Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 01:37:52 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Star Wars VIII: The Last Jedi

Started by momatt, January 23, 2017, 05:17:22 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

St_Eddie

BROOM BOY LIFTS HIS BROOM TO THE SKIES AND HERALDS A NEW PAGE

I watched The Last Jedi for the second time earlier today, with a friend (he'd purchased the DVD).  It's such an uneven movie.  I like a lot of the sequences between Rey and Luke but every time that it cuts back to Finn and Rose, or Holdo and Poe, I lose interest immediately.  I don't think that I'll bother watching the movie for a third time.  Simply put, it's just not a good movie, in my opinion.

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

So You're saying the film as a whole is not objectively bad?

Some things are objective. There's a difference between a plot hole and something not being explained. If you can logically explain a gap in the story, it's not a plot hole, even if it remains unsatisfying.  A plot hole is an insurmountable gap in logic, which is objectively bad writing. Snoke's lack of backstory for example, is not a plot hole. In my subjective (but also correct) opinion, it's not even a flaw.

magval

Interesting discussion on subjective and objective shitness lads. Enjoyed reading that.

I watched this my me elder bro today and yesterday. It is fucking awful. Before today I wouldn't have gone as far as to say that, but I hated it.

Love it when Luke gives the wee "it'll be alright son" wink to Threepio though.

But aye it's shit. But I respect people's right to like it, whereas with Batman Vs Superman I didn't. That, to me, seemed like an objectively bad film.

colacentral

Quote from: Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth on April 15, 2018, 08:31:33 PM
So You're saying the film as a whole is not objectively bad?

Some things are objective. There's a difference between a plot hole and something not being explained. If you can logically explain a gap in the story, it's not a plot hole, even if it remains unsatisfying.  A plot hole is an insurmountable gap in logic, which is objectively bad writing. Snoke's lack of backstory for example, is not a plot hole. In my subjective (but also correct) opinion, it's not even a flaw.

It is neither "good" nor "bad" that a gap in logic exists, it simply exists, and whether the audience considers the gap to be a fault is down to each individual to decide subjectively.


colacentral

Quote from: colacentral on April 15, 2018, 07:38:42 PM
Address my points above directly. I've asked you several questions, do you not have answers to them?

Quote from: St_Eddie on April 15, 2018, 08:13:13 PM
BROOM BOY LIFTS HIS BROOM TO THE SKIES AND HERALDS A NEW PAGE

I watched The Last Jedi for the second time earlier today, with a friend (he'd purchased the DVD).  It's such an uneven movie.  I like a lot of the sequences between Rey and Luke but every time that it cuts back to Finn and Rose, or Holdo and Poe, I lose interest immediately.  I don't think that I'll bother watching the movie for a third time.  Simply put, it's just not a good movie, in my opinion.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

Quote from: colacentral on April 15, 2018, 09:09:59 PM
It is neither "good" nor "bad" that a gap in logic exists, it simply exists, and whether the audience considers the gap to be a fault is down to each individual to decide subjectively.
It's bad if the plot is supposed to be logical.

St_Eddie

Quote from: Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth on April 15, 2018, 08:31:33 PM
So You're saying the film as a whole is not objectively bad?

Indeed.  I never claimed that it was.  I simply said that the script contains enough objective flaws, for it to be a bad movie, in my subjective opinion.  There are scenes and moments which I enjoy and as I've previously mentioned, the movie is often gorgeous to look at but it's not enough for me personally, to overlook the many issues with the plot.

Quote from: Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth on April 15, 2018, 08:31:33 PMSome things are objective. There's a difference between a plot hole and something not being explained. If you can logically explain a gap in the story, it's not a plot hole, even if it remains unsatisfying.  A plot hole is an insurmountable gap in logic, which is objectively bad writing.

Absolutely and there are plot holes within The Last Jedi.  This is why the movie has objective issues.  I know that folk are (understandably) reluctant to watch the entire 5 hour critical analysis video but this section highlights what is perhaps the most egregious plot hole; Finn dragging an unconscious Rose, all the why back to the Rebel's base, on foot, without being shot.

Quote from: colacentral on April 15, 2018, 09:13:00 PM
Yeah, that's what I thought.

I could refute your arguments but alas, I see little point, as I would only be repeating myself.  It seems obvious that neither of us are going to budge on our deeply held opinions and honestly, what purpose would it serve to spend another two pages, going around in circles?  It's probably best to agree to disagree, at this juncture.

colacentral

Quote from: St_Eddie on April 15, 2018, 10:13:54 PM
I could refute your arguments but alas, I see little point, as I would only be repeating myself.

