have withstood repeated examination by a very wide spectrum of observers based upon common definitions of quality and artistic merit.

Film exists independently of the individual human mind.

But people's evaluations and opinions about it don't you moron.

But those opinions —in order to have any degree of meaning— must be based upon commonly defined criteria and there must be examples of "good" and "bad" movies to demonstrate the ends of the scale. Otherwise, it is impossible to form a competent opinion one way or the other and it would not be a matter of all opinions being equal but equally meaningless.

The film continues to exist quite seperately of the thoughts and feelings of the creator and is viewable by everyone.

You continue to show your stupidy, and to reveal your inability to understand one thing after the other

Pot. Kettle. Black.

in this case an inability to understand the difference between the film itself (which is an object, and yes, can and does exist objectively), and someone's evaluation of the film, which is not an object, and does not exist objectively, because such evaluation takes place and exists entirely in one's mind.

And just how, pray tell, is it even possible to be able to form a competent opinion one way or the other? Unless there are something like guideposts (re: standards) to guide that process, n'est pas?

Which a film or painting on exhibit certainly is.

And which someone's opinion of it certainly is not. Duh!

Which must be based upon some sort of common standard in order to be even a remotely competent opinion.

Do you understand what an objective fact is stupid?

Perinquus is an asshole —objective fact. The evidence: the last three days of his ravings on this thread.

However your stupidity is an objective fact

Pot. Kettle. Black —yet again.

since you clearly cannot understand very simple concepts such as the difference between an object that exists in the physical world, and people's opinions of that object, which exist entirely in their minds.

Just never tire of flogging this particular strawman, do you? The crux of the matter are the standards and definitions —as well as the examined evidence— upon which competent opinion is based.

Individual tastes of style may vary to a degree, but evidence of achievement and accomplishment does not. Even somebody who doesn't like Hitchcock films would never attempt to argue that he is a worse director than Ed Wood or William "One Shot" Beaudine, because their work —compared to Hitchcock's— is evidently, objectively, worse than Hitchcock's or anybody's. It truly amazes me that you have gone to these lengths to try to nitpick an argument to death simply so that you can avoid being pinned down on one question; to where you would attempt to expand relatively minor individual variances in preference into the expansive argument that no actual value judgements of worth and quality can exist, or that artworks can not be validly judged by their merits or lack thereof.

Wood or Beaudine could objectively be said to be less successful than Hitchcock. But artistically they are only called worse because more people think they are worse. Your "objective" standards are nothing more than the prevailing opinions of the greater portion of the filmgoing audience.

Wrong as always —the "opinion" is very definitely based upon the clearly evident incompetence of the filmmakers in question and the resulting poor execution of their material, which is on display for everyone to see.

[Perinquus]

Jesus Christ you're an idiot. These "guideposts" are not objective. You act as though there is something wrong with this, as though a subjective standard can't be a standard. I asked earlier if you had ever enjoyed a movie that a critic had given a bad review. You pointed out tht critics give reveiws based on a movie's "very evident defects". Well, if you ever thoroughly enjoyed a movie that some critic slammed (and it's a virtual certainty that you have a some point), then why weren't those "very evident defects" so evident to you? If there is an objective standard, what was obvious to the critic should also have been obvious to you.

It is amazing to see you dodge like mad in order to avoid simply admitting what is perfectly obvious to everyone else - the critic is giving his opinion, nothing more. In slamming Battlestar Galactica, you are giving your opinion, nothing more.

[Patrick Degan]

Jesus Christ you're an idiot.

Pot. Kettle. Black. Yet again, and again and again...

These "guideposts" are not objective.

Oh really? In other words, opinions have absolutely no benchwork upon which they are founded? None whatsoever?

You act as though there is something wrong with this, as though a subjective standard can't be a standard. I asked earlier if you had ever enjoyed a movie that a critic had given a bad review.

