Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
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.
And might I ask where they say assessing acting or dialogue is subjective? All I see them claim is assessing a movie as a whole is subjective.
Originally posted by ares834
And might I ask where they say assessing acting or dialogue is subjective? All I see them claim is assessing a movie as a whole is subjective.
Roger Ebert
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.
^ Here, Ebert examines the components of film criticism: the film in general, the film's purpose, its methods, its techniques, and the weaknesses and strengths. And yet he concludes the paragraph by asserting that it's still subjective.
If you wish to claim that acting and dialogue can be objectively measured, it's your burden to prove as the originator of the claim. Everything else points to the contrary.
Your entire argument literally boils down to "LOTR has better acting and dialogue because you regard the performance as more believable and the dialogue as more intentional in its function."
The critical word is "believe." You have not once introduced a single objective measurement.
So rather than trying to move the goalpost or shift the burden of proof onto me to disprove you, how about you fulfill your end?
Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
[B]^ Here, Ebert examines the components of film criticism: the film in general, the film's purpose, its methods, its techniques, and the weaknesses and strengths. And yet he concludes the paragraph by asserting that it's still subjective.
And I'd agree with him on such things.
If you wish to claim that acting and dialogue can be objectively measured, it's your burden to prove as the originator of the claim. Everything else points to the contrary.Your entire argument literally boils down to "LOTR has better acting and dialogue because you regard the performance as more believable and the dialogue as more intentional in its function."
The critical word is "believe." You have not once introduced a single objective measurement.
I'll be honest, acting has always been hard for me to judge. However, I am able to asses that acting in the OT is not good. Why? Becaus facial expressions often times do not match the emotions they are meant to convey the same works for voices. Once again, I will bring up Luke's reaction. His facial expression is not appropriate for someone who is shocked or in great pain. That's bad acting.
So rather than trying to move the goalpost or shift the burden of proof onto me to disprove you, how about you fulfill your end?
Then don't bring up quotes by experts in an attempt to discredit my argument, when, in fact, they statments don't contradict anything I stated.
A
And I'd agree with him on such things.
Then you accept that film criticism down to its base components (which includes assessment of acting, dialogue, etc.) is subjective?
A
I'll be honest, acting has always been hard for me to judge.
It shouldn't be, if there's an objective standard of measurement beyond what you feel. This is what you claimed and your own words contradict it.
A
However, I am able to asses that acting in the OT is not good. Why? Becaus facial expressions often times do not match the emotions they are meant to convey the same works for voices. Once again, I will bring up Luke's reaction. His facial expression is not appropriate for someone who is shocked or in great pain. That's bad acting.
😐
Luke's expression was one of anguish, learning that his worst enemy claimed to be his father. I see no objective blunder here.
A
Then don't bring up quotes by experts in an attempt to discredit my argument, when, in fact, they statments don't contradict anything I stated.
😂
Last I checked, Ebert didn't say "film criticism is subjective, it's a personal essay... except when it comes to evaluating acting and dialogue!" He tears film criticism to its critical elements and concludes that it's still subjective.
Your attempts to move the goalpost and shift the burden of proof were transparent, but I was a good sport and indulged you.
Now make your case or concede the point. I'll check back with you in the morning.
Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
[B]Then you accept that film criticism down to its base components (which includes assessment of acting, dialogue, etc.) is subjective?
Yet another attempt to twist Ebert's word to suit your argument? He says that in the end film criticism is subjective, but he doesn't say it entirely is nor does he claim that every aspect of a film is judged subjectively.
It shouldn't be, if there's an objective standard of measurement beyond what you feel. This is what you claimed and your own words contradict it.
But films are more than their objective parts, perhaps there most important part, story, is almost entirely subjective. And when one asseses a film one must asses the story.
😐Luke's expression was one of anguish, learning that his worst enemy claimed to be his father. I see no objective blunder here.
Hamill's reaction is horrible and he completely fails to deliever his mental and physical anguish here.
😂Last I checked, Ebert didn't say "film criticism is subjective, it's a personal essay... except when it comes to evaluating acting and dialogue!" He tears film criticism to its critical elements and concludes that it's still subjective.
😂
Nor did I see him say "film criticism is subjective, it's a personal essay... even when it comes to evaluating acting and dialogue!"
He says that a critic's review is objective, not once does he claim that every elemet assesed is. And as for all those "critical elements" he brings up, I agree with him on those being subjective but there are other elements to a film that he does not mention.
Now make your case or concede the point. I'll check back with you in the morning.
