Originally posted by Silent Master
Good is only subjective if you're rating something on how much you enjoy it and not its actually quality.
Enjoyment-factor is actually one major criteria that would define the "quality" when discussing entertainment mediums.
And ppl are allowed to focus on the criteria w/c they value the most.
Perhaps what you're probably saying is "overall quality as defined by experts"?
Originally posted by Silent Master
I get it, you think that everything is subjective and that quality doesn't exist, IOW with your line of logic a stick figure is just as good as the Mona Lisa
Um. Wow. That went nuts all of a sudden. What 's with the insistence of a dichotomy here? And why the passive-aggressive strawmanning? Who said anything about "everything" being subjective and when did I say quality doesn't exist? We're only talking about this topic specifically and the ppl posting here.
Read the OP. He didn't specify what exactly "better" means. And, in fact, his question implies that he wasn't even asking for "fight scene quality" (as it pertains to how experts see it) but how the fight scenes and effects probably made certain characters "seem" more powerful.
Ironically, tho, last I heard, some "stick figures" are actually being sold as high-level "art" these days. A couple of lines drawn in an orange background sold for over 100million USD. Funny how that worked out.
Funny thing is, I've met and worked with quite a few experts in my life. Top ppl of their respective fields. Outside things that are unquestionably provable mathematically, many of them (other than the immature and extremely intellectually arrogant) defer to the fact that their opinions are just that.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
I think "good" in terms of fight choreography kinda gets subjective to the individual.Some like the sense of scale and power that was shown in the MoS fights.
Others will like the fast and methodical fights scenes in WS and CW.
Some would like the visceral, brutal and bloody. Others, impactful, emotional and gripping.
It's all preference. 😛
Nah, I think good choreography is good choreography regardless of how you put it. What I think confuses people is the difference between good choreography and a good action scene. An action scene can be good even without good choreography. It can rely on great spectacle, destruction, good shooting angles and camera work, slow motion, intensity, etc. etc.
Good choreography however is much more specific. It's the way the combatant's movements are orchestrated. The more intricate, complex or inventive the movements are and the better they work seamlessly usually means better choreography. Doesn't need to have fancy kungfu moves. Achilles vs. Hector had superb choreography yet not one of them threw a high kick.
Indiana Jones shooting the sword guy is an example of a great action scene that had almost zero choreography.
So people still don't get Art is subjective.
Just look at the evenly split reaction on X-Men Apocalypse with views (even from so called experts) ranging from it being outstanding to it basically being trash.
Art is completely subjective. You have to attach criteria and specific measurements of those criteria for it to even begin to be Objective.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Turns out I was right, people are confusing collateral damage/scale with good choreography.Using their logic, BvS had better fight choreography than the Raid.
Choreography doesn't just mean "good martial arts". It's a really vague term, especially when you bring in movies.
Superman v Zod wasn't about kung fu, it was about demi-gods fighting and people not being able to do a thing about it but run away. The choreography suited that goal just fine (and we did get the occasional parry/block too), and in that context, is "good" imo.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
So people still don't get Art is subjective.Just look at the evenly split reaction on X-Men Apocalypse with views (even from so called experts) ranging from it being outstanding to it basically being trash.
Art is completely subjective. You have to attach criteria and specific measurements of those criteria for it to even begin to be Objective.
How one feels about art is subjective, I agree.
Originally posted by FrothByte
Nah, I think good choreography is good choreography regardless of how you put it. What I think confuses people is the difference between good choreography and a good action scene. An action scene can be good even without good choreography. It can rely on great spectacle, destruction, good shooting angles and camera work, slow motion, intensity, etc. etc.Good choreography however is much more specific. It's the way the combatant's movements are orchestrated. The more intricate, complex or inventive the movements are and the better they work seamlessly usually means better choreography. Doesn't need to have fancy kungfu moves. Achilles vs. Hector had superb choreography yet not one of them threw a high kick.
Indiana Jones shooting the sword guy is an example of a great action scene that had almost zero choreography.
Choreography, by definition, is the arrangement of actions/movements (used to generally mean dance but is also used in other forms of art) to create a performance.
I am not arguing against the point that complexity/difficulty/etc being a solid metric for determining what makes a movie's choreography "good". I'm arguing that ppl will have different interpretations on w/c metric best describes what makes a scene's choreography as "good". Beyond its complexity, its difficulty and its timing, many use a performance choreography's ability to communicate the correct emotion/reaction and how strongly it brings out said emotion/reaction in its audience. And above all that, "good" choreography still has to look good and entertain. Extremely complex and difficult choreography can still fall flat to its audience.
However, once we establish an agreed upon metric (w/c is what proper critics do), we can reduce the subjectivity of the discussion and actually discuss these things in a more objective manner.
The problem with this thread is that each side is kind of arguing against each other not realizing that either side are trying to prove completely different things.
See, this is the false dichotomy that Silent Master seems to be stuck with. He is confusing me saying that "good" being subjective also means that I am saying that "good" choreography is ENTIRELY and can only be subjective. Literally confusing, "kinda gets" as "can only be".
Originally posted by Silent Master
My point is that saying something's quality can't be judged because it's art and art is subjective is just an excuse used by people that are too lazy to think.A painting being called art doesn't mean it's quality as a painting can't be objectively measured.
And I never argued against this point. Just that there are many approaches and metrics to how art is judged. And many ppl prioritize certain metrics over others. Many different interpretations of "good".
And that in order to argue this thread with full objectivity, an agreed upon metric needs to be established between debating parties.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
And I never argued against this point. Just that there are many approaches and metrics to how art is judged. And many ppl prioritize certain metrics over others. Many different interpretations of "good".And that in order to argue this thread with full objectivity, an agreed upon metric needs to be established between debating parties.
Precisely.