And when did you pose that question? In the middle of all your blather about how "some people like A, others like B, and some prefer C..."?

You pointed out that critics give reveiws based on a movie's "very evident defects". Well, if you ever thoroughly enjoyed a movie that some critic slammed (and it's a virtual certainty that you have at some point), then why weren't those "very evident defects" so evident to you? If there is an objective standard, what was obvious to the critic should also have been obvious to you.

Every opinion, no matter how "subjective", is formed upon a common set of definitions and standards. Elsewise, it is not possible to form a competent opinion —on anything.

And BTW stupid, even if one does enjoy a "guilty pleasure" movie like, say, Plan Nine From Outer Space, that person is quite able to do so while also recognising that it is one of the worst acted, worst directed, and most incompetently produced movies ever made, and that compared to most other movies (not just SF) it is quite simply, objectively, BAD. Nobody but you would even attempt to dispute this.

It is amazing to see you dodge like mad in order to avoid simply admitting what is perfectly obvious to everyone else - the critic is giving his opinion, nothing more. In slamming Battlestar Galactica, you are giving your opinion, nothing more.

Based on what has and does make a good SF/adventure movie, by comparison with other such movies and based upon what has and hasn't worked in those movies. In other words, using established benchmarks and standards upon which it is possible to form an opinion.

No, Perinquus, you're not at all convincing. You tried to attack the criticisms against Battlestar Galactica as invalid. Then, when you were repeatedly called to task to logically defend your position, you retreated to the "everybody else liked it" (unprovable assertion) dodge and then the "it's just your opinion" dodge and this is where we've been for the last four days with you obsessively trying to nitpick the point to death. Watching you make the truly absurd argument that a movie cannot possibly be judged to be bad on the basis of its lack-of-merit has been pathetic to say the least. The spectacle you've been putting on has been that of a deranged fanboy driven to rage that the object of his affection is being pissed on.

And it hasn't been pretty.

[Perinquus]

Jesus Christ you're an idiot.

Pot. Kettle. Black. Yet again, and again and again...

Make that an annoyingly repetitive idiot.

These "guideposts" are not objective.

Oh really? In other words, opinions have absolutely no benchwork upon which they are founded? None whatsoever?

Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick! You are STUPID! I have repeated for the last three or four posts that there is a standard; it is merely a subjective standard rather than objective one. Yet you continue to insist that I think there is no standard at all. Not only is it a strawman distortion of my argument, it is one you keep repeating no matter how many times I correct you. You're stupid. Someone who is intelligent will not keep repeating the same mistake over and over again.

You act as though there is something wrong with this, as though a subjective standard can't be a standard. I asked earlier if you had ever enjoyed a movie that a critic had given a bad review.

And when did you pose that question? In the middle of all your blather about how "some people like A, others like B, and some prefer C..."?

I asked it in the post immediately before the one you just answered dumbfuck.

Why weren't these "very evident defects" so evident to you last time you saw and enjoyed a movie that some critic gave a bad review?

Posted Sat Dec 20, 2003 12:51 am

You are too stupid even to keep track of what I am saying a mere one post back. No wonder you can't seem to understand my argument. You can't even remember it.

You pointed out that critics give reveiws based on a movie's "very evident defects". Well, if you ever thoroughly enjoyed a movie that some critic slammed (and it's a virtual certainty that you have at some point), then why weren't those "very evident defects" so evident to you? If there is an objective standard, what was obvious to the critic should also have been obvious to you.

Every opinion, no matter how "subjective", is formed upon a common set of definitions and standards. Elsewise, it is not possible to form a competent opinion —on anything.

And in the case of a subjective matter, those definitions and standards are rather vague and inchoate, with a great deal of ambiguity and room for interpretation. It is not like there is some clear line of demarcation, and anything which falls on one side is inarguably bad, while anything on the other side is inarguably good. In the case of a subjective standard, there is a sort of commonly agreed upon standard of quality, but defining exactly where the borders are is almost impossible. there is a lot of room in there for individual interpretation. This is simply not a matter of objective fact, like the laws of physics, or the properties of physical objects in the material world.

