Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: That's it!!

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: That's it!! Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: That's it!! - 19/10/2011 2:47:03 PM   
shool


Posts: 10210
Joined: 24/3/2006
From: In The Pipe, Five by Five.
I cant believe you are feeding him PA.

_____________________________

Invisio Text for Spoilers
[ color=#F1F1F1 ] Spoiler text [ /color ] , remove spaces between square brackets

"No one knows what it means, but it's provocative... It gets the people going!"

(in reply to Pigeon Army)
Post #: 301
RE: That's it!! - 19/10/2011 3:01:12 PM   
thetruth


Posts: 1548
Joined: 3/8/2011

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

I look forward to seeing Dooch's response in April 2013.


After Scream 5!


_____________________________

Without love we are dead

Protect children from vile and obscene videos

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 302
RE: That's it!! - 19/10/2011 3:05:00 PM   
Deviation


Posts: 27284
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ
quote:

ORIGINAL: shool

I cant believe you are feeding him PA.


SHUTUPDON'TRUINTHEFUN


_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to shool)
Post #: 303
RE: That's it!! - 19/10/2011 10:17:03 PM   
Pigeon Army


Posts: 14612
Joined: 29/1/2006
From: Pixar HQ, George Lucas' Office.

quote:

ORIGINAL: shool

I cant believe you are feeding him PA.


As long as people like Jim R hold the misguided notion that he is somehow outarguing me by positing the existence of vague and internally contradictory 'frameworks' and being a holier-than-thou twat, then I shall continue. That is the life I have been condemned to.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rinc
She's supposed to be 13! I'd want her to be very attractive though


quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army
Stop being mean to Deviation

No.

(in reply to shool)
Post #: 304
RE: That's it!! - 20/10/2011 7:42:25 AM   
shool


Posts: 10210
Joined: 24/3/2006
From: In The Pipe, Five by Five.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army


quote:

ORIGINAL: shool

I cant believe you are feeding him PA.


As long as people like Jim R hold the misguided notion that he is somehow outarguing me by positing the existence of vague and internally contradictory 'frameworks' and being a holier-than-thou twat, then I shall continue. That is the life I have been condemned to.


I wish you well in your quest.

_____________________________

Invisio Text for Spoilers
[ color=#F1F1F1 ] Spoiler text [ /color ] , remove spaces between square brackets

"No one knows what it means, but it's provocative... It gets the people going!"

(in reply to Pigeon Army)
Post #: 305
RE: That's it!! - 20/10/2011 9:14:13 AM   
JIm R

 

Posts: 9185
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Surrey
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army


quote:

ORIGINAL: shool

I cant believe you are feeding him PA.


As long as people like Jim R hold the misguided notion that he is somehow outarguing me by positing the existence of vague and internally contradictory 'frameworks' and being a holier-than-thou twat, then I shall continue. That is the life I have been condemned to.


Has got nothing to do with me, I'll thank you not to don't drag me into your debate.

(in reply to Pigeon Army)
Post #: 306
RE: That's it!! - 20/10/2011 1:36:08 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19053
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
quote:

ORIGINAL: JIm R

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army


quote:

ORIGINAL: shool

I cant believe you are feeding him PA.


As long as people like Jim R hold the misguided notion that he is somehow outarguing me by positing the existence of vague and internally contradictory 'frameworks' and being a holier-than-thou twat, then I shall continue. That is the life I have been condemned to.


Has got nothing to do with me, I'll thank you not to don't drag me into your debate.


He's joking jim. Because of the "owed" comment from last page.


_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to JIm R)
Post #: 307
RE: That's it!! - 20/10/2011 1:58:25 PM   
JIm R

 

Posts: 9185
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Surrey
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: JIm R

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army


quote:

ORIGINAL: shool

I cant believe you are feeding him PA.


As long as people like Jim R hold the misguided notion that he is somehow outarguing me by positing the existence of vague and internally contradictory 'frameworks' and being a holier-than-thou twat, then I shall continue. That is the life I have been condemned to.


Has got nothing to do with me, I'll thank you not to don't drag me into your debate.


He's joking jim. Because of the "owed" comment from last page.



yeah, cos I love being called a twat as a joke

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 308
RE: That's it!! - 20/10/2011 2:01:34 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19053
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
quote:

ORIGINAL: JIm R

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: JIm R

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army


quote:

ORIGINAL: shool

I cant believe you are feeding him PA.


As long as people like Jim R hold the misguided notion that he is somehow outarguing me by positing the existence of vague and internally contradictory 'frameworks' and being a holier-than-thou twat, then I shall continue. That is the life I have been condemned to.


Has got nothing to do with me, I'll thank you not to don't drag me into your debate.


