jrewing1000
Posts: 469
Joined: 23/11/2005
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: horribleives
quote:
ORIGINAL: jrewing1000
quote:
ORIGINAL: DancingClown
quote:
ORIGINAL: jrewing1000
quote:
ORIGINAL: DancingClown
quote:
ORIGINAL: jrewing1000
I think there's a difference between opinion and quality. There do exist gold standards, however general, however basic. Mozart wrote music of higher quality than my 10 year old nephew does. That's not to say I value my 10 year old nephew's music any less. But his music is not as good as Mozart's. Fact.
That's a fairly weak and simplistic analogy that doesn't really apply here.
Accepted. But my point is that there ARE gold standards, no matter how simplistic the examples. So when people say there's no such thing as a 'bad film' or a 'good film', I'd say they were wrong.
But I don't think anyone here is saying that. We're talking about opinions. You admit that opinions vary (as Dalton once said) yet you seem to be claiming that if the film in question is perceived as either excellent or execrable then an opposing viewpoint is factually "wrong" because it doesn't adhere to a pre-conceived notion of quality. To paraphrase that's like saying "all men are created equal, yet some are more equal than others" but substituting the word men with opinions.
Sometimes I shake my head in bafflement if someone fails to see why I love a film (happens here all the time). But if I really dislike a film that has been lauded by others I just feel a bit disappointed and then move on. I don't end up questioning anyone's integrity, even if they are a professional film reviewer.
Dalton? From Roadhouse?
I like your last sentence. Gives me hope! Yes I suppose I have questioned someone's integrity as a film reviewer, as I would if a professional music critic rejected Abbey Road as meaningless, unaffecting crap. But the choice is still mine - I either listen to them or I don't. But what also bothers me, is that other people will listen to such opinions and hold them as important. It's happening with X-Factor, people's standards of what makes a good singer are being lowered every year, because of what the 'judges' say. Does that make sense?
Well, first of all plenty of people don't like the Beatles so that opinion, while uncommon or even controversial, is still perfectly valid.
Secondly, a five star review of Stoker is hardly comparable (in terms of being as unpopular a view as saying Abbey Road is rubbish) - it's been receiving strong reviews everywhere. Those writers raving about it are no more right or wrong than you are but it's rather arrogant to suggest they lack integrity just because they - and many others - like a film you happen to think is crap.
Of course I'm using Abbey Road as a simplistic example to back up my point that there is such a thing as good and bad when it comes to art. How we come to define good and bad is another matter entirely, and the subject of debates throughout the ages.
Yes I agree that in the case of Stoker, it's not so simple. But the discussion here moved from specifics about Stoker, to the idea of good/bad art.
Roadhouse on the other hand, IS the greatest film ever made, at least the greatest film ever made about bouncers who can rip out someone's throat with their bare hands.
|
Printable Version
RE: Utterly awful. - 
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