Most technical/logical flaws aren't really the problem. They become lightning rods for people's general feelings about the movie in a broader way.
Look at the guy playing the flamethrowing guitar in 'MM Fury Road.' So many viewers saw that guy and smiled & laughed. Some even point to him as an example of why the movie is so cool.
But I'd argue that if people didn't like the movie as a whole, then the same viewers might be pointing to that same character as a perfect example of what was wrong with the movie. "The early MM movies had believability. They didn't have that kind of ridiculous stuff. The bad guys are supposed to be deadly killers. It totally spoils the seriousness of the chase every time they show the idiot with the guitar. That was when Mad Max jumped the shark."
I don’t think anyone ever said anything like that about Mad Max, except for professional critics. I mean, Mad Max had ridiculous stuff as far back as the first film (unless you happen to think people can have eyes bulging out of their heads that far out like Toecutter before his demise, which Miller stated was modeled after Daffy Duck from some of the Loony Tunes shorts). Besides, fans of MM never took it that seriously, but they certainly enjoyed the films because of the story and characters in addition to the action sequences. Even with changes throughout the franchise, the movie still looks feels like a Mad Max film (and people uphold Miller to keep with the quality of storytelling he is known for). The same thing cannot be said about the Sequel Trilogy.
Most technical/logical flaws aren't really the problem. They become lightning rods for people's general feelings about the movie in a broader way.
Look at the guy playing the flamethrowing guitar in 'MM Fury Road.' So many viewers saw that guy and smiled & laughed. Some even point to him as an example of why the movie is so cool.
But I'd argue that if people didn't like the movie as a whole, then the same viewers might be pointing to that same character as a perfect example of what was wrong with the movie. "The early MM movies had believability. They didn't have that kind of ridiculous stuff. The bad guys are supposed to be deadly killers. It totally spoils the seriousness of the chase every time they show the idiot with the guitar. That was when Mad Max jumped the shark."
Yes! Exactly. Like, you may just not dig the vibe of a film. You may not enjoy the overall look of it. You may dislike the focus of the film. And all of that is totally fine.
I may have brought this up here before, but I don't really like most of Eric Clapton's music. I'm a guitar player (strictly amateur, and very infrequently these days), though, and I respect his technical mastery. It's just that the vast bulk of his music just...doesn't connect for me on a purely visceral, aesthetic level. It's not about technical flaws. It just...does nothing for me. (Even Layla, which is made a masterpiece not by Clapton, but by Duane Allman's slide guitar. And helped along mightily by Martin Scorcese.)
But your Mad Max example is a good one, and is very much the kind of thing I'm talking about. And I'm sure that film (although I've only seen it once or twice) has its own technical flaws, gaffes, and odd stylistic choices. I tend to think that most films do. Even if it's uncommon among Mad Max fans, you can imagine a world in which Mad Max fans totally rejected that film and saw it as a betrayal of what they loved about the originals. And then they make 4-hour videos tearing apart every scene to explain the deep-seated flaws in the film...
I don’t think anyone ever said anything like that about Mad Max, except for professional critics. I mean, Mad Max had ridiculous stuff as far back as the first film (unless you happen to think people can have eyes bulging out of their heads that far out like Toecutter before his demise, which Miller stated was modeled after Daffy Duck from some of the Loony Tunes shorts). Besides, fans of MM never took it that seriously, but they certainly enjoyed the films because of the story and characters in addition to the action sequences. Even with changes throughout the franchise, the movie still looks feels like a Mad Max film (and people uphold Miller to keep with the quality of storytelling he is known for). The same thing cannot be said about the Sequel Trilogy.
Look, I think there are real problems with the Sequel Trilogy as a whole. Believe me, I'm not here to apologize for them. What I'm trying to get at is that I tend to think that a lot of what people say they object to is not what they actually object to, or that to the extent it is, they try and couch it as an objective failure, when it's more that it just didn't resonate for them because they were hoping for something else.