So you can't then.

St_Eddie

Quote from: colacentral on April 15, 2018, 10:44:50 PM
So you can't then.

Yes, I could.  Your snide attitude isn't exactly encouraging me to do so though.  Again, what is the point of me providing counter-arguments, if you're not open to listening to what I have to say?  Why would I care to have my viewpoint discredited as being 'outrageous bollocks' and be accused of being arrogant, any further?

I'd rather we just agree to disagree and leave it there.

colacentral

Right. Any excuse that works for you.

St_Eddie

Quote from: colacentral on April 15, 2018, 11:27:38 PM
Right. Any excuse that works for you.

I can assure you that I have zero problems with admitting when I'm in the wrong.  However, I don't think that I'm wrong for thinking that it is possible to be objectively critical of art and none of your counter-arguments have convinced me otherwise.  I am not avoiding refuting your arguments because of some kind of irrational fear of being outed as having no recourse.  I've put my hands up to being wrong many times in the past, when appropriate.  This is not one of those occasions.

I'm avoiding refuting your arguments because, as I've already stated; what would be the point?  I've stated my viewpoint over and over again, just as you've stated yours.  Going in circles is not going to be achieve anything other than being an exercise in futility.  Furthermore, you're now acting in a childish manner and I don't see why I should be expected to humour and entertain such behaviour, much less reply to your prior arguments, simply because you will it.  You can't click your fingers and make me dance for you, like a performing monkey, you know?

colacentral

I don't believe that you have countered my quite specific points directed squarely at you. I took time to write two long posts to have a thorough discussion and, frustratingly, both times you dismissed large portions and instead directed the bulk of your replies towards people agreeing with you. Go back and check.

St_Eddie

Quote from: colacentral on April 15, 2018, 11:55:23 PM
I don't believe that you have countered my quite specific points directed squarely at you. I took time to write two long posts to have a thorough discussion and, frustratingly, both times you dismissed large portions and instead directed the bulk of your replies towards people agreeing with you. Go back and check.

I really wish that you would stop assuming that you know how my mind works, better than myself.  None the less, in the interest of not being hassled by an irritant any further, I shall reply to your prior post in detail.  Give me some time to work my way through it and I will post my response in due course.  I don't know what you hope to achieve in me doing so, other than reading a bunch of responses that you're not going to agree with but fine, have it your way.

St_Eddie

#2023
I trust that the following will put an end to the matter.  You are now free to not agree with a single thing that I'm about to say...

Quote from: colacentral on April 14, 2018, 11:31:42 AM
All of these things are in the eye of the beholder - what if what you interpreted to be plot holes, were intentional by the writer, who wanted you to use your imagination to fill in the details? Is that ambiguity not a legitimate writing tool? Who is the arbiter of what mood the lighting needs to convey? What if the editing was meant to be incoherent?

To a great extent, it absolutely does matter what the intent of the artist is.  In the case of The Last Jedi, Rian Johnson wasn't aiming to have large narrative gaps in his story.  He wasn't aiming to create a mess of a movie.  As has been pointed out in this discussion earlier, this a popcorn munching event movie.  The aim of Rian Johnson was undoubtedly to tell a coherent story which could be easily digested by a wide range of people, across all ages and nations, the world over to enjoy.  Within certain scenes of his script, he objectively failed to tell a coherent story.  Whether or not that is excusable, is entirely down to the individual viewer, at a subjective level.

Quote from: colacentral on April 14, 2018, 11:31:42 AMThe answer is, it doesn't matter if it was meant to or not - the writer, the cinematographer, and the editor aren't there for you to ask. You make a judgement in the moment based on how it makes you feel, and how it makes you feel is different from person to person. That is not science.

Yes, that's called subjectivity.  It exists alongside objectivity.

Quote from: colacentral on April 14, 2018, 11:31:42 AMTechnical aspects of a particular art, e.g. lighting, playing musical notes as written, etc, can be wrong*; this is completely distinct from "bad."

There's a world of difference between purposefully doing something in an unusual, offbeat or experimental way and failing to achieve something in a recognisably standard way.  Either approach can be subjectively enjoyable but one can fail to achieve what one sets out to achieve, objectively.

