Star Trek vs. Star Wars (and a collection of memes)

[ravagekitteh]

I detect a fair bit of venom in that response of yours. Good, I don't mind trading in kind.

Anytime you want to compare our mental capacities, be my guest.


(how's that for arrogance?) And before you cry foul, your personal attack on me was unprovoked.

I’m sorry that you feel this way. I did not mean any ill will towards you and I apologise for being rude. Likewise the comment about independent thought was not aimed at you - that should have been made clearer and I apologise for any personal attack

One will stand the test of time, and the other will not. Plain and simple. Box office numbers are highly variable and dependent on many external factors, so I don't give that measure of "popularity" too much credence. However, when something is judged across a significant period of time and it remains beloved, well-regarded and celebrated, that reveals to us something truly insightful. And such things can be objectively measured.

The work of Mozart will long endure when Bieber is forgotten to the ages. One can subjectively like Bieber's music more (Tzeentch have mercy on their soul), but objectively there is a significant difference between the two (and not in Bieber's favor). Feel free to place yourself on team Bieber, but history will judge you an imbecile.

Funnily enough I actually agree with you in that I think the OT is the best Star Wars trilogy. The Prequels are fine but don’t measure up, and while I really enjoyed The Last Jedi, I thought the other two Sequels were just pretty “meh”. We also both agree that everyone is entitled to their own opinion when it comes to what their favourite is. The part where we disagree is that you seem to think that your opinion is the “correct one”, and in having it it makes you somehow superior to people who feel differently. That simply isn’t the case, and to infer that directly contradicts your previous assertion that people are entitled to their own opinion.

And on a side note, comparing me to a Bieber fan is a low blow, even for you...

That is a major one, no doubt. How a movie or any piece of art is considered across decades of time says a lot about it.

However, do not mistake it to be the only measure...

• how a film influences the movie industry (the OT was far more influential than the PT)
• its impact on culture
• its contribution to the advancement of filming techniques or special effects (the OT did more for its time than the PT)
• historically (less so today due to political interference) its reception in terms of critical acclaim, awards, etc
• which film will be (positively) remembered, discussed and well-regarded in 50 years, 75 years, 100 years, etc.

I'm sure we can think of more, but that should suffice. Some are a bit more nuanced than others, but each can be measured if someone were dedicated enough.

You are justified in saying that such things can be fairly objectively measured (although @Scalenex rightfully points out that even those measures are to an extent subjective). However, even if you do judge a film to be, say, more significant, all that you have “objectively” ascertained is that it is more significant- it doesn’t objectively make it better and you preferring it to another film doesn’t make your preference any more or less valid, nor does is make you better or worse than anybody else.

Take the comparison between Citizen Kane and Avengers Endgame. Both are major films, but based off your criteria, Endgame seems to do better. It’s heavily influenced the movie industry - almost everything these days seems to be going towards Cinematic Universes. It’s had a massive impact on culture - you can quote that film in most places and people will know what you are talking about, whereas to mention “Rosebud” will get blank looks from most. Advancement of techniques and effects it falls behind in to be fair - Kane was massively pioneering in that regard and Endgame probably owes a fair bit to it, but even that doesn’t provide an outright objective advantage; Einstein’s work was at least in part built of the previous discoveries of other scientists, yet most would probably still argue he was the smartest.

As for the historical impact, that is yet to be discerned, but simply by virtue of it being as significant as it clearly is you can be fairly sure that it will go down in history. And to top it all off, the viewership and box office (while not basis of an entire argument still nonetheless a massive part of the evaluation) absolutely smashes Kane. It is undoubtedly far more popular. To use your criteria, Avengers Endgame is objectively better than Citizen Kane. Yet funnily enough, a large number of critics (and I imagine most of us) would disagree with that statement.

In response to my interesting claim that Endgame is better than Citizen Kane, most critics would point out that the things that make it better are far more subtle and nuanced. They would point to specific film making techniques and carefully thought out methods of conveying story and ideas. And they would be completely justified in their argument (in fact I think I would probably agree with them). However, those things do not objectively make them better either. You can objectively state that said things are present in the film, but you cannot objectively state that they are better, because to go by your “objective” measures of popularity and quality that would indicate the inherent quality of said inclusions, the results would say that they are in fact not - Citizen Kane is “objectively” worse than Endgame. If those techniques made for an objectively better film, then Citizen Kane would have outperformed Endgame at your criteria you’ve set.

But that doesn’t change the fact that we all (presumably) agree that Citizen Kane is the better film. This is because the things that make it better in our eyes are not objective but in fact subjective. We can prove that nuanced filmmaking is present in the film, but we cannot prove that is is better; that is a matter of opinion. And that opinion, based on the relative performances of the two films, is in the minority and so based off what some of your previous posts in the past have implied, invalid and wrong - we are choosing a very silly hill to die on and those who prefer Endgame clearly have better taste than us.

This is of course nonsense - as we have agreed before everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the matter. Likewise we are completely valid in our belief that Kane is the better film, but what makes it better is entirely subjective. In fact, we can discern, the very nature of a film being better or worse then another is subjective. By definition (based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions according to the Oxford Dictionary) something being subjective is based on opinion, something that we all agree everyone is entitled to differ with and therefore not something that can be judged as right or wrong; not something objective. Therefore, we can discern, whether a film is better or worse than another is not objective.

