Watched Return of the Jedi recently

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Spider-Man 2 is the best one 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

6 minutes ago, Oomoog the Ecstatic said:

Okay, demonstrate why.

 

I don't care. You just said 2 is better.

 

Spider-Man 2 is critically acclaimed, features tighter editing and more rounded storytelling.

 

I prefer Spider-Man 3 because it embraces its schlockiness to such a ridiculous level, I prefer watching it. And it has Bully Maguire.

[Oomoog the Ecstatic 314]

Okay, but I'm not sure how you've demonstrated these aspects are better. Critically acclaimed for example, or more effort put into. A movie is better if its more enjoyable or meaningful. You just said you prefer 3, but it's not as enjoyable or good.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Just now, Oomoog the Ecstatic said:

Okay, but I'm not sure how you've demonstrated these aspects are better. Something is better if its more enjoyable. You just said you prefer 3, but it's not as enjoyable.

 

I said I prefer 3 because I enjoy it more, but I acknowledge that 2 is the better made film.

[Oomoog the Ecstatic 314]

Better made for who?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

How should I know? It just hits all the right notes. I just enjoy 3 more because it hits so many wrong notes.

[Oomoog the Ecstatic 314]

That's still a contradiction. "Does more things wrong, so I enjoy it more." 

 

If you value what other people think over yourself, that's still also a contradiction. You value something by calling it better, but its what you value that you don't value.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Well, you obviously struggle with surreal and dissonant thinking. Go live a little.

[Oomoog the Ecstatic 314]

I'm pretty sure you just mean SM2 is more critically-acclaimed or approachable, not better made. Better made entails its made only for those who prefer it, not those who just enjoy it. It wouldn't be better made for those individuals.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

2 minutes ago, Oomoog the Ecstatic said:

I'm pretty sure you just mean SM2 is more critically-acclaimed or approachable, not better made. Better made entails its made for those who prefer it, not for other people who enjoy it. You can say 'it's better made for a majority.'

 

Another example, Godfather movies are better than Godzilla movies, but I prefer Godzilla movies by far!

[Oomoog the Ecstatic 314]

Again. Better made for what or who? The movies aren't better made for things or processes to gain from. They're made for individuals. You have to specify which individuals they're better for, because I can name you many individuals Godzilla is better for than Godfather.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

See you're all blah blah blah because you don't understand that that someone can acknowledge something as good/great/best, but simply prefer watching something else.

[Oomoog the Ecstatic 314]

I've understood under your current model of thought, you're incapable of acknowledging something as the best, because you haven't specified who or what it's best for. Something isn't just best floating around in a vacuum of outer space.

[DarthDementous 1,059]

1 hour ago, Oomoog the Ecstatic said:

I'm pretty sure you just mean SM2 is more critically-acclaimed or approachable, not better made. Better made entails its made only for those who prefer it, not those who just enjoy it. It wouldn't be better made for those individuals.

So the only contention here is a semantic one?

 

Let’s put it this way. I have my own personal standards for what I think makes a movie ‘good’, usually this will depend on the type of movie. Now, outside of that are a set of norms for what is considered desirable in a film. For example, unless done for an artistic purpose, if your camera is out of focus the whole time then normatively that is considered quite bad. Now obviously stuff ain’t gonna be that clear cut especially when we are talking about ‘inconsistency’ or ‘believability’ which is mostly in the eye of the beholder, but there are going to be things commonly valued by the audience.

 

Here’s another important distinction, taste from criticism. If I like something, but can’t identify or qualify why it meets what I think are the goals of the movie then I consider that taste. Taste is what will determine what is my favourite, and criticism will determine what I think is my idea of the best. The latter will be a combination of my personal standards and any normative standards I happen to share.

 

TLDR there’s multiple frames in which to look at a film that aren’t mutually exclusive 

2 hours ago, Oomoog the Ecstatic said:

 

Better made for who? Distinguish between black vs dark. Uh, this chair is black, but this car is dark.  Specifically dark white, yeah.

