females should be banned from IMDB

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Muslim
"I said "given situation""

A die always lands on a six, in a given situation.

[Ebany]

I have read all your posts on this matter, aside possibly from the final one on the other thread that was apparently not replied to and so somehow caused you to claim victory....

My opinion on a movie is how I decide if a movie os good or bad. I dont give a toss what everyone else thinks. Maybe I do like movies most other people think are bad, but I think its good. And thats what matters to me. As far as I am concerned, it is a good film. This is precisely the same argument we have used against you the whole way through, and you have used precsely the same argument all the way through back, and tbh, its really getting rather boring. You are welcome to go on thinking you have to follow the majority if you like, I'm going to enjoy the films I like to watch.

And I'm not a newbie, I've read a multitude of your threads on your love life, but I was merely wandering along a line of thought and couldnt be bothered to go and hunt one out and find out exactly what youre lusting after at this point.

[Muslim]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
A die always lands on a six, in a given situation.

you know its not the same thing


and ebany


I went trhu and trhu explaining why a movie can be considered good

the skilled writer, the good experienced director, great actors

if you cant apreciate what the quality of the glorious ninth it does mean your taste sucks
I know guys who play on hardcore metal bands, and still they find beethoven great

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Muslim
you know its not the same thing

Not precisely, but it's a fantastical analogy.

Me saying that a die always lands on a 6 ignores many obvious counterexamples, and so do you.

[edit]

Or should I say obvious conditions....

[Ebany]

Yes I can appreciate if a film is good technically. Doesn't mean I will enjoy it though.

And thats all I'm really interested in.

I like something because I like it. I dont try to assess why especially. I dont care how well its written or acted or anything. I'm sure people can and will argue about how well written and acted things are as well.

[Snurx]

Originally posted by Muslim
the skilled writer, the good experienced director, great actors

if you cant apreciate what the quality of the glorious ninth it does mean your taste sucks
I know guys who play on hardcore metal bands, and still they find beethoven great

1. Who decides what actors are good? Or what directors are great? Or what writer has skills?
Who decides if that band is good, that ice-cream is the best, fat chicks are ugly, and so on.

2. Things can be good techincally, but still suck. Most pop-bands, for example.

Oh, and on the fat thing. In norway, fat chicks are considered "ugly". In the Phillippines, fat chicks are good. I can guarantee you that you need more survival skills in the Phillippines then in Norway, due to much more crime, more dangerous animals, less hospitals and so on.
If your theory is correct, are all the phillippinan males incorect?(Or most) And if so, why aren't they extinxt or something yet?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Dark_Mage
When you hand in work or write an essay and you get a grade of your teacher do you go up and to him/her and say "look i want the top grade and a 100mark because IN MY OPINION my work is good' no of couse you dont.

That's a terrible comparison. In all subjects, there is an objective standard for these things, and even in cases such as English Literature where there isn't a completely objective comparison, the essay still has to obey the structures of logic and create valid points according to the establishment of english literature.

And if we look at the only really subjective subject out there, Art, there are predefined aims and goals that have to be fulfilled by the candidate and if the candidate doesn't think they're apt then they shouldn't have sat the exam.

ps.

We're ganging up on Muslim because he's OBJECTIVELY WRONG. He's basing his arguments on incorrect understandings of science and linguistics and the like.

And nod is a really bad example, because he hates EVERYTHING (he has stated before that all films were rubbish).

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Dark_Mage
i cant aruge with you because in all truth i dont understand what your saying. I have to read your posts a few times just to get the gist. my fault not yours.

When your essay is marked, it is compared against a preset standard. This doesn't exist in films, or people.

[Ebany]

The 'preset standard' (before Muslim starts claiming there is for films and thats exactly what hes been going on about) for essys being such features as using correct english (or whichever language), covering all the points required, making a reasonable argument etc.

I think it would be generally accepted that a film was bad if the script made no sense, the actors clearly had no acting training, and it looked like it had been filmed by some random bloke with a camcorder. These kind of films dont get to the cinema however.

[queball]

Muslim was originally talking about how Apocalypse Now is a better film than Signs. Taking subjective to mean "meaningless", "underspecified", "context-dependent", etc, it's clear that Muslim is talking about films with intelligent messages, films that will make you "well read", that will expand your soul.