The problem is that you and I don't think along the same lines. You think more emotively, while I place greater emphasis on logic and reason. For the record, I'm not stating that one is better than the other, as each has their place in the world and in certain contexts. However, I think you'll agree that our past "debates" have been largely fruitless. There is no amount of reason or evidence that I can provide to ever shift your viewpoint (in fact, you have criticized my usage of supporting evidence [graphs, articles, expert testimony, etc] in the past). Likewise, unless you systematically and logically deconstruct my argument, my mind will remain unchanged. Emotive sentiments will never suffice for me.

Experience has taught me that your viewpoint basically boils down to everyone's argument/viewpoint is of equal merit. I will never subscribe to such a notion. Some ideas and arguments are simply better than others. Sometimes I find myself on the positive side of that (hooray, great victory for me) and other times the opposite (a moment of learning and growth, also a victory if one can take advantage of it). However, we both have to be playing the same game. Emotions vs emotions or logic vs. logic, but never a strange and incompatible intermingling of the two. Your world is the subjective, and mine is (when available) the objective.

I think part of the problem is that we disagree on what is subjective and objective. So far our debates have never really been about 100% objective issues - they have been about moral issues and preferences. Now to be be fair I would argue that moral issues are pretty objective (as a very, very broad rule of thumb, when dealing with moral problems generally the best solution is the most inclusive and understanding one to everyone), and in our previous debates on the subjects, I would argue I have provided perfectly logical and reasonable refutations to your points. Similarly, your quote about me refusing supporting evidence is false - I was simply saying that I find videos annoying to deal with and would prefer a transcript of what is said rather than to watch it.

The subjective/objective clash is when we debate people’s personal preferences, something I say is subjective and you seem to think is objective. As much as anything, our debates are less a case of you using objective and me using subjective and more a case of us debating which it should be in the first place - something which I feel I have explained my viewpoint on which fairly well above.

When it comes to these subjective matters like preferences, you are indeed correct as to my viewpoint that everybody’s argument and viewpoint is of equal merit. “What is the best Star Wars movie” is not a moral issue, so you cannot frame it as objective in that regard. Nor is it an objective fact - there is not statistic that “proves” it is better. And as for the argument...

There is a quote I’m sure you yourself have used before - paraphrased it is your are not entitled to your opinion, you are entitled to your informed opinion. That is fine and I would largely agree with it. However, in the case I’d what is your favourite/what do you think is the best Star Wars movie, the only thing you need to have done to be sufficiently informed to make a valid opinion is to have watched the film. That’s it, because from then on, all judgements you make on it are subjective. By all means you can provide various objective observations and well structured arguments to support your view and if it makes you feel more justified in your opinion then great, go for it. You can also debate with other people on your opinions on it if you so wish, and you may well end up changing their mind. But the important thing is that you don’t have to. Any view you form on it is fundamentally subjective and so subject to your own experiences and tastes. You can give someone the most convincing and well thought out argument as to what is the best Star Wars film, but they are still completely entitled to disagree with you, and to imply otherwise is to deny the validity of their own experiences and life, something I think we can all condemn.

In any case, if we are going to go back to our old habit of clogging up meme threads with lengthy debates, we should probably keep civil and respectful and refrain from personal attacks with each other (myself very much included in that)!

 

[Just A Skink]

Sorry... is this too "on the nose"?

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

If I say an art is objectively better than an another piece art I'm probably being ironic and hyperbolic. That is communicated with tone of voice.

This is probably the best place to start. Let us tackle the central topic, can one piece art be objectively better than another? I most heartily believe that it can, and history seems to agree. Let me try to prove the point by providing some examples.

I previously, in my response to @ravagekitteh , I presented the idea of comparing Mozart to Bieber. Who will history remember? Who will be held in higher regard in many years time when we are all long gone? Whose work will be put forward a shining example of true musical art? As it was once said: "One shall stand, one shall fall". I think we can all agree which will stand the test of time and which will become irrelevant. I'd be surprised to hear an opposing view coming from any significant portion of the educated population (i.e. outside of the hormone influenced opinions of pre-pubescent girls who are still bound to the thoughts of their still developing prefrontal cortex). If we had the means to peer 300 years into the future and bet on the result, why is it that all of our money would be placed on Mozart? None of us know the subjective preferences of people that won't be born for a couple of hundred years. So I ask you, why is Mozart the safe bet? For one, he has already proven to stand the test of time, but more importantly (and directly related) his work is a musical masterpiece. If one were to argue that Beethoven is better, I would agree that the answer there might be subjective. However, in Bieber's case, the difference between them is simply too great, it is more than subjective. That doesn't mean that someone can't (subjectively) like Bieber more, but objectively it is a shift loss for Mr. Bieber. And with that, I ask again, who will history remember more favorably?

Perhaps that is enough bashing of my fellow Canadian. There are plenty more examples:

Let's compare:

• Michelangelo's David or the paintings on the Sistine Chapel
• Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa

to...

Spoiler: drum roll....

Modern "Art"

And in case anyone accuses me of cherry picking non-professional work, this stuff was actually not created by Kindergartners, but rather by actual artists (and I use that term loosely) and sold for millions of dollars linky link

Still not convinced?
https://nypost.com/2015/10/27/modern-art-exhibit-mistaken-for-trash-and-thrown-away/

If there is still any doubt that Michelangelo's or da Vinci's work is objectively superior to modern art:
https://www.boredpanda.com/art-gall...oogle&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic


Bottom line, I can take a shit on a pedestal and call it art (and to anyone claiming this to be a silly made up example, google "period blood art"), but to claim that Michelangelo's work is not objectively better would be a complete insult to the great artist. I could recreate those pieces of modern art I posted above (so could any of us), but even if I devoted every last minute of my life I could not sculpt the statue of David.

