quote:

ORIGINAL: Timon

So.... where was all the swearing in The Expendables 2?

Bruce Willis kept referring to everyone as dirtbags and mongrels.

Did Norris really get his way and they cut out all the bad language but kept the headshots? It just seemed that some F-bombs would have been awesome.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

But you wouldn't compare Dumb and Dumber with The Life Aquatic or Stranger than Fiction with Kevin and Perry. It's like comparing chips with doughnuts. They have to be taken on their own merits and by that token the only criteria should be those upon which all film is judged. Story. Character. Structure. Dialogue. Etc, etc. (Although, even as I write that, I'm suddenly realising that something like Star Wars IV would probably score a 2 out of 5 on that basis!)

Exactly. Story, Character, Structure, Dialogue etc are things people are told in school you need in good stories. They are not 'Objective' criteria. Aside from which people can disagree on what is a 'good' story and so on. Take the 3 act structure. People have cited the Dark Knight's deviance from it as a dramatic flaw, but couldn't you equally say that slavish devotion to the 3 act structure is a bit cliched and therefore a dramatic failing?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

But you wouldn't compare Dumb and Dumber with The Life Aquatic or Stranger than Fiction with Kevin and Perry. It's like comparing chips with doughnuts. They have to be taken on their own merits and by that token the only criteria should be those upon which all film is judged. Story. Character. Structure. Dialogue. Etc, etc. (Although, even as I write that, I'm suddenly realising that something like Star Wars IV would probably score a 2 out of 5 on that basis!)

Exactly. Story, Character, Structure, Dialogue etc are things people are told in school you need in good stories. They are not 'Objective' criteria. Aside from which people can disagree on what is a 'good' story and so on. Take the 3 act structure. People have cited the Dark Knight's deviance from it as a dramatic flaw, but couldn't you equally say that slavish devotion to the 3 act structure is a bit cliched and therefore a dramatic failing?

They're not things people are told in school ... they're the very foundation of screenwriting and therefore film-making. You can't really ever deviate from the 3 act structure because at its heart it simply means a film has a beginning, middle and end. And everything in life has that. And breaking it down into its component parts, people like to toy with that structure ... Spielberg loves his 5 Act structure ... but it's still structure and it still relies on the same principles.

All that aside, judgement by its very definition is subjective. It's impossible to give a completely objective opinion on anything. Unless you're a robot. Or the guy from the Big Bang Theory! Which is why it's ridiculous when someone comes onto a forum and criticises a reviewer for giving a wrong review!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


All that aside, judgement by its very definition is subjective. It's impossible to give a completely objective opinion on anything. Unless you're a robot. Or the guy from the Big Bang Theory! Which is why it's ridiculous when someone comes onto a forum and criticises a reviewer for giving a wrong review!

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


All that aside, judgement by its very definition is subjective. It's impossible to give a completely objective opinion on anything. Unless you're a robot. Or the guy from the Big Bang Theory! Which is why it's ridiculous when someone comes onto a forum and criticises a reviewer for giving a wrong review!

If "objective opinion" (!) doesn't exist then there's no binding reason to AGREE with a film reviewer then, is there?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


All that aside, judgement by its very definition is subjective. It's impossible to give a completely objective opinion on anything. Unless you're a robot. Or the guy from the Big Bang Theory! Which is why it's ridiculous when someone comes onto a forum and criticises a reviewer for giving a wrong review!

If "objective opinion" (!) doesn't exist then there's no binding reason to AGREE with a film reviewer then, is there?

But by the same token it shows the height of arrogance and stupidity, therefore, to criticise a reviewer's opinion. Because it is just that, an opinion. Based on a certain set of principles, perhaps, but an opinion nonetheless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


All that aside, judgement by its very definition is subjective. It's impossible to give a completely objective opinion on anything. Unless you're a robot. Or the guy from the Big Bang Theory! Which is why it's ridiculous when someone comes onto a forum and criticises a reviewer for giving a wrong review!

If "objective opinion" (!) doesn't exist then there's no binding reason to AGREE with a film reviewer then, is there?

But by the same token it shows the height of arrogance and stupidity, therefore, to criticise a reviewer's opinion. Because it is just that, an opinion. Based on a certain set of principles, perhaps, but an opinion nonetheless.

Right. In my opinion, it's a bit dopey, if a comedy made you laugh, to subsequently break out the Big List of Objective Criteria (story, structure etc etc) to more 'accurately' appraise it. Do you regard all reviews as equally valid/invalid or does your criticising my opinion on the reviewers opinion not rather suggest than absence of 'objectivity' doesn't make it a necessarily useless activity?

Principles, like presuppositions, can be criticised, surely?

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


All that aside, judgement by its very definition is subjective. It's impossible to give a completely objective opinion on anything. Unless you're a robot. Or the guy from the Big Bang Theory! Which is why it's ridiculous when someone comes onto a forum and criticises a reviewer for giving a wrong review!

If "objective opinion" (!) doesn't exist then there's no binding reason to AGREE with a film reviewer then, is there?

But by the same token it shows the height of arrogance and stupidity, therefore, to criticise a reviewer's opinion. Because it is just that, an opinion. Based on a certain set of principles, perhaps, but an opinion nonetheless.

Right. In my opinion, it's a bit dopey, if a comedy made you laugh, to subsequently break out the Big List of Objective Criteria (story, structure etc etc) to more 'accurately' appraise it. Do you regard all reviews as equally valid/invalid or does your criticising my opinion on the reviewers opinion not rather suggest than absence of 'objectivity' doesn't make it a necessarily useless activity?

