Battlestar Galactica Review

[HemlockGrey]

Incidentally, Patrick, could you list the objective criteria, or have I missed that?

[Perinquus]

Incidentally, Patrick, could you list the objective criteria, or have I missed that?

Don't hold your breath. I asked him several posts back.

[Patrick Degan]

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.

Once again —Projection: the habit of attributing one's character defects upon others.

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.

As you say, again and again and again and again...

Not very original, are you?

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.

In that case, refer again to the commentary made about viewing Plan Nine for derisive value —even while knowing it's a piece of shit movie. And even given that, no, the enjoyment level is never going to be the same as with a truly good or even reasonably good film.

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.

I. Have. Answered. Your. Question. I grow tired of your endless bullshit.

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.

Uh huh. And was that on your mind when you said:

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

All your little dodge there demonstrates is that even a competent production team and good actors can occasionally make a movie that fails.

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.

So, I guess when you said this:

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

—you really didn't mean "objective" objective in regards to those criteria, did you?

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.

And this:

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

—squares with that little dodge of yours how, exactly?

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.

And of course, there was no chance that when you said this:

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

—you were really thinking of what "objective" truly means in regards to those criteria you cited.

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.

Then what explains this little gem of yours:

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

Didn't seem like such a fallacy to you back then.

Oh, and BTW, this:

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".

—is a direct lie. I am not and never have been referring to the "opinions" as objective.

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.

No, but this does:

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 and the fact that never once did I make any such statement that opinions = solid facts. That is wholly YOUR bullshit spew here.

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.

Uh huh. Just like you used it in composing this:

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

Or is it that for you, the definition of "objective" is fluid when it suits the moment?

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.

Heh. SUUUUUUURE you did...

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 storytelling, and none of which are definable by "objective" standards, only subjective ones.

No, those are the things I've been talking about and how the success of these aspects of a film are evaluated; by commonly defined standards which provide benchmarks upon which it is possible to form a competent opinion of anything.

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.

Yes, we know what the dictionary says, thank you.

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.

Except that was not the crux of Kuja's argument which you simply ignored wholesale when you went off on that particular tangent, and I quote:

And new BSG didn't even have that. What did we get? A very brief exchange between Starbuck and a couple other pilots near the Galactica that lasts, what, a minute or two? And then a mediocre battle with some pretty good dogfighting at the end, but not nearly bloodthirsty enough to satisfy. Wheee. And Starbuck's screeching got on my nerves.

What does new BSG give us in the way of capship combat? The Galactica shooting down a couple missiles from horrendously deformed Basestars. I wanted to see the BSG plow into that blockade and rip into the nearest Basestars to distract them from the civilians. And why didn't the Cylons use any nukes in that one? When a single Raider is capable of carrying nuclear missiles that can threaten the BSG, why didn't they just launch a massive wave of missiles from both the Basestars and Raiders? I mean, criminey, the BSG was a stationary target! Fill the void with nukes and it can't possibly shoot them all down!

Kuja complained about the lack of scope to the battle footage, not that the new FX weren't technically superior to the original. And as it is several persons did find complaint about the FX job and the blocking of the combat scenes —as well as complaints about the alledged "realism" (e.g.: missile contrails in space). The point is that while opinions about the effectiveness of the battle scenes and their FX vary, the criteria for forming those opinions rests upon established benchmarks of FX capability and comparison with other productions.

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.

Anyone who's been in military service for a start would definitely complain about the spectacle of Starbuck slugging Col. Tigh and not being escorted to the brig under armed guard. Very unrealistic —and don't try saying that's merely "subjective".

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.

Once more, we are not talking about variations of opinion but the measures by which those opinions are constructed in the first place. How many times must this be said and in how many different ways?

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 the criteria by which those opinions are constructed are held in common usage and understanding no matter what lengths you go to in order to deny this. They relate to storywriting elementals and production technique —taught in every fucking film school and observable in a large enough body of movies.

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.

Whereas when you said this:

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

—you of course understood it perfectly even while applying it to yet another matter which, according to your entire line of argument of the last five days, would also be wholly "subjective" interpretation.

And for as long as you're going to try to have it both ways —as well as perpetuate the patent falsehood that I've been arguing that opinions = facts— I'm going to make you eat your own words for as long as it takes until you stop your bullshit.

[Perinquus]

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.

As you say, again and again and again and again...

Not very original, are you?

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.

In that case, refer again to the commentary made about viewing Plan Nine for derisive value —even while knowing it's a piece of shit movie. And even given that, no, the enjoyment level is never going to be the same as with a truly good or even reasonably good film.

