I already told you know one listens to your opinion ScoJo :P
See I get a lot of flack for liking terrible movies, but I actually know when a movie is objectively bad (please see prior posts where I named super hero movies I thought that were actually bad and you should be ashamed if you liked them). I just tend to be able to derive enjoyment out of even terrible movies. Add in that I'm an asshole who likes to be contrary. Vola! Bad rep for liking things, though people also seem to remember I introduced our friend circle to many an awesome show as well.
I'm arguing that arguments ABOUT being objectively good or bad are tainted BY opinion. I'm saying that when people say it's good or bad, THEY really mean that they liked it or didn't like it.
ALSO When a lot of people (even some professional critics) argue whether something is good or bad, it boils down to that same argument.
There can't REALLY be a metric for absolute good or absolute bad. Such a thing is illogical in its own nature. If Transformers can be judged on an honest metric to be "Bad," why do so many people like it? If Citizen Kane is the greatest movie ever, why would so many people nowadays find it boring? While I personally agree that a lot of people tend to have bad taste, the fact that it's people in the minority who scream about "99% of everything being bad," and a lot of people I know are FAR more open-minded than that, seems to imply that there is a problem with how "professionals" and "smart people" judge media. I think Transformers is racist and stupid. But it's also really, really popular. While conventional ideas about "objectively good and bad" tells us it's bad, simply saying that everyone is stupid, therefore they like it, is far too superior for my preference. I know people who, while I don't always agree with them, are not stupid, and they like Transformers. And when I argue about it with them, they just like some of the action and didn't mind some of the stupidity, because they're not looking for the same things in movies as we are.
Tl;dr: Objective good or bad can't exist because there can't be absolute good or bad. If you think that, you probably look down on people, and that's bad.
Also, Rym, you're right. I am basically saying I don't want to talk about it, because talking about it involves being really judgmental and rude, which tends to be a pathway to egotism and arrogance.
Guys, I don't believe Rym ever said "Your opinion of The Avengers must be that it is mediocre!" All he said was that he thinks the movie is mediocre (giving reasons for this opinion) and doesn't understand why you guys think its so amazing. I don't see him forcing his opinions on anyone. Whats wrong with you guys? Are you really just in an attacking mood? I know this is the internet and all, but I thought (some of) you guys were more rational than that. Geesh.
*reading thread due to it suddenly exploding* Guys, I don't believe Rym ever said "Your opinion of The Avengers must be that it is mediocre!" All he said was that he thinks the movie is mediocre (giving reasons for this opinion) and doesn't understand why you guys think its so amazing. I don't see him forcing his opinions on anyone. Whats wrong with you guys? Are you really just in an attacking mood? I know this is the internet and all, but I thought (some of) you guys were more rational than that. Geesh.
You asked questions and then answered it in one post ^_^
Also, Rym, you're right. I am basically saying I don't want to talk about it, because talking about it involves being really judgmental and rude, which tends to be a pathway to egotism and arrogance.
Are you suffering from temporary amnesia or do you forget to whom you are speaking to?
Also, Rym, you're right. I am basically saying I don't want to talk about it, because talking about it involves being really judgmental and rude, which tends to be a pathway to egotism and arrogance.
Are you suffering from temporary amnesia or do you forget to whom you are speaking to?
No, I understand perfectly, which is why I'm explaining it, to the otherwise kings of arrogance.
Also, Lyddi, I never claimed Rym had to like the Avengers, I just brought up reasons I thought it was good and then stopped. I only came back when this argument over most things being crap came up, because that is Scott acting superior, which I won't stand for.
Also, Rym, you're right. I am basically saying I don't want to talk about it, because talking about it involves being really judgmental and rude, which tends to be a pathway to egotism and arrogance.
Are you suffering from temporary amnesia or do you forget to whom you are speaking to?
No, I understand perfectly, which is why I'm explaining it, to the otherwise kings of arrogance.
Also, Lyddi, I never claimed Rym had to like the Avengers, I just brought up reasons I thought it was good and then stopped. I only came back when this argument over most things being crap came up, because that is Scott acting superior, which I won't stand for.