Quote from: colacentral on April 14, 2018, 11:31:42 AMDaniel Johnston can barely play any instruments; he can't sing; his albums are almost all recorded badly; and even on a lyrical front, many people would describe them as childish, naive, or simple. Boyzone, on the other hand, sing perfectly; have professional session musicians playing perfectly; and have their songs recorded on a massive budget in expensive studios with expensive producers. They have obviously vastly outsold Daniel Johnston for record sales. Yet for some reason, on rateyourmusic.com, not a single Boyzone album is rated higher than a single Daniel Johnston album:

https://rateyourmusic.com/artist/boyzone
https://rateyourmusic.com/artist/daniel_johnston

I agree with the users on RYM that Daniel Johnston is vastly better than Boyzone; but where is my objective evidence for this fact? On every single technical count, Daniel Johnston would be considered "bad" on St. Eddie's criteria.

I don't know the individual works of the artists in question but going by your description of Daniel Johnston's music; I can only assume that he set out to do things in an unusual manner.  Surely it would be different, had he set out to make clean, commercially orientated boy band music and objectively failed to achieve that.  I mean, the end result would be entirely different because the intent from the outset would be different.

You can't say "oh, but what if Daniel Johnston had set out to make boy band music but had still ended up creating the tracks the world now knows him for?  Would that same music now be considered as objectively bad?".  That's a straw man argument because that's not what he set out to achieve and if it were, then the end result would be different and would have to be judged according to its own merits.

Instead, presumably Danniel Johnston set out to do things in an unconventional manner and by all accounts, he achieved that goal.

Quote from: colacentral on April 14, 2018, 11:31:42 AMLook at this cunt, can't even draw a face right:



As @Mister Six said...

QuoteSometimes a skilful artist can break the rules in such a way that has artistic and creative merit.

...There's clear objective merit and skill to the above painting.  Just because its style is unconventional and impressionistic, it doesn't mean that the artist failed to achieve what they set out to do, objectively.  Again, whether one appreciates the painting or not, is entirely subjective.

As an aside (unrelated to the above painting), I could strap crayons to the paws of a dog but that doesn't mean that the result of such a bizarre act would be objectively good art; quite the opposite in fact, even if some may subjectively enjoy the random crayon lines produced by an oblivious animal and read all kinds of hidden meaning into them.  That would be subjective projection onto objective nonsense.

Quote from: colacentral on April 14, 2018, 11:31:42 AMIf you knew nothing about Ed Wood the person, had no knowledge of say, Plan 9 from Outer Space, other than the film itself - how would you react to it? You might say that you laughed at certain points, felt uncomfortable at certain points, etc, and assume that the film maker failed. But then Ed Wood steps out from behind the curtain and says "so did you like the comedy I made? That Tor Johnson - he's such a great actor, it was hard to get him to act so wooden!" - would you still deem it to be a failure, despite it achieving the intended reaction in you while you were watching?

I've already covered this.  You can pretty much just cut and paste the middle paragraph of my response regarding Danniel Johnston.

Quote from: colacentral on April 14, 2018, 11:31:42 AMAgain, my point isn't that it's good or bad based on what the artist intended - the artist doesn't even come into it - it either creates a feeling in you or it doesn't. But that is entirely subjective. Technical aspects being "wrong" - i.e. breaking pre-established rules - is the essence of creating new art. No experimental cinema could exist without it.

Experimental cinema is just that; experimental.  It's purposefully breaking away from convention.  It is not the same as setting out to create a conventional piece of cinema and failing in an attempt to be conventional.  You can not hold them to the same standards.  Editing in an intentionally incoherent manner, within the realms of experimental cinema is entirely different to unintentionally incoherent editing, in a mainstream release.  They are different forms of film and as such, must be judged accordingly.

I'll grant you this much; it's a lot more difficult to be objectively critical of experimental cinema (if at all), than it is with popcorn entertainment but then again, that was never something I argued against.  This is a thread for a Star Wars movie; about as conventional as mainstream cinema gets.  I'm judging the movie by it's own standards, both objectively and subjectively.

To try and argue that Rian Johnson may have being treating his corporate movie, in which he was merely a director and writer for hire, as an experimental art piece, is absurd.  I know that you haven't watched the movie, so I'm not actually suggesting that this is the argument that you are putting forth, literally.  However, you are holding experimental cinema, to the same standard as focus tested entertainment and that is an incongruent notion.  You can not liken a Hollywood blockbuster, to independent and experimental cinema.  It's a different kettle of fish altogether and must be treated as such.  The gaps in logic in The Last Jedi are objectively poor, in spite of one's possible subjective tolerance towards them.