 

Can I have some of what you're smoking?

I thought it was pretty clear from my phrasing that I’m speaking on an individual basis, after all I did say what *you* think is better made

 

I don’t think I’m the one on the wacky tobaccy judging from that example of a chair being...dark white?

[Oomoog the Ecstatic 314]

Right. You have noted certain criteria that has meant something to you throughout the years, and determined that some films are better at meeting those criteria. That's terrifically valid. Thanks, I agree.

 

I can't change semantics of people who I think are confused. The accurate semantic is from most people who say "Best film ever!" when they speak of their favorites. People can use correct words, "most widely-loved film", "critically acclaimed film," or yours, "personally respected" for its definable merits. I will simply just question what people mean when they say "best" stand-alone, because all three of the above mean different things and none of them mean 'best.' 'Best' stand-alone always refers directly to the subject using that word, because its a valuation judgment. When you love a film, you say its the best. When others love it, you say its the best according to others. AKA, recommended. (This is what ratings are.) When a film meets certain criteria, you say its technically great, or the best at matching those criteria.

 

When 90 different people tell me 90 different films are the best, I will understand it as their best. We just had such thread, 'Best film,' and everyone had totally different answers. Some weren't well-appreciated by others. That's perfectly okay. The best film of all time doesn't entail a majority will appreciate it. It entails holding a valuable perspective some simply may not have.

[DarthDementous 1,059]

30 minutes ago, Oomoog the Ecstatic said:

Right. You have noted certain criteria that has meant something to you throughout the years, and determined that some films are better at meeting those criteria. That's terrifically valid. Thanks, I agree.

 

I'm not going to change semantics of people who I think are confused. The accurate semantic is from most people who say "Best film ever!" when they speak of their favorites. People can use correct words, "most widely-loved film", "critically acclaimed film," or yours, "personally respected" for its definable merits. I will simply just question what people mean when they say "best" stand-alone, because all three of the above mean different things and none of them mean 'best.' 'Best' stand-alone always refers directly to the subject using that word, because its a valuation judgment. When you love a film, you say its the best. When others love it, you say its the best according to others, AKA, 'recommended.' That's what ratings are. When it meets certain criteria, you say its technically great, or the best at meeting those criteria.

Ah okay, I get where you’re coming from now.

 

The people that do that can sometimes be belabouring under the assumption that things can be objectively valued, that is, judged by some universal standard. So in their eyes, ‘best’ is as unquestionable and self-evident as fact. Most of the time they’ve mixed up the concept of normative and objective.

 

Now in most cases I think when it is said that ‘Empire Strikes Back is the best, Return of the Jedi is my favourite’, what is really being said there is ‘I like ROTJ more because it appeals more to my personal taste, but I recognise that if I were to apply my critical standards to the films then ESB would come out on top.’ And this is possible because your personal taste is separate from your critical standards, e.g. whether you like seeing flashy lightsaber duels in a Star Wars film has little bearing on whether it has helped the films achieve its goals, until you qualify it. For example, ‘flashy lightsaber duels enhance the visceral nature of the scene and thus add a greater sense of danger to our heroes’, if you value tension and stakes in your duels.

 

When it comes to favourite, the whole point is that it sits aside from quality so it’s a different story.

 

Would it help if we were a bit more precise in our language? Sure. Would it still lead to the same disagreements and misunderstandings? Almost definitely.

[Oomoog the Ecstatic 314]

48 minutes ago, DarthDementous said:

When it comes to favourite, the whole point is that it sits aside from quality so it’s a different story.

 

I have to agree with everything you said, except for this point. It's impossible for something to be loved without having quality, because we just agreed quality isn't objective. It lies in perspective. Something can have inherent amazing quality to someone, and not others, for example, a script writer can put 10 years of hard and dedicated work, to only find a few who think it fair. And the author may not even agree themselves. There's nothing incorrect about those evaluations, because there's no objective for them to reach. In the arts, its all about what individuals will value.