There's two meanings of taste: there is the baseless ("subjective") taste that everyone is entitled to, and ("objective") taste particular to a certain known art. You can make a personal choice to reject an art and that's fine; many of you seem to have rejected film literature (I think that's the right term). For example, I can say someone has a bad taste in algorithms but I'd never say someone has bad taste for choosing not to learn to program. Muslim is wrong because he confused the Signs thread with a traditional reaction to films.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Snurx
1. Who decides what actors are good? Or what directors are great? Or what writer has skills?
Who decides if that band is good, that ice-cream is the best, fat chicks are ugly, and so on.

2. Things can be good techincally, but still suck. Most pop-bands, for example.

Oh, and on the fat thing. In norway, fat chicks are considered "ugly". In the Phillippines, fat chicks are good. I can guarantee you that you need more survival skills in the Phillippines then in Norway, due to much more crime, more dangerous animals, less hospitals and so on.
If your theory is correct, are all the phillippinan males incorect?(Or most) And if so, why aren't they extinxt or something yet?

Value statements have no meaning if they are stated outwith a value system, however the 'choice' of a value system in whch object are evaluated is not fully arbitrary. The criteria which you use to evalute aestethic objects (such as movies) is not formed in a vacuum; it will largely be based on your 'personality' as a whole, and will be partly integrated into your fundamental value system. People generally use similar criteria for evaluating things across a wide range of fields - the class of movies you like will normally be linked to the type of music you like, and more fundamentally, to your general outlook and philosophical view of life itself.

For example, you might not like films which depict black people as being animals. This isnt an 'arbitrary subjective choice' relating to movies - it is a result of your more fundamental value judgements (ie you believe that blacks are 'equal' to whites, and are offended when shown media that assumes otherwise). By the same token, someoene liking films which portray human life as being cheap and dirty (such as reservoir dogs etc) betrays certain facts about their character - ie that they fundamentally believe that their life (and the life of others) is cheap and dirty, to some degree. Someone who likes films which have nihlist overtones (I mean nihlist in the emotional sense, not intellectual. Theres a difference between believing that fundamental values are ultimately baseless, and having none) betrays that they ultimately regard life as worthless. People who like films that show humans as being helpless are likely to believe that they are helpless in the face of the universe. All these type of art (for it applies to all art, not just movies. The paintings of someone like picasso would be a good example or art which depicts human life as ugly and worthless) essentially glorify mediocrity rather than praising greatness, and I would generalise this by saying that people who like them have 'psychological problems' (relative term, there is no objective 'correct' mind to have), and that their liking of these films is based on hatred of both life in general, and theirs in particular. On the other hand, someone who likes films which portray life in a positive manner (this doesnt mean baseless and shallow romantic comedies, and the like), and exemplify the greatness of life/humanity, shows that they have a healthy outlook on life.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Nod 4 Paragraphs

[Muslim]

Originally posted by queball
Muslim is wrong because he confused the Signs thread with a traditional reaction to films.

what is this supposed to mean?


anyways


I have always respected the people that go like this

"I know that beethoven creates exquisit musics, a music so perfect that you feel closer to god, if such a thing exists, but it just doesnt do the trick for me"
This guy simply is admiting that he has a poor taste, but never the less he is able to understand why he should like it.
Eg: Le Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain is a great movie. However i dont think i have my emotional side developed enough, or/and low sensibility/empathy to fully understand and "get" the movie.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri

And nod is a really bad example, because he hates EVERYTHING (he has stated before that all films were rubbish).

I dont hate movies in an abstract sense (ie I dont dislike the medium or anything), its just that 99.9999% of films suck.

[queball]

Originally posted by Muslim
what is this supposed to mean?

That if we want to watch films with a bit of pseudo-philosophy rather than social relevance then that's our choice. Really, all films you'll see at the cinema and all songs you can buy in a shop have something good about them. It's a matter of what you're looking for in a film: entertainment, or something complicated?

anyways


I have always respected the people that go like this

"I know that beethoven creates exquisit musics, a music so perfect that you feel closer to god, if such a thing exists, but it just doesnt do the trick for me"

ok

This guy simply is admiting that he has a poor taste, but never the less he is able to understand why he should like it.

No, he has good taste. "a person's ability to judge and appreciate what is good or suitable, especially relating to such matters as art, style, beauty and behaviour".
Where appreciate is to recognize or understand that something is valuable, important or as described
The important thing is that this can be done by a computer. No emotional reaction is required for taste. If he can pick out what you value and don't value he can have good taste without enjoying the music at all.