My confusion is why people were attacking Rym. Scott on the other hand, that's normal forum happenstance here. :-P
Guys, I don't believe Rym ever said "Your opinion of The Avengers must be that it is mediocre!" All he said was that he thinks the movie is mediocre (giving reasons for this opinion) and doesn't understand why you guys think its so amazing. I don't see him forcing his opinions on anyone. Whats wrong with you guys? Are you really just in an attacking mood? I know this is the internet and all, but I thought (some of) you guys were more rational than that. Geesh.
I'm only indignant because Rym's "taste" has inconsistencies.
Such as?
You like Avatar, but attack Avengers based on its plot structure, characters, and action sequences. Relative to Avengers (no matter what you think of it), Avatar is still worse on all fronts. That's it.
I admitted that my own indignation is silly and mostly tongue in cheek, and I think that still holds true. In the realm of film critique, though, saying that something like The Avengers is inferior to something as ham-fisted, derivative, and one-dimensional as Avatar is really a weird opinion to have. Avatar was enjoyable tripe, but still tripe. Avengers was enjoyable popcorn, and is better popcorn than Avatar.
I'm only indignant because Rym's "taste" has inconsistencies.
Such as?
You like Avatar, but attack Avengers based on its plot structure, characters, and action sequences. Relative to Avengers (no matter what you think of it), Avatar is still worse on all fronts. That's it.
One, I disagree with you strongly. Two, I didn't really say I liked Avatar particularly: simply that from most critical perspectives is was a tighter and better done movie. Avatar was well done, and this is far from an uncommon opinion among actual film critics. Avatar was very well regarded by most respected and/or professional critics. I'd link to a dozen or so such reviews, but Wikipedia lays them all out well enough.
I admitted that my own indignation is silly and mostly tongue in cheek, and I think that still holds true. In the realm of film critique, though, saying that something like The Avengers is inferior to something as ham-fisted, derivative, and one-dimensional as Avatar is really a weird opinion to have.
Have you read a single professional review of Avatar?
Rym if we are going to pull critics into this... Avengers is also going to look like an awesome movie.
So at best, critics consider them similarly worthwhile. WUB seems to be of the outlier opinion that somehow Avatar is a terrible movie while Avengers was wonderful.
I will wager, however, that in a decade or two, hardly anyone will remember The Avengers, but Avatar will be listed on various "top X movies" lists and be watched at least occasionally in film classes. Neither is strong enough to stand the test of real time, but I posit Avengers will be forgotten more quickly.
I would argue The Avengers has significance for movies in other ways. Never before has 5 movies lead up to one, and had almost all significant actors and creative ideas from them return to culminate into one pay-off. The Avengers is unheard of in scope, pulling in several different characters who all had movies with a variety of tones. Thor's Shakespearean-ness (courtesy of Kenneth Branagh's directing) was maintained, Iron Man's cocky self-interest was maintained, Captain America's 1940's idealism was maintained, Hulk's inner-turmoil was maintained. The fact is, four very separate characters with movies that didn't even remotely need to be connected were brought together, and it worked.
None of your complains involved pulling in all four characters. You didn't like the two who were side-characters, yes, but the four big ones were all handled very well. The dialogue between them had each maintain what their original film had brought to the table, and Joss Whedon didn't rewrite anyone's character. It's as if these three actors came out of the movies they were in, did this movie together, then dispersed again, with Mark Ruffalo doing a good job of filling in for Edward Norton from that one Hulk movie. It's all just very interesting in my opinion.
The Avengers has significance as a film. It has crossed boundaries and pulled off things no one expected. Is it going to be shown in film classes? No, certainly not. But it has accomplished something that will ripple in film for a while. As much as it might suck (or be great, who knows), the Justice League film is inevitable now. Crossover films almost never happen, but it looks like they're more possible than we thought.
Pulling in several different characters? How about Dracula vs. Frankenstein? Godzilla vs. King Kong? Separate characters, unconnected movies, brought together. Check, check, check.
Pulling in several different characters? How about Dracula vs. Frankenstein? Godzilla vs. King Kong? Separate characters, unconnected movies, brought together. Check, check, check.