I also want to say that I'm not trying to offer the rejoinder of "You just didn't like it" or "you were just the victim of your own expectations" is meant to in any way diminish their disappointment or rejection of what they didn't like. I've been there. I know how it feels. I know it sucks, and I know the experience of trying to put into words why you're disappointed. It's all valid. It's all real, and you're all entitled to be frustrated about that experience. It just doesn't also mean that the film objectively sucked or is flawed in every case. Although, again, with the sequels...they still are really flawed films. But I tend to think that the flaws are more about a tragic combination of stylistic issues and a failure of vision (or lack of it, really) from the people running the show.
I think there's an alternate universe where JJ Abrams does all 3 films, and they're derivative as hell, make zero sense as soon as you look at them, but man they're great popcorn adventure rides. They're also utterly forgettable if not for the fact that they're the next big chapters in your favorite franchise of all time. And in that universe, people are...unhappy, but unhappy in a different way, I suppose.
I dont know about anyone else but I generally have difficulty admitting things that aren't true. In reality personal preference has zero to do with whether or not a film is objectively written well. Liking a film is one thing and whether or not a film stands up to film criticism is something else entirely, they are not the same. Our personal preferences do not override everything that is established and accepted about what makes good storytelling and what is good writing in film. Especially when the evidence presented involves individual feelings and no actual criteria or parameters are identified.
An example of such criteria to discern what is bad writing is cliche dialogue. A lot of it existing in a story is a hallmark of bad writing no matter where it appears.
Another example is over exposition. Where the writing is mostly designed to tell what is, as opposed to showing it through story.
Fan Service, where characters or content simply exists to please fans without doing anything to move the story forward or add necessary nuance.
I could go on but honestly those who are convinced that film criticism comes down to personal preference are not going to change their minds no matter what evidence is presented.
ScourgiousJinx
Respectfully, all the criteria you listed can be interpreted as subjective, not objective. Examples:
An example of such criteria to discern what is bad writing is cliche dialogue. A lot of it existing in a story is a hallmark of bad writing no matter where it appears.
Who decides when the exposition is "over" and when it's just right? Some folks might prefer to be told more. Although the principle of filmmaking is "show, not tell," it isn't intended to read "show everything, tell nothing,". There's a balance. Who decides where that line is?
Fan Service, where characters or content simply exists to please fans without doing anything to move the story forward or add necessary nuance.
I disagree here. I love cameos and Easter Eggs! They make me happy when well placed, even if they don't drive the plot. And I decide if they are "well placed" or not. Again, subjective.
Maybe "personal preference" is not the right term, but calling something "objectively bad" violates the definition of "bad", which, by definition, is subjective to the person viewing it.
I dont know about anyone else but I generally have difficulty admitting things that aren't true.
I think you might be conflating your "truth" with fact. The sky is not blue to the person with color blindness. But it is a fact that the color of the sky exists on the visual spectrum in the blue band.
I loved the Mandalorian show. I really am enjoying watching it with my kids. Loved the Book of Boba Fett. LOVED Ahsoka too. Its so great that I can sit at home and watch NEW Star Wars with my kids! Its fun!
I think Hollywood is reaching a broader problem with these franchises - creative quality, like, matters.
In fact it's the only thing that still matters in an era when audiences look at $300m movies and say "meh."
Hollywood didn't used to need to put creative quality on the front burner. At this point I think they do, at least with big stuff. If you are Disney and trying to re-launch one of your sick franchises, it needs to be the main priority. If doing an ideal storyline means you cannot schedule your big-hit-showdown movie during the year or fiscal quarter that you wanted it . . . tough cookies. If it means you cannot hire the trendy gender-swap actor you wanted for the main character . . . tough. Either you want a healthy franchise or you don't. Modern audiences have endless choices now. Giving them exactly what they (not you) want isn't negotiable anymore. Either you put your whole effort on catering to them or they'll stay home and watch cat videos on Youtube.
Hollywood is not used to thinking/operating this way. But it's not the 1980s anymore. Modern franchises operate more like long-running TV shows. It's not like a series of stand-alone JAWS movies that get more crappy each time.
