I believe there are a lot of art teachers and similar people that would very much like to dispute your claim that the quality of art is subjective, if they knew you were making such a claim.
Absolutely. There are definitely some who would disagree with me. And there are definitely some who WOULD agree with me. And there are still others who say that some art is objective, while other art is subjective. And out of that group, there are some who say it is the intent of the artist that determines whether it is objective or subjective, while others would say it is each individual viewer who determines whether it is objective or subjective to them. And all of that disagreement proves my point. This is not math or science. There is no equation you can work out to "prove" your answer. There is no test you can run to get a definitive result. You have a lot of different people with a lot of different opinions about a movie, and none of them are wrong.
You're really starting to remind me of Sheldon's mother.
"Evolution isn't an opinion, it's scientific fact"
"And THAT is your opinion!"
Actually, that is the exact opposite of what I am saying. Notice the part where he mentioned science? If something is based on math or science, you can actually PROVE it. But Art is not math or science. It is an expression of imagination. You cannot "prove" whether it is good, bad, right, or wrong by any test or equation. All you can do is give your personal subjective opinion on it. And while valid, that personal subjective opinion is not more right than any other.
There are objective elements needed (hence the term "objective") to make a good story, film or what have you.
And one person's "good" is not necessarily the same as another person's "good". So what you consider the be the objective elements to make a "good" story may not make a story "good" to someone else, or vice versa.
An apple is a bad orange because it lacks the elements needed to be an orange (at all, in this case). JJTrek has more going for it than the apple/orange simile, but it lacks many elements needed to be good. It's a story, because it has SOME of what makes a story, but it lacks the necessary elements to be a GOOD story. Again, that doesn't mean it can't be enjoyed. It just means that there are elements missing.
It only lacks what YOU consider be the the "necessary elements" to make what YOU consider to be a "good" story. Other people disagree, think the movie is excellent, and neither you, nor they, are wrong. There is simply nothing you have said or will ever say that can "prove" a movie is "good" or "bad", except to you personally.
I believe there are a lot of art teachers and similar people that would very much like to dispute your claim that the quality of art is subjective, if they knew you were making such a claim.
Absolutely. There are definitely some who would disagree with me. And there are definitely some who WOULD agree with me. And there are still others who say that some art is objective, while other art is subjective. And out of that group, there are some who say it is the intent of the artist that determines whether it is objective or subjective, while others would say it is each individual viewer who determines whether it is objective or subjective to them. And all of that disagreement proves my point. This is not math or science. There is no equation you can work out to "prove" your answer. There is no test you can run to get a definitive result. You have a lot of different people with a lot of different opinions about a movie, and none of them are wrong.
You're really starting to remind me of Sheldon's mother.
"Evolution isn't an opinion, it's scientific fact"
"And THAT is your opinion!"
There are objective elements needed (hence the term "objective") to make a good story, film or what have you. An apple is a bad orange because it lacks the elements needed to be an orange (at all, in this case). JJTrek has more going for it than the apple/orange simile, but it lacks many elements needed to be good. It's a story, because it has SOME of what makes a story, but it lacks the necessary elements to be a GOOD story. Again, that doesn't mean it can't be enjoyed. It just means that there are elements missing.
A car without an engine is still a car, it's just not a very good car. Even so, a child might really LOVE the car because he likes the colour, or it lets him pretend to be driving, or what have you. It's still not a very good car.
Cue rebuttal in three... two... one...
On a more serious note, while I've made it clear that I definitely side strongly with Marik here, there is a certain element in Nagus' claims that is true.
For example, I consider romance-heavy stories to be bad stories in general (Romeo and Juliette being one notable example that I somehow managed to get to the end of - never again ), but lots of people would take ten of those over an episode of Star Trek any day. (There has been the occasional story that managed to grab my attention despite this bias, though the only one I can think of right now is a Star Wars fanfic which may have 'survived' simply because it was well-written Star Wars.)
However, when there are certain expectations from a genre/franchise, one can quantify different stories as 'bad' stories within the context of that genre/franchise with a relative degree of objectivity. (Apparently the 'relative' has to be strongly emphasized with Star Trek. ) To my knowledge, Star Trek is not about teenagers throwing the rulebook out the nearest airlock and somehow escaping punishment for the subsequent catastrophe - therefore any Star Trek story containing such elements (like the Abrams movies, Into Darkness substantially more so than its predecessor) can be considered 'objectively bad' from that standpoint at the very least. And, as shown by the fact that we're even having this discussion, some people do consider it bad.