If in acting an actor fails to put forth the intended emotion then its bad acting. Now, once it reaches such a point, I will concede that is becomes almost impossible to judge acting objectively. However, there are several moments in SW where the actors fail to do so. And it is for that very reason why I would claim SW has objectively worse acting than LotR.
Edit: Anyway, I'm probably done arguing this as I see it doomed to go on indefinetly. Arguing objectivity or subjectivity is a damn near impossible task and I have a busy schedule this week.
I personally didn't see anything special in LOTR in terms of acting and dialogue, with the possible exceptions of Ian McKellon and Christopher Lee.
Im personally much more impressed with the acting and dialogue we had in the OT from the likes of Alec Mcguiness, Frank Oz, James Earl Jones and even Ian McDiarmid.
And yes even Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher offered that more 80's action hero and heroine type dialogue/role/acting (on top of the deeper more meaningful dialogue and acting from others) which added that extra spark to it that LOTR (and the SW PT) just didnt have for me.
I mean if we just look at memorable lines I do think LOTR has very few next to the SW OT. That to me also says something.
Originally posted by DARTH POWER😑
I personally didn't see anything special in LOTR in terms of acting and dialogue,
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Mace should be well above Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon.Count Dooku was once a Jedi so would also be way above Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon.
And for that matter Obi-Wan would be above Qui-Gon no matter how cool Liam Neeson is 😉
I disagree^^. Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon became one with the force, Mace didn't. He wasn't so important for the SW Universe, except maybe some parts of the EU.
I also think that Anakin would beat Mace and he in turn was defeated by Obi-Wan. Qui-Gon was Maces peer IIRC during TPM and he had to be wiser and had an better understanding of the Force, this is why he became the "first" Force Ghost. Luke and Yoda need no explanation, why they are the best two 😉.
Originally posted by Batman-Prime
I disagree^^. Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon became one with the force, Mace didn't. He wasn't so important for the SW Universe, except maybe some parts of the EU.
I dnt think there was any indication that the ghost spirit thing was directly related to power. Besides Qui-Gon taught the technique to Yoda and Obi-Wan but not to Mace. So not really fair to judge Mace on that alone.
Originally posted by Batman-Prime
I also think that Anakin would beat Mace and he in turn was defeated by Obi-Wan.
Well by that argument Obi-Wan would defeat Dooku. But as we saw doesn't really work like that. And I have no doubt Mace would have kicked the crud out of the retarded Sith Anakin who Obi-Wan beat.
I also have no doubt that the more in control Anakin who tooled Dooku would also tool Obi-Wan.
I ranked the Jedi's which imho are the greatest, Yoda for being the most powerful and important during his time, teaching all the important Jedi, Luke for being the end of it all. Anakin for bringing balance to the force. Obi-Wan, because he was involved in all of this and played a crucial role and he exceeded himself and deserves the titel Master when he teached Luke, and Qui-Gon because he was the "first" one who rediscovered the Force Ghost technique. Anyway. In a lightsabre duel I would consider Mace, but this is about everything and there I don't see him that important or powerful.
Originally posted by Batman-Prime
I ranked the Jedi's which imho are the greatest, Yoda for being the most powerful and important during his time, teaching all the important Jedi, Luke for being the end of it all. Anakin for bringing balance to the force. Obi-Wan, because he was involved in all of this and played a crucial role and he exceeded himself and deserves the titel Master when he teached Luke, and Qui-Gon because he was the "first" one who rediscovered the Force Ghost technique. Anyway. In a lightsabre duel I would consider Mace, but this is about everything and there I don't see him that important or powerful.
Ah right. I didn't really think of greatest in that sense (even though I should have)..
In that case you have a perfectly valid list 😉
Prowess:
1. Luke Skywalker
2. Yoda
3. Revan
4. Mace Windu
5. Kyp Durron
(6. Galen Marek
7. Satele Shan?)
Luke and Yoda at 1 and 2, of course. Revan at three, after the Exile (or was it Bastila?) calls him the most powerful being she had ever met...which would include Nihilus. Windu at four, and Durron at five, the latter for allegedly having more raw power in the Force than Luke by NJO (source: himself).
Accomplishments
1. Luke Skywalker
2. Anakin Skywalker
3. The Exile
4. Revan
5. Obi Wan
(6. Yoda
7. Qui Gon)
Luke and Anakin, of course. The Exile, for defeating the triumvirate. Revan, for defeating Malak and stalling the Sith Emperor three centuries. Obi Wan, for training Anakin and Luke. Yoda, for overseeing the Jedi for eight centuries and training Luke. Jinn, for discovering Anakin.