The generation of directors & producers & studio heads in charge of these franchises right now . . . too many of them don't get it. They are stuck in last-generation thinking where movies are done as standalone projects and quality is just one of the widgets on the checklist (action, stars, release date schedule, etc).
ScourgiousJinx
Respectfully, all the criteria you listed can be interpreted as subjective, not objective. Examples:
Who decides when a particular line is cliche or not? There are generational disagreements about such things.
Who decides when the exposition is "over" and when it's just right? Some folks might prefer to be told more. Although the principle of filmmaking is "show, not tell," it isn't intended to read "show everything, tell nothing,". There's a balance. Who decides where that line is?
I disagree here. I love cameos and Easter Eggs! They make me happy when well placed, even if they don't drive the plot. And I decide if they are "well placed" or not. Again, subjective.
Maybe "personal preference" is not the right term, but calling something "objectively bad" violates the definition of "bad", which, by definition, is subjective to the person viewing it.
I think you might be conflating your "truth" with fact. The sky is not blue to the person with color blindness. But it is a fact that the color of the sky exists on the visual spectrum in the blue band.
If film criticism is entirely subjective and if it isn't something that can be objectively taught how does one get a degree in it? If theres no parameters or criteria, if no one can come to agreement and everything is subjective how does one know its done well? If nothing about it is quantifiable or measurable and it only deals with very few technical aspects of filmmaking, then typically can anyone off the street who has an opinion on anything do it successfully as a career without any kind of foreknowledge, background or education? It's very difficult to come to consensus when there are no objective standards from which things can be compared and evaluated.
There is no singular person who decides anything, film criticism is a group effort that is based on established criteria and parameters. There is disagreement but that doesn't mean that everything is subjective. There is quite a bit of agreement especially when it comes to what is fan service, over exposition or cliche. Also liking any of those things in a film on a personal level has zero impact on whether or not they typically negatively impact a film.
None what you said changes that there is personal preference which is different than film criticism. It's important to distinguish them because they are very different and mean separate things. Both have merit in different ways.
Some things are absolutely true (we all die) and some are relative (green is the best color). I'm not getting into a philosophical debate in a Star Wars discussion forum though. Well, not today.
What i love about Star Wars.. well there's a bit in there..
my first recollection is seeing Episode IV in the theaters.. and going to get an action figure after the movie. My mom and dad had gone to it, and when they came back my dad grabbed me and took me to it the same day. The first figure i got was the stormtrooper. Those guys really left an impression on me in a big way. I fell in love with troopers there and it pretty much grew until i became one in 2003.
So Stormtroopers is the first thing i love about Star Wars. The original stormtrooper. I could never figure out whether the stormtrooper was a robot or a person when i was a kid. It took until Return of the Jedi that it made sense. It never connected that it was armor and not a robot. But, hey, i was a late bloomer.
The star destroyer.. number 2.
The X-wing fighter... number 3. Followed closely by the millenium falcon and rebel pilots.
the Death Star Droid is pretty cool. I just loved the head and the shine. First time i had ever seen something like that.
Lightsabers were cool, but i didnt really connect with those until Empire. I did get a Han Solo blaster for a gift when i was young and i played with that unendingly. My dad was way into cowboys , and still is, but for me, those cowboy pistols just dont do it for me. The Han blaster and the Stormtrooper blaster... well that is where its at.
I can remember the feeling those films gave me when i saw them the first time... many times i still get that when i watch them again. Certain scenes just pop out to me.. I used to keep track in a notebook when i saw the original Star Wars, since it was not on TV and you could not yet rent it for home viewing.. so i kept track at the theater or when it finally made it to a TV special.. or whatver... The last time i remember keeping track or even knowing where that notebook was.. i was just out of high school and had seen it 138 times. And i would bet another 138 since then but no notebook.
Needless to say.. i lived Star Wars and my friends did too.
I dont know about anyone else but I generally have difficulty admitting things that aren't true. In reality personal preference has zero to do with whether or not a film is objectively written well. Liking a film is one thing and whether or not a film stands up to film criticism is something else entirely, they are not the same. Our personal preferences do not override everything that is established and accepted about what makes good storytelling and what is good writing in film. Especially when the evidence presented involves individual feelings and no actual criteria or parameters are identified.