Personally, I'm not sure anymore if that was my only problem with the new movies - it certainly may have helped color my opinion of their other aspects. That, and the ridiculous quantity of glaring technological anachronisms, some of which predate Nero's incursion and can't be explained by it - such as everything on and around the Kelvin. Red bolts instead of blue beams in this era? This isn't Star Wars, nor does it take place anywhere near STO (or TMP, for that matter - we've still got decades there).
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
I believe there are a lot of art teachers and similar people that would very much like to dispute your claim that the quality of art is subjective, if they knew you were making such a claim.
Absolutely. There are definitely some who would disagree with me. And there are definitely some who WOULD agree with me. And there are still others who say that some art is objective, while other art is subjective. And out of that group, there are some who say it is the intent of the artist that determines whether it is objective or subjective, while others would say it is each individual viewer who determines whether it is objective or subjective to them. And all of that disagreement proves my point. This is not math or science. There is no equation you can work out to "prove" your answer. There is no test you can run to get a definitive result. You have a lot of different people with a lot of different opinions about a movie, and none of them are wrong.
You're really starting to remind me of Sheldon's mother.
"Evolution isn't an opinion, it's scientific fact"
"And THAT is your opinion!"
There are objective elements needed (hence the term "objective") to make a good story, film or what have you. An apple is a bad orange because it lacks the elements needed to be an orange (at all, in this case). JJTrek has more going for it than the apple/orange simile, but it lacks many elements needed to be good. It's a story, because it has SOME of what makes a story, but it lacks the necessary elements to be a GOOD story. Again, that doesn't mean it can't be enjoyed. It just means that there are elements missing.
A car without an engine is still a car, it's just not a very good car. Even so, a child might really LOVE the car because he likes the colour, or it lets him pretend to be driving, or what have you. It's still not a very good car.
Cue rebuttal in three... two... one...
On a more serious note, while I've made it clear that I definitely side strongly with Marik here, there is a certain element in Nagus' claims that is true.
For example, I consider romance-heavy stories to be bad stories in general (Romeo and Juliette being one notable example that I somehow managed to get to the end of - never again ), but lots of people would take ten of those over an episode of Star Trek any day. (There has been the occasional story that managed to grab my attention despite this bias, though the only one I can think of right now is a Star Wars fanfic which may have 'survived' simply because it was well-written Star Wars.)
However, when there are certain expectations from a genre/franchise, one can quantify different stories as 'bad' stories within the context of that genre/franchise with a relative degree of objectivity. (Apparently the 'relative' has to be strongly emphasized with Star Trek. ) To my knowledge, Star Trek is not about teenagers throwing the rulebook out the nearest airlock and somehow escaping punishment for the subsequent catastrophe - therefore any Star Trek story containing such elements (like the Abrams movies, Into Darkness substantially more so than its predecessor) can be considered 'objectively bad' from that standpoint at the very least. And, as shown by the fact that we're even having this discussion, some people do consider it bad.
Personally, I'm not sure anymore if that was my only problem with the new movies - it certainly may have helped color my opinion of their other aspects. That, and the ridiculous quantity of glaring technological anachronisms, some of which predate Nero's incursion and can't be explained by it - such as everything on and around the Kelvin. Red bolts instead of blue beams in this era? This isn't Star Wars, nor does it take place anywhere near STO (or TMP, for that matter - we've still got decades there).
So when someone includes an element to Star Trek that was never apart of it that means it's bad? Star Trek was always about the Enterprise trekking around the galaxy....does that mean DS9 is bad because it takes place on a space station or Voyager is bad because it doesn't take place on a ship named Enterprise?
again comparing this universe to the Prime universe is wrong. It's not the prime universe. Things happen differently. If they made a movie version of the mirror would you nitpick that Spock has a goatee and in the series he never had one? It's a different universe....what happened before doesn't apply to this.
In order for a property to survive and achieve longevity it needs to be flexible and needs to adapt to the times of the audience. If one is to look at Batman. Batman has gone from night vigilante in the early comics (who used guns and had no qualms about killing) to being a jovial character in the '66 series then becoming this gothic nightmare in the first two Burton films and then this hyper realistic vigilante in the Nolan films.
Trek has to be just as flexible in order for it to survive. It has to appeal to more than just the Trekkies.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
If they made a movie version of the Mirror Universe, I would:
A: Not have any reason to complain about Spock's goatee, because it's canon.
