Quote from: SpeedyMaxx on Oct 10, 2012, 02:03:27 AM
QuoteIt's okay to acknowledge that it really does suck when compared to Alien, because it does.
And it's okay to acknowledge not everyone agrees with you.
QuotePeople just wanted a movie on-par with Alien. Prometheus isn't. That's the only objective standard necessary, and a completely reasonable one at that.
No, it's your opinion. And you're going to have to start learning to live with it only being that. The Internet is hard, bro.
I think the internet's easy, but please don't drag a perfectly good conversation into another subjective/objective argument, or I'll have to start posting wikipedia entries on things like
character and
plot.It says pretty plainly that the phrase "in character" has been used to describe an
effective impersonation by an actor. Are you suggesting that, thanks to subjectivity in opinion, an actor can never be classified as being ineffective due to the difference of opinion on whether they met the criteria for being effective or not? If there wasn't an objective for the actor to meet in the first place, then there would be no physical dimension of bad or good acting, no criticism whatsoever, because it wouldn't matter what the actors were trying to accomplish, or the story for that matter, because it's all subjective. A movie that makes no sense and has no point can never be labeled as such, because someone is free to disagree about that and think that the movie is legendary based on their own arbitrary standard that may or may not coincide with reality.
But to do this, you destroy any objective the original element may have had. Hence the antonym.
Continuing with this theme of character:
QuoteCharacter, particularly when enacted by an actor in the theatre or cinema, involves "the illusion of being a human person."[5] In literature, characters guide readers through their stories, helping them to understand plots and ponder themes
This statement also implies that a character has an objective that they can achieve or fail, hence why you can have an ineffective character that didn't properly communicate their meaning to the audience, like a bunch of scientists that act nothing like scientists but are trying to tell me they're scientists. I don't believe it, and I can objectively prove it since I know actual scientists, and through this thing called writing, we can recreate these real people in fictional stories and have an audience experience this effective character and whatever happens to it.
A plot also has an objective which it can achieve or fail, but I'll refrain from posting another massive slab of text. I'll try and make the rest a medium-sized slab.
All a comparison requires is a standard. You can pick any standard you want. I'm not running around yelling at people trying to get them to agree with me, I'm comparing
the film itself to many different standards, and when I show how it fails to meet those standards, people suddenly become personally insulted by it. If you disagree, I would love for you to show me examples of why you disagree based on your own objective standard, or mine, whichever one doesn't really matter, but you're communicating with someone using the same logical language. When you play the subjective card, you're not even offering up any logical framework for conclusion because you're just saying "because I said so."
This is nothing new, btw spectators. Ayn Rand has been talking about this for years. We're just arguing over how it's applied to cinema.
So uh... how bout that Prometheus?
Quote from: SM on Oct 10, 2012, 04:02:41 AM
Constructive you say?
Constructive, SM ^ take notes.