An example of such criteria to discern what is bad writing is cliche dialogue. A lot of it existing in a story is a hallmark of bad writing no matter where it appears.
Another example is over exposition. Where the writing is mostly designed to tell what is, as opposed to showing it through story.
Fan Service, where characters or content simply exists to please fans without doing anything to move the story forward or add necessary nuance.
I could go on but honestly those who are convinced that film criticism comes down to personal preference are not going to change their minds no matter what evidence is presented.
I'm not saying that film criticism is all a matter of preference. Quite the contrary. Film criticism is a set of descriptive tools designed to create a kind of common language to discuss concepts and techniques and such, by which you can then evaluate a film. You can use that language both in a subjective manner and in an objective manner.
What I'm saying is that the people -- specifically the fans -- who raise "film criticism" points in discussions of the failings of their favorite franchises are often doing one (or both) of two things:
1.) They're using the "objective" language of film criticism to bolster their subjective points and then claiming them to be objective truth instead of subjective opinion.
2.) They're mistaking a lot of the actual objective flaws with a film as the thing that makes the film not work, when in fact those flaws aren't the real reason, and it's usually something deeper.
The way I see it, there are two ways to discuss film: one is about technical execution, and the other is about attempting to describe subjective feelings in more concrete terms. This is true of most art, actually.
Let's take, for example, a completely different story and even a different medium. Let's talk about How I Met Your Mother. A 9-season television sitcom about one man's search for love and the tale of how he met his kids' mother. It had a (putting it mildly) "controversial" finale. For those unaware of the show and how it wound up, I'm gonna spoil this, but I'll use spoiler tags for the main reveals.
Anyway, Season 9 (the final season) radically shifted the format of the show. What had previously been a show that took place over the span of weeks, months, and years suddenly shifted to be about a single weekend, a la "24" where you went not-quite-hour-by-hour through the events. Many of the episodes didn't actually build towards or really matter much at all for the events of the finale itself. I won't go into details about them, though, since they aren't really worth discussing. The finale itself is what really matters.
In the finale episode, you finally discover how the main character meets the mother of his kids, and a little bit of what happened in the years between then and when he's telling the kids the story. At the very end of the episode, with maybe 7-ish minutes to go (if memory serves), the narrator reveals (for the audience)
that the kids' mother died of an unspecified illness and it is further revealed by the kids taht this happened 6 years ago. The narrator is then told by the kids that this is all an elaborate way for him to ask their permission to date their "Aunt Robin" (the narrator's ex-girlfriend and the focus of his usually-unreciprocated romantic intentions over the course of the show, and he then proceeds to meet up with her and we see the first moments of him rekindling his relationship with her.
Now, there are technical problems with this ending, and there are things that I personally don't like about it. And there are issues that overlap. I won't get into my personal dislike of the ending, except to say that it struck me as a massive tonal shift, and a huge ****ing downer of an ending, and I really, really didn't like it. I still don't. But there are technical flaws with it as well, which I can point to as contributing to why I didn't like the ending, but which aren't really the cause of my displeasure.
For example, I think the show had a lot of content in it that demonstrated certain fundamental differences between characters that made them incompatible long-term, and then tries to sell its ending as upbeat and happy when those characters reconnect romantically. I think the pacing of the show creates an emotional whipsaw where, although the characters know all of this information, the audience has literal minutes to try to process it before credits roll and the show is done with. I think that this is a big part of why large portions of the audience rejected the ending. I can also point out how the medium of weekly television impacted this as well, and contrast how audiences who watched this stuff live reacted way more harshly to it than audiences that have only consumed the show via streaming/binging, which in many ways lessens the sting of the end. All of that stuff gets into "objective" criticism in terms of the mechanisms by which a story is told and whether/why those mechanisms do or do not work.
