Morn 8 Posted August 30, 2002 Share Posted August 30, 2002 That minimum understanding ALWAYS goes through the filter of subjectivity, and as a result of that, professional reviewers give different ratings to the same filmThat is so for many things factual anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue_Leader 2 Posted August 30, 2002 Share Posted August 30, 2002 I think Ricard just dislikes the movie. Not the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricard 2,245 Posted August 30, 2002 Share Posted August 30, 2002 That minimum understanding ALWAYS goes through the filter of subjectivity, and as a result of that, professional reviewers give different ratings to the same filmThat is so for many things factual anyway.So? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morn 8 Posted August 30, 2002 Share Posted August 30, 2002 So? It doesn't mean that movies can't be objective, it just means that people don't know how to judge them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricard 2,245 Posted August 30, 2002 Share Posted August 30, 2002 So? It doesn't mean that movies can't be objective, it just means that people don't know how to judge them.Then perhaps MACHINES should judge the movies.Ricard - Now convinced that Morn has a SERIOUS PROBLEM in his brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morn 8 Posted August 30, 2002 Share Posted August 30, 2002 That would be pointless. Although I think that the only subjective judgements have worth, I do think that it's possible to objectively judge films. Objective judgements totally miss the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricard 2,245 Posted August 30, 2002 Share Posted August 30, 2002 I do think that it's possible to objectively judge films.Oh really? By who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morn 8 Posted August 30, 2002 Share Posted August 30, 2002 I don't know, but they have qualities which can be judged objectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricard 2,245 Posted August 30, 2002 Share Posted August 30, 2002 I don't knowGood. You just proved my point.Thanks, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morn 8 Posted August 30, 2002 Share Posted August 30, 2002 Objectivity exists independant of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scissorhands 16 Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 I totally agree with Morn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tpigeon 3 Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 Lord of the Rings? best score of all time?!?!?! eek2 that's just wrong! it was a good score and all, but that's ridiculous.tpigeon, who thinks that it shouldn't have even been considered, though still thinks the score is good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scissorhands 16 Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 That's exactly what I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tpigeon 3 Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 oh no! not the "objective/subjective" controversy again! this is getting old. tpigeon- who doesn't think much can be viewed "objectively," when just about everything we experience is subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figo 2 Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 Which is why we create "objective" standards by which we subjectively judge, if we are to judge responsibly. We can love trash, but it is unreasonable to try and foist trash off as "great" (unless it be great trash). We may enjoy a trashy movie more than a great work of art, but if we hold both up to an objective standard, we can understand why one is derided as trashy and the other is considered art. You can philosophically wrangle about this for all eternity, and there will always be stubborn dissenters, but if it weren't true then we wouldn't hold Citizen Kane in greater esteem than Plan 9 from Outer Space; Rembrandt would be no better than Helen, Sweetheart of the Internet (one of the worst drawn comic strips I have ever seen); Beethoven would deserve no greater respect than Brittney Spears. Objective standards are the reason we can say LOTR may (or may not) have been a good score, but it most certainly is not among the very greatest scores of all time.Figo, inviting all contrarians to knock themselves silly; he's going to bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tpigeon 3 Posted August 31, 2002 Share Posted August 31, 2002 ya know, Figo, i was just about to write something to that nature, and am now glad i didn't go through all the time to write it, since you already did. that posts pretty much sums up my feelings on the issue.tpigeon- a little freaked out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morn 8 Posted September 1, 2002 Share Posted September 1, 2002 Which is why we create "objective" standards by which we subjectively judge, if we are to judge responsibly. We can love trash, but it is unreasonable to try and foist trash off as "great" (unless it be great trash). We may enjoy a trashy movie more than a great work of art, but if we hold both up to an objective standard, we can understand why one is derided as trashy and the other is considered art. You can philosophically wrangle about this for all eternity, and there will always be stubborn dissenters, but if it weren't true then we wouldn't hold Citizen Kane in greater esteem than Plan 9 from Outer Space; Rembrandt would be no better than Helen, Sweetheart of the Internet (one of the worst drawn comic strips I have ever seen); Beethoven would deserve no greater respect than Brittney Spears. Objective standards are the reason we can say LOTR may (or may not) have been a good score, but it most certainly is not among the very greatest scores of all time.Figo, inviting all contrarians to knock themselves silly; he's going to bed.Well, objective qualities have their subjective advantages. They add interest and relistenablity. Perhaps a better measurement is the variety of things a work of art does for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figo 2 Posted September 1, 2002 Share Posted September 1, 2002 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morn 8 Posted September 1, 2002 Share Posted September 1, 2002 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue_Leader 2 Posted September 2, 2002 Share Posted September 2, 2002 Only scientific polls should count. If this were like 4 years ago how much you want to bet James Horner's score for Titanic would have won? Especially with all the zealot fans (read 13 year old girls) that film had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.459884143de07d00ab43e5cfcc831c7d.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now