quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: I don't dislike the LoTR for their efx, it's just that I'm not into the fantasy genre.
That's not how the fetish sites tell it, pallie.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: I disagree with this almost entirely. Those things you list are often beneficial and invaluable to the gaining of a complete appreciation for a work of art, but they are by no means necessary. Humans are often illogical, ignorant, fickle, and reactionary, but that doesn't stop them from having an opinion.
I do not believe that there are any truly objective right or wrong answers concerning the interpretation and evaluation of art. What we all have are our experiences and the tastes and critical sense we develop according to them, all of which are subject to change given the influence of a number of factors.
My statement pertained more towards that old defense of "Well, it's just my opinion." as if those magical five words exempt one from the necessity of facts and logic. It's just a personal pet peeve.
That's not to say that's exactly what you were doing in this instance or that value judgements of art aren't heavily subjective. But even so, they're subject to a certain amount of reason and reliance on facts.
If, for example, you were to say, "I think CGI is fake looking and that's why I don't like Lord of the Rings but that's just my opinion" then it would still be wrong, based on incorrect information and faulty reasoning, no matter the effect of those magical words, "It's just my opinion."
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by OnToMars: If, for example, you were to say, "I think CGI is fake looking and that's why I don't like Lord of the Rings but that's just my opinion" then it would still be wrong, based on incorrect information and faulty reasoning, no matter the effect of those magical words, "It's just my opinion."
Ok, this is exactly my point. If CGI indeed looks fake to me and that does in fact cause me not to like LOTR, how is it wrong? You mean because the CGI doesn't look fake to you and you like it? Your premise doesn't make any sense. You can disagree with my opinion, but you can't act as if there's some great existential answer key by which to call it correct or incorrect.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I would surmise that one could in principle objectively test whether CGI did indeed look fake, at least relative to other special effects methods. Thus one could argue that "in my opinion" is potentially not a valid modifier for statements of its fakeness. But then, in the absence of any such study, we'd be arguing about something without any evidence one way or the other. Instead of arguing over something could actually be objectively known, we'd be arguing over whether we in fact objectively know it, with no information to argue over. Which would just be so silly that I can't imagine it ever happening here.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Guys: it's Mim's opinion. Unless you were planning on hosting a showing of the trilogy in your home's indoor movie theater, and now you've gotta throw away the special expensive invitation with his name on it, what does it matter if he likes or doesn't like the movies?
I mean, I know I want to bash in the heads of people I meet who don't share my affection for "Hot Fuzz", but that hardly means I have the right to force my enjoyment of the film on them.
I mean, christ, didja see Omega's comment on "Bender's Big Score?" I can't remember the last time I wanted to crush his skull!
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
I agree. I'd point out to everyone that wording goes a long way in avoiding making people upset... I can't remember what Mim said at first about LotR and I'm not going to go check, but just as a purely hypothetical example, "LotR is terrible" vs. "I think LotR is terrible" would rumple my feathers a little bit. Of course, I try to just mentally insert "I think" before everything someone says, to avoid getting upset with no due reason, but sometimes people actually *mean* to say "LotR is [objectively] terrible" or something like that. So, sometimes you jump to the conclusion that they were bashing something you like instead of stating an opinion.
Anyway, maybe that's what's happened here...miscommunication? So let's all learn a Very Valuable Lesson and put down the machetes.
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Ok, this is exactly my point. If CGI indeed looks fake to me and that does in fact cause me not to like LOTR, how is it wrong? You mean because the CGI doesn't look fake to you and you like it? Your premise doesn't make any sense. You can disagree with my opinion, but you can't act as if there's some great existential answer key by which to call it correct or incorrect.
Because the effects of LOTR are only partially achieved through CGI and in large part through other means, like miniatures, bigatures, etc.
And that's my only point. If your conclusion is based off incorrect facts and faulty reasoning, then you're conclusion is suspect, "opinion" or not. That's my only point.
And my original point was more a general expression of a pet peeve and not a personal attack on Mim. No fire extinguishers necessary, gentlemen. Carry on.
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
Well, finally Blockbuster had 1 of their 12 copies in when I went there.
$$$$$$$ Spoiler Warning $$$$$$$
There was something I can't quite put my finger on that I didn't like about it, and the opening with the characters was kind of cheesy. All in all though I liked it quite a bit - and most importantly it did seem like a movie and not several episodes stitched together. I'm glad Leela and Fry got together (after a fashion) even if it was just a cartoon and even if that's fanboyish. But finally...paradox-solving doom field? I think not - where did the code come from in the first place? Bender took it from Future-dead-Lars-Fry's ass, went back in time, and put it on past-frozen-Fry's ass. So where did it *come* from? It's a paradox.
Daniel Butler
I'm a Singapore where is my boat
Member # 1689
posted
lol yeah but that's my point...they had the other paradoxes solved by the duplicates created dying, didn't they? But they didn't solve this one. (Can't believe I'm nitpicking Futurama.)
Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
And I met all these cool people who I convinced to stay down there rather than coming up when they logically should have.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