Quote from: colacentral on April 14, 2018, 11:31:42 AMThe only thing that's objective is that it's darker than most films would be lit. You and 99.9% (if not all) of the population would come out of the cinema saying "that was shit - I couldn't see anything that was happening;" but there could hypothetically be somebody out there who found the film scarier because they were struggling to see it. The lighting might be technically wrong according to the formal rules of mainstream film making that people today generally agree on. That is distinct from being bad.

Am I right in thinking that you've never watched Aliens Vs Predator: Requiem?  Try to watch it.  Go on, try.  The cinematography is objectively terrible.  The lighting is downright incompetent.  You can't tell what's happening on screen for long portions of the movie (during any scene which isn't taking place in broad daylight; which is most of the movie).  I've never before or since seen such objective incompetence within a major studio's release.  It's not a purposeful design choice and it renders the movie virtually unwatchable.

Naturally, one could subjectively enjoy AVP: Requiem but the simple fact is that the cinematography is beyond incompetent and the result is that you can't follow the actions on screen because you can't see anything other than a black screen with vague silhouettes moving around within the void of total darkness.  This is not intentional, this is an objective failure on the part of the filmmakers.

It's an objectively bad movie, or at the very least, the cinematography is objectively bad.  Still, that doesn't stop people from subjectively enjoying it or even feeling that the incompetent cinematography somehow enhances the movie (though I doubt that many do).

Quote from: colacentral on April 14, 2018, 11:31:42 AMAgain, I'll come back to the 18th century composer / punk rock example that you dismissed - almost every aspect of punk music is technically wrong. Let's say that melody to music is what the image is to cinema - the poorly played power chords and the out of tune singing make it difficult to discern what the melody is in the same way that poor lighting makes it difficult to discern what the image is. But rather than, as Kelvin suggests, other aspects of the music "balance" out the poor playing, the poor playing (something that would be considered technically bad) is actually part of the appeal - it enhances the music, does things that a well-played version of the song could not.

I've already covered this.  You can pretty much just cut and paste the middle paragraph of my response regarding Danniel Johnston.

Quote from: colacentral on April 14, 2018, 11:31:42 AMTo take a few film examples off the top of my head - Nekromantic and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I love both of these films, neither of them in an ironic so-bad-it's-good-way. The former in particular is piss-poorly made - filmed on VHS, horrendous acting, lighting, a "bad" score (although this is enjoyable to me, it's technically simple, written and played by someone who clearly is not classically trained), etc - basically all the hallmarks of a bad low-budget film. But I find it quite moving and powerful. Same with TCM. In both cases, the technically poor aspects enhance the feeling of the film in the same way that the technically poor aspects enhance punk music - many people would refer to them as feeling like snuff films, for example, which enhances the horror aspect.

I don't see any particularly notable objective flaws within The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.  It seems to me that it's a film which achieved what it set out to achieve.  I've not watched Nekromantic.  At any rate, even if there are objective flaws in that film, that doesn't have to be a barrier to subjective enjoyment.  It's even possible that the objective flaws could enhance one's subjective enjoyment of any given film.  It doesn't stop those flaws from being objective though.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you happy now?  Do you see how we're going in circles with this debate?  My point stands that this is pointless; both of us digging our heals in and repeating ourselves for two pages straight.  It's obvious (and has been for some time) that neither of us our going to convince the other.  Enough now, yes?

Quote from: St_Eddie on April 15, 2018, 02:33:35 AM
I'm judging art in a manner which puts all personal baggage and pre-concieved notions to one side.

i am sorry but that is just not possible. the decision to employ certain codified ideas/signifiers of 'quality' is still a subjective one. call your criteria what you want, it's not invalid, but it cannot be 'objective' in any sense. that just isn't how art works

St_Eddie

Quote from: Monsieur Verdoux on April 16, 2018, 05:22:41 AM
i am sorry but that is just not possible. the decision to employ certain codified ideas/signifiers of 'quality' is still a subjective one. call your criteria what you want, it's not invalid, but it cannot be 'objective' in any sense. that just isn't how art works

I suspect that you and I have a different understanding of the word 'objective'.  If a cameraman momentarily shakes the camera during a slow and steady panning shot, entirely by accident; to me, that is an objective failure.  Subjectively, people are free to interpret that mistake how ever they see fit and yes, even enjoy it.  Thus, objective and subjective analysis are able to happily co-exist alongside each other.

i would define that as a lack of professionalism rather than an 'objective failure'

St_Eddie

Quote from: Monsieur Verdoux on April 16, 2018, 05:41:30 AM
i would define that as a lack of professionalism rather than an 'objective failure'

So, we're in agreement that our definitions differ.  For what it's worth, my definition of the word is in alignment with the dictionary's own definition.  I'm not misusing the word.