He's joking jim. Because of the "owed" comment from last page.



yeah, cos I love being called a twat as a joke


No, he was calling Dooch a twat. Read it again.


_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to JIm R)
Post #: 309
RE: That's it!! - 20/10/2011 2:03:12 PM   
JIm R

 

Posts: 9185
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Surrey
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: JIm R

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: JIm R

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army


quote:

ORIGINAL: shool

I cant believe you are feeding him PA.


As long as people like Jim R hold the misguided notion that he is somehow outarguing me by positing the existence of vague and internally contradictory 'frameworks' and being a holier-than-thou twat, then I shall continue. That is the life I have been condemned to.


Has got nothing to do with me, I'll thank you not to don't drag me into your debate.


He's joking jim. Because of the "owed" comment from last page.



yeah, cos I love being called a twat as a joke


No, he was calling Dooch a twat. Read it again.



Don't agree but heh there you go....

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 310
RE: That's it!! - 20/10/2011 2:04:21 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19053
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
It is not a matter of agreeing or not,he didn't call you that


_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to JIm R)
Post #: 311
RE: That's it!! - 20/10/2011 2:05:43 PM   
rawlinson

 

Posts: 45002
Joined: 13/6/2008
From: Timbuktu. Chinese or Fictional.
He was obviously calling Drooch a twat. Shool made a comment to PA about not feeding Drooch. PA jokingly responded that as long as people like you (because of your served comment) keep thinking that Drooch is out-arguing him, he's going to feel compelled to reply. The twat comment was about Drooch's attitude while posting.

(in reply to JIm R)
Post #: 312
RE: That's it!! - 20/10/2011 3:03:30 PM   
Emyr Thy King


Posts: 2180
Joined: 13/4/2006
From: The Grid
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

It is not a matter of agreeing or not,he didn't call you that



Using the subject's name wouldn't have made it ambiguous, whether you agree or not. No harm done though.


_____________________________

"This whole imbroglio is epiphenomenal"...."demigogic faux egalitarianism" - Will Self

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 313
RE: That's it!! - 20/10/2011 3:10:52 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19053
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
quote:

ORIGINAL: Emyr Thy King

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

It is not a matter of agreeing or not,he didn't call you that



Using the subject's name wouldn't have made it ambiguous, whether you agree or not. No harm done though.



But it isn't ambiguous.


_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to Emyr Thy King)
Post #: 314
RE: That's it!! - 20/10/2011 3:23:40 PM   
Emyr Thy King


Posts: 2180
Joined: 13/4/2006
From: The Grid
It can be read both ways Rgirv, but after reading it again I can see to whom he referred. Anyway, it's done now. Thread's off the tracks.

_____________________________

"This whole imbroglio is epiphenomenal"...."demigogic faux egalitarianism" - Will Self

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 315
RE: That's it!! - 20/10/2011 3:27:06 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19053
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
quote:

ORIGINAL: Emyr Thy King

It can be read both ways Rgirv, but after reading it again I can see to whom he referred. Anyway, it's done now. Thread's off the tracks.


I think the threads been off track since about page 2.


_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to Emyr Thy King)
Post #: 316
RE: That's it!! - 20/10/2011 3:39:10 PM   
Emyr Thy King


Posts: 2180
Joined: 13/4/2006
From: The Grid
It's positively flying...

Exemplar

Still, it has to come back down eventually.

< Message edited by Emyr Thy King -- 20/10/2011 3:40:34 PM >


_____________________________

"This whole imbroglio is epiphenomenal"...."demigogic faux egalitarianism" - Will Self

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 317
RE: That's it!! - 20/10/2011 5:23:30 PM   
thetruth


Posts: 1548
Joined: 3/8/2011
11 pages on this!!

_____________________________

Without love we are dead

Protect children from vile and obscene videos

(in reply to Emyr Thy King)
Post #: 318
RE: That's it!! - 21/10/2011 12:07:28 AM   
Pigeon Army


Posts: 14612
Joined: 29/1/2006
From: Pixar HQ, George Lucas' Office.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JIm R

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: JIm R

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army


quote:

ORIGINAL: shool

I cant believe you are feeding him PA.


As long as people like Jim R hold the misguided notion that he is somehow outarguing me by positing the existence of vague and internally contradictory 'frameworks' and being a holier-than-thou twat, then I shall continue. That is the life I have been condemned to.


Has got nothing to do with me, I'll thank you not to don't drag me into your debate.


He's joking jim. Because of the "owed" comment from last page.



yeah, cos I love being called a twat as a joke


Let's break my comment down.