How about we use an example a little closer to home. Neveroddenreven's painted work, Xlanax_lot's painted work and Fiona's painted work are all significantly (and objectively) greater than anything I have ever painted. They are all more talented and their work is objectively superior to mine. Even if you found someone who subjectively liked my work better (good luck with that), that doesn't change the fact that their painted models are objectively of a higher standard... you would have simply stumbled upon an outlier. More people on this forum can achieve a standard of painting equal to or greater than mine than can match the likes of Neveroddenreven, Xlanax_lot or Fiona. That is the simple truth, they have more skill and produce painted models of an objectively finer standard. If such discrepancies exist at our hobby level, would it not be a little bit naive to believe such differences disappear at the professional level? Some people are more talented and can produce objectively better work.

Now, one important note. When I speak of objectivity, there has to be a significant quality difference between two movies to make a valid objective judgement. As an analogy, at 20 meters away I can't tell the difference between something that is 25mm wide and something that is 25.1 mm wide, but I can surely tell you which is wider between something that is 1 meter wide and 10 meters wide. To further clarify this point, let's use our musical example from above, the quality difference between Mozart and Beethoven would be subjective, but there is an objective quality difference between either of them and Bieber (though someone could still have an opposing subjective opinion). And yes the difference between Dark Fate and T2 is great enough for objective differentiation.

If I take on the viewpoint of yourself and @ravagekitteh then I'd have to believe that there would be NO objective quality difference between:

• Godfather vs. Curly Sue.
• Shawshank Redemption vs. Ghostbusters (2016)
• The Dark Knight vs. Batman & Robin
• Silence of the Lambs vs. The Star Wars Holiday Special

That is simply untrue. You guys are free to your opinion, but I am confident that time will prove me wise. If you are ever in doubt, ask yourself what will stand the test of time? What will be a classic in 50 years time?

"This puppy is not cute."

That's not objectively false either. It's still subjectively false. The overwhelming majority of people will say that this puppy is cute, but that doesn't make the puppy's cuteness or lack thereof objective reality. Someone could have had a bad experience with a someone with a red checkered bow tie and this is triggering PTSD.

That depends. With a few caveats, we can very quickly come to some sort of objective truth. First off, we'd have to limit it to the judgement of human beings. To a lion it is not cute, but rather a very easy meal. Second, we have to recognize that cultural differences exist, and as I am only experienced in western culture, let's stick with that.

So with our target group narrowed to people within western society, what would happen if you asked a million random people if the dog is either [cute] or [not cute]? What percentage will rate the dog as cute? 99.9%? 99%? Maybe worst case scenario, 95%? At that point you have arrived at an objective reality. For all intents and purposes that dog is objectively cute. There will be a few outliers who subjectively feel differently, but that is simply the exception to the rule. If someone put a gun to your head, and your life depended on you correctly guessing how the next random person will rate the dog, (regardless of how you subjectively feel about it), you'd probably guess "cute".

P.S. Anyone who doesn't find that dog cute should probably be John Wicked!

For all we know, Terminator Dark Fate could be more significant of a movement than Terminator Judgement Day. What if it's the box office flop that convinces Hollywood that woke politics and large budget action movies do not mix? That's very significant. It's all in how one define "significant".

(On average it's about 3-4 years between a movie moving from concept to the big screen, so we won't know if Hollywood learned their lesson on woke flops until 2023 give or take.)

In the context within which I was using the word "significant", I meant it as positively significant (i.e. leaving behind a positive or well-regarded legacy). If my meaning was not clear in my earlier post, consider this my clarification.

First off, I think we both know that Hollywood likely hasn't learned shit. They learn slowly and need many repeated financial lessons to learn anything.

However, if it was the case that Hollywood did change their tune because of Terminator Dark Fate, that would only add evidence to the fact that it is an objectively crappy movie, and significantly inferior to the masterpiece that is T2.

It's probably significant to Linda Hamilton. It's her last movie (I'm guessing). I don't know this for a fact, but I bet it's her biggest paycheck ever received. That's also significant. It's significant to Natalie Reyes, it's her first big role.

Those are all individual personal examples AND they have no bearing on the movie being objectively good or significant. We're talking about the movie's significance across the annals of history, not the personal financial/career gains of a couple of individuals.

I have a special place in my heart for Batman Forever. Looking back, it's a subpar movie, far more poorly written than most other Batman franchise movies, but it's the first movie I saw in the theaters with my friends and no adults. It was exciting and liberating. Someone, somewhere had a great time watching Terminator Dark Fate because of the context of who they watched it with and the manner in which they watched it.

This is my exact point. You subjectively like Batman Forever (due to the positive childhood experience you had the first time you watched it), but you objectively understand its shortcomings (subpar movie, poorly written in comparison to other Batman movies).

I have zero issue with such a statement. There are crappy movies that I still enjoy to this day, but I can recognize their objective standing in comparison to other movies.

 

[ravagekitteh]

This is probably the best place to start. Let us tackle the central topic, can one piece art be objectively better than another? I most heartily believe that it can, and history seems to agree. Let me try to prove the point by providing some examples.

