The Energon Pub

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.

Well, I can't speak for everyone else, but I already accept this particular bit completely. If people like, or even love the movie, so be it.

It's some people's claim that it's somehow a good movie in terms of quality that makes my eye twitch, not the fact that some people find it enjoyable. And as far as I can tell, the gist of Ebert's article is the exact same sentiment. Again, he doesn't seem to be taking issue with people who simply liked the movie.

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.

My point from the very beginning has been that:

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.

2) The judgment of those criterion is a subjective process (as has been demonstrated repeatedly in this thread), and cannot be considered valid.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Hello all, after reading through this topic, I finally feel the need to say something.

I disagree with Mr. Ebert, but I have for a long time. It has been years since I have enjoyed a movie that has won best picture at the Oscars, so I generally consider movie critics to not be the best source of if a movie is good.

As I understand it, the general criteria of if a movie is good rests in the story, acting quality, editing, music and other criteria that they deem important.

I think that it can be generally considered that whether or a story is good is subjective, based on the viewer/readers past experiences, and current views. My proof for this is that peoples opinions are not only not universal, but change within a person with time. There are movies I loved as a child, that I find questionably good today, including several Academy Award winners. Take a look at Art History, and you will find that many now revered artists were hated and thought to only produce childish scribblings. One could point out that there are universal criteria such as no plot holes, no typos and no "Deus Ex Machina", however, I'm sure that if you think about it, those can exist in even the "best" of classical literary achievements. Typos are not necessarily the writes fault and are more technical than creative, and I will ignore them for this argument. Plot holes often occur due to editing for time and the assumption that the viewer/reader can figure them out for themselves. The Deus Ex Machina... where does that come from? If I remember my history, it comes from the Greeks, who are generally considered among the "founders" of "great art". They ran out of time, and the gods came in and saved the day, end story. Deus Ex Machinas happen, deal. (Example: the Odyssey, yes Roman I know, but still a "literary masterpiece")

There is a reason for the saying "its more of an art than an exact science". It means you have some leeway in your interpretation.

Moving on..
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:

1. "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"
At the time, this was shocking, and all but unacceptable! There are other examples, but you can look that up for yourself

2. Do I really need to go there? Yes, it is a period movie, but that doesn't mean the stereotypes are true. (Also, I still argue that there is only racial stereotyping in ROTF if you see it. If see those characters and your first thought is "they're black" that's your fault. I did not see them as such, I just thought they were dumb.)

3. Two words... Viven Leigh
And lets not forget: Olivia de Havilland and countless other Southern Belles in that movie.
It was made in Hollywood, there will be beautiful people in the movie.
If you are so insulted by boobs, then you really need to stop looking at "good art" (Warning: the above link features nudity in case you didn't guess)

4. Personally I think that this story is poorly developed, as did many people at the time. However, it won a Pulitzer, so what do I know. I must be wrong, because art cannot be subjective.

We also have Shakespeare. His plays are considered by many to be the best ever written. Yet they are filled with crude humor (Midsummer Night's Dream, Romeo & Juliet are some examples), Racial stereotyping (The Merchant of Venice), Hot chicks (while in his time they were played by young men, I believe the characters go on and on about their supposed beauty), and poorly developed story (again I say Romeo & Juliet)

If you don't believe that art is subjective, then may I suggest

I know it is a wiki source, but it is an Art History Textbook, so they must know what they are talking about.

If that doesn't help, then the fact that the Academy Awards, People's Choice Awards and the Golden Globes tend to have different winners illustrates the idea that different people think a movie is "good".

The heart of the argument is that to some people, "good" means that it must follow a set of guidelines (with more loopholes than the English language) preset by someone whom no one remembers. To others it means it must have been enjoyable. That does not mean that those are less than the first group, it just means that you have different tastes. As to the "goodness" of the TF story line, it may have plot holes, crude humor and a Deus Ex Machina or five (quite frankly, The Fallen is a God-like Machine, as are the other big wigs so by definition, there are a lot of them) but that doesn't exclude it sharing a shelf with other "great" cinematic classics (i.e. Academy Award Best Pictures Nominees & winners) like Lord of the Rings (talk about plot holes...), 12 Angry Men, Around the World in 80 Days (plot devices), Too Kill a Mockingbird(racism), Driving Miss Daisy(racism), Dances with Wolves (racism), Forrest Gump (racism, crude humor, boobs), Babe (was that seriously nominated... talk about bad plot), and Jerry Maguire (please).