[DarthDementous 1,059]

5 minutes ago, Oomoog the Ecstatic said:

 

I have to agree with everything you said, except for this point. It's impossible for something to be loved without having quality, because we just agreed quality isn't objective. It lies in perspective. Something can have inherent amazing quality to someone, and not others. A script writer can put 10 years into their work, and only find a few who think it has quality.

Before I respond to this I just want to note that I edited my post right as you sent that to better explain the previous paragraph, might help address that.

 

Okay, so the claim is that it’s impossible to love something without considering its quality. In response I pose the following question: is quality always relevant in whether we connect to something? For example, is it valid to say: “fast food is terrible food but I love it?”

[Oomoog the Ecstatic 314]

52 minutes ago, DarthDementous said:

For example, is it valid to say: “fast food is terrible food but I love it?”

 

Lets stick to the arts because art is extremely easy to determine. With food, we have to take into consideration more scales, like nutritional value, ethics of slaughter and advertisement, expense. With art, nothing can be artistically wrong if it meets two criteria. (1) It doesn't harm others, and (2) at least one person would pay for/consume it.

 

Attributing quality isn't an objective matter, it concludes naturally from the fact that someone enjoys it. Something enjoyed must have inherent quality and greatness. It only becomes objective once we state what something is best at, ie. the exact criteria, terms and conditions it meets.

 

So if I get kicks out of Spirited Away or something, it has inherent quality. However I can change my perspective later; it would still have that exact quality, but no longer apply to me.

[DarthDementous 1,059]

10 minutes ago, Oomoog the Ecstatic said:

 

Lets stick to the arts because art is extremely easy to determine. With food, we have to take into consideration more scales, like nutritional value, ethics of slaughter, expense. With art, nothing can be artistically wrong if it meets two criteria. (1) It doesn't harm others, and (2) at least one person would pay for/consume it.

 

Attributing quality isn't an objective matter, it concludes naturally from the fact that someone enjoys it. Something enjoyed must have inherent quality and greatness. It only becomes objective once we state what something is best at, ie. the exact criteria, terms and conditions.

Well, there’s a problem here. Objectivity is completely outside value, and saying that something is best at something is you valuing it. So even if you said something like ‘scissors are best for cutting paper’ that’s not objective because there’s a value statement there.

 

I think you might be confusing the adjective with the noun, as in ‘an objective to meet’. The adjective has a different meaning to this, more akin to ‘separate from any personal bias or feelings’

[Oomoog the Ecstatic 314]

I see what you're saying. But scientifically one will say, 'scissors in human hands in fact cut paper faster than a rock will', and then subjectively we'd conclude a 2nd part: 'scissors are great at cutting paper.'

 

For films on the other hand, we have to do the exact reverse. We don't say scientifically 'this film will achieve great screenplay because certain facts about it are true.' Those facts we can't pin down. Instead we historically begin by valuing more things over others as a society, century by century more diversely, until we develop definitions that might explain some facets, ie. abstract criteria you're talking about. This doesn't mean the ones we've defined are the only ones. There may be 95% of actual nuance we can't define in categories or terms yet, but exist throughout many individuals' specialties. We can average the popular criteria and say, on average, one will more likely enjoy these criteria. But this precisely can never be certain with any particular person. Evolution guarantees that most of us will have valid and different artistic perspectives.

[DarthDementous 1,059]

2 minutes ago, Oomoog the Ecstatic said:

I see what you're saying. But scientifically one will say, 'scissors in human hands in fact cuts paper faster than a rock will', and then subjectively we'd conclude a 2nd part: 'scissors are great at cutting paper.'

 

For films on the other hand,, we have to take the reverse approach. We don't say scientifically 'this film will achieve great screenplay because it meets certain facts.' We historically begin by valuing more things over others as a society, century by century, until we finally come up definitions that might explain these facets, ie. criteria you're talking about. This doesn't mean the ones we've defined are the only ones. There may be 90% of actual nuance we can't define in categories or terms yet.