I previously, in my response to @ravagekitteh , I presented the idea of comparing Mozart to Bieber. Who will history remember? Who will be held in higher regard in many years time when we are all long gone? Whose work will be put forward a shining example of true musical art? As it was once said: "One shall stand, one shall fall". I think we can all agree which will stand the test of time and which will become irrelevant. I'd be surprised to hear an opposing view coming from any significant portion of the educated population (i.e. outside of the hormone influenced opinions of pre-pubescent girls who are still bound to the thoughts of their still developing prefrontal cortex). If we had the means to peer 300 years into the future and bet on the result, why is it that all of our money would be placed on Mozart? None of us know the subjective preferences of people that won't be born for a couple of hundred years. So I ask you, why is Mozart the safe bet? For one, he has already proven to stand the test of time, but more importantly (and directly related) his work is a musical masterpiece. If one were to argue that Beethoven is better, I would agree that the answer there might be subjective. However, in Bieber's case, the difference between them is simply too great, it is more than subjective. That doesn't mean that someone can't (subjectively) like Bieber more, but objectively it is a shift loss for Mr. Bieber. And with that, I ask again, who will history remember more favorably?

Perhaps that is enough bashing of my fellow Canadian. There are plenty more examples:

Let's compare:

• Michelangelo's David or the paintings on the Sistine Chapel
• Leonardo da Vinci's Mona Lisa

to...

Spoiler: drum roll....

Modern "Art"

And in case anyone accuses me of cherry picking non-professional work, this stuff was actually not created by Kindergartners, but rather by actual artists (and I use that term loosely) and sold for millions of dollars linky link

Still not convinced?
https://nypost.com/2015/10/27/modern-art-exhibit-mistaken-for-trash-and-thrown-away/

If there is still any doubt that Michelangelo's or da Vinci's work is objectively superior to modern art:
https://www.boredpanda.com/art-gall...oogle&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic


Bottom line, I can take a shit on a pedestal and call it art (and to anyone claiming this to be a silly made up example, google "period blood art"), but to claim that Michelangelo's work is not objectively better would be a complete insult to the great artist. I could recreate those pieces of modern art I posted above (so could any of us), but even if I devoted every last minute of my life I could not sculpt the statue of David.

How about we use an example a little closer to home. Neveroddenreven's painted work, Xlanax_lot's painted work and Fiona's painted work are all significantly (and objectively) greater than anything I have ever painted. They are all more talented and their work is objectively superior to mine. Even if you found someone who subjectively liked my work better (good luck with that), that doesn't change the fact that their painted models are objectively of a higher standard... you would have simply stumbled upon an outlier. More people on this forum can achieve a standard of painting equal to or greater than mine than can match the likes of Neveroddenreven, Xlanax_lot or Fiona. That is the simple truth, they have more skill and produce painted models of an objectively finer standard. If such discrepancies exist at our hobby level, would it not be a little bit naive to believe such differences disappear at the professional level? Some people are more talented and can produce objectively better work.

Now, one important note. When I speak of objectivity, there has to be a significant quality difference between two movies to make a valid objective judgement. As an analogy, at 20 meters away I can't tell the difference between something that is 25mm wide and something that is 25.1 mm wide, but I can surely tell you which is wider between something that is 1 meter wide and 10 meters wide. To further clarify this point, let's use our musical example from above, the quality difference between Mozart and Beethoven would be subjective, but there is an objective quality difference between either of them and Bieber (though someone could still have an opposing subjective opinion). And yes the difference between Dark Fate and T2 is great enough for objective differentiation.

If I take on the viewpoint of yourself and @ravagekitteh then I'd have to believe that there would be NO objective quality difference between:

• Godfather vs. Curly Sue.
• Shawshank Redemption vs. Ghostbusters (2016)
• The Dark Knight vs. Batman & Robin
• Silence of the Lambs vs. The Star Wars Holiday Special

That is simply untrue. You guys are free to your opinion, but I am confident that time will prove me wise. If you are ever in doubt, ask yourself what will stand the test of time? What will be a classic in 50 years time?





That depends. With a few caveats, we can very quickly come to some sort of objective truth. First off, we'd have to limit it to the judgement of human beings. To a lion it is not cute, but rather a very easy meal. Second, we have to recognize that cultural differences exist, and as I am only experienced in western culture, let's stick with that.

So with our target group narrowed to people within western society, what would happen if you asked a million random people if the dog is either [cute] or [not cute]? What percentage will rate the dog as cute? 99.9%? 99%? Maybe worst case scenario, 95%? At that point you have arrived at an objective reality. For all intents and purposes that dog is objectively cute. There will be a few outliers who subjectively feel differently, but that is simply the exception to the rule. If someone put a gun to your head, and your life depended on you correctly guessing how the next random person will rate the dog, (regardless of how you subjectively feel about it), you'd probably guess "cute".

P.S. Anyone who doesn't find that dog cute should probably be John Wicked!



In the context within which I was using the word "significant", I meant it as positively significant (i.e. leaving behind a positive or well-regarded legacy). If my meaning was not clear in my earlier post, consider this my clarification.

First off, I think we both know that Hollywood likely hasn't learned shit. They learn slowly and need many repeated financial lessons to learn anything.

However, if it was the case that Hollywood did change their tune because of Terminator Dark Fate, that would only add evidence to the fact that it is an objectively crappy movie, and significantly inferior to the masterpiece that is T2.


Those are all individual personal examples AND they have no bearing on the movie being objectively good or significant. We're talking about the movie's significance across the annals of history, not the personal financial/career gains of a couple of individuals.


This is my exact point. You subjectively like Batman Forever (due to the positive childhood experience you had the first time you watched it), but you objectively understand its shortcomings (subpar movie, poorly written in comparison to other Batman movies).

I have zero issue with such a statement. There are crappy movies that I still enjoy to this day, but I can recognize their objective standing in comparison to other movies.