As long as people like Jim R hold the misguided notion

Here I am saying people like you hold a misguided notion. What is it?

that he is somehow outarguing me

That 'he' is somehow outarguing me! Now, I'll admit, if you literally have not read any post in this thread other than this one, the person who the he is intended to refer to might be a bit vague. But then we look to the context which I have provided for the comment!

by positing the existence of vague and internally contradictory 'frameworks' and being a holier-than-thou twat

So, this is what the 'he' has been doing! Naughty naughty, 'he'. Looking back at the thread - the thread which you, of course, have read - we can see that the only person doing such a thing is dah dah-dah-dah Drooch! So the 'he' must be referring to Drooch, so the reference to you is that people like you have a misguided notion that Drooch, in acting like a twat and making internally inconsistent, nonsensical statements, is outarguing me, and it is that notion that I am fighting against!

Now, is this statement based in any kind of truth? Well, look back to the last page -

quote:

ORIGINAL: JIm R

PA served


Wow, looks like Jim R holds the misguided notion that Drooch, in acting like a twat and making internally inconsistent statements, is outarguing me! Therefore, my comment is 100% factually correct and, furthermore, not saying tht the people who hold the notion that Drooch is outarguing me are twats, merely saying that they are misguided!

Hope this helps, Jim.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rinc
She's supposed to be 13! I'd want her to be very attractive though


quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army
Stop being mean to Deviation

No.

(in reply to JIm R)
Post #: 319
RE: Scream 4 - 21/1/2012 9:57:36 AM   
Tech_Noir

 

Posts: 20199
Joined: 12/10/2005
I thought it was OK, better than Scream 3.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 320
- 21/1/2012 2:56:34 PM   
jackcarlin18

 

Posts: 88
Joined: 21/1/2012
scream 4 comes back better than ever, sucessfully topping scream 3 and falling slightly behind scream 2. but overall its a fun clever and witty enterance to the scream franchise!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 321
Craven keeps the Screams Coming... - 25/1/2012 10:20:02 PM   
jackcarlin18

 

Posts: 88
Joined: 21/1/2012
These past couple of years have been filled with nothing but remakes and reboots, especially in the horror department. this is where scream 4 (SCRE4M) fits in, and fits in perfectly! Scream 4 is one of the most clever, fun and original horror entries in recent years, and is actually one of the best fouth installment of a horror ever made! If you are looking for an enjoyable film which doesnt take itself too seriously, but scary enough to fright, then Scream 4 is the film you want to watch! The deaths are inventive and shocking, the characters are humorous and fresh and the plot has more bluffs than a poker tournament... Scream 4 was simply brilliant!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 322
SCREAM 4 YOUR LIFE! - 4/4/2012 6:55:54 AM   
YouWillBeUnprepared

 

Posts: 62
Joined: 20/2/2012
This is definately the best film in the series. It's actually scary, with some rememborable frights, laugh out loud hilarious (not really, but still is the funniest horror film around) and Marco Beltrami's score is the cherry on top. Not to mention, the ripley fuelled Sidney Prescott is as inspiring as any inspiring figure to date, who defiantely should've made a cover of empire.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 323
- 1/5/2012 3:03:34 AM   
screamfan10

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 11/12/2011
this movie was way better than the original trilogy it had more emhsasis and humour and it was way more entertaining than the others

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 324
- 1/5/2012 3:03:35 AM   
screamfan10

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 11/12/2011
this movie was way better than the original trilogy it had more emhsasis and humour and it was way more entertaining than the others

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 325
- 19/5/2012 1:32:03 PM   
jackcarlin18

 

Posts: 88
Joined: 21/1/2012
one of the best sequels to date

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 326
Scream 4 - 7/8/2012 8:43:30 PM   
The Grimeanator

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 5/7/2012
Okay, first things first, thank God Scr4m is not Scream 3! Scream 3 was a disaster, lacking any real humour or skill. At last Williamson returns and suddenly we have that same sense of humour that made the first two so great. But then Craven arrives. The film feels like Craven has lost his abilities and is indeed getting to old for this shit. He produced a good film that is in truth, probably too gory, despite that being a selling point, too fast and not enough focus on characters. A real shame, but at least it isn't Scream 3. It isn't quite Scream 2 or Scream due to the lack of Craven at full tilt but still a good film, better than Scream 3

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 327
Scream 4 - 8/10/2012 3:23:53 AM   
norgizfox

 

Posts: 121
Joined: 30/4/2012
This isn't a calling for a new trilogy. In fact, Scream 4 works best as a finale as the commentary on reboots/remakes and social media work well with our aging characters. Bloody, scary, and hilarious, Scream 4 adds some new life into the tiresome slasher film genre and even brings back some nostalgia.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 328
RE: That's it!! - 22/10/2013 2:49:05 PM   
Drooch

 

Posts: 152
Joined: 31/5/2006
I occasionally get reminded on these boards about this 'Scream 4 discussion' so I returned to find Pigeon Army still in need of setting straight. I'm sure that in the last couple of years he/she has outgrown his/her ignorance, but just in case...

