Transformers and More @ The Seibertron Store
Details subject to change. See listing for latest price and availability.
tile_mcgillus wrote:TF2 Haters:
ADMIT IT! This movie despite its flaws, can be an enjoyable experience for a lot of people. The people that did love it are not morons or idiots...and are quite possibly smarter than you! It is okay for people to love this film and no matter how hard you wish it, this movie is a roaring success.
Most people know where I stand but ignoring the other side's valid points is just bad form.
Jeysie wrote:Caelus wrote:Jeysie wrote::Clearly missing my point, and failing to meet my demands:
And you've failed to meet my demand of explaining why creative work is magically exempt from standards of good and bad quality compared to non-creative work.
No, I've explained that so thoroughly First Gen's head is about to explode.Uh, no. What they (and the old people) know about good art was learned by studying art and seeing which techniques are effective in conveying the creative work's intents and which aren't. When I set out to write a certain story, there are objectively techniques which work better than others for effective storytelling. Same goes for art, music, anything creative. This understanding is achieved by watching/listening to many works in your field and analyzing their various aspects to see what works and what doesn't.
Your field's methodology has been purely observational, correlational, and qualitative in nature. The methodology applied does not have sufficient rigor to make logical conclusions. Almost everything you have learned or been taught as an art enthusiast has been filtered through a subjective lens.
Therefore, you cannot logically describe valid methods for objectively assessing the quality of a movie with any degree of confidence.Again, I don't see why creative works are somehow exempt from needing talent and technique.
Good vs bad "talent" and "technique" are themselves subjective evaluations in the realm of art. Perhaps for a piece of art to be "good", it must have "good" technique, but since technique is going to be subjectively evaluated by the individual audience members, the definition of a piece of art as good or bad is still subjective.Caelus wrote:And I think that your implication that anyone can produce a bit of poorly-made trash with no effort, talent, or thought put into it, and it can somehow still qualify as "good" because it appealed to some crude need enough for someone to like it anyway, is equally sad.
This is still a slight misinterpretation of what I'm actually saying, or at least, it kind of 'whiffs' past the core of my argument. Perhaps it is more like an incomplete understanding of what I'm saying...I'm not sure why it's so hard for you to just accept that you can sometimes enjoy something that's bad quality. I accept it quite easily without needing to think I'm important enough for my personal individual tastes to dictate quality instead of merely dictating my own personal enjoyment.
First Gen wrote:I'll settle this one gents. Caelus you're right. Rock, you're right too, because in reality, what is right and wrong? Is it what you feel it is? Well if thats the case, right in wrong is just electrons being interpeted by your brain.
Is that really mom baking cookies or did someone fart? Right and wrong is what you want it to be.
Rock Sexton wrote:1. excess crude jokes/language
2. excess racial stereotyping
3. an abundance of hot chicks
4. poorly developed story
Caelus wrote:First Gen wrote:Is that really mom baking cookies or did someone fart? Right and wrong is what you want it to be.
I mean, your mom is either baking cookies or she isn't.
tile_mcgillus wrote:TF2 Haters:
ADMIT IT! This movie despite its flaws, can be an enjoyable experience for a lot of people. The people that did love it are not morons or idiots...and are quite possibly smarter than you! It is okay for people to love this film and no matter how hard you wish it, this movie is a roaring success.
G.B. Blackrock wrote:tile_mcgillus wrote:TF2 Haters:
ADMIT IT! This movie despite its flaws, can be an enjoyable experience for a lot of people. The people that did love it are not morons or idiots...and are quite possibly smarter than you! It is okay for people to love this film and no matter how hard you wish it, this movie is a roaring success.
Uhhh, most of us have, explicitly and repeatedly, been doing precisely this: acknowledging that people can, and indeed have a right to, enjoy this movie. Nor have I seen ANYONE call someone a "moron," an "idiot," or in any other way insult the intelligence of someone simply for liking TF2.
Your post would seem to be nothing more than an attempt to shut down this conversation. Nice try, but no thanks.
Krsi wrote:There has also been listed some criteria for automatic listing as a bad movie:Rock Sexton wrote:1. excess crude jokes/language
2. excess racial stereotyping
3. an abundance of hot chicks
4. poorly developed story
Okay, lets look at past movies and see if any of these meet the above criteria. I choose Gone with the Wind:
(actual examples snipped)
tile_mcgillus wrote:G.B. Blackrock wrote:tile_mcgillus wrote:TF2 Haters:
ADMIT IT! This movie despite its flaws, can be an enjoyable experience for a lot of people. The people that did love it are not morons or idiots...and are quite possibly smarter than you! It is okay for people to love this film and no matter how hard you wish it, this movie is a roaring success.