But here's the truth: I'd have been unhappy with the end even if the creators had managed to effectively convey it. If they'd used the final season to jump around in time and show the spoiler-text section's information and show how that impacted the characters, then also showed more of a build-up to the final scene in the finale, the reaction wouldn't be as harsh, and their story would've been able to breathe more. But I still would've disliked it. It would've "worked" on a technical level, but I'd still have complaints. I'd still think that it undercuts the spirit of the show overall. I still would've found it an unsatisfying downer. I still would think that the reconciled characters are destined for failure eventually (unless the show had taken time to demonstrate that was no longer the case, I suppose). I think ultimately, for the goal that the writers had, they failed on a technical level, but even if they'd succeeded technically, I'd have disliked it.
What I think fans often do is spend oodles of time obsessing over the technical flaws. Sometimes they do this to give their opinions more weight, sometimes they do it just as a means of trying to describe the problem they have with the work. But I think a whole lot of them don't get that you could fix every technical flaw they complain about and they'd probably still dislike it. Which means the problem is....something else. I think a lot of people use the language of "objective" criticism in a way that ultimately obscures their real issues with a work, and that they'd do better to focus on getting to the root of their real criticisms because what they're criticizing is ultimately NOT the technical proficiency with which a story is executed (often), but rather their own dislike of the material overall. Maybe the technical flaws contributed somewhat, but the flaws aren't the problem; they're often representative of the problem.
On the more positive side of things, I'll say the following re: Star Wars.
First, The Clone Wars basically rehabilitated Revenge of the Sith for me and allowed me to detach from my own problems with the PT to be able to appreciate some of the things it tries to do. I still think the movies are technically flawed, but I can also appreciate some of the things they got right, and appreciate them as auteur works for better or worse. George is swingin' for the fences with 'em. He may not even get a double in all cases, but boy he's swingin' and doing his own thing, and I respect the hell out of that.
Second, I dislike 2/3 of the sequels, and think 1/3 of them is badly misplaced in the trilogy. But I love the cast in all the films, and I'll say that JJ definitely knows how to build a rollercoaster. He makes GREAT rides. I don't especially enjoy "film rollercoasters" (I prefer actual coherent narrative), but I can respect his ability to craft them.
Finally, I have really enjoyed pretty much all the rest of Star Wars that's come out on screen since the Disney purchase. Rogue One, Solo, Mando, Boba Fett, Kenobi, especially Andor, it's all been great and very enjoyable.
I still think Star Wars needs to branch out of its "comfort zone" of the OT-and-OT-adjacent era, and push into the future or the far-flung past (I gather they're doing this some in novels with the High Republic stuff), but I'm still enjoying a lot of what they put out. As I said, Andor especially I thought was both entertaining and really important as a story.
I don’t think anyone ever said anything like that about Mad Max, except for professional critics. I mean, Mad Max had ridiculous stuff as far back as the first film (unless you happen to think people can have eyes bulging out of their heads that far out like Toecutter before his demise, which Miller stated was modeled after Daffy Duck from some of the Loony Tunes shorts).
ScourgiousJinx
Respectfully, all the criteria you listed can be interpreted as subjective, not objective. Examples:
Who decides when a particular line is cliche or not? There are generational disagreements about such things.
Who decides when the exposition is "over" and when it's just right? Some folks might prefer to be told more. Although the principle of filmmaking is "show, not tell," it isn't intended to read "show everything, tell nothing,". There's a balance. Who decides where that line is?
I disagree here. I love cameos and Easter Eggs! They make me happy when well placed, even if they don't drive the plot. And I decide if they are "well placed" or not. Again, subjective.
Maybe "personal preference" is not the right term, but calling something "objectively bad" violates the definition of "bad", which, by definition, is subjective to the person viewing it.
I think you might be conflating your "truth" with fact. The sky is not blue to the person with color blindness. But it is a fact that the color of the sky exists on the visual spectrum in the blue band.
If what you state is true, then film and literary criticism in general is meaningless. The Oscars are useless (which is kind of true) where The Room should be as lauded as Citizen Kane and Twilight should be considered to have as much literary merit as to kill a mockingbird.