Sorry, but it's separate characters and connected movies, with there being a plan that there would be a movie bringing them all together all along.
Also, peeps should stop feeding the troll responding to Rym ^_~
1) I enjoyed both movies. In your parlance, I'd say Avatar was Initial D, and Avengers was Hokuto No Ken. Both are not as good as Akira. Both stand on their own merits, despite not being "good," whatever the fuck that means.
2) Critical opinion means fuck all to me. We're talking about personal taste, which is entirely fucking subjective and was the core of my argument. But if you want to go by critical opinion, see what ScoJo said.
3) Yes, I've read the reviews of Avatar, you patronizing fuck. The difference is between me and quite a lot of other people is that I draw my own conclusions about films, and I don't just suckle at the teat of reviewers to dictate my taste. I thought Avatar blew. I thought the aforementioned thoughts about it. I am attacking an "inconsistency that I see in your taste" in the exact same way you so glibly pointed out that you're "surprised that some of [us] hold this decidedly average (not bad, but desperately average) movie in such high regard. ;^)"--you did the exact same thing I am doing to everyone else here. Avatar was desperately average in my opinion, just like Avengers was in yours. Deal with it.
4) Since I'm not making anymore headway here, I'm done. I'm fucking sick of arguments about "objective taste" in all arenas. It's why I stopped going to /mu/, it's why I'm not going to read this thread until everyone's done with this circlejerk. Consider me the first to have finished.
So I'm trolling because I think it's an average, not-so-special movie? ;^)
I enjoyed it fine, but I think you're greatly overestimating how important it is. I don't think the next Avengers movie will gross as well as this one, and I doubt this incarnation will make it past three movies from this point forward. I don't think the boundaries it crossed were all that meaningful.
None of your complains involved pulling in all four characters. You didn't like the two who were side-characters, yes, but the four big ones were all handled very well..
Yes, my complaints were very specific. Two characters were mostly extraneous, the fight at the end was too long and included too many pointless vignettes, the most powerful character arc presented had a foregone conclusion due to the constraints of not killing main characters, and the soundtrack was rubbish. Other than these very specific things, I enjoyed the movie quite a bit.
So you're right. None of my complaints involved all of what you just typed at all. That aspect of the movie is pretty cool. No argument from me on that point. I disagree that it will be important or remembered in the long run, but I don't disagree that what you said happened happened.
So, now what? You accused me of not having complained about something specific and then defended that. All I ever said was that the movie was pretty good aside from a few specific problems.
This is why we have to repeat this 1000 times. There is no such thing as objective taste! There is objective evaluation, and taste. They are two completely separate and unrelated things. Yet it seems that ridiculously few people understand this, and even fewer are capable of actually achieving this separation.
You experience a work of art. You have feelings towards it. What are those feelings? This is opinion/taste.
You throw all of your feelings out the window and examine a work of art with a magnifying glass. That is objective criticism. If you are incapable of ignoring your own feelings, then you are incapable of objective criticism.
Will there ever be a world where people get it right? I doubt it. My hope is not up. I just hope at least one person gets it, then it will be worth typing it yet again.
Superhero movies have effected film as a medium. If you disagree with this, great.
The Avengers, by accomplishing things no other superhero film has, and by making a SHIT-TON of money, will inevitably be emulated, and therefore will effect the creation of superhero movies in the future.
If A effects B, and C effects A, then doesn't C also effect B? Transitive property is a thing.
Superhero movies have effected film as a medium. If you disagree with this, great.
The Avengers, by accomplishing things no other superhero film has, and by making a SHIT-TON of money, will inevitably be emulated, and therefore will effect the creation of superhero movies in the future.
If A effects B, and C effects A, then doesn't C also effect B? Transitive property is a thing.
You are arguing that the movie is influential. That may or may not be the case. Regardless, how influential something is again has no relation to how good a thing is.
While we're talking about comics let's use Action Comics #1 as an example. It completely changed the world of comics. It's influence is enormous. How good is it? It's actually kind of crappy.