Uhhh, most of us have, explicitly and repeatedly, been doing precisely this: acknowledging that people can, and indeed have a right to, enjoy this movie. Nor have I seen ANYONE call someone a "moron," an "idiot," or in any other way insult the intelligence of someone simply for liking TF2.
Your post would seem to be nothing more than an attempt to shut down this conversation. Nice try, but no thanks.
You did say, "you are not unintelligent but you lack formal education"... which definitely felt dismissive and possibly derogatory. You didnt call anyone an idiot... in those words...
What I was trying to say was: its not a conversation if no one is listening to each other...
Its masturbatory.
Caelus wrote:No, I've explained that so thoroughly First Gen's head is about to explode.
Caelus wrote:Your field's methodology has been purely observational, correlational, and qualitative in nature.
Caelus wrote:Good vs bad "talent" and "technique" are themselves subjective evaluations in the realm of art. Perhaps for a piece of art to be "good", it must have "good" technique, but since technique is going to be subjectively evaluated by the individual audience members, the definition of a piece of art as good or bad is still subjective.
Caelus wrote:Jeysie wrote:And I think that your implication that anyone can produce a bit of poorly-made trash with no effort, talent, or thought put into it, and it can somehow still qualify as "good" because it appealed to some crude need enough for someone to like it anyway, is equally sad.
This is still a slight misinterpretation of what I'm actually saying, or at least, it kind of 'whiffs' past the core of my argument. Perhaps it is more like an incomplete understanding of what I'm saying...
Caelus wrote:1) The criterion for good art vs bad art have been established subjectively and arbitrarily, and therefore hold no absolute value beyond that given to them by the individual using the criterion.
Caelus wrote:2) The judgment of those criterion is a subjective process (as has been demonstrated repeatedly in this thread), and cannot be considered valid.
Caelus wrote:3) Lacking objectively valid definitions for what is good, and how to measure what is good, in any given piece of art, artists and critics are not justified in telling people what is good and what is not, without providing the caveat that such a judgment is an opinion derived from their own personal tastes.
Caelus wrote:4) The quality of something should be defined in terms of its capacity to fulfill its function in relevant areas. The 'relevant areas' are subjectively determined by both the creator and the consumer. Therefore, the quality of something, art included, is subjectively evaluated by every individual.
Caelus wrote:5) If an artist is going to be happy with their work, they need to either disbelieve logic, meet the demands of the people whose opinions their self-esteem relies on, or learn to be their own critics, and not give a damn about what other people think.
tile_mcgillus wrote:G.B. Blackrock wrote:Uhhh, most of us have, explicitly and repeatedly, been doing precisely this: acknowledging that people can, and indeed have a right to, enjoy this movie. Nor have I seen ANYONE call someone a "moron," an "idiot," or in any other way insult the intelligence of someone simply for liking TF2.
Your post would seem to be nothing more than an attempt to shut down this conversation. Nice try, but no thanks.
You did say, "you are not unintelligent but you lack formal education"... which definitely felt dismissive and possibly derogatory. You didnt call anyone an idiot... in those words...
What I was trying to say was: its not a conversation if no one is listening to each other...
Its masturbatory.
Counterpunch wrote:Slightly off-topic...
Good to see you here GB.
Delicon wrote:I'm seriously wondering by now if Roger Ebert has checked this thread, and what the heck he must think of it.
Caelus wrote:First Gen wrote:I'll settle this one gents. Caelus you're right. Rock, you're right too, because in reality, what is right and wrong? Is it what you feel it is? Well if thats the case, right in wrong is just electrons being interpeted by your brain.
He gets it!
He gets it!Is that really mom baking cookies or did someone fart? Right and wrong is what you want it to be.
Well, that could actually be empirically determined, since it has an absolute, definitive answer.
I mean, your mom is either baking cookies or she isn't.
Of course, if there is any ambiguity about the smell, I wouldn't recommend you eat them.
And is a cookie still a cookie if it isn't eaten?
Jeysie wrote:Delicon wrote:I'm seriously wondering by now if Roger Ebert has checked this thread, and what the heck he must think of it.
If he's anything like me, he's depressed and resigned to realizing that some of the reaction here is a good chunk of why it's getting harder nowadays to find a story written and created by people who actually know and care about what they're doing.
First Gen wrote:Caelus wrote:And is a cookie still a cookie if it isn't eaten?
Touche' that was pretty funny.