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.

I. Have. Answered. Your. Question. I grow tired of your endless bullshit.

No you haven't answered it smegbreath. You've dodged it over and over again. This is why debating with you is such an exercise in futility. I have asked (and this makes FOUR FUCKING TIMES NOW) for you to explain why a movie that you enjoyed, that you liked, that you thought was a good movie, might have gotten a bad review from some critic or other. And I asked you to explain how, if there is an objective standard, you could somehow fail to notice the "very evident defects" which motivated the critic to write his bad review. Don't give me this "As you say, again and again and again and again..." cop out. Yeah I keep saying it "again and again and again and again..." Because you keep fucking evading it "again and again and again and again..."!

First you ignored it, then you answered with movies that you yourself consider to be bad movies. That's not what I fucking asked you for, and you goddamn know it!. I asked you to explain the discrepancy between you and the critic with movies that you enjoyed, and considered to be good movies. Don't fucking try and evade egain by quibbling that I didn't use the word "like", or "admire" instead of enjoy. That was the clear intent of my question, and you fucking know it you dishonest little prick. You know goddamn fucking well what my question was, and you flat out won't answer it, because you know perfectly well that the only answer you can possibly give that would not be an obvious lie is one that would undermine your argument.

You are a goddamn stupid, dishonest, evasive little bullshitter.

[Patrick Degan]

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.

I recognise the fact that opinions do vary from individual to individual and that "not everyone agrees that a steaming pile of shit will taste bad", although Perinquus seems to be doing his level-best to bury this under his ever growing mountain of bullshit.

It is not the matter of opinions which is the point. Rather, it is that any two (or whatever number) competent opinions —no matter how they may vary— are built upon commonly understood definitions and standards by which any given artwork or movie can be subjected to examination. In the case of a movie, these would refer to storytelling (e.g.: characterisation, plot continuity, story logic, plausibility of premise, level of originality), direction (e.g.: scene continuity, creative level of cinematography and scene-blocking), production technique (e.g.: art direction, sound, editing, incidental music), and acting (e.g.: technique, character, skill in performance). These are things learned either in film school or, for most people, by watching a large enough body of films and gradually picking up a sense of what has and hasn't worked. Cineophiles will take their education further and study these subjects, as well as film history, on their own to gain a far greater appreciation of the art and craft of filmmaking. So do professional film critics.

Opinions will vary from individual to individual on matters of personal taste and genre preference. There is also informed and uninformed opinion, and among film critics the difference between those giving their honest impressions and those "critics" who are paid shills of the major studios and therefore nothing but ad-men. But while all opinion is subjective, competent opinion is ultimately based upon measure by the above-listed standards of evaluation and comparison with other works as a guide —which falls toward the objective end of the scale. Not in the same sense as solid physical fact but as definitions which fall outside the realm of purely subjective opinion and provide a general standard for examination.

Perinquus retreated behind the "everything is opinions and all opinions are valid" dodge and the "everybody I know liked the movie, therefore you're wrong" dodge when he was pressed to defend his position in the debate over Neo-BSG's flaws as a production, and this started us on the road to this present farce.

[Patrick Degan]

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.

I. Have. Answered. Your. Question. I grow tired of your endless bullshit.

No you haven't answered it smegbreath. You've dodged it over and over again. This is why debating with you is such an exercise in futility. I have asked (and this makes FOUR FUCKING TIMES NOW) for you to explain why a movie that you enjoyed, that you liked, that you thought was a good movie, might have gotten a bad review from some critic or other. And I asked you to explain how, if there is an objective standard, you could somehow fail to notice the "very evident defects" which motivated the critic to write his bad review. Don't give me this "As you say, again and again and again and again..." cop out. Yeah I keep saying it "again and again and again and again..." Because you keep fucking evading it "again and again and again and again..."!

First you ignored it, then you answered with movies that you yourself consider to be bad movies. That's not what I fucking asked you for, and you goddamn know it!. I asked you to explain the discrepancy between you and the critic with movies that you enjoyed, and considered to be good movies. Don't fucking try and evade egain by quibbling that I didn't use the word "like", or "admire" instead of enjoy. That was the clear intent of my question, and you fucking know it you dishonest little prick. You know goddamn fucking well what my question was, and you flat out won't answer it, because you know perfectly well that the only answer you can possibly give that would not be an obvious lie is one that would undermine your argument.

You are a goddamn stupid, dishonest, evasive little bullshitter.