Now I recognize that this movie is not a great cinematic achievement. It offers nothing new to the art, it is an old plot, using old technology and such, but to imply that just because someone enjoyed it they are less than you is insulting and backward. I don't care if you enjoyed the movie or not, but it is ignorant to assume that since you thought it was bad, the rest of the world should as well, even for someone who is as well educated in movies as Mr. Ebert.

Beauty (and quality) are in the eyes of the beholder.

In deference to tile_mcgillus's post I say:

And to quote a favorite literary character: TTFN

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.

Unless she's farting the cookies.

Carry on.

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.

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.

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)

This is a very good point (although I dispute Vivian Leigh as "hot," but whatever...).

In another forum, someone brought up (more in reference to point #1 than anything else) various well-loved comedies ("How I Met Your Mother" was a good example, I thought) with "gutter humor" (my term when I couldn't think of anything better), and asked why so many of us loved them, but hate TF2.

My point then, which I hope applies here as well, was that it wasn't the crudeness, per se, that makes us dislike TF2 (nor any other single point), but that it was done without the benefit of being used intelligently. HIMYM is brilliantly written. Although it may well have a lot of sexual innuendo, it's always done in a way that is somehow more than just "sexual innuendo. It's intelligent.

Also, one knows going into such comedies as "American Pie" (also well-loved and crude, although I've not seen it, so I'll keep my comments here generic) what you're getting. The crude humor is what you're paying for, and you know that going in.

That's not really true with TF2. Unless you're familiar with Bay's work (and a lot of us are, but I'm willing to bet that most people paying to see TF2 haven't a clue), you're not going to TF2 paying for the crude humor. You're going because you want to see giant shape-changing robots. A lot of us who dislike the Bay TF movies don't dislike them for the crude humor, per se, so much as the fact that the humor wasn't accompanied by an intelligent plot. Over the years, those of us who've loved TF for years have seen many brilliant examples of how the Transformers franchise has become more than a series of fictional entities created to serve the selling of toys. While there's a lot of "bad" out there, there have been more than a few examples of brilliant science fiction, with full-fledged character and depth in addition to the action and the explosions.

Since these movies are, for many people, their only window into a franchise that we've known for quite some time, I think some of us can be forgiven for wishing that TF2 could have been more than it is. We'd like people to understand Transformers at its best, rather than at its most mediocre.

True, as some people say "it's not Shakespeare" (I appreciated your points on Shakespeare's crude humor, too, although again, it's crude humor done brilliantly), and we never expected it to be.

But we did, and do, expect better than we've gotten from the Bay movies, especially TF2.

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.

Did you even read the comment I was replying to?!?!?!

I was differentiating "intelligence" from what he seemed to be claiming was "less intelligence" but was in fact nothing more than he didn't do well in school. Given his successes, he's clearly intelligent, and I said so!

It was a compliment!!!!

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.

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.

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.

Conversely, because I like science fiction so much, I tend to be more willing to overlook quality at times if I'm still given enough enjoyable scifi aspects. Does this mean that bad scifi movies are somehow magically good because I like them? Of course not. It just means that I don't care as much about the quality because the scifiness overrides it. I'm self-aware enough to recognize the difference between what I enjoy and what makes for good craft.

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...

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. Any middle ground of saying that something can be liked but still poor quality means that you're accepting that there can be a gauge of quality that is not tied to personal enjoyment.

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.

Except that 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. You just personally refuse to acknowledge that.

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.

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.

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.

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. I have some work I think is sub-par by creative standards that is popular, and some work I think is good by creative standards that doesn't get much attention.

(deleted post)

Slightly off-topic...

Good to see you here GB.

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.

Trust me, I didn't take anything G.B. said as dismissive or even remotely derogatory. Mind you, I wouldn't say I lack formal education either as I did year 12 twice. I was just one of those kids who learnt in his own way, not the way set down by the education board.

And there are a LOT of people who don't do well in school but go on to achieve a lot of things in their lives, if I recall from what I read, Ebert is one of them.

Counterpunch wrote:Slightly off-topic...

Good to see you here GB.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, actually.

I'm seriously wondering by now if Roger Ebert has checked this thread, and what the heck he must think of it.

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.

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?

Touche' that was pretty funny.

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.

First Gen wrote:

Caelus wrote:And is a cookie still a cookie if it isn't eaten?

Touche' that was pretty funny.

And furthermore, is a cookie still a cookie once it has been eaten? Reduced to digestive sludge, it can hardly be held to the traditional standards of cookieness.