I really dislike the “everything is subjective” and “there is no objective measurement” argument that is being made about art. Yes there is or there wouldnt be any way to judge what works are good or bad and does a disservice to the writers and directors that actually spend their time honing their craft. After all, their hard work is the same as the average youtuber pointing their camera at themselves and farting because “good art is subjective.”
On the more positive side of things, I'll say the following re: Star Wars.
First, The Clone Wars basically rehabilitated Revenge of the Sith for me and allowed me to detach from my own problems with the PT to be able to appreciate some of the things it tries to do. I still think the movies are technically flawed, but I can also appreciate some of the things they got right, and appreciate them as auteur works for better or worse. George is swingin' for the fences with 'em. He may not even get a double in all cases, but boy he's swingin' and doing his own thing, and I respect the hell out of that.
Second, I dislike 2/3 of the sequels, and think 1/3 of them is badly misplaced in the trilogy. But I love the cast in all the films, and I'll say that JJ definitely knows how to build a rollercoaster. He makes GREAT rides. I don't especially enjoy "film rollercoasters" (I prefer actual coherent narrative), but I can respect his ability to craft them.
Finally, I have really enjoyed pretty much all the rest of Star Wars that's come out on screen since the Disney purchase. Rogue One, Solo, Mando, Boba Fett, Kenobi, especially Andor, it's all been great and very enjoyable.
I still think Star Wars needs to branch out of its "comfort zone" of the OT-and-OT-adjacent era, and push into the future or the far-flung past (I gather they're doing this some in novels with the High Republic stuff), but I'm still enjoying a lot of what they put out. As I said, Andor especially I thought was both entertaining and really important as a story.
I agree. While I hate the ST in terms of its story, I do think they were able to get a talented cast and did right by not hiring a bunch of already famous actors to play the characters like Marvel is doing now. Yeah it seems the cast apart from Adam seem to struggle to find work thanks to the Star Wars curse (only one actor seems to get to experience a thriving film career after the films in front of the screen) but they were talented and did what they could with what they were given.
The staff also seemed to love star wars and the different ship designs with worn and used looks did look Star Wars ish. The ST had the trappings of star wars films with improved CGI that I think reached what Lucas really wanted and envisioned when he first thought of Star Wars and it makes it all the more of a shame how poorly the people at the top screwed it up.
I heard Mad Max was just a documentary about what happens in Australia after there was a beer shortage lol.
If what you state is true, then film and literary criticism in general is meaningless. The Oscars are useless (which is kind of true) where The Room should be as lauded as Citizen Kane and Twilight should be considered to have as much literary merit as to kill a mockingbird.
I really dislike the “everything is subjective” and “there is no objective measurement” argument that is being made about art. Yes there is or there wouldnt be any way to judge what works are good or bad and does a disservice to the writers and directors that actually spend their time honing their craft. After all, their hard work is the same as the average youtuber pointing their camera at themselves and farting because “good art is subjective.”
The thing is, while not everything is subjective, all art is subjective. If art was objective then every formally taught artist (in all mediums) would be successful because they'd have been taught what makes objectively good art, there would be no flops in the theater because studios would know objectively what makes a good movie a good movie. While there are certain things that can be taught there's a lot that can't and at the end of the day it comes down to talent and a certain amount of luck and doing the right thing with the right people at the right time.
Where do English teachers get off grading a student's short story? They guage their grade by how well the student expressed their ideas or used techniques like foreshadowing or symbolism (insert literary technique here) in their work. So either there is some sort of objective criteria to make a judgement on a work of fiction, otherwise a teacher's grade is arbitrary and they could fail a student because reasons , thus affecting that student being able to graduate. If the parameters are undefined, then grades are meaningless. Good and bad are meaningless. An A+ or an F- are equally valid.
Art and literature can't be entirely arbitrary and subjective. Personal preference will play a factor. It always does. Though literary tools are very real and it's intellectually dishonest to act like they don't exist or that they don't matter.