Jeysie wrote:Caelus wrote:No, I've explained that so thoroughly First Gen's head is about to explode.
No you have not. You've certainly explained very thoroughly that you don't think creativity can be judged qualitively
but you haven't explained what special quality creative work has that somehow makes it impossible to judge thusly.
Caelus wrote:Your field's methodology has been purely observational, correlational, and qualitative in nature.
Science is also observational, correlational, and qualitive in nature, yet you seem to have no problem with the thought that there's a good and bad in terms of that sort of work, for instance.
Why is it subjective?
Furthermore, how can it be subjective when my definition of good/bad and like/hate don't always correlate?
It is you who is judging good/bad on your own personal definition
by thinking that your personal tastes somehow dictate quality.
I mean, like I gave as an example earlier, no matter how well-crafted a romance story is, I'm just not into romance as a plot concept, so I'll almost never like that type of story. Does that somehow mean all romance movies are bad? Certainly not! It just means that they don't suit my personal tastes, which has no bearing at all on quality. I would probably enjoy a movie of the exact same quality if it was about a genre I do like, such as science fiction.
I'm not sure how else to interpret it. If your claim that there's no objective standards of good/bad in creative works is true, then it must follow that even if something is poorly-made with no effort, if it is liked by someone, then it becomes a good quality work.
There's nothing arbitrary about the analysis people have made of creative works in terms of logic, and it can't be subjective when critics' criteria for quality do not 100% overlap with their criteria for personal enjoyment.
It's been demonstrated repeatedly that the criterion for enjoyment is a subjective process, as evidence by how many people seem to think Ebert was insulting them for merely liking the movie.
But most people, even the ones who liked it, seem to agree that there was a lot of mistakes in the movie of various types.
There are plenty of definitions for what is good that are widely accepted as being objectively valid.
As evidenced, for instance, by how many of the professional critics seem to have reach the exact same conclusions about the movie's problems, even some of the critics who liked it.
Caelus wrote:Once again, the fact that I and many other people can have quality and enjoyment be two completely different things shows that this is not the case.
If I were subjectively evaluating quality, then I would be just like you, having good/bad and like/hate always matching up.
I dunno, I'm happy when my work meets objective criteria for good creative work, which doesn't have any direct correlation to who likes it or not.
Burn wrote:Jeysie wrote:Delicon wrote:I'm seriously wondering by now if Roger Ebert has checked this thread, and what the heck he must think of it.
If he's anything like me, he's depressed and resigned to realizing that some of the reaction here is a good chunk of why it's getting harder nowadays to find a story written and created by people who actually know and care about what they're doing.
If you're depressed over a movie, you might wanna take a step back and re-analyse your priorities in life.
NewFoundStarscreamLuv wrote:me and my friends combine all the time. Sometimes I even combine by myself if no one is around.
Burn wrote:You made it clear you didn't respect my opinion.
Your response has also made it clear you were only trying to provoke a specific response from me.
skywarp-2 wrote: I was informed I didn't "get" Michael Bay. I was too old, "of the wrong generation," or an elitist or a liberal--although not, I was relieved to find, a "liberal elitist." It seems to me "Transformers" also qualifies for conservative scorn. It is obliviously nonpartisan. Yet one commented said I hated the movie because it was an attack on President Obama. I was afraid to say I hadn't noticed that, because then I would be told I hadn't even seen the movie. It is possible to miss many of the plot points, strange in a movie with so few of them. Veiled in-jokes about politicians and famous people, popular in animation and mass market movies, come with the territory. I enjoy them. The apparent reference to Obama was no big deal, although a reader from Germany told me the actual name "Obama" was used in the German dub. That possibly didn't happen without Bay hearing about it.
Actually in a portion of the movie, it states on a television within the movie that President Obama is on his Plane and leaving the area.
that was in English.
the other thing you failed to see was the apparent jabs at the policies of Obama and his lack of support in the military as emphasized by the newly instated secretary of Defense representing the White House. So add that into the whole mix, and the mention of the current President, and there you have the negative portrayal of the current President.
and as seeing how Michael Bay works closely with the military, this point of view is common amongst many in the service. Making this a conservative witch hunt, all while pretending to be ignorant to the charges of Liberalism and the jabs at Obama doesn't make you seem that much more a victim to me. I see through this shady attempt again to play yourself some kind of now "political" victim.
now if I can put these few obvious clues together, and you apparently are an expert. Then what does that say about your skills as a critic?
Return to Transformers Live Action Film Forum
Registered users: annaeat, Bing [Bot], Glyph, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], MSN [Bot], Yahoo [Bot]