And BTW stupid, even if one does enjoy a "guilty pleasure" movie like, say, Plan Nine From Outer Space, that person is quite able to do so while also recognising that it is one of the worst acted, worst directed, and most incompetently produced movies ever made, and that compared to most other movies (not just SF) it is quite simply, objectively, BAD. Nobody but you would even attempt to dispute this.

It is not objectively bad, it is subjectively bad. Some things are so bad that they fall well outside the rather fuzzy borders of that subjective standard, like Plan 9 from Outer Space, and virtually everyone agrees they are bad. Other things fall more into the gray area, and many people think they're good, while many others think they're not. Other movies, like the Godfather parts I and II, fall so far inside the borders of this subjective standard that virtually everyone agrees they are outstanding. This is so obvious I marvel that I actually have to explain this.

It is amazing to see you dodge like mad in order to avoid simply admitting what is perfectly obvious to everyone else - the critic is giving his opinion, nothing more. In slamming Battlestar Galactica, you are giving your opinion, nothing more.

Based on what has and does make a good SF/adventure movie, by comparison with other such movies and based upon what has and hasn't worked in those movies. In other words, using established benchmarks and standards upon which it is possible to form an opinion.

Yes, but they are subjective benchmarks, and there will never be any clear and undisputed agreement as with objective material like scientific fact.

No, Perinquus, you're not at all convincing. You tried to attack the criticisms against Battlestar Galactica as invalid. Then, when you were repeatedly called to task to logically defend your position, you retreated to the "everybody else liked it" (unprovable assertion) dodge and then the "it's just your opinion" dodge and this is where we've been for the last four days with you obsessively trying to nitpick the point to death. Watching you make the truly absurd argument that a movie cannot possibly be judged to be bad on the basis of its lack-of-merit has been pathetic to say the least. The spectacle you've been putting on has been that of a deranged fanboy driven to rage that the object of his affection is being pissed on.

And it hasn't been pretty.

No what drives me to distraction is dealing with someone so breathtakingly stupid that he cannot understand the difference between subjective and objective, no matter how many times it is pointed out to him; who continually distorts and misrepresents his opponent's position; who apparently lacks the brainpower even to remember his opponent's arguments, or to refer back to them if uncertain; and who is arrogant in his stupidity, and tries to pretend that his personal opinions have some grounding in some kind of objective, indisputable truth.

[Patrick Degan]

Jesus Christ you're an idiot.

Pot. Kettle. Black. Yet again, and again and again...

Make that an annoyingly repetitive idiot.

Yes, you certainly are.

These "guideposts" are not objective.

Oh really? In other words, opinions have absolutely no benchwork upon which they are founded? None whatsoever?

Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick! You are STUPID! I have repeated for the last three or four posts that there is a standard; it is merely a subjective standard rather than objective one. Yet you continue to insist that I think there is no standard at all. Not only is it a strawman distortion of my argument, it is one you keep repeating no matter how many times I correct you. You're stupid. Someone who is intelligent will not keep repeating the same mistake over and over again.

So sayeth Perinquus, the annoyingly repetitive idiot.

You act as though there is something wrong with this, as though a subjective standard can't be a standard. I asked earlier if you had ever enjoyed a movie that a critic had given a bad review.

And when did you pose that question? In the middle of all your blather about how "some people like A, others like B, and some prefer C..."?

Why weren't these "very evident defects" so evident to you last time you saw and enjoyed a movie that some critic gave a bad review?

Posted Sat Dec 20, 2003 12:51 am

You are too stupid even to keep track of what I am saying a mere one post back.

Oh, pardon me for not keeping track of every last tiny detail of your increasingly psychotic spew on this board. And yes, to answer your question, the defects were very evident. The movie in question was Battlefield Earth which I was screening for material for a worst film festival programme book quiz. However, I'd hardly characterise the experience as wholly "enjoyable".