Most importantly, it's great to see that Empire corrected themselves and gave the film 3 stars for the home video release, and encouraging to see so many positive posts about the film now that people have had time to reflect. 2 stars remains a wholly inappropriate rating for this good entry into the series, especially when the review is so shoddy as to suggest that the reviewer hadn't even seen the film. In effect, punishing good filmmaking through incompetence and sending Hollywood completely the wrong message.



quote:

quote:



quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

objective (comparative more objective, superlative most objective)
1. of or relating to a material object, actual existence or reality
2. agreed upon by all parties present (or nearly all); based on consensually observed facts  [quotations ▼]
3. not influenced by irrational emotions or prejudices



1. Clearly in favour of what I said
2. Selective quoting (because the second part is clearly in favour of what I said, hence the word facts), also implication of a consensus which cannot apply to whether a film is good or well-made because people have wildly differing conceptions of what good or well-made is. Somebody may hate Wong Kar-Wai's use of step-printed slow-motion because it's indulgent and garish while another may love it because it makes the colours pop and brings emotions alive. You've yet to show the existence of a consensus on anything in film to justify this tag.
3. Without emotions and prejudices, film is nothing. Film cannot be analysed because that would destroy all meaning on a human and a political level and would render anything 'technically proficient' hollow and not proficient because it is not being done for a reason, it just is.

The 'possible definitions' you're angling for don't exist without stripping of film of its entire reason for existing and basically equating it to a toilet brush or some other functional but heartless object.



1. Yes, no one is disputing this optional definition, what's your point?

2. It's not 'selective quoting'. I've quoted the whole definition, only highlighting the portions you deliberately ignored earlier, to highlight YOUR genuine selective quoting. Nice try.

Whether one loves or hates Wong Kar-Wai's slow motion comes under their subjective opinion. Separate to this, one can detect whether it serves the piece, given its intentions. Art has purpose and function. What is the purpose and function of the piece and how has the artist gone about fulfilling those?

Have a look at various Top 10 lists, you'll find certain films recurring. Use this to form an idea of the consensus as to what constitutes good filmmaking, if you find such a consensus helpful in determining quality from junk.

3. You've chosen to ignore irrational emotions and prejudices. Nice try, again.

The 'reason' a film is made is incorporated into the analysis of it.



quote:

I am - unfortunately, your usage of the word is all the way in Robot-Land and ignores the inherent subjectivity of opinions, because opinions are prejudices in and of themselves, albeit mostly benign ones.


No you're not, which is why you only acknowledged the definitions of 'objective' which served your position and deliberately ignored those that didn't. Trying to defend your deception just ruins your credibility further.



quote:

Tell me why you think it's worthy of praise and respect when you were irritated and bored by it. What about it makes you think that, objectively, it deserves praise.


Its observable merits - the film is a work of integrity by the auteur, his childhood memories are filtered through the carnivalesque. Fellini is a master of the form. The period is painstakingly recreated. If I was his teacher I would give Fellini full marks for skilfully using the medium to communicate his truth, even though the result irritated and bored me (my subjective experience not preventing me from being able to be objective).

I can detect the film's merits, based on an understanding of the craft and what constitutes good and bad filmmaking regardless of what my subjective response is.



quote:

Then tell me why this isn't an opinion. Tell me why it's a fact. Because opinions are prejudices and even your definition of objective doesn't cover them.


I never said it was a fact, this a cheap black-and-white fallacy. Not being a fact does not necessitate that it must be an opinion. It is a deduction based on an awareness of what constitutes good and bad filmmaking. Try not to force these nuances into highly reductive black and white boxes.



quote:

Now see this here is just a basic misunderstanding of film as an academic past-time. Nobody who writes critical analysis of film thinks they are writing facts beyond pointing out what is happening on the screen. In writing a critical evaluation of 8 1/2 as being about the death of masculinity I can point to the angles used and the facial expressions the actors make (if only in their most inhuman, biological terms) but anything beyond that is subjective, because a high angle doesn't always import weakness in everyone's mind every time, a low angle doesn't always import power in everyone's mind every time, and dialogue doesn't always mean one thing to all people.


Yet Hitchcock is rightly called The Master of Suspense because he knows how to play the human brain and cue the required responses. While different brains may have subtly different responses, and some unusual cases may have no response, his breadth of reach over cultures and over time are clear signals of his mastery.