Fuck you, Perinquus. You have done nothing but lie, evade, dodge, and tapdance around every issue and you have REPEATEDLY misrepresented my arguments in this whole goddamn thread. In regard to your alledged "challenge", I had given THIS answer:

"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. "

So because I used a different pronoun that means I was "dodging the question"?!?! You're not getting away with that one, shithead —the meaning in that paragraph is PERFECTLY FUCKING CLEAR. Anybody except an asshole like yourself figured it out on his own.

Since you very evidently need things made nice and simple for that vanishingly tiny mind of yours, let's break it down : the movie Plan Nine From Outer Space —example given for a film panned for its "very evident defects"; the phrase "one enjoys a 'guilty pleasure' movie" —a film so bad that it's perversely "good" in its badness which "one" can enjoy; "while also recognising" various defects which gets the movie panned. Add it up: yes, I've managed to enjoy movies panned by just about every critic, but no, the "very evident defects" in the movie in question never elude my notice. Movies are one of my hobbies, fuckhead, and whenever I go with my group to have a laugh at a universally panned movie, I never delude myself into thinking that the movie didn't deserve the trashing it got.

Seems every time your feet are held to the fire long enough, you just sink to a new low. Didn't like it when you got your own words slapped in your face, did you? So instead of admitting the contradiction in the tedious argument you've flogged for five days, you tried another pathetic weasel dodge and when the heat got poured on, you went straight for the ad-hominem assault —built on yet another of your bullshit lies and a very evident reading-comprehension problem.

Oh, and before you try leaping to the attack, your original question was this:

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?

Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 12:51 am

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... &start=325

Not:

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?

So you can just forget about your little bullshit exercise in Moving the Goalposts to claim I didn't answer.

No, Perinquus —after a whole week of putting up dodge after dodge, strawman after strawman, and simply ignoring every answer not only from myself but also from Kuja and Uranian 235 which didn't suit you, and after the last three days of trying to run from your own words while outright misrepresenting mine, it is you who stands revealed as the goddamn stupid, dishonest, evasive little bullshitter on this board. You.

Awaiting the inevitable outpouring of spew in reply.

[Perinquus]

Uh huh, that's what I thought.

Still won't admit it.

Quel surpise!

You know goddamn well that there are any number of movies you like, movies that you think are great, movies that you enjoyed and think are excellent films, and which got panned by critics (And you know damned well this is what I was asking you for from the beginning you lying sack of shit). You know damned well this is so. If you even try to claim otherwise you are lying through your fucking teeth, and there isn't a person on this board who won't know it. You know this damned well because there isn't a moviegoer alive about whom this is not true. No one on earth has been so fortunate as to have every movie he has ever liked be universally well received. Everybody has movies that he or she personally loved, but which at least a number of critics gave bad reviews for. Every-fucking-body shitbag, and this includes you. You know this. As stupid as you undeniably are, you must surely know this. You know damned well that any number of movies you liked got bad reviews, but since you previously claimed that any bad review is based on "very evident defects", you realize now that you painted yourself into a corner, and that now acknowledging that what was "very evident" to the critic was not very evident to you, leaves you only one possible way to account for this discrepancy. That is to admit that he has his opinion and you have yours. It's the only honest thing to do, but you won't, you goddamn lying maggot.

You are not only stupid little piece of shit, and not only arrogant little piece of shit, you are also a transparent little piece of shit.

[Patrick Degan]

Uh huh, that's what I thought.

Still won't admit it.

Quel surpise!

Admit what, fucktard? If my answer to your ridiculous bullshit challenge —which reflects my moviegoing experiences and tastes which you know nothing of— doesn't suit you, tough shit.

You know goddamn well that there are any number of movies you like, movies that you think are great, movies that you enjoyed and think are excellent films, and which got panned by critics (And you know damned well this is what I was asking you for from the beginning you lying sack of shit).

Wrong —or will I have to quote your own damn words back to you yet again?

You know damned well this is so. If you even try to claim otherwise you are lying through your fucking teeth, and there isn't a person on this board who won't know it.

Oh really, asshole? You know me well enough to say such a thing with any real authority? You've gone to movies with me and my circle of friends for the past 25 years? You know the contents of my video collection? You can know with certainty my tastes, moviegoing preferences, experiences, and thoughts or writings on movies to make that claim? You fucking well better be prepared to back that assertion, mister.

You know this damned well because there isn't a moviegoer alive about whom this is not true.

Hasty Generalisation fallacy.