Does that satisfy you, fuckwit?

You pointed out that critics give reveiws based on a movie's "very evident defects". Well, if you ever thoroughly enjoyed a movie that some critic slammed (and it's a virtual certainty that you have at some point), then why weren't those "very evident defects" so evident to you? If there is an objective standard, what was obvious to the critic should also have been obvious to you.

Every opinion, no matter how "subjective", is formed upon a common set of definitions and standards. Elsewise, it is not possible to form a competent opinion —on anything.

And in the case of a subjective matter, those definitions and standards are rather vague and inchoate, with a great deal of ambiguity and room for interpretation.

Competence in production, direction, acting, screenwriting —the main standards for judging movie quality which are quite well understood and accepted in common.

It is not like there is some clear line of demarcation, and anything which falls on one side is inarguably bad, while anything on the other side is inarguably good.

Something which I have not been arguing at any point in this discussion and therefore is just another of your idiotic strawmen.

In the case of a subjective standard, there is a sort of commonly agreed upon standard of quality, but defining exactly where the borders are is almost impossible. there is a lot of room in there for individual interpretation.

If a thing is "commonly agreed upon" it no longer falls under the definition of "subjective" —even if certain aspects are a bit fuzzy at the edges.

This is simply not a matter of objective fact, like the laws of physics, or the properties of physical objects in the material world.

Man of Straw.

And BTW stupid, even if one does enjoy a "guilty pleasure" movie like, say, Plan Nine From Outer Space, that person is quite able to do so while also recognising that it is one of the worst acted, worst directed, and most incompetently produced movies ever made, and that compared to most other movies (not just SF) it is quite simply, objectively, BAD. Nobody but you would even attempt to dispute this.

It is not objectively bad, it is subjectively bad.

I'd ask you if you're insane, but I think that's become rather self-evident by this point.

Some things are so bad that they fall well outside the rather fuzzy borders of that subjective standard, like Plan 9 from Outer Space, and virtually everyone agrees they are bad. Other things fall more into the gray area, and many people think they're good, while many others think they're not. Other movies, like the Godfather parts I and II, fall so far inside the borders of this subjective standard that virtually everyone agrees they are outstanding. This is so obvious I marvel that I actually have to explain this.

You are the only person who thinks that anybody is arguing "rigid" categories. I've been talking about a general spectrum from best to good to poor to bad to worst, and how opinions of which films fall where on that scale —even given individual, subjective variation— are based upon commonly understood definitions and standards of artistic merit from which it is possible to form a competent opinion and to be able to explain it intelligently. Something you'd comprehend were it not for that tiny mind of yours.

It is amazing to see you dodge like mad in order to avoid simply admitting what is perfectly obvious to everyone else - the critic is giving his opinion, nothing more. In slamming Battlestar Galactica, you are giving your opinion, nothing more.

Based on what has and does make a good SF/adventure movie, by comparison with other such movies and based upon what has and hasn't worked in those movies. In other words, using established benchmarks and standards upon which it is possible to form an opinion.

Yes, but they are subjective benchmarks, and there will never be any clear and undisputed agreement as with objective material like scientific fact.

Same mischaracterisation and therefore same strawman.

No, Perinquus, you're not at all convincing. You tried to attack the criticisms against Battlestar Galactica as invalid. Then, when you were repeatedly called to task to logically defend your position, you retreated to the "everybody else liked it" (unprovable assertion) dodge and then the "it's just your opinion" dodge and this is where we've been for the last four days with you obsessively trying to nitpick the point to death. Watching you make the truly absurd argument that a movie cannot possibly be judged to be bad on the basis of its lack-of-merit has been pathetic to say the least. The spectacle you've been putting on has been that of a deranged fanboy driven to rage that the object of his affection is being pissed on.

And it hasn't been pretty.