Just because penicillin doesn't have the same effect on every human being, doesn't invalidate it as a highly effective drug. You're drowning in your academic nonsense again and it's holding you back from practical, effective critical analysis. The fact that you can't see how atrocious this Scream 4 review is, is testament to how much you need to stop sucking your own dick (assuming you have one) and look around.



quote:

You're basically peddling a rudimentary authorial intent model here and trying to mash it crudely together with the idea of critical analysis divorced from authorial intent and it's just not working, especially considering your argument is nothing but "critical evaluation is objective because people talk about the film."


Utter sophomoric swill. Authorial intent is a part of good critical analysis, not at odds with it. As for your fake quote, don't use the straw man tactic of skewing my argument into something it isn't, but that can be easily argued against. Writing a rebuttal to an imaginary premise does not make you the winner. It just means you wasted your time. How about providing some proper counterpoint instead of pulling your next cheap trick out of your bag of tediously obvious fallacies?



quote:

So are you going to tell us what is objectively good about it? Or, if I've missed it, reiterate exactly what it is that is objectively good?


How about you read the thread and find out? I'm not going to regurgitate what I've already written. If your intellect was as vast and bloated as your ego I might do out of respect, but that's not the case.



quote:

I'm not defending the quality of the review in a vacuum - yes, Hughes spends too much time on the previous films and it is a bit tedious


Good to see you making a judgement of the quality of his review, based on an awareness of what constitutes good and poor reviewing. Similarly, determining the quality of a film does not take place in a vacuum.



quote:

Also keep banging that "he didn't see it" drum, because I've already warned you once about libelling Empire reviewers by accusing them of not seeing the film and that's not going to look good when Area 51 passes judgment on your continued libel.


Unfortunately, your 'warning' is not only completely impotent, it's also a sign of your sad, desperate brown-nosing of Empire. It's quite icky watching you suck up to them like this.

Perhaps you hope that by defending this shitty review to the point of complete irrationality you'll win favour with the Empire staff and they'll let you write a review for them. Whatever your motivations, your relentless brown-nosing of Empire makes it difficult to take you seriously.



quote:

Michael Bay does not lose out because he is soulless, he loses out because his work is soulless.


Which is exactly what I said - 'Michael Bay loses points for cranking out soulless and meaningless Transformer films'. The films are soulless, not Bay himself. Your egoic need to argue is blocking your understanding.



quote:

But how do you analyse, objectively, that the performer has fulfilled that requirement? How do you analyse, objectively, what the themes and the narrative require of the character?


By understanding the function of the work, paying attention to the work, paying attention to your response, then gauging the effectiveness of the work, given that function.

Othello is about jealousy, it therefore requires a jealous character.



quote:

But is the ultimate understanding you come to not subjective? Is the purpose that you detect not subjectively-detected?


Is the colour of grass subjectively detected? Yes. Does this invalidate the statement 'grass is green' as an answer to someone wanting to know the colour of grass? No. Your examples are reactions between a subject and an object, what's your point? The presence of a subject makes absolutely no difference to the fact that proper film criticism requires the critic to be objective (use the applicable definition from above this time) in their determination of quality. Just because one is a subject, doesn't mean that one cannot be objective.



quote:

So characterisation is not objectively about attaining realism. What is it about, then? Is it about meeting the 'intention'?


Yes, characterisation needs to be understood within the function of the piece.



quote:

How do you objectively assess whether Marlon Brando's performance in The Godfather is good characterisation? Because whether characterisation meets intention is inherently subjective because it's based on your opinion.


The same way. What is the function of the piece? Does Brando's characterisation serve that function?



quote:

But they are subjective. I can look at a bus scare - a combination of filmmaking techniques - in Apollo 18 and go "that's shit" and someone else can look at the same set of techniques and go "that's amazing" and we have our own reasons for thinking that! The same can be said for Cloverfield, the same can be said for The Godfather, the same can be said for The Phantom Menace! That is subjective! What is good and what is bad is subjective! It is opinions, that is what it is!


Too reductive. Othello is a far superior example of literature than The Da Vinci Code.

What if a reviewer doesn't understand English and gives The Godfather one star, his review is worthless compared to the reviewer who understands English and rates the film highly. Reducing all reviews to mere subjectivity does not excuse the dreadful ones.



quote:

You're fucking with me. You have to be. This tells me nothing, you have told me nothing, all you have offered are a bunch of 'ways of assessing objectivity' that you have not only shown to be wrong (because lo and behold some performances aren't striving for realism) but that you have loaded with subjective assessments.