You lose at the discussion because you don't even understand the fundamental concepts of discussing.
The AvengersTwilight, by accomplishing things no other superherovampire film has, and by making a SHIT-TON of money, will inevitably be emulated, and therefore will effect the creation of superherovampire movies in the future.
Sorry, couldn't help myself >;)
On another note, some of you are acting like Rym has called the ugly, dim-witted kid down the street slightly better than your precious perfect little angel. He's just saying that the ugly kid is better at math and skateboarding, that's all.
I never said that my post above was proof that it was good, it was a response to Rym saying no one would care about the movie in a decade or two. I'm saying that the movie will probably be remembered as influential, just like other movies that aren't necessarily great but are influential from a decade or two ago are still remembered.
Also, Lyddi, that too is correct, and Twilight has also been influential on movies, just like Avatar has been influential in terms of helping increase the prevalence of 3D and special effects.
Are you trying to bash Twilight, where would we be today without sparkle vampires?
Twilight accomplishments: Sexy sparkling vampires that go against all previous vampire norms in almost every way, creepy vampire/human parasite babies, 'not-perverted' child-adult love, submissive/stupid/utterly helpless female heroine that we are supposed to be looking up to... How could I bash that? Thats some real good material right thar, vampire fiction is truly changed forever. :-P
Comments
ALSO
When a lot of people (even some professional critics) argue whether something is good or bad, it boils down to that same argument.
There can't REALLY be a metric for absolute good or absolute bad. Such a thing is illogical in its own nature. If Transformers can be judged on an honest metric to be "Bad," why do so many people like it? If Citizen Kane is the greatest movie ever, why would so many people nowadays find it boring? While I personally agree that a lot of people tend to have bad taste, the fact that it's people in the minority who scream about "99% of everything being bad," and a lot of people I know are FAR more open-minded than that, seems to imply that there is a problem with how "professionals" and "smart people" judge media. I think Transformers is racist and stupid. But it's also really, really popular. While conventional ideas about "objectively good and bad" tells us it's bad, simply saying that everyone is stupid, therefore they like it, is far too superior for my preference. I know people who, while I don't always agree with them, are not stupid, and they like Transformers. And when I argue about it with them, they just like some of the action and didn't mind some of the stupidity, because they're not looking for the same things in movies as we are.
Tl;dr: Objective good or bad can't exist because there can't be absolute good or bad. If you think that, you probably look down on people, and that's bad.
Also, Rym, you're right. I am basically saying I don't want to talk about it, because talking about it involves being really judgmental and rude, which tends to be a pathway to egotism and arrogance.
Guys, I don't believe Rym ever said "Your opinion of The Avengers must be that it is mediocre!"
All he said was that he thinks the movie is mediocre (giving reasons for this opinion) and doesn't understand why you guys think its so amazing. I don't see him forcing his opinions on anyone. Whats wrong with you guys? Are you really just in an attacking mood? I know this is the internet and all, but I thought (some of) you guys were more rational than that. Geesh.
Also, Lyddi, I never claimed Rym had to like the Avengers, I just brought up reasons I thought it was good and then stopped. I only came back when this argument over most things being crap came up, because that is Scott acting superior, which I won't stand for.
I admitted that my own indignation is silly and mostly tongue in cheek, and I think that still holds true. In the realm of film critique, though, saying that something like The Avengers is inferior to something as ham-fisted, derivative, and one-dimensional as Avatar is really a weird opinion to have. Avatar was enjoyable tripe, but still tripe. Avengers was enjoyable popcorn, and is better popcorn than Avatar.
I will wager, however, that in a decade or two, hardly anyone will remember The Avengers, but Avatar will be listed on various "top X movies" lists and be watched at least occasionally in film classes. Neither is strong enough to stand the test of real time, but I posit Avengers will be forgotten more quickly.
None of your complains involved pulling in all four characters. You didn't like the two who were side-characters, yes, but the four big ones were all handled very well. The dialogue between them had each maintain what their original film had brought to the table, and Joss Whedon didn't rewrite anyone's character. It's as if these three actors came out of the movies they were in, did this movie together, then dispersed again, with Mark Ruffalo doing a good job of filling in for Edward Norton from that one Hulk movie. It's all just very interesting in my opinion.