No what drives me to distraction is dealing with someone so breathtakingly stupid that he cannot understand blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah to pretend that his personal opinions have some grounding in some kind of objective, indisputable truth.

At this point, you need to go have a lie-down, mate. Because you're really starting to lose your grip.

Oh, and speaking of people having trouble keeping track of an argument:

By any objective criteria, the battle scenes in the new series are far more effective than in the old. They are more elaborate, they feature more vessels and show a much larger scope of action, the effects are more realistic, there is no re-use of stock footage, and they look more realistic.

Again, by any objective criteria, the battle scenes here were more realistic and exciting.

Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2003 7:49 am

Linky

That from the man whose been arguing that there are no objective criteria when it comes to art/movie criticism for the last four days now.

THAT'S comedy.

[Lord Poe]

Patrick, what's your problem? You should know that you can't say everyone agrees that a steaming pile of shit will taste bad. There's always that one shit-eater that will smack his lips as he picks up his spoon.

As evident by the new Battlestar Galactica, and those who like it...

[Perinquus]

Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick! You are STUPID! I have repeated for the last three or four posts that there is a standard; it is merely a subjective standard rather than objective one. Yet you continue to insist that I think there is no standard at all. Not only is it a strawman distortion of my argument, it is one you keep repeating no matter how many times I correct you. You're stupid. Someone who is intelligent will not keep repeating the same mistake over and over again.

So sayeth Perinquus, the annoyingly repetitive idiot.

Which does not refute the fact that you have been continually misrepresenting my position.

And when did you pose that question? In the middle of all your blather about how "some people like A, others like B, and some prefer C..."?

Why weren't these "very evident defects" so evident to you last time you saw and enjoyed a movie that some critic gave a bad review?

Posted Sat Dec 20, 2003 12:51 am

You are too stupid even to keep track of what I am saying a mere one post back.

Oh, pardon me for not keeping track of every last tiny detail of your increasingly psychotic spew on this board. And yes, to answer your question, the defects were very evident. The movie in question was Battlefield Earth which I was screening for material for a worst film festival programme book quiz. However, I'd hardly characterise the experience as wholly "enjoyable".

Does that satisfy you, fuckwit?

No, because you are full of shit, and you're dodging again. I said the last time you thoroughly enjoyed a movie that a critic slammed dumbass, not the last time you saw a movie you thought was bad. You are stupid. You can't read and understand a plainly worded question, can you? Now if you are going to sit there and tell me that every movie you have ever liked has gotten a positive review from any movie critic who ever saw it, you are a lying bastard as well as a stupid one.

Somewhere out there, there is a negative review for probably almost every film you like. So again I will ask you. Why weren't the "very evident defects" that the critic based his bad review on so evident to you? Quite dodging and answer the question.

And in the case of a subjective matter, those definitions and standards are rather vague and inchoate, with a great deal of ambiguity and room for interpretation.

Competence in production, direction, acting, screenwriting —the main standards for judging movie quality which are quite well understood and accepted in common.

And yet competent directors and good actors, working from scripts written by talented screenwriters can and do produce movies that fail. This is because making a good film is more art than science, and is nowhere near as simple as adhering to some set of standards.

It is not like there is some clear line of demarcation, and anything which falls on one side is inarguably bad, while anything on the other side is inarguably good.

Something which I have not been arguing at any point in this discussion and therefore is just another of your idiotic strawmen.

No, it's just what objective means. Something is either objectively right or objectively wrong.

In the case of a subjective standard, there is a sort of commonly agreed upon standard of quality, but defining exactly where the borders are is almost impossible. there is a lot of room in there for individual interpretation.

If a thing is "commonly agreed upon" it no longer falls under the definition of "subjective" —even if certain aspects are a bit fuzzy at the edges.

Yes it can you imbecile. It is not objective, if it does not fit the definition of objective, which I gave you earlier - no matter how many people believe it. GODDAMN you're stupid! It does fit the definition of subjective. I'll give you that as well.

