Rank the greatest jedi in a top five

I don't dispute that the LOTR films are better acted (in my opinion), but Ares asserted that such a notion is objective and implied that it was inarguable, something of which I see no basis. His response was a sheepish appeal to common sense.

Interestingly, one of cinema's most regarded critics disagrees with the ridiculous notion that film criticism is objective or inarguable.

Roger Ebert
Q: Beyond the obvious, what function do you think a film critic should serve?

A: The film critic, first of all, should give you some idea of what the movie is about, not just in terms of its subject but it terms of its style and how it might hope to make you feel, and the critic should give you this idea usefully enough that you can decide whether you might want to see the movie or not regardless of whether the critic likes it or not. I might pan a movie, but if I’ve described it accurately, you might decide that you’d like to go see it, and that would be perfectly valid. Apart from that, the critic must also maybe be a teacher, in the sense that he tells you something about film in general, the purpose of film, the methods of film, the techniques of film, the weaknesses and strengths of film, and the critic should also be an entertainer in that the review should be not necessarily fun to read, but interesting to read, well-written. It’s a personal essay. The critic’s job is to be subjective, not to be objective, because it’s an opinion, and the critic should give that opinion in such a way that you want to read it, you enjoy reading it.

Roger Ebert
Q: That inspired me really to take film seriously. I thank you for that. What advice would you have for aspiring film critics like myself?

A: It sounds like you have all the advice you need. There’s a book called “The Immediate Experience” by Robert Warshaw, and he has a line in there that I typed up and put over my typewriter when I started out. It says, “A man goes to the movies, and the critic must be honest enough to admit that he is that man.” Well, of course, the critic can be a woman too, so he was a sexist pig, but apart from that, what he means is . . . you go to the movies, and your review must admit that it was you who was there and it’s you who’s writing the review and it’s you who has the feelings. You shouldn’t try and be a ventriloquist and say things that you think the readers want to hear, things that you think you should say, or stay away from things you think you shouldn’t say them. You have to actually deal with the immediate experience that you had. In other words, if everybody in the world thinks a movie is bad, but you liked it, then you have to concede that you liked it. You have to say, “I was there. Here is what I felt.” It has to be first person subjective. It’s not a science, it’s an art.

Or you can read this polemic against the notion of objective film criticism.

I'm cool thanks.

That's what I thought.

I know. Most people think I'm cool.

Well tbh I'm not sure if you are anymore. Your distinctly religious behavior is somewhat unsettling.....

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
Says the guy who said he'd show me the error of my ways pages ago only to flee in complete terror. haermm

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Please point out where I ever made such a statement, new member whom I have never come into contact with prior to the creation of this thread. 131

[quote]Blax, pg. 6
For one, you're misrepresenting [Lord Lucien's] argument here. I'll address that later, if need be.

Mr. Spencer, pg. 7
Please do.

You have failed. 131

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
Well tbh I'm not sure if you are anymore. Your distinctly religious behavior is somewhat unsettling.....

STFU! I so am cool! Even Blax said I was cool once!

Originally posted by Nephthys
STFU! I so am cool! Even Blax said I was cool once!

Praise from Blax is a universal indicator of ineptitude. 😬

Nah, Blax is uber-cool. you just don't get it cuz your so uncool! Haha.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
I don't dispute that the LOTR films are better acted (in my opinion), but Ares asserted that such a notion is objective and implied that it was inarguable, something of which I see no basis. His response was a sheepish appeal to common sense.

Interestingly, one of cinema's most regarded critics disagrees with the ridiculous notion that film criticism is objective or inarguable.

Or you can read this polemic against the notion of objective film criticism.

Cool. Not a single one of these quotes contradict what I said. They are all claiming that judging movies is subjective. And I agree with this, Afterall I never claimed LotR is an objectively better movie. However, you can assess certain aspects of a movie rather objectively like CGI. I also believe that acting and, yes, dialogue can be reviewed in such a way as well. And not a single one of your sources dispute such a thing.

no u x infinity

ares834
Not a single one of these quotes contradict what I said. They are all claiming that judging movies is subjective. And I agree with this, Afterall I never claimed LotR is an objectively better movie.