Principles, like presuppositions, can be criticised, surely?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom



Then why read reviews in a film magazine? Because they are the very criteria they will be using.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


All that aside, judgement by its very definition is subjective. It's impossible to give a completely objective opinion on anything. Unless you're a robot. Or the guy from the Big Bang Theory! Which is why it's ridiculous when someone comes onto a forum and criticises a reviewer for giving a wrong review!

If "objective opinion" (!) doesn't exist then there's no binding reason to AGREE with a film reviewer then, is there?

But by the same token it shows the height of arrogance and stupidity, therefore, to criticise a reviewer's opinion. Because it is just that, an opinion. Based on a certain set of principles, perhaps, but an opinion nonetheless.

Right. In my opinion, it's a bit dopey, if a comedy made you laugh, to subsequently break out the Big List of Objective Criteria (story, structure etc etc) to more 'accurately' appraise it. Do you regard all reviews as equally valid/invalid or does your criticising my opinion on the reviewers opinion not rather suggest than absence of 'objectivity' doesn't make it a necessarily useless activity?

Principles, like presuppositions, can be criticised, surely?

There is, surely, a difference between criticising a reviewer for giving a 'wrong review' and disagreeing with a reviewer whose review doesn't agree with your view of the film. It might be semantics - but the first, as Prophet rightly says, is ridiculous. Because they're effectively telling the reviewer that can't possibly be his opinion because it is 'wrong'. And that's just silly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


All that aside, judgement by its very definition is subjective. It's impossible to give a completely objective opinion on anything. Unless you're a robot. Or the guy from the Big Bang Theory! Which is why it's ridiculous when someone comes onto a forum and criticises a reviewer for giving a wrong review!

If "objective opinion" (!) doesn't exist then there's no binding reason to AGREE with a film reviewer then, is there?

But by the same token it shows the height of arrogance and stupidity, therefore, to criticise a reviewer's opinion. Because it is just that, an opinion. Based on a certain set of principles, perhaps, but an opinion nonetheless.

Right. In my opinion, it's a bit dopey, if a comedy made you laugh, to subsequently break out the Big List of Objective Criteria (story, structure etc etc) to more 'accurately' appraise it. Do you regard all reviews as equally valid/invalid or does your criticising my opinion on the reviewers opinion not rather suggest than absence of 'objectivity' doesn't make it a necessarily useless activity?

Principles, like presuppositions, can be criticised, surely?

There is, surely, a difference between criticising a reviewer for giving a 'wrong review' and disagreeing with a reviewer whose review doesn't agree with your view of the film. It might be semantics - but the first, as Prophet rightly says, is ridiculous. Because they're effectively telling the reviewer that can't possibly be his opinion because it is 'wrong'. And that's just silly.

You'd agree that it's acceptable for someone to say that something is a "bad review" and to cite not reviewing it in regard to other comparable films as a reason why? Prophet's the one who's all about the criteria; by his logic, a movie that DIDN'T appear to be judging films by these "objective" criteria, or that found them wanting in these areas but gave them a good review anyway, would be ignoring fundamental principles and therefore 'wrong' wrong or Wrong!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

But you still have to know the form to break the form, as Malick clearly does. Thousands of films are made every year, one anomoly does not a rule make. Therefore referencing Malick makes my argument no less valid - unless I wanted to be tiresome and list the thousand and one films made in the UK this year alone which utilised the 3 Act Structure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

housand and one films made in the UK this year alone which utilised the 3 Act Structure.

I can see this is a wasted argument and you are very adept at misquoting or misinterpreting, dependent upon how it assists your argument. Thus, I feel my efforts are better used elsewhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

But you still have to know the form to break the form, as Malick clearly does. Thousands of films are made every year, one anomoly does not a rule make. Therefore referencing Malick makes my argument no less valid - unless I wanted to be tiresome and list the thousand and one films made in the UK this year alone which utilised the 3 Act Structure.

No, because a 'rule' is exactly that. Again: how many exceptions do you need to it before the 'rule' is demonstrably disproved and therefore absurd.? A lot of movies doing something doesn't make it a 'rule'. And I see you ignored my point about Kubrick, unsurprisingly.

All the "know the rules before you break them, kid!" crap is the stuff of cliched hackery.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

Thousands of films are made every year, one anomoly does not a rule make.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

quote:

ORIGINAL: cerebusboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

But you still have to know the form to break the form, as Malick clearly does. Thousands of films are made every year, one anomoly does not a rule make. Therefore referencing Malick makes my argument no less valid - unless I wanted to be tiresome and list the thousand and one films made in the UK this year alone which utilised the 3 Act Structure.

No, because a 'rule' is exactly that. Again: how many exceptions do you need to it before the 'rule' is demonstrably disproved and therefore absurd.? A lot of movies doing something doesn't make it a 'rule'. And I see you ignored my point about Kubrick, unsurprisingly.

All the "know the rules before you break them, kid!" crap is the stuff of cliched hackery.

If 99% of people are doing something, I think it can be considered a rule!

And I'm sure everyone working in the industry, including all of the most experienced writers, directors etc, will very much appreciate that you have consigned their knowledge to cliched hackery. Don't bother responding as you're now blocked.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom



And I'm sure everyone working in the industry, including all of the most experienced writers, directors etc, will very much appreciate that you have consigned their knowledge to cliched hackery.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


Thus, I feel my efforts are better used elsewhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


Thus, I feel my efforts are better used elsewhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

Ah, the blissful silence. Obviously got under cerebusboy's skin.

Sorry mods, couldn't resist .

It's delightful not to have to listen to the bile and condescension. Now, can we get this thread back on track?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

Now, can we get this thread back on track?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom

Obviously got under cerebusboy's skin.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom


Don't bother responding as you're now blocked.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Prophet_of_Doom
Now, can we get this thread back on track?