You are not describing objective truth, you are describing majority view. A film cannot be objectively better than another because our entire judgement on it is based on personal feelings and opinions and the inherent quality of the parts of films that supposedly make them better than others is entirely subjective. The majority views that you seem to take as objective truth are entirely made up of individual personal examples that are apparently irrelevant.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

We also both agree that everyone is entitled to their own opinion when it comes to what their favourite is. The part where we disagree is that you seem to think that your opinion is the “correct one”, and in having it it makes you somehow superior to people who feel differently.

An interesting premise... one which I honestly took some time to consider. There is perhaps some truth in it, but not precisely (or to the same magnitude to) the way it is presented. Is there a feeling of satisfaction in liking the "better" thing, admittedly sometimes, at least to some degree. I wouldn't say it makes me feel superior, but there is an inherent positive feeling associated with believing one has good taste. That said, the more I thought about it, the more I considered the alternative. I like the OT, which I feel is objectively better and that makes me feel good but... I also like the Tomb Kings which is objectively much less important/influential/successful/etc than Space Marines, and that makes me feel just as good. So I derive as sense of satisfaction with preferring both the popular thing and the unpopular one.

As for feeling superior, I don't feel superior because I am aligned with a popular movie. However, I do probably feel some "superiority" in being able to analyse a situation/concept to a higher and more accurate degree than someone else (and in turn some other people can do so to a higher degree than I can). However, it isn't an absolute feeling of superiority, but a task specific one. It doesn't make me a better person than someone else, it just makes me more skilled at that particular task. For instance, if you can bench press more than I can, that doesn't make you a better person than me, but it does make you a better bench presser... and you would have a right to feel good or "superior" in that specific aspect. On the other hand, I might be able to run faster than you, and that might make me feel superior in that specific activity. Each of us are likely superior to one another at different tasks or aspects of life. There is nothing wrong with taking pride in something that you do well or better than someone else, but in no way should this be conflated with a feeling of being superior as a person in general.

And on a side note, comparing me to a Bieber fan is a low blow, even for you...

A bit tongue and cheek on my part. But the question remains... would you say that Bieber and Mozart are objectively on even terms in terms of musical talent/contribution?

That simply isn’t the case, and to infer that directly contradicts your previous assertion that people are entitled to their own opinion.

I disagree. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but that doesn't mean that all opinions are equally valid. As an example, some people believe in vaccines, while others are anti-vaxxers. They are both entitled to their opinions, but that doesn't mean I value those opinions equally. I still in turn have a right to my belief that the anti-vaxxers are wrong. (and no I am not suggesting that PT fans are anti-vaxxers, that is just an example).

Look back at your life and think about a time where you might have sought out the advice of others. I'm sure you got some great advice, some poor advice and everything in between. You would have then made a value judgement and went with what you felt was the good advice. Those were all opinions, but you disagreed with some and agreed with others. In fact, over the years, you've probably worked out who to go to for good advice.

I believe in the marketplace of ideas. Everyone has a right to their ideas and a right to voice them, and let the best ideas will win out.

You are justified in saying that such things can be fairly objectively measured (although @Scalenex rightfully points out that even those measures are to an extent subjective). However, even if you do judge a film to be, say, more significant, all that you have “objectively” ascertained is that it is more significant- it doesn’t objectively make it better and you preferring it to another film doesn’t make your preference any more or less valid, nor does is make you better or worse than anybody else.

Take the comparison between Citizen Kane and Avengers Endgame. Both are major films, but based off your criteria, Endgame seems to do better. It’s heavily influenced the movie industry - almost everything these days seems to be going towards Cinematic Universes. It’s had a massive impact on culture - you can quote that film in most places and people will know what you are talking about, whereas to mention “Rosebud” will get blank looks from most. Advancement of techniques and effects it falls behind in to be fair - Kane was massively pioneering in that regard and Endgame probably owes a fair bit to it, but even that doesn’t provide an outright objective advantage; Einstein’s work was at least in part built of the previous discoveries of other scientists, yet most would probably still argue he was the smartest.

As for the historical impact, that is yet to be discerned, but simply by virtue of it being as significant as it clearly is you can be fairly sure that it will go down in history. And to top it all off, the viewership and box office (while not basis of an entire argument still nonetheless a massive part of the evaluation) absolutely smashes Kane. It is undoubtedly far more popular. To use your criteria, Avengers Endgame is objectively better than Citizen Kane. Yet funnily enough, a large number of critics (and I imagine most of us) would disagree with that statement.

In response to my interesting claim that Endgame is better than Citizen Kane, most critics would point out that the things that make it better are far more subtle and nuanced. They would point to specific film making techniques and carefully thought out methods of conveying story and ideas. And they would be completely justified in their argument (in fact I think I would probably agree with them). However, those things do not objectively make them better either. You can objectively state that said things are present in the film, but you cannot objectively state that they are better, because to go by your “objective” measures of popularity and quality that would indicate the inherent quality of said inclusions, the results would say that they are in fact not - Citizen Kane is “objectively” worse than Endgame. If those techniques made for an objectively better film, then Citizen Kane would have outperformed Endgame at your criteria you’ve set.

But that doesn’t change the fact that we all (presumably) agree that Citizen Kane is the better film. This is because the things that make it better in our eyes are not objective but in fact subjective. We can prove that nuanced filmmaking is present in the film, but we cannot prove that is is better; that is a matter of opinion. And that opinion, based on the relative performances of the two films, is in the minority and so based off what some of your previous posts in the past have implied, invalid and wrong - we are choosing a very silly hill to die on and those who prefer Endgame clearly have better taste than us.