No one on earth has been so fortunate as to have every movie he has ever liked be universally well received. Everybody has movies that he or she personally loved, but which at least a number of critics gave bad reviews for. Every-fucking-body shitbag, and this includes you. You know this. As stupid as you undeniably are, you must surely know this.

The spectacle of you calling anyone stupid or dishonest is comical to say the least.

You know damned well that any number of movies you liked got bad reviews, but since you previously claimed that any bad review is based on "very evident defects", you realize now that you painted yourself into a corner, and that now acknowledging that what was "very evident" to the critic was not very evident to you, leaves you only one possible way to account for this discrepancy. That is to admit that he has his opinion and you have yours. It's the only honest thing to do, but you won't, you goddamn lying maggot.

Little brain having a meltdown, is it? In case it's escaped your notice for the past three fucking days (which given that reading-comprehension problem of yours is not surprising), the crux of my argument has not been "opinions" but THE STANDARDS AND DEFINITIONS UPON WHICH COMPETENT OPINIONS ARE FORMED. You STILL insist on dragging this moth-eaten strawman around and you've got the balls to accuse anybody else of dishonesty?

And speaking of which, the original exchange in question:

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.

Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 11:58 pm

We were not originally talking about any movie I saw and liked which was panned and the defects of which I'd supposedly missed, but on what the hypothetical critic based his opinion upon. YOU manufactured the rest out of wholecloth, shitwit, before posing your ridiculous "challenge".

And as for the other portion of your expanded challenge, I refer you back to this exchange:

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.

Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 12:52 pm

And

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.

Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 9:46 am

Understand the entire "test of time" concept? Even given any one-time bad review of a film (now recognised as a classic) due to different perception or studio bias (a very prevailing condition in the days of the Moguls, newspapers like the Hearst Syndicate, and "reviewers" like Hedda Hopper and Louella Parsons) —time, and repeated examination have long since proven such reviews wrong.

So much for the second part of your "challenge" —which wasn't part of the original question posed. Which, BTW, was:

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?

Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 12:51 am

Ball's in your court, Sad Sack.

[Perinquus]

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?

Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 12:51 am

Ball's in your court, Sad Sack.

You can lie and tapdance all you want. The question above, which you quoted back to me, and which I have now highlighted in turn, is pretty plainly worded. I am asking you to explain why, if a bad review is based on "very evident defects", you did not find them very evident the last time you went to a movie and liked it, but it got a bad review. I asked that question two fucking days ago, and you responded first by ignoring it, then by giving me some bullshit answer, naming movie's that you yourself considered bad movies, when that's not what I fucking asked you for. I have since clarified and restated the question several times, and it has not gotten me one step closer to a straight answer from you. Either you are lying again, or you truly are the dimmest fucking bulb in creation.

Now I have my doubts that anyone capable (more or less) of coherent speech could be quite this dense, so I stand by my assertion: you are an evasice, lying, prevaricating, sack of shit.

[Stofsk]

Perinquus, there's a difference between subjectively enjoying art and objectively recognising a style's defective qualities. Patrick Degan can enjoy "Plan 9 From Outer Space" subjectively while nevertheless recognising it's defects, even if an objective review or critic can slam the said film for its defects.

The truth of the matter is that he did answer your challenge. He said as much in an above post; scroll up and re-read. Carefully.

[Perinquus]

Perinquus, there's a difference between subjectively enjoying art and objectively recognising a style's defective qualities. Patrick Degan can enjoy "Plan 9 From Outer Space" subjectively while nevertheless recognising it's defects, even if an objective review or critic can slam the said film for its defects.

The truth of the matter is that he did answer your challenge. He said as much in an above post; scroll up and re-read. Carefully.

No, I don't buy that. That's an evasion. That's adhering strictly to the letter of something by perverting it's spirit. That's the same kind of legalistic loophole a lawyer might use. Well pardon me, I wasn't aware we had to write our posts in legalese to avoid such "deliberate misunderstandings". It's very plain what I meant, but just in case there was any doubt, I clarified the matter a few posts later, making sure to specify that I wanted him to account for how a movie he thought was a good movie, a movie that he would have reviewed positively were he a movie critic, might have gotten a bad review, given that there is an objective standard and the bad review must be based, according to him, on "very evident defects". That was very plainly the intent of my question from the very beginning. That question he has still not anwered. As I said, the only way to account for this discrepancy is to admit that the critic in this case has his opinions, and he has his. But that would be admitting that this is largely a matter of opinion, and that would undermine his argument, and that he simply will not do.

[StarshipTitanic]

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?