#2028
uh sure

edit: no hang on, it's not about misusing the word, you're misapplying the very concept of 'objective analysis' because you're employing subjective criteria such as 'professionalism', presumption of authorial intent (and the value thereof) and putting importance on the way the piece conforms to a certain rubric of commercial filmmaking. these are all subjective because any art piece can exist and be thought of outside of the consideration of any of these things. these ideas are all dependent on a context that can be selectively applied or removed.

ideas about 'objectivity' simply don't apply to art in the same way that they would to other things. art can exist within context and without, with regard to authorial intent and with the intent completely disregarded. any rubric that you use to judge art is subjectively applied, because there is no fixed criteria with which to judge art. with no fixed criteria, there can be no objectivity when it comes to art. the criteria you are using may be a valid critical approach, but it is not objective.

St_Eddie

Quote from: Monsieur Verdoux on April 16, 2018, 05:53:24 AM
uh sure

edit: no hang on, it's not about misusing the word, you're misapplying the very concept of 'objective analysis' because you're employing subjective criteria such as 'professionalism', presumption of authorial intent (and the value thereof) and putting importance on the way the piece conforms to a certain rubric of commercial filmmaking. these are all subjective because any art piece can exist and be thought of outside of the consideration of any of these things. these ideas are all dependent on a context that can be selectively applied or removed.

ideas about 'objectivity' simply don't apply to art in the same way that they would to other things. art can exist within context and without, with regard to authorial intent and with the intent completely disregarded. any rubric that you use to judge art is subjectively applied, because there is no fixed criteria with which to judge art. with no fixed criteria, there can be no objectivity when it comes to art. the criteria you are using may be a valid critical approach, but it is not objective.

You raise some valid points.  I can certainly see where you're coming from and to an extent, I can even agree but I still believe it possible to be objectively critical of art.  Our definitions differ and that's fine.  I've said my piece and I'm not going to back down because I fundamentally believe in my point of view on the matter, just as you and others believe in yours.  I mentioned this topic in passing, in relation to a video which I was trying to recommend.  A video, which no-one cares to even watch.  I don't want to spend the rest of my life going around in circles on this topic.

I accept that I'm not going to change anyone's mind on objective analysis and I myself, still firmly believe in my own views on the matter.  It's a stalemate and I'm spent.

but you're objectively wrong

(joke)

St_Eddie

Quote from: Monsieur Verdoux on April 16, 2018, 06:46:00 AM
but you're objectively wrong

(joke)

I'll shove a limited edition Sy Snootles figurine (with microphone and stand attachment) where the twin suns don't shine, Mr Man.  You'll be free to either enjoy that or not, subjectively speaking.

(joke)
(maybe - PM me if you're interested)

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

Quote from: St_Eddie on April 15, 2018, 10:13:54 PM
Indeed.  I never claimed that it was [objectively bad].  I simply said that the script contains enough objective flaws, for it to be a bad movie, in my subjective opinion.
Ah, I was confused by this:

Quote from: St_Eddie on April 12, 2018, 11:00:53 PM
Here's a great breakdown of just why this movie is objectively bad.... it goes into perfect detail as to why this movie is objectively bad.
I guess that was just my subjective interpretation of your words.

St_Eddie

#2033
Quote from: Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth on April 16, 2018, 10:05:21 AM
Ah, I was confused by this:
I guess that was just my subjective interpretation of your words.

I could have phrased that better, admittedly.  That's my bad.  Having said that, your amending of my quote is not accurate to what I said.  I stated that I never said that the movie was wholly objectively bad.  Which is true; I never did say that (in fact, go back to my initial review of the movie and you'll see that I was ambivalent towards it).  If people actually took the time to watch the video I linked to, they might understand my position a little better.  Anyway, moving on...

Dex Sawash


greenman

The main argument in favour of the sequels I see being made is an objective "there not the prequels".

Bad Ambassador

This thread would be dead by now.

momatt

Quote from: greenman on April 16, 2018, 02:21:22 PM
The main argument in favour of the sequels I see being made is an objective "there not the prequels".

Mate.
There's only four words.  You got one of those words rong.

phantom_power

Quote from: momatt on April 16, 2018, 02:47:13 PM
Mate.
There's only four words.  You got one of those words rong.

And the other three aren't true

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

It's true that the prequels aren't the sequels. The two words are spelled differently.

I do, rather cynically, believe that a lot of the goodwill that The Force Awakens initially garnered was down to it being seen in opposition to the prequels.