So judging movies is subjective... except for the parts that aren't subjective, which are objective because you and "common sense" deem it such? 😂

ares834
However, you can assess certain aspects of a movie rather objectively like CGI.

Vague. What about CGI can be assessed objectively?

ares834
I also believe that acting and, yes, dialogue can be reviewed in such a way as well.

So you "believe" acting and dialogue can be reviewed in an objective way? That's certainly a far cry from an appeal to common sense and matter-of-fact blanket statements like the one you originally provided.

ares834
And not a single one of your sources dispute such a thing.

My sources (film critics & film students) say film criticism is a subjective practice. You say otherwise. What are the standards by which acting and dialogue can be objectively judged?

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
So judging movies is subjective... except for the parts that aren't subjective, which are objective because you and "common sense" deem it such? 😂

No. Judging movies as a whole is subjective, but certain parts can be assesed objecitvely.

Vague. What about CGI can be assessed objectively?

If it is trying to be realistic then how realistic it is, how well animated it is, etc..

For example, RotS has objectively better CGI than Mortal Kombat.

So you "believe" acting and dialogue can be reviewed in an objective way? That's certainly a far cry from an appeal to common sense and matter-of-fact blanket statements like the one you originally provided.

Acting and dialogue can be reviewed in an objective way. Better. No beleive in there.

My sources (film critics & film students) say film criticism is a subjective practice. You say otherwise. What are the standards by which acting and dialogue can be objectively judged?

Acting how believable there performance is (that is if it meant to be). While dialogue can be assesed by how well it performs its intended function.

I'm with you on CGI, because there is a technical quantifiable component to it. Enhanced technology allows for greater accuracy and superior representation that can be largely observed.

But acting and dialogue are two different matters entirely. How can you accurately measure what is more believable, particularly in light of the exaggerated and mythic scenarios in which the characters find themselves?

The same applies with dialogue. Your answers are vague at best.

Which gets us back to square one. I agree entirely that the LOTR trilogy is much better acted and written (per the dialogue) than either SW trilogy. But to claim that such an opinion is "objective" in the sense that it is factual, inarguable, etc. is the embodiment of stupidity.

Can you objectively say that theres no way to objectively measure the quality of acting? he

Originally posted by Nephthys
Can you objectively say that theres no way to objectively measure the quality of acting? he

Have I done so?

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
I'm with you on CGI, because there is a technical quantifiable component to it. Enhanced technology allows for greater accuracy and superior representation that can be largely observed.

Yep. However, even with the advancement films CGI is not alway better than that which has come before.

But acting and dialogue are two different matters entirely. How can you accurately measure what is more believable, particularly in light of the exaggerated and mythic scenarios in which the characters find themselves?

Which is hard to asses when judging say a comedy or drama to a film like Star Wars. Luckily enough, both Star Wars and LotR fall into a very similar type of film and comparisons can be readily made. As an example, look at Luke's reaction after his duel with Vader. That is unequivocally bad acting. LotR, at least as far as I recall, has no such moment.

Which gets us back to square one. I agree entirely that the LOTR trilogy is much better acted and written (per the dialogue) than either SW trilogy. But to claim that such an opinion is "objective" in the sense that it is factual, inarguable, etc. is the embodiment of stupidity.

It isn't inargubale as any thing is arguable, however I would say it is factual.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
Have I done so?

'However, is [art etc] objective in the sense that it is quantifiable, conclusive, or factual? Hardly.'

If you believe that acting can be objectively measured though, thats cool. Concesson acceped.

So, do you?

Ares834
It isn't inargubale as any thing is arguable, however I would say it is factual.

I see nothing that would support an outlandish claim like that. I'll stick with the so-called "experts", personally, who claim that it all comes down to opinions.