Assessments made possible by an awareness of the craft, including what works and what doesn't. No assessment would be possible without such an awareness of filmmaking merits and demerits. Oh and you used another fake quote there - I never said 'ways of assessing objectivity'. No more straw man arguments, OK?



quote:

"Detecting purpose" is subjective because people don't always detect the same purpose; "observing to what extent the character fills that requirement" is subjective because people have differing opinions on to what extent that requirement has been filled; "detailed and credible characterisation" is subjective because people have different ideas of what constitutes a 'detailed and credible' performance. This is SUBJECTIVE.


Right, and the people who subjectively detect that The Shining is an apology by Kubrick for faking photos of the moon landing are wrong. They're insane, like people who can't detect the gaping difference in quality between The Da Vinci Code and Othello. They're welcome to voice their views, but to call themselves professional critics would be ludicrous because they lack the faculties to appreciate a work and detect its merits. Empire's Scream 4 review is similarly unprofessional, despite your attempts to validate that piece of sht review with your little existential inquiry.



quote:

Yes, Shakespeare has influenced more works than The Da Vinci Code in the long term and artists are more likely to cite him as an influence than Dan Brown, but that doesn't mean that when I argue with someone about whether Othello is better than The Da Vinci Code that I am objectively right because it's Shakespeare. Influence is influence, it is how many people read it and liked it - it is fed by subjective judgments. A work's great influence - which is what you seem to be getting at - does not automatically mean it can be asserted as objectively qualitatively superior to a less influential work because you cannot assert quality objectively. All you can do is be persuasive in your subjective arguments.


No, Othello is a better example of its craft than The Da Vinci Code. It takes one in a billion to write something as strong as Othello, whereas The Da Vinci Code can be thrashed out by most any competent thriller writer.

Shakespeare's influence is an outgrowth of his excellence. His work pushes the boundaries of what is possible with the medium of the written word.

By the way, your suggestion that Othello cannot be said to be better than The Da Vinci Code is your most embarrassing self-discrediting blunder so far.



quote:

But film is inherently about personal responses. Filmmakers aren't producing datelines, they are about eliciting emotion and provoking personal responses in audiences, that is what good filmmakers do. Good filmmakers strive to touch the subjective, good filmmakers elicit positive responses and deep thought. But what is a good filmmaker? NOBODY KNOWS, that's the beauty of it! Why? Because, at the end of the day, we all respond to things in different ways.


You've pulled the rug from under yourself here - defining a good filmmaker then stating that good filmmakers cannot exist. This contradiction at the heart of your argument is what defeats it.



quote:

quote:

If we dont accept that quality can be measured objectively then we have a situation in which the collected works of Shakespeare could be argued to be of equal or poorer quality than The Da Vinci Code, as pieces of literature. Going forward, by arguing that great works have no inherent value over junk, since they can be argued to be of equal quality, this will lead to more junk being created, because it is easier and usually more profitable, and few people striving for greatness, which damages the art-form.


Okay so this is just you being elitist now. That's fine, but you could've been honest about that, we would've understood. Hell, we probably would've sat in the stalls with you and thrown peanuts at the cheap seats together.


Not elitism, meritism, you buffoon.



quote:

quote:

This can only be made worse by people arguing that there is no objective difference on quality between, say, The Godfather and Paul Blart: Mall Cop, since it undermines the efforts of those striving to improve the quality of the films filling our cinemas.


Acknowledging that art is subjective does not damage art - what it does is allow for a greater discourse on pieces of art and for a greater depth of discussion on the elements that constitute the whole. Sticking by the whole "art is objective" bullshit only drives folk away from critics and the films they champion because of this impression of 'elitism'.


No, poor quality reviews, like Empire's Scream 4 review, drive folk away from critics. Good reviews should contain an awareness of what constitutes good and bad filmmaking, while offering the reviewers subjective response. A screenplay for a thriller which is full of plot holes is poorer than the same screenplay without those plot holes - a reviewer who has this basic objective awareness is competent, not elitist.



quote:

quote:

Again, remember to include all definitions of the word, not just those that conveniently support your position. I know its tempting to go for the easy win and protect your ego, but a proper discussion means embracing the whole reality of the situation.


As dealt with before, your 'definition' of the word objective does not exist in any human dictionary and is a crock of bullshit, so shut up with that 'open your miiiiiiind, dude' crap.


Pathetic attempt to divert from your dishonest efforts to distort the definition of objective by selectively quoting from its numerous definitions only those that support your misguided 'point'. Also, the irony of you suggesting that I'm peddling some 'open your miiiiiiind, dude' crap while trying to suggest that Othello and The Da Vinci Code cannot be said to be of different standards, and that to do so is 'elitism' is gut-bustingly funny, you idiot.



quote:

quote:

Hamlet, for example, is a Shakespearean tragedy. It should, therefore, dramatize the trajectory of a hero who is undone by a tragic flaw.