The Avengers has significance as a film. It has crossed boundaries and pulled off things no one expected. Is it going to be shown in film classes? No, certainly not. But it has accomplished something that will ripple in film for a while. As much as it might suck (or be great, who knows), the Justice League film is inevitable now. Crossover films almost never happen, but it looks like they're more possible than we thought.
Also, peeps should stop feeding the troll responding to Rym ^_~
2) Critical opinion means fuck all to me. We're talking about personal taste, which is entirely fucking subjective and was the core of my argument. But if you want to go by critical opinion, see what ScoJo said.
3) Yes, I've read the reviews of Avatar, you patronizing fuck. The difference is between me and quite a lot of other people is that I draw my own conclusions about films, and I don't just suckle at the teat of reviewers to dictate my taste. I thought Avatar blew. I thought the aforementioned thoughts about it. I am attacking an "inconsistency that I see in your taste" in the exact same way you so glibly pointed out that you're "surprised that some of [us] hold this decidedly average (not bad, but desperately average) movie in such high regard. ;^)"--you did the exact same thing I am doing to everyone else here. Avatar was desperately average in my opinion, just like Avengers was in yours. Deal with it.
4) Since I'm not making anymore headway here, I'm done. I'm fucking sick of arguments about "objective taste" in all arenas. It's why I stopped going to /mu/, it's why I'm not going to read this thread until everyone's done with this circlejerk. Consider me the first to have finished.
TL;DR:
Now then, Prometheus. How many erections did everyone sport during that trailer? I know I had at least 3 myself.
I enjoyed it fine, but I think you're greatly overestimating how important it is. I don't think the next Avengers movie will gross as well as this one, and I doubt this incarnation will make it past three movies from this point forward. I don't think the boundaries it crossed were all that meaningful. Yes, my complaints were very specific. Two characters were mostly extraneous, the fight at the end was too long and included too many pointless vignettes, the most powerful character arc presented had a foregone conclusion due to the constraints of not killing main characters, and the soundtrack was rubbish. Other than these very specific things, I enjoyed the movie quite a bit.
So you're right. None of my complaints involved all of what you just typed at all. That aspect of the movie is pretty cool. No argument from me on that point. I disagree that it will be important or remembered in the long run, but I don't disagree that what you said happened happened.
So, now what? You accused me of not having complained about something specific and then defended that. All I ever said was that the movie was pretty good aside from a few specific problems.
You experience a work of art. You have feelings towards it. What are those feelings? This is opinion/taste.
You throw all of your feelings out the window and examine a work of art with a magnifying glass. That is objective criticism. If you are incapable of ignoring your own feelings, then you are incapable of objective criticism.
Will there ever be a world where people get it right? I doubt it. My hope is not up. I just hope at least one person gets it, then it will be worth typing it yet again.
and you are only going to like it because of references to Aliens, if it was Muppets it would be just as.... WAY MORE AWESOME!
My argument is this:
Superhero movies have effected film as a medium. If you disagree with this, great.
The Avengers, by accomplishing things no other superhero film has, and by making a SHIT-TON of money, will inevitably be emulated, and therefore will effect the creation of superhero movies in the future.
If A effects B, and C effects A, then doesn't C also effect B? Transitive property is a thing.
While we're talking about comics let's use Action Comics #1 as an example. It completely changed the world of comics. It's influence is enormous. How good is it? It's actually kind of crappy.
You lose at the discussion because you don't even understand the fundamental concepts of discussing.
On another note, some of you are acting like Rym has called the ugly, dim-witted kid down the street slightly better than your precious perfect little angel. He's just saying that the ugly kid is better at math and skateboarding, that's all.
Ok I'll stop. >;D
Also, Lyddi, that too is correct, and Twilight has also been influential on movies, just like Avatar has been influential in terms of helping increase the prevalence of 3D and special effects.
How could I bash that? Thats some real good material right thar, vampire fiction is truly changed forever. :-P