This is of course nonsense - as we have agreed before everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the matter. Likewise we are completely valid in our belief that Kane is the better film, but what makes it better is entirely subjective. In fact, we can discern, the very nature of a film being better or worse then another is subjective. By definition (based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions according to the Oxford Dictionary) something being subjective is based on opinion, something that we all agree everyone is entitled to differ with and therefore not something that can be judged as right or wrong; not something objective. Therefore, we can discern, whether a film is better or worse than another is not objective.

Firstly, I only listed those objective measures as some other ways that a movie can be objectively judged outside of popularity. The list is by no means complete or properly weighted. I can think of many more important factors related to story structure, character development, etc.

My central point has always been that the better film will stand the test of time. Your Citizen Kane vs. Endgame scenario perfectly illustrates this. Before I begin, let me declare that I have not seen Citizen Kane, so I can't comment on it beyond what I have read and very briefly researched.

Citizen Kane is the perfect example because it has stood the test of time. It is a classic. Why did you choose that film over some random film that was released in the same year... because Citizen Kane was objectively better than most of its contemporaries. How come many of those other films are forgotten, but Citizen Kane endures? 79 years after its release, you have (rightly) presented it as a great film (and you have chosen from it among thousands of films). I very much suspect that Endgame will not be remembered so fondly in 79 years time.

In regards to the application of the objective measures I quickly jotted down, you must be very careful when comparing two movies separated by so much time. Just at a glance:

• how a film influences the movie industry=> from what I have heard, Citizen Kane did have a large effect. Without extensive research, I can't accurately compare the two
• its impact on culture=> recency plays a huge factor. It's not fair to to compare the impact on today's culture, because Citizen Kane was not created for today's culture. I honestly don't know the cultural impact that Citizen Kane had in the 40s. Nobody will be quoting Endgame in 80 years either.
• its contribution to the advancement of filming techniques or special effects=> from what I have read, Citizen Kane's advancements for its time was far more revolutionary than Endgame. Endgame took what already worked well and executed it efficiently, but it hardly pushed the envelope.
• historically (less so today due to political interference) its reception in terms of critical acclaim, awards, etc => I think Citizen Kane is the easy winner here
• which film will be (positively) remembered, discussed and well-regarded in 50 years, 75 years, 100 years, etc.=> Another easy (extrapolated) win for Citizen Kane. It's already proven itself, and I just don't see Endgame achieving the same.

I think part of the problem is that we disagree on what is subjective and objective. So far our debates have never really been about 100% objective issues - they have been about moral issues and preferences. Now to be be fair I would argue that moral issues are pretty objective (as a very, very broad rule of thumb, when dealing with moral problems generally the best solution is the most inclusive and understanding one to everyone

Moral issues are a very interesting example. Outside of the very big and obvious ones (i.e. murder is bad... because it objectively undermines the building of a successful society) it is very culturally subjective. That is a different discussion though, and one that I would rather avoid.

You are not describing objective truth, you are describing majority view. A film cannot be objectively better than another because our entire judgement on it is based on personal feelings and opinions and the inherent quality of the parts of films that supposedly make them better than others is entirely subjective. The majority views that you seem to take as objective truth are entirely made up of individual personal examples that are apparently irrelevant.

A significant collection of subjective viewpoints, when properly collected, analyzed and understood can yield objective truth. The entire field of Psychology and many of the other "soft" sciences are built upon this. Scientific studies from these fields collect data which can be best described as personally subjective, but collectively they result in objective conclusions.

Let me give you a very simplified example. Let's say I start surveying people about the fear of falling. I'll likely find that each person has an innate built-in fear of falling . Those are all subjective and personal feelings. However, at the end of the study, after properly surveying a large enough random sample of the population, I can come to the objective conclusion that people have an innate fear of falling (which happens to be scientifically true). I may come across a few outliers, but the overwhelming vast majority of people will exhibit the fear. Is it as "perfect" as a pure quantitative measure we might collect in a "hard" science such as Physics or Chemistry?...no, but it is still very far from subjective.

The views that yourself and @Scalenex have presented, would completely undermine fields such as Psychology.


Lastly, I presented a series of ideas and questions in my previous reply . Those questions have still been unanswered by either of you. I ultimately cannot take on a viewpoint that is unable to recognize an objective quality difference between the Godfather (or Shawshank Redemption or Citizen Kane, etc) and The Star Wars Holiday Special.... or the work of Michelangelo and the two colours on a canvas work of Modern "artists" . Do you not feel that there is someone on this forum that can objectively paint models better than you (or me)?

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

 

[Scalenex]

View attachment 75835

Anakin is not going to go anywhere with that much sand for ANYTHING

 

[ravagekitteh]

An interesting premise... one which I honestly took some time to consider. There is perhaps some truth in it, but not precisely (or to the same magnitude to) the way it is presented. Is there a feeling of satisfaction in liking the "better" thing, admittedly sometimes, at least to some degree. I wouldn't say it makes me feel superior, but there is an inherent positive feeling associated with believing one has good taste. That said, the more I thought about it, the more I considered the alternative. I like the OT, which I feel is objectively better and that makes me feel good but... I also like the Tomb Kings which is objectively much less important/influential/successful/etc than Space Marines, and that makes me feel just as good. So I derive as sense of satisfaction with preferring both the popular thing and the unpopular one.

