Accepted. Go find your guy

I know what you are saying and with good arguments I can accept someones opinion. But usually it's irrelevant bullshit passed by as an argument.

It's gunna be very easy as I work in a second hand store that stock DVD's and meet turbo film nerds everyday

anyway the Pro side aren't presenting well constructed arguments either, the gist of this thread is pretty much "hurp durp if you don't like Gladiator you are probably retarded"

fight scenes are much better in troy, people who think otherwise obviously dont know good fights from bad.

Gladiator had better story though

Chronicle>

listen everything is subjective as we recieve information then process it in different ways based on past experience
but that doesn't mean we can't come to consensus about what's good and bad

for example the rain of arrows scenes in those movies are rather impressive, but if i film myself chucking a load of sticks at someone then it's not so good
there are many criteria we can judge films on, the one you would use above would be realism

our whole society doesn't work if we go around saying that everything is equal because people can have whatever opinion they want on it


do people even think about what they're saying when they go around crying about stuff being subjective or is it just a general holier than thou attitude?

This post was edited by dakariii on Dec 2 2014 12:53pm

troy

When you tell me how to exactly measure the quality of a film then I will accept that there is such a thing as objectively good cinema but you can't.
And don't say stuff like "good acting" because that's subjective

Your example is cute but it only works in extremes, I bet you can't tell me how to objectively figure out which is the best Godard film.

This post was edited by Svartermetalisk on Dec 2 2014 02:12pm

no it just becomes obvious at the extremes, even if the differences are so small and complex that it splits opinion they're still there
like i said realism is a good measure as it offers extra immersion, if you want something distinctly quantifiable you could look at the quality of the filming/special effects, how closely does it resemble real events

at its simplest films aim to entertain people, technically the best film is the one that offers the most enjoyment to the greatest percentage of people

i'm not saying that it's possible for us to work this stuff out or that different films won't be good for different people but things do have inherent qualities. If complex things can't be good or bad because they're subjective then simply things can't be because they're also subjective, however a warm meal is good and getting punched in the face is bad even if the anorexic masochist disagrees (see how you have to use general opinion to overcome subjectivity?)


anyway generally people are stupid but that's a different discussion, if we combined all our consciousnesses then we'd know which was the best film because it would be our favorite one

This is only true for comercial films, take the guy who's currently working on a 720 hour ambient film for example, do you think his goal is to compete with Pirates of the carribean?
I'd think not, not all films are made to appeal to as many as possible thus your logic is seriously flawed.



This is flawed for the exact same reason your previous example is flawed: not all movies strive to look as real as possible and not all movies strive to be believable.



This analogy is bad because a warm meal has objectively positive side effects such as energy, vitamins, nutrition and so on, getting punched in the face is objectively bad as it kills your braincells.

Watching Gladiator dosen't provide more Vitamin C than watching Troy.



That's only your personal definition, and I do not agree with it.

This post was edited by Svartermetalisk on Dec 2 2014 03:29pm

Every film can't aim to please the greatest number of people or you end up with a load of cookie cutters and people stop going to the cinema, so films aim to be the best for a specific genre or for a specific type of person


But it does provide more endorphins

Don't see how you can reject my point of combining people together into a hive mind, it's the opposite of a personal definition lol