The thing is, while not everything is subjective, all art is subjective. If art was objective then every formally taught artist (in all mediums) would be successful because they'd have been taught what makes objectively good art, there would be no flops in the theater because studios would know objectively what makes a good movie a good movie. While there are certain things that can be taught there's a lot that can't and at the end of the day it comes down to talent and a certain amount of luck and doing the right thing with the right people at the right time.
Yep, that's why Siskel and Ebert didn't always agree. See, the problem with saying art can be objectively evaluated, is that it then casts a disparagement on folks who don't like it. Citizen Kane is only one of the greatest films of all time because the vast majority of people recognize it as such. I personally think it's a boring, meandering slog; it's a performance and not a story with a point. Does this mean that I am lacking as a person in some way because I view it that way? If Citizen Kane is objectively good, then yes, I have rejected the good, and something is wrong with me.
When you declare a something objectively good or bad, you then necessarily characterize how it is received. An objectively accomplished surgeon saves lives. An objectively poor one risks them. So if I say I will be worked on by what is factually known to be an objectively poor surgeon, you could characterize me as someone making a bad decision. That's because there are such things as objectively poor surgeons. Notice I did not use "good" or "bad". That's because those are, by definition, subjective terms. When I say "that's a bad movie," people understand that to mean "I personally think that's a bad movie." If say "that is an objectively bad movie,", then I am implying that people who like it are not just incorrect, but are flawed; I am insulting them.
And this is what brings us back to Star Wars. In my experience, many people who call TLJ (for example) objectively bad also have the tendency to judge people who loved it (there are exceptions), even so far as to assume and disparage their political beliefs. "TLJ is objectively bad, but you like it because of its feminism, therefore I'm putting you in this box of lesser thinkers," and so forth.
To reiterate. Plenty of things are objectively factual in this world. The absolute/universal merit of a piece of art is not one of them.
Where do English teachers get off grading a student's short story? They guage their grade by how well the student expressed their ideas or used techniques like foreshadowing or symbolism (insert literary technique here) in their work. So either there is some sort of objective criteria to make a judgement on a work of fiction, otherwise a teacher's grade is arbitrary and they could fail a student because reasons , thus affecting that student being able to graduate. If the parameters are undefined, then grades are meaningless. Good and bad are meaningless. An A+ or an F- are equally valid.
Art and literature can't be entirely arbitrary and subjective. Personal preference will play a factor. It always does. Though literary tools are very real and it's intellectually dishonest to act like they don't exist or that they don't matter.
Denying guidelines and tools seems to be the last resort of those desperate to defend the things they like when others do not like them. But frankly, it's not a contest; no one is trying to make someone dislike anything they like.
The line itself decides that, when it is overused and connotes a lack of original thought or imagination. Seriously: after the 9,383,584,592nd time of "What's Up Doc?", you know that line is as stale as Jurassic Pork.
Who decides when the exposition is "over" and when it's just right? Some folks might prefer to be told more. Although the principle of filmmaking is "show, not tell," it isn't intended to read "show everything, tell nothing,". There's a balance. Who decides where that line is?
That's called common sense; the purpose of exposition is to provide insight a character or advances the story. And it's not who but what decides "how much is too much"; that "what" is is it taking the place of actual story telling.
It's like using spices in food: if you have to put half a bottle of it in to make it work, then there's something wrong here.
I disagree here. I love cameos and Easter Eggs! They make me happy when well placed, even if they don't drive the plot. And I decide if they are "well placed" or not. Again, subjective.
Not as subjective as it might seem here: "well placed" is more than location in a film (storywise), but timing and appropriateness as well. Throwing them into a scene can be distracting to say the least, and can actually wreck a storyline when done wrong. Like exposition, they're best used sparingly and should not be an attempt to make up for lack of storytelling or characterization.
Maybe "personal preference" is not the right term, but calling something "objectively bad" violates the definition of "bad", which, by definition, is subjective to the person viewing it.
I bolded the first definition because that's the one that applies here; "poor quality" is a definable standard in any craft or work. To attempt to make it a "subjective" issue is akin to saying there's "no such thing as a straight line", and then banning rulers to try to prove the point.