As for feeling superior, I don't feel superior because I am aligned with a popular movie. However, I do probably feel some "superiority" in being able to analyse a situation/concept to a higher and more accurate degree than someone else (and in turn some other people can do so to a higher degree than I can). However, it isn't an absolute feeling of superiority, but a task specific one. It doesn't make me a better person than someone else, it just makes me more skilled at that particular task. For instance, if you can bench press more than I can, that doesn't make you a better person than me, but it does make you a better bench presser... and you would have a right to feel good or "superior" in that specific aspect. On the other hand, I might be able to run faster than you, and that might make me feel superior in that specific activity. Each of us are likely superior to one another at different tasks or aspects of life. There is nothing wrong with taking pride in something that you do well or better than someone else, but in no way should this be conflated with a feeling of being superior as a person in general.

The problem is you still seem to be inferring that you preferring the OT to the PT demonstrates that you are apparently better at analysing to a higher degree than others - that preferring the OT makes you superior. That may not be your intent, but to me at least that’s how it comes across.

A bit tongue and cheek on my part. But the question remains... would you say that Bieber and Mozart are objectively on even terms in terms of musical talent/contribution?

I’d say there’s a strong argument for Mozart having an objectively bigger contribution to music, but the difference between the two as to whether or not they are “better” is purely subjective (and I and practically everyone else subjectivity feel that Bieber is more than a little crap).

I disagree. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but that doesn't mean that all opinions are equally valid. As an example, some people believe in vaccines, while others are anti-vaxxers. They are both entitled to their opinions, but that doesn't mean I value those opinions equally. I still in turn have a right to my belief that the anti-vaxxers are wrong. (and no I am not suggesting that PT fans are anti-vaxxers, that is just an example).

Look back at your life and think about a time where you might have sought out the advice of others. I'm sure you got some great advice, some poor advice and everything in between. You would have then made a value judgement and went with what you felt was the good advice. Those were all opinions, but you disagreed with some and agreed with others. In fact, over the years, you've probably worked out who to go to for good advice.

I believe in the marketplace of ideas. Everyone has a right to their ideas and a right to voice them, and let the best ideas will win out.

The vaccine example is one where there is an objective truth - there is no question of opinion as to whether or not a vaccine successfully prevents infection. Advice though is subjective - you might look at one piece of advice one way, but someone else may see it completely differently. The quality of advice is subjective, because the quality of the outcomes gained by it is entirely down to opinion.

A significant collection of subjective viewpoints, when properly collected, analyzed and understood can yield objective truth. The entire field of Psychology and many of the other "soft" sciences are built upon this. Scientific studies from these fields collect data which can be best described as personally subjective, but collectively they result in objective conclusions.

Let me give you a very simplified example. Let's say I start surveying people about the fear of falling. I'll likely find that each person has an innate built-in fear of falling . Those are all subjective and personal feelings. However, at the end of the study, after properly surveying a large enough random sample of the population, I can come to the objective conclusion that people have an innate fear of falling (which happens to be scientifically true). I may come across a few outliers, but the overwhelming vast majority of people will exhibit the fear. Is it as "perfect" as a pure quantitative measure we might collect in a "hard" science such as Physics or Chemistry?...no, but it is still very far from subjective.

The views that yourself and @Scalenex have presented, would completely undermine fields such as Psychology.


Lastly, I presented a series of ideas and questions in my previous reply . Those questions have still been unanswered by either of you. I ultimately cannot take on a viewpoint that is unable to recognize an objective quality difference between the Godfather (or Shawshank Redemption or Citizen Kane, etc) and The Star Wars Holiday Special.... or the work of Michelangelo and the two colours on a canvas work of Modern "artists" . Do you not feel that there is someone on this forum that can objectively paint models better than you (or me)?

The issue with your example is that there is objective truth behind it - either people have an innate fear of falling or they do not and it is brought about through experience. That is not the case with films.

What the quality of a film ultimately boils down to (what makes a film “better”) is the enjoyment in which it incites within its audience. And the problem is, people’s enjoyment is inherently subjective. One person might absolutely love car chases, whilst the other might find them dull and rather listen to an engaging conversation between two leads that the prior person would find equally dull. For the same reasons that people have different tastes in music and books and other media, different people enjoy and prefer different aspects of films. As such, there is no inherent quality to featuring a balance of close ups and distant shots, because different people will have different preferences. And to assign levels of “quality” to said features is to essentially elevate some people’s personal subjective opinions above others, to say that they are superior to them simply by virtue of what they prefer; something we both agree is wrong. Whether a film is better or not cannot be objective, because the very measure it is built upon is inherently subjective.

For that reason, there is not objective quality difference between the two things you are comparing. The quality you speak of is the enjoyment one yields from from them, and that enjoyment is subjective. It doesn’t change the fact that the majority of people prefer one over the other or that one will outlast and have a larger effect than the other, but that is not an indication of objective quality, that is an indication of a majority preference. The Shawshank Redemption is not objectively better than The Holiday Special, it is objectively more popular. It appeals to a larger number of people’s tastes. If you consider it the best that’s fine, and if the the knowledge that the majority of people agree with you makes you feel more secure in that opinion then that’s great. If they were to award it the best film award then over the special that would be completely justified, as that is what the generally held viewpoint is. But do not mistake yours or anyone else’s preference as being anything other than subjective. You objectively prefer it. It is not objectively better.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

The problem is you still seem to be inferring that you preferring the OT to the PT demonstrates that you are apparently better at analysing to a higher degree than others - that preferring the OT makes you superior. That may not be your intent, but to me at least that’s how it comes across.

No, this is incorrect. If I liked the PT better, but at the same time I could still correctly analyze that the OT is objectively better, I'd still derive the same sense of satisfaction (albeit a very small one in either case, because I don't consider this to be a particularly difficult or impressive task). What I am saying is that the satisfaction is derived from being able to make the analysis when others cannot. The feeling of task specific superiority is based on analytic skill and not with siding with popular choice.