1. of, affected by, or produced by the mind or a particular state of mind; of or resulting from the feelings or temperament of the subject, or person thinking, rather than the attributes of the object thought of; as, a subjective judgement.

2. determined by emphasizing the ideas, thoughts, and feelings, etc. of the artist writer, or speaker.

We are talking about how people react to a movie - their opinions or evaluation of the movie. That is not a physical object, that is not independent of the mind. It fits the definition of subjective, not of objective. Just because a lot of people hold certain opinions in common, that does not make that opinion objective, it just makes it popular. You have now appealed to popularity. "If enough people think it, it must be so". Nice fallacy you've got there.

This is simply not a matter of objective fact, like the laws of physics, or the properties of physical objects in the material world.

Man of Straw.

Simply parroting "Man of Straw" does nothing to show how I am wrong.

You are the only person who thinks that anybody is arguing "rigid" categories. I've been talking about a general spectrum from best to good to poor to bad to worst, and how opinions of which films fall where on that scale —even given individual, subjective variation— are based upon commonly understood definitions and standards of artistic merit from which it is possible to form a competent opinion and to be able to explain it intelligently. Something you'd comprehend were it not for that tiny mind of yours.

Objective standards means rigid standards you idiot. You're the one who insists on using that term. I'm trying to use the terminology that actually fits.

Oh, and speaking of people having trouble keeping track of an argument:

By any objective criteria, the battle scenes in the new series are far more effective than in the old. They are more elaborate, they feature more vessels and show a much larger scope of action, the effects are more realistic, there is no re-use of stock footage, and they look more realistic.

Again, by any objective criteria, the battle scenes here were more realistic and exciting.

Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2003 7:49 am

Linky

That from the man whose been arguing that there are no objective criteria when it comes to art/movie criticism for the last four days now.

THAT'S comedy.

Yeah, I wondered how long it would take you to dredge that up. But once again, you are comparing cheese and chalk. I have been talking this entire time about things like acting, direction, pacing, plot, characterization - all those things which go to make up drama and strytelling, and none of which are definable by "objective" standards, only subjective ones.

However the visual depiction of effects can be analyzed objectively using another definition of objective (Websters New Universal Unabridged Dictionary):

4. without bias or prejudice; detached, impersonal.

You can look at an FX shot without bias or prejudice and ask yourself simple, easily answered questions - questions with pretty obvious answers; is the new BG better than the old?

Yes. It is. Do you see more elaborate shots? Yes. Do you see more ships onscreen? Yes. Do you see a greater range of movement for the ships? Again, yes. Do you see greater detail? Yes, you see things like their attitude control thrusters firing when they maneuver, which is something they never showed in the original series. You see all this greater wealth of detail. Do the effects appear more realistic? Yes. You have to admit they do. Therefore, by any unbiased, unprejudiced (i.e. objective) standard, the FX shots in the new series are more realistic.

However, you cannot simply apply this same argument to the dramatic aspects of the show. Go ahead and try. Ask the same sorts of questions. Are the actors performances more realistic? If you answer yes or no, accroding to whom? This is not so clear cut. There is no simple yes or no answer to such a question. Some people will probably say yes and others will say no. How do you prove one or the other side right or wrong? Or how about another question. Is the story as well written? Again, according to whom? I am sure you will find plenty of people to say yes and plenty others to say no. How do you prove right and wrong in this case? Is the suspension of disbelief maintained as well? Same sort of possibility for multiple interpretations here.

When it comes to evaluating the dramatic aspects of directors' writers' and actors' performances, the answers are not clear cut and obvious, as with evaluating the realism of effects shots and other such things, and you are getting into the subjective territory again, because peoples' opinions are entirely in their minds.

But since you have so far proven completely unable to comprehend the difference between subjective and objective, I am sure you won't be able to see the difference here either.