Yep, agreed there. The distinction is that ‘faster’ isn’t a measurement of value but rather a measurement of fact, if that makes any sense.

[Chen G. 3,943]

2 hours ago, DarthDementous said:

And this is possible because your personal taste is separate from your critical standards

 

It really isn't. Typically, if one likes something, one would like to think that one has a good reason for liking it. The reason may not be readily available for your intellectual faculties to express, or it may not even be a rational reason (which doesn't necessarily make it a lesser reason!) but there's nonetheless a reason.

 

With these particular films, I think people will often say Star Wars or Return of the Jedi are their favourites because they recognise their endearing qualities - both are much more overtly kids films' than The Empire Strikes Back. Its a more challenging film, in a way.

[DarthDementous 1,059]

53 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

It really isn't. Typically, if one likes something, one would like to think that one has a good reason for liking it. The reason may not be readily available for your intellectual faculties to express, or it may not even be a rational reason (which doesn't necessarily make it a lesser reason!) but there's nonetheless a reason.

 

With these particular films, I think people will often say Star Wars or Return of the Jedi are their favourites because they recognise their endearing qualities - both are much more overtly kids films' than The Empire Strikes Back. Its a more challenging film, in a way.

To clarify, when I say that taste is separate from critical standards, I don't mean that it lacks any reasoning whatsoever. I just mean that it is separate from the critical frame, the one that we're conscious of when we try and qualify why we think something is good or bad, usually (but not always) borne from feelings of enjoyment or disappointment. Of course, this assumes that we're judging something for what it is trying to be, as opposed to some very out there standards.

The critical frame is important I think, because it lets us be on the same page with people even if we don't share their tastes. At the very least we can try to make them understand our internal logic for why we think something is good or bad, and sometimes they can even point out where we've contradicted ourselves and we can revise our beliefs to have a stronger foundation. This is speaking very idealistically of course, and doesn't account for the various factors that could interrupt this process such as ego, pride, and all that messy human stuff.

At least when it comes to me, I judge all of the OT with the same consideration, that these are films aimed at 12-14 year olds (George's words) that have a universal appeal thanks to the mythological backing. I don't see ROTJ as being for a younger target audience, and nor would it make sense for the conclusion of your saga to aim for a younger audience, so it gets the same treatment as the rest. I consider ROTJ my favourite mostly because of the catharsis in how the whole saga wraps up, and the joy of seeing Luke at both his most vulnerable and his most resilient. Now, I don't think its fair to consider these reasons critical because they're entirely dependent on my tastes towards conclusions and portrayals of characters. It wouldn't make sense for Luke to be in that stage at ESB, and it wouldn't make sense for the 2nd act to be wrapping up the trilogy, so these aren't critical reasons to rank ROTJ above ESB but these do affect my enjoyment of the film, and so they end up disconnected on the scale.

[Chen G. 3,943]

48 minutes ago, DarthDementous said:

I consider ROTJ my favourite mostly because of the catharsis in how the whole saga wraps up, and the joy of seeing Luke at both his most vulnerable and his most resilient. Now, I don't think its fair to consider these reasons critical

 

Sound like a pretty good critical observation on the film's merits to me...

[DarthDementous 1,059]

2 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

They sound like a pretty good critical observation on the film's merits to me...

Perhaps if I was just judging ROTJ's success as a movie, but since its in comparison with ESB then its an inappropriate framework to judge both in.

[bored 306]

@Oomoog the Ecstatic

It really is just preference. None of this is really objective. I personally think Batman Begins is a much more entertaining movie than The Dark Knight. Does this mean I think it's a better movie by my own standards? No it does not. 

 

The Dark Knight in my opinion has great dialogue, interesting conflicts, a compelling and very well-defined villain, and character arcs that fit in perfectly with the themes set up by the movie's story. These are things I think objectively makes a movie better, but I don't have as much fun watching it as I do Batman Begins. Nor is my opinion objective fact, as many on this forum hate Nolan's Batman trilogy. 