Oh so it sticks to a formula that makes it objectively good, THREE STARS TO HAMLET FOR TICKING OFF THE CHECKLIST


No, it's 'good' for successfully fulfilling the function of the piece as a tragedy - dramatising the trajectory of a hero who is undone by a tragic flaw. To give Othello a damning review for its failure as a comedy would be absurd, because it is not attempting to be a comedy. If you review Othello as a comedy then you have failed to detect the function of the piece.

The 'sticks to a formula' was just another one of your straw man arguments employed to manufacture your own 'win' to bolster your self esteem. It shows a massive insecurity behind your intellectual peacocking.



quote:

Picking that definition apart further - What is a hero? What would you deem to be a tragic flaw? How do you assess whether the hero is undone by the flaw? Does dramatization require the depiction to be 'effective'?


What is a hero? The protagonist of the story. What would you deem to be a tragic flaw? Excessive jealousy. How do you assess whether the hero is undone by the flaw? The fate of the hero, usually death. Does dramatization require the depiction to be 'effective'? The depiction of what?

Picking apart this - let's be clear, your absurd nitpicking is a weak effort to annihilate my simple and clear point through highly reductive over-analysis - what you're presenting as meaningful inquiry is nothing more than a cheap tactic to deconstruct a point rather than engage with it. Why don't we deconstruct the nature of reality while we're at it and conclude that nothing exists at all?

It's your tendency to over-analyse which has led to some of your ludicrous conclusions, such as The Da Vinci Code being no poorer than Othello, or that calling out a reviewer on their poor review is libellous. You increasingly resemble that cliche of the academic who went too far and lost their grip on reality.



quote:

Picking apart this -

- What is comedy? Should it not be funny? How do you objectively assess 'funny'?
- How heavy is this dose of satirical comedy? How much is too much? How little is too little? How much do we forgive it for that due to it being only 'largely' satirical and thus having other concerns?
- Does a horror require fear to be elicited in the audience? how do you objectively assess 'fear'?
- What is 'effectiveness'? How do you objectively assess a movie's 'effectiveness' at doing something?


What is comedy? Really? You have more to learn than I thought, come back when you've learned what comedy is. You'll need to get a grasp of these basics if you hope to debate this stuff.

Should it not be funny? No, a comedy should be funny.

How do you objectively assess 'funny'? The filmmaker will have strived to elicit the state that triggers laughter and succeeded.



quote:

- How heavy is this dose of satirical comedy? How much is too much? How little is too little? How much do we forgive it for that due to it being only 'largely' satirical and thus having other concerns?
- Does a horror require fear to be elicited in the audience? how do you objectively assess 'fear'?
- What is 'effectiveness'? How do you objectively assess a movie's 'effectiveness' at doing something?


I could go on, and indeed would be happy to if anyone sane is reading this and would like me to, let me know, but this line of inquiry is nothing more than another of your cowardly tactics, and to play into it would cruelly bolster your combination of stupidity and smugness.

Films have observable merits just as the world has observable colours. Discounting phenomena because it can't be forced through the limited prism of human language is insane.

Film criticism and awards ceremonies are methods of upholding and celebrating those merits.

If you can't tell that Othello is a better work of fiction than The Da Vinci Code then explaining why would be as useful as explaining the colour red to a blind person. You lack certain basic faculties needed to understand it. Explaining things to you feels increasingly like showing card tricks to a dog.



quote:

A hard-and-fast set of rules pertaining to "what makes good cinema" does not allow for varying standards of filmmaking because it hamstrings filmmakers into filling a checklist and hinders experimentation and emotional elicitation;


No it doesn't, experimentation and emotional elicitation are considered filmmaking merits within that system.



quote:

it is not the foundation of film criticism because film criticism is founded on varying ideas of what made a film good and the variance in opinions on what makes a good film (note: opinions) still exists today;


While differences in opinion exist, and are welcomed, it are the common observations of what constitute quality filmmaking that make film criticism possible. A professional film critic should, for example, be able to detect the difference between junk and art if they hope to find a readership. Their subjective response should also be recorded, but the quality of the work, based on an understanding of the craft and the history of the art-form is required if the critic hopes to be more than amateur.



quote:

Criticism is also an outgrowth of a realisation this spectrum of quality is subjective because people have differing responses to every film.


No, that doesn't make sense. It are the commonalities of quality works that give rise to criticism, not the differences in opinion of the reviewers. Quality works resonate widely and sustain their resonance over time - the commonly detectable qualities of such films are the bedrock of criticism. Differing opinions are a welcome offshoot and should also be included in a review, but the professional critic can divorce him/herself from these as they do their job of critiquing a work.