So then, a cookie only realizes its existence in the moment that it is being masticated (chewed)...

Ah, 'reality', thou art a cruel and fickle mistress.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Quantitatively, not qualitatively. HUGE difference.

but you haven't explained what special quality creative work has that somehow makes it impossible to judge thusly.

I have, repeatedly. I don't know how to dumb it down for you any more.

The criterion for "good" vs. "bad" regarding art have not been empirically validated to my knowledge.

Art has not been studied quantitatively.

Breaking art down quantitatively reduces it to meaningless data, so really, quantitative research regarding art at anything other than the neurological level is absurd.

But, that said, with out quantitative, controlled, experimental research to support our conclusion, nothing we "know" about art is actually certain, and no one can be considered more correct in their opinions than anyone else.

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.

Yeah... scientific research that yields purely observational, correlational, and qualitative results is bad science. You can't draw hard conclusions from it. Good enough for Cosmo maybe, but it doesn't get the space shuttle in orbit.

Thanks for pointing out that the rigor applied by members of your field is at its best on par with that applied in my field at its worst.

Why is it subjective?

I've explained this to you about a dozen different ways by now.

Furthermore, how can it be subjective when my definition of good/bad and like/hate don't always correlate?

Because the whole crux off the argument is that you're using a different definition of "good" and "bad" that I am, a definition which I consider to be flawed because it exaggerates validity, portraying your evaluations of "good" and "bad" as having more certainty than they actually do.

It is you who is judging good/bad on your own personal definition

So are you, except your personal definition is the overconfident regurgitation of the arbitrary, personal definition of someone else, whereas mine honestly acknowledges that when I make an evaluation of a piece of art, it is only applicable to my frame of reference.

by thinking that your personal tastes somehow dictate quality.

You still miss the point - Art has no quality of 'good' or 'bad' which can be objectively judged. It has no 'real' quality at all. No quality that can be dictated or affected by anyone.

My personal tastes dictate my perception of the art's 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.

By your definition of quality, a definition which is contingent on an inflated estimation of that definition's validity.

Is this really that hard to understand?

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.

Ah, but it only becomes "good quality work" for the person who liked it.

While it is "bad" for the persons who didn't like it.

Neither, however, is wrong, so long as they recognize that their evaluation of the quality is limited to their frame of reference.

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.

Again, they're using the same flawed definition of quality that you are, so no argument contingent on that definition when the validity of that definition is what is being debated.

Furthermore, you still haven't provided me with any evidence of solid conclusions, hard facts which define or describe artistic quality based on methodologically sound research. Nothing that establishes that the grounds for analysis, the basis for distinguishing between good and bad can be definitively tied to real properties of the art.

Your preference for empty, unsupported, repetitive statements in the face of demands for evidence suggest to me that no such evidence exists.

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.

And if I am using the definition of "Good movie" = "movie I liked" then obviously the quality of a movie from my frame of reference is subjective.

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.

First, agreeing that there were a lot of mistakes doesn't equate to agreeing to a holistic judgment of the movie's quality.

Second, individuals who like a movie, but seem compelled to deem it "bad" in spite of this are likely using the same fractured definition of artistic quality you are, the same definition I reject.

There are plenty of definitions for what is good that are widely accepted as being objectively valid.

You have not provided any research demonstrating that your operational definitions in regards to art are objective or valid.

Therefore, I must dismiss this claim.

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.

Using inter-rater reliability to validate your scales?

Bad form there.

All that tells you is everyone in a similar group of people was measuring the same thing. It does not tell you what they were measuring, or how valid their measurement is.

Also, you aren't using a random sample, so obviously your results are going to be wildly skewed.

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.

Just because you are making two separate judgments and calling one "quality" doesn't make you objective.

If I were subjectively evaluating quality, then I would be just like you, having good/bad and like/hate always matching up.

Not necessarily. You are making subjective evaluations, but you refuse to acknowledge it, and so continue to endorse faulty definitions of quality even when logic refutes the validity of those definitions. Obviously, under those circumstances you won't make the same judgments I do.

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.

I'll say this one more time:

1) There are no objective criteria for creative work, as evidenced by your failure to cite research which logically and quantitatively defines and validates the criteria used.

2) Divorced from the construct of whether or not someone likes a piece of art or not, quality has no meaning.

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.