Well yeah, it does. I would have liked to see a bit more battle involving the Galactica, but I would have NOT liked to watch a pure eyecandy Colonial vs. Cylon fleet engagement.

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

*Throws this one with the rest of the concessions*

Strawman.

"Colonial fleet," "focus," and "Moment One" gives your lie away, Kuja.

Strawman.

You're right, I forgot the possibility of it being both.

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

The validity of the comparison is apparent when one compares the miniseries to the pilot episode from the original.

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?

Versus pathetic straifing runs by matte paintings.

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

You say "I conceed" in the most syllables I've ever seen.

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.

You disapprove of baby killings but when it comes down to hot 8 year old vs. nuke action you thirst for visuals?

It makes sense, anyway, as there's no one there to watch them dying.

[Kuja]

Well yeah, it does. I would have liked to see a bit more battle involving the Galactica, but I would have NOT liked to watch a pure eyecandy Colonial vs. Cylon fleet engagement.

And neither would I.

*Throws this one with the rest of the concessions*

"Colonial fleet," "focus," and "Moment One" gives your lie away, Kuja.

Yes, you're right, what was I thinking? It's absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to give any lone characters focus in the midst of a war. That must be why Return of the Jedi, Attack of the Clones, Return of the King, and Saving Private Ryan all bombed at the box office.

Oh, wait a mintue...

The validity of the comparison is apparent when one compares the miniseries to the pilot episode from the original.

Can't remember the original's pilot very well, so I'll give you that one.

Versus pathetic straifing runs by matte paintings.

When even Star Trek: DS9 can show starships firing at a planet and newBSG can't, you know the competition's got it beat.

You say "I conceed" in the most syllables I've ever seen.

My point is that the good parts of new BSG were ruined by the overall cheapness of the characters in the first ep.

You disapprove of baby killings but when it comes down to hot 8 year old vs. nuke action you thirst for visuals?

When a baby killing is competely gratuitous and furthermore, makes absolutely no sense to shove in (as though they want to say "Hey, did you know that Cylons are BAD?") then yes, I disapprove.

It makes sense, anyway, as there's no one there to watch them dying.

Except the viewers.

[Patrick Degan]

Day ten of production from the Perinquus Bullshit Factory, in full flow...

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?

Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 12:51 am

Ball's in your court, Sad Sack.

You can lie and tapdance all you want.

Sigh... Yet more pathetic grandstanding to cover your ass.

The question above, which you quoted back to me, and which I have now highlighted in turn, is pretty plainly worded. I am asking you to explain why, if a bad review is based on "very evident defects", you did not find them very evident the last time you went to a movie and liked it, but it got a bad review. I asked that question two fucking days ago, and you responded first by ignoring it, then by giving me some bullshit answer, naming movie's that you yourself considered bad movies, when that's not what I fucking asked you for. I have since clarified and restated the question several times, and it has not gotten me one step closer to a straight answer from you. Either you are lying again, or you truly are the dimmest fucking bulb in creation.

No, fuckwit —you are not getting away with that one. To repeat:

"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. "

Which I had to spell out for you thusly:

Add it up: yes, I've managed to enjoy movies panned by just about every critic, but no, the "very evident defects" in the movie in question never elude my notice. Movies are one of my hobbies, fuckhead, and whenever I go with my group to have a laugh at a universally panned movie, I never delude myself into thinking that the movie didn't deserve the trashing it got.

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2003 3:31 am

Understand what the highlighted portion in red says, asshole? The words are plain enough. And unless you know that I can be or have been blind to the defects in any movie I've watched and enjoyed, nevermind one that got a general panning, you have NO argument.

Now I have my doubts that anyone capable (more or less) of coherent speech could be quite this dense, so I stand by my assertion: you are an evasice, lying, prevaricating, sack of shit.

Proof for which comes from where? Oh, that's right —pulled out of your own ass, along with the rest of your insane spew.

At this point, I recommend that you seek serious psychiactric help. LOTS and lots of it. You've actually sunk to the level of trying to manufacture through sheer nitpickery an alledged lie where none exists. I'm waiting until we reach the inevitable point where you'll begin parsing sentence-fragments to find the "gotcha" you so desperately hope to spring —which given your demonstrated anal propensities is a mere question of time.

[Darth Wong]

No offense to any of the participants in this thread, but it has become extremely repetitive so I'm going to stick a fork in this turkey and say it's done.



If you really want, you can PM me to petition to re-open it, but from the perspective of a non-participating observer, it looks like it could go on forever like this, and I don't see how that's productive.