Awards ceremonies are also outgrowths of an acknowledgement of standards and an attempt to reward, maintain and promote good quality filmmaking.



quote:

This is why Meet the Spartans can top the box office while being derided as bad cinema, because enough people disagree. Do I agree with the people who took it to the top of the box office? Absolutely not, and I can yell they're wrong til I'm blue in the face, but that will always be my opinion. I can just argue it more persuasively than they can.


The people who made Meet The Spartan's a success may enjoy the film even as they understand it to be poor cinema. I like Commando, but I know it's junk. A critic who argues that Meet The Spartans is high art in league with the finest examples of the art-form is a poor critic, it's disposable junk built to make profit with zero artistic integrity - and that goes far beyond mere 'opinion', it is a judgement based on an awareness of what constitutes good and bad filmmaking.



quote:

Let's put this on a more even playing field - if two critics entered a room, both of equal talent and education and knowledge of the cinematic form and all the canons you can think of, and one gave Precious one star and the other gave Precious five stars, which is objectively right?


Neither, but the first one is more competent because he/she has detected that the work is of integrity, attempts to illuminate an aspect of the human condition, and features strong performances. The second reviewer is incompetent for rating Precious alongside the absolute lowest swill of the artform.



quote:

I wouldn't have phrased it at all because it is alleging that he is defrauding his employer by not doing his job, which is libel and is illegal.


OK, well I value truth and honesty over cowardly censoring myself over some imagined consequences.



quote:

Except you have not shown what this external system of measurement is. You keep saying "oh, it's there" but your attempts at establishing its existence have been laughably facile, internally contradictory and, most importantly, incredibly subjective in the assertions they make.


I haven't said "oh, it's there" once - you created that quote to give yourself something to argue against, having no valuable response to my ACTUAL points.

Criticism of an artform requires an understanding and appreciation of it, an awareness of its history, and a working knowledge of its component parts. Particular attention goes to the direction and writing of the film as the primary creative roles. This is a broad and deep subject given the enormously collaborative nature of filmmaking, but with learning and experience you'll develop a sensitivity that will allow you to discern good filmmaking from poor. You'll start to be able to tell your Shakespeares from your Dan Browns.

Take a filmed sequence from a suspense thriller. A person is tied to a railway track as a train speeds towards them. The same scene will be poorer if the person is not tied to the track - it will not generate the same level of suspense, if any, as the first scenario. The first scenario is better crafted than the second, given its objective.

There's one example. Put yourself in the role of the filmmaker and ask yourself what is the most effective way to communicate what it is that you hope to communicate. Good filmmakers can do this with greater efficiency, impact and nuance than poorer ones, such is their superior command of the craft.

Now you can read about film criticism and learn about the practice, the internet is a good starting point for your learning. Good luck!



quote:

Merits cannot be tallied up and compared against one another because that's not the reality of the filmmaking, it's a far more nuanced, personal, emotional beast than that.


Indeed, and good film criticism will be sensitive to those nuances, and personal and emotional qualities.



quote:

You're basically advocating stripping out the humanity behind a work of art because you can't stand people liking Paul Blart.


I don't have a problem with people liking Blart, but I have a problem with people erroneously believing that it is of equal quality to The Godfather and, as an extension of this error, film reviewers trashing good films.



quote:

quote:

But who knows, I might react in the same way if I was arguing a point that I knew deep down was a lie and was having to create straw man arguments to save face while actually evading the truth. Just let all that go and you wont feel frustrated any more.


Hahaha. Classic.


No really. You seem to think a lot of yourself and clearly want to be taken seriously. Understanding the emotional motivations behind your irrational blather will make you less of an embarrassment.

The experience of having this 'discussion' is like playing scrabble with someone who thinks the way to 'win' is to eat the most pieces, so I hope you're grateful for me taking the time to engage with you, and that the intervening years have given you an opportunity to evolve.








(in reply to Pigeon Army)
Post #: 329
RE: That's it!! - 22/10/2013 2:55:14 PM   
shool


Posts: 10210
Joined: 24/3/2006
From: In The Pipe, Five by Five.
Drooch I dont think PA is around these days to answer.

Sorry you probably wasted your time there to bring up a 15 month old argument

_____________________________

Invisio Text for Spoilers
[ color=#F1F1F1 ] Spoiler text [ /color ] , remove spaces between square brackets

"No one knows what it means, but it's provocative... It gets the people going!"

(in reply to Drooch)
Post #: 330
Page:   <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: That's it!! Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Movie News|Empire Blog|Movie Reviews|Future Films|Features|Video Interviews|Image Gallery|Competitions|Forum|Magazine|Resources
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.438