And crime is not crime to a criminal, but there are standards by which that is dealt with. If you're going to go by these definitions, then all colors do not exist, as they "exist on the visual spectrum" of whatever light they reflect.
Seriously, this just looks like an attempt to justify your point of view by claiming that everything is subjective, which goes back to the point I made earlier about trying to prove there's no such thing as a straight line by getting rid of all rulers. Good storytelling, movie making and good movies as a whole have definable qualities, rules for making/ telling, and practices by which they are made. Trying to negate those practices just to justify your opinion is also akin to a carpenter making a wobbly, shoddy table and then telling his customer that "good workmanship is up to the person viewing/ using the table".
See how long that holds up (both figuratively and literally!)
Seriously, this just looks like an attempt to justify your point of view by claiming that everything is subjective, which goes back to the point I made earlier about trying to prove there's no such thing as a straight line by getting rid of all rulers. Good storytelling, movie making and good movies as a whole have definable qualities, rules for making/ telling, and practices by which they are made. Trying to negate those practices just to justify your opinion is also akin to a carpenter making a wobbly, shoddy table and then telling his customer that "good workmanship is up to the person viewing/ using the table".
Fair point, I was going outside the realm of art and implying everything is subjective. It's most certainly not. I'll also concede that some people use the terms "good," "bad," and "true" differently than others.
As to your specific points:
Denying guidelines and tools seems to be the last resort of those desperate to defend the things they like when others do not like them.
Enforcing guidelines and compliance to an arbitrary standard seems to be the last resort of those desperate to pronounce absolute judgment on the things they dislike.
The line itself decides that, when it is overused and connotes a lack of original thought or imagination. Seriously: after the 9,383,584,592nd time of "What's Up Doc?", you know that line is as stale as Jurassic Pork.
"Overused" is subjective. What some people find overused, I may not. Arbitrary standard. When did it become overused? At occurrence #11 and not #10?
That's called common sense; the purpose of exposition is to provide insight a character or advances the story. And it's not who but what decides "how much is too much"; that "what" is is it taking the place of actual story telling.
"Common sense" is that which is regarded by the majority to be sensible, but not all. Otherwise it would "absolute sense". IMO, the Star Wars community is split right down the middle, and what some would call "common sense", others might call "gatekeeping".
Not as subjective as it might seem here: "well placed" is more than location in a film (storywise), but timing and appropriateness as well. Throwing them into a scene can be distracting to say the least, and can actually wreck a storyline when done wrong. Like exposition, they're best used sparingly and should not be an attempt to make up for lack of storytelling or characterization.
Agreed about time, that was my implication. But for everything else, again, by whose standards? Everything you listed here is subjective. Who says what is appropriate? Who says when the "sparingly" line has been crossed? Film school? No, that's a consensus. Or maybe it's the opinion of the people who buy $1b worth of tickets. It's hard to say something is objectively bad when so many disagree. I guess everyone is denying the "truth"?
Conceded. The definition suggests there is a standard. Sometimes those standards are absolute, sometimes they are subjective. I posit that all standards for the arts are subjective, because there can be no absolute agreement on the standards. Genius filmmakers "break the rules" all the time, and are lauded for it. It's also possible for a piece of art that follows all the rules perfectly to be just terrible. There's an indefinable aspect that prompts those viewing it to call it good or bad. That aspect, I suspect, is what people bring with them.
Right, I was using an analogy to draw the distinction between truth and facts. I should have recognized that my distinction is more about the philosophical concept of truth vs. facts.
So back to Star Wars, what's my goal? To stop having to feel like an "other" for liking TLJ, and to participate in a conversation about my love for Star Wars without people constantly shouting that something I like is objectively bad. That is close-minded, insulting, and makes me feel like you perceive me as frankly an idiot or a fool (or a radical), as opposed to someone who just likes something differently than you do. Shout all you want about how much you hate something, or how much you think something is bad; I fully respect and celebrate it. But telling me a piece of art is objectively bad is speaking on behalf of all. That's not cool.