Just curious, do you have any passion for Transformers? (I know you probably do, but it's a question)Just asking as it would seem to me that a TF-forum where people talk about TF would be the ideal place to express depression over something about Tfs (in the streets ya mama might slap you, but here we just read you--Unlike the Twins unfortunately)...I mean "depression" is a word written on a keyboard, put on a forum, to express something perhaps even in hyperbole (If not frustration)... You really think this is intellectual warfare eh? You just wanna lead the sheep in a different direction huh? That's like a form of intellectual superiority all on it's own...You're above the debate right? I'm not sure of that answer quite yet...

I read your story and honestly I feel where you are coming from, but it does appear you have super-imposed those feelings on this debate (The whole failing in school but doing "better" than people supposedly smarter than you)...Nobody is calling "YOU" out when it's perceived that you have to be dumb or something to enjoy this movie...That appears to be your disposition...So much in the way you have passively dismissed or "politely asked" many of us to "get over this" or "just move on" or "re-analyze our priorities in life", the motivation behind THAT may not be much different than the emotions expressed by us on the proactive side (You've basically patronized me or dismissed me since my first post, saying the tide will wash me out)...What you seem to be begrudging the "intellectual or whatever" crowd is what you are doing yourself (You may not even be aware of this)...

We're above this movie and you're above us, the sophisticated intellectuals that would dare tell you you can't enjoy this movie (Not even worth the passion or time for debate)...The same people you have out-earned and surpassed in many ways without the same passing grades...Again i don't care if you or anyone loved or enjoyed this movie...Only when they use that enjoyment to tell others this is what we shoulda expected or that a toyfilm should be like this do I bristle...

Nevertheless, honestly it seems righty//wrongly this debate keeps the post-count meter going on seibertron.com and the passion and discussion can only be a good thing for this site...So why not strip yourself of the passive-aggressive ambivalence and tell us how you REALLY FEEL?

Well, I will say how I feel; I liked the damned movie, and I really don't care if other people liked it with me or not. Was it perfect? No, it was not. Was it the worst movie I have ever seen? No, it was not. Do I have more important things to worry about? Yes, I do.

BTW, I wasn't aiming that at anyone on any side of the discussion here. This topic is just getting pretty old hat.

This all sounds like a giant "glass is half full/half empty" kind of discussion. Some love what we got, others stay focused on the empty half.

I do think that you can't judge art and entertainment in a universal good and bad way. It affects everyone differently and is all a matter of taste. Nobody needs to "evolve" to like a different kind of movie, one isn't better than the other. Different strokes for different folks, ok?

Dammit Burn, why'd you delete your post?? Finally I get the volcanic passion I've been asking from you and you make the post disappear...I was just about to respond back to you in a very fair and measured way...i was also gonna clean up some misconceptions, but yet again, by this very act, you put yourself outside of the debate...

I'm disappointed by this...I was quite impressed with your response and wanted to engage you on the level..So please re-post your comments as firefox couldn't recover it after I refreshed..If not, it's just another example of what IMO you have seemed to be doing all along...

I'll be hoping to see it up again when I awake...

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.

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.

That's bull...When I said "I don't care" I meant in the context that if you enjoyed the movie and that's it, that I'm not offended by that, not that i am dismissing your opinion if you liked it...It's like I'm on 1 side of the chessboard and you're on the other...I'm not mad that you are on the other side, I'm mad at the potential move you may have made (i.e. Those who use there enjoyment of the movie as a sword to suggest TFs is good enuff like this or that we shouldn't expect more from a 80's cartoon or whatever)...

And even if I was illiciting a response from you, it was a damn good response and it finally got you to stop nibbling around the cookie and actually take a bite...You might think or lighten my actions to trolling, that's your right, but I must be the best damn troll because my only attempt here is to extract pure and passionate debate...Discussion, to get the heart of things...I can't be so arrogant to assume every member, every random guess, every googler who visits this site clicks every thread I've responded in and know all my points of debate...So if I'm repetitive that's a product of wanting to share my opinion with whomever, not just those following my posts...

You said some good stuff, i wanted to respond to it...Today our opinions are a blurb in an Ebert column...2moro who knows where it may end up? Who will read it, cite it, be motivated to take action because of it...These discussions as much as you want to sequester them are important and for some they serve as more than just words on a screen...Evolution starts with a spark...The fire that heats passion can be merely a flicker....

Now step up...Let us have our first REAL WORDS...

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?

I was at a very consertavie site and there were people there that didn't like how President Obama was viewed as basically as "the ruler of the world", (this was in response to how the Autobots and NEST basically operated in and responded to China) and veiwed that as a reason to hate the movie altogether because it was "another Liberal bashing conserative movie".