 

I enjoy Batman Begins more because I think Bale's Batman voice is tolerable and serviceable most of the movie. I like that Batman does more detective work on and off-screen, as well as him using stealth to terrify thugs, and seeing the Batmobile in action. I think the music was well-rounded in the balance of styles, had many themes that made it interesting to listen to, and had a satisfying development. 

 

These were aspects lost in the other 2 Batman movies in my opinion, that make BB more fun to watch. Do I think this makes Batman Begins a better movie? No, because I think dialogue, conflicts, characters, story themes, and arcs are more important than these mostly aesthetic choices I personally enjoy more. 

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Best bit of the movie. My favourite was the dead Ewok bit.

[Chen G. 3,943]

2 hours ago, superultramegaa said:

I enjoy Batman Begins more because I think Bale's Batman voice is tolerable and serviceable most of the movie. I like that Batman does more detective work on and off-screen, as well as him using stealth to terrify thugs, and seeing the Batmobile in action. I think the music was well-rounded in the balance of styles, had many themes that made it interesting to listen to, and had a satisfying development. 

 

Again, all good arguments.

 

I dunno why people feel the need to frame such arguments within "taste" as opposed to "better/worse." Its just semantics at this point.

[Oomoog the Ecstatic 314]

It would seem group A, casually may adopt this term 'better' for reason of low estimation of their own opinion and perspective on judging. As they say, criteria of other people are preferred although not determineable as objective or understood well by oneself, detached from all the criteria and nuances oneself knows about and picks up on, to form their opinion on what's better.

 

In contrast, group B, critics and opinionated, realize all things enjoyed and loved about a movie must be quality criteria, and trust their extensive experience to determine what movies are overall more enjoyable and meaningful. 'More people' doesn't mean 'stronger evidence,' because it would be weaker evidence. When there's one person you know has incredibly adept artistic knowledge and understanding (the self), and add in popular responses, for group B, that immensely lowers the average of knowledge standards.

 

Now unfortunately we all have to trust our own judgments first, when we choose its best to let someone else decide for example (group A), or if its best to judge well first, and then find a few trustworthy judges to partially back (group B). However, following B makes more sense, stemming from the source of judgment. Group A is an easier and lazier approach where "my opinions aren't meaningful enough to argue with people." I've seen lots of those types, and would rather discuss and find agreements and new perspectives with the group B types, because we actually believe in what we think.

 

The irony of the situation. Group A knows for sure what's better, even though they can't trust their own judgment. Group B isn't sure what's better, and is not actively adopting others' opinions like group A, but gradually gaining new perspective from them they can back themselves. Favorite therefore is as close to 'best' as we can be honest about, the rest of determinations are just shallow destraction we're not gaining from. To gain real perspective, we listen to people who take it seriously and have real opinions.

[DarthDementous 1,059]

It's an interesting perspective I never considered before, I don't agree with it but I think I can understand how at least in your framework it would work. I certainly value being able to have discussions with people who can qualify why they feel the way they do, I find discussions along the lines of 'I like this movie' 'why?' 'I dunno I just liked it' beyond tedium so I would definitely like more thought and care to be put into it, and you seem to be advocating that, so while I don't agree with your premise I do agree with your conclusion.

[Chen G. 3,943]

3 hours ago, DarthDementous said:

I certainly value being able to have discussions with people who can qualify why they feel the way they do, I find discussions along the lines of 'I like this movie' 'why?' 'I dunno I just liked it' beyond tedium

 

Of course its tedious, but I suppose that depends on the propensity and capacity that people have (or do not have) to try and analyze their own tastes. Some will shrug it off "I just like it" whereas others will try and figure out exactly why they like it.

 

That's when things get truly interesting, and its essentially the same as any critical discussion one can have about any piece of narrative art.