The vaccine example is one where there is an objective truth - there is no question of opinion as to whether or not a vaccine successfully prevents infection.

Yes, but T2 > Dark Fate is an objective truth as well. There are objective measures that validate this... popularity, longevity, etc.

Advice though is subjective - you might look at one piece of advice one way, but someone else may see it completely differently. The quality of advice is subjective, because the quality of the outcomes gained by it is entirely down to opinion.

Advice can most definitely be objectively better. Let's say you wanted to get advice on buying a new mountain bike. First you speak to your friend who is an avid mountain biker, has experience working at a bike shop and spends most of his time with other people into mountain biking. This friend, talks to you, analyzes your needs and gives you advice. Next you go to your other friend who has never went mountain biking in his life, is not physically inclined and spends most of his time eating cheetos and watching Soap Operas. Odds are one of them is objectively better at giving you advice on which bikes to look out for and consider.

Some people have more experience or are simply smarter. Advice can be objectively better.

The issue with your example is that there is objective truth behind it - either people have an innate fear of falling or they do not and it is brought about through experience. That is not the case with films.

Either people have a fear a falling or they do not... either people enjoyed a movie or they did not. And yes, I admit there are gradations to liking/disliking a movie, but the same is true for a fear of falling (i.e. height of fall, etc.)

I'll give you that the fear of falling is not learned through experience, but replace a fear of falling than with a fear of guns (which is learned) and the example I provided holds equally true. You could still conduct a psychological study looking at people's subjective feelings on guns and derive an objective truth in the end. That is how the soft sciences work.

What the quality of a film ultimately boils down to (what makes a film “better”) is the enjoyment in which it incites within its audience. And the problem is, people’s enjoyment is inherently subjective. One person might absolutely love car chases, whilst the other might find them dull and rather listen to an engaging conversation between two leads that the prior person would find equally dull. For the same reasons that people have different tastes in music and books and other media, different people enjoy and prefer different aspects of films. As such, there is no inherent quality to featuring a balance of close ups and distant shots, because different people will have different preferences. And to assign levels of “quality” to said features is to essentially elevate some people’s personal subjective opinions above others, to say that they are superior to them simply by virtue of what they prefer; something we both agree is wrong. Whether a film is better or not cannot be objective, because the very measure it is built upon is inherently subjective.

It once again comes down to my primary point, some movies stand the test of time and some do not. Would you not agree that Citizen Kane has stood the test of time, while most of its contemporaries have not? That is an objective truth. It is an objective truth that some movies are positively remember and others are forgotten.

So regardless of the combination qualities that make result in a film becoming a classic, there is an distinction between the films that endure and the films that are forgotten. If one pays close enough attention, one can discern which category a film will fall into to a very high degree of success. Dark Fate will be (or already is) largely forgotten.

I’d say there’s a strong argument for Mozart having an objectively bigger contribution to music, but the difference between the two as to whether or not they are “better” is purely subjective

The Shawshank Redemption is not objectively better than The Holiday Special

I can just rest my case on that. I refuse to adopt a "world view" that makes such a blatantly wrong judgement. But once again, you're entitled to your own opinion even though I think it is vehemently wrong (and you can believe that I am vehemently wrong).

I am curious, do you believe that there are members on this forum who can objectively paint better than you (or I)?

The Shawshank Redemption is not objectively better than The Holiday Special, it is objectively more popular.

From an artistic standpoint, what is the purpose of a movie (and by artistic standpoint, I'm purposely excluding making money, as that is not pertinent to our discussion)? Phrased another way, from a viewer standpoint, what is the purpose or goal of a movie? The answer... to entertain. We spend our time and money to watch movies in order to be entertained.

A car has safety features to save lives, so we would judge those safety features on how well they can save lives. A golf club is designed to hit ball down the golf course, we would judge it on how well (accuracy + distance) it accomplishes that task. In these two cases (as well as with everything else), we judge somethings quality based on how well and reliably it performs its intended goal/task.

The goal of a movie (once again from an artistic or viewer standpoint) is to entertain. The Shawshank Redemption does a good job at achieving this goal (entertaining) in most cases. The majority of people that watch it, enjoy it and are satisfied by it. The Holiday Special on the other hand is hated and reviled. I won't go as far as saying that no one likes it, but I have never met or spoken to a single person who does.

So while individual (subjective) preferences regarding the Shawshank Redemption and the Star Wars Holiday Special may vary, it is an objective truth that when averaged out, one achieves its intended goal of entertaining its audience and the other does not. And as a result, as a piece of art, one is a success and one is a failure.

But do not mistake yours or anyone else’s preference as being anything other than subjective. You objectively prefer it. It is not objectively better.

Something I love can be objectively better. Something I hate can be objectively better. My feelings are subjective, but I am able to analyze trends, data and facts to arrive at objective truth. That objective truth is independent of my subjective feelings. Sometimes my subjective feelings line up with the objective truth, and other times they are in opposition.

In terms of movies, it comes down to how well it achieved its goal of entertaining and what its legacy will be in the future (remembered/celebrated or forgotten).

 

[Seraphandy]

Just get a room.......

 

[Lizards of Renown]

Methinks the thread has derailed somewhat...

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Just get a room.......

Technically this is my room.

Methinks the thread has derailed somewhat...

I would agree.

 

[Lizards of Renown]

Technically this is my room. .

Booooooooooom.

What’s that sound I hear you cry? That’s Nightbringer dropping the Mic.....

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]