B: Expect the same thing I expect of the prime universe or the Abramsverse - some degree of internal consistency and at least a minimal application of common sense. The Abramsverse's failure to meet the latter requirement (going to go back to Cadet Kirk being permanently glued to the bridge of the Enterprise) also prevents it from meeting the former, as Starfleet's upper echelons being composed of a bunch of incompetent idiots is not internally consistent with Starfleet being a military organization of any kind. It might be, if whoever's responsible for the composition of said upper echelons were themselves established as incompetent idiots, but aside from the fact that this is probably not intended by the authors, there's also the fact that those whoevers would be voted out of office (or just kicked out when the superiors' superiors were voted out of office).
'Increasing the flexibility of Star Trek' is not an excuse for bad writing, and comparing DS9 or Voyager (regardless of whatever flaws they do have) to the Abrams movies in that regard is comparing apples to rotten apples.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Weeeell... yes and no. It wouldn't be considered a good story in any known genre, but somebody would probably think it was a pretty good series of scenes.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
I consider romance-heavy stories to be bad stories in general (Romeo and Juliette being one notable example that I somehow managed to get to the end of - never again )
That is a taste difference - not a qualitative difference. Your subjective opinion is that you don't like Romance stories. Your subjective opinion bears no effect on the quality of the story. There are bad romance stories and good ones. As I said earlier, I despise Handle (the composer) - but I am not arrogant enough to believe that my opinion of Handle affects its quality. Similarly, something doesn't become good simply because it's popular.
Both of these songs went multiple Platinum, under "Nagus'" view, that makes them as good as Mozart.
Got it? Nagus is an sophist. He believes that subjective opinion makes the quality of these two songs:
Viewpoints like that are why Ferengi are regarded as space trash throughout Star Trek...
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
Both of these songs went multiple Platinum, under "Nagus'" view, that makes them as good as Mozart.
Nope, that is not what I said. I do not personally think "song A" is as "good" as "song B". I have my own personal opinions about what is "better" and why, just like everyone else. However, I understand that there is no measurable test(besides actual sales and popularity, which you do not want to recognize), which can "prove" one song is "better" than the other.
So back to the actual topic of movies, you are free to think one movie is better than another. You are free to write a thousand page dissertation explaining why you feel that way. You can post a million youtube videos or picture quotes to try to make your argument for you. But there is simply nothing you can say or do to PROVE one movie is better than another, or that one movie is "good" or "bad". You can't PROVE anything, except that you have an opinion. And while you aren't "wrong", neither is anyone else who has a differing or even opposite opinion.
But there is simply nothing you can say or do to PROVE one movie is better than another, or that one movie is "good" or "bad". You can't PROVE anything, except that you have an opinion. And while you aren't "wrong", neither is anyone else who has a differing or even opposite opinion.
That's your opinion. You can't prove to me your opinion that there's no objective criteria for evaluating artist talent and ability.
In fact, it insults my intelligence for someone to tell me these things even might be of equal quality:
Because, for example, I have eyes.
Pic relevant btw for cultural relativists.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
You can't prove to me your opinion that there's no objective criteria for evaluating artist talent and ability.
If you want to call something "objective criteria", that's fine. You aren't wrong. However, someone else may have a completely different "objective criteria" than you, yielding completely different results, and they aren't wrong either.
In fact, it insults my intelligence for someone to tell me these things even might be of equal quality
I'm not saying they are equal. Personally, I agree the painting and sculpture are a much higher quality of artistic expression. But while that is my opinion, there is absolutely nothing I can do or say that "proves" that is actually the case. And since this is an issue that cannot be proven, then someone who disagrees is not wrong.
That's your opinion. You can't prove to me your opinion...
Of course not. That's why we call them "opinions" and not "facts", and why we call it "art" and not "science".
Now, if you could just grasp that your opinions are no more objectively valid in these matters than anyone else's, and that the concept of "objective opinion" is self-contradictory nonsense, perhaps we could actually have a conversation.
I'm not saying they are equal. Personally, I agree the painting and sculpture are a much higher quality of artistic expression. But while that is my opinion, there is absolutely nothing I can do or say that "proves" that is actually the case. And since this is an issue that cannot be proven, then someone who disagrees is not wrong.
You can't prove it's wrong to mass murder or rob people. But we establish objective criteria for these actions in order to facilitate the development and maintenance of civilization. In reality your viewpoint is childish for the same reason someone who engages in some "Al Qaeda is no more right to believe they ought to destroy the twin towers and kill 3000 people than Americans who think they shouldn't" hypothetical argument is childish. It beleaguers a mature discussion on what is best for society and ultimately is a red herring. It's an immature line of discourse because it is the pseudo-intellectual equivalent of a toddler throwing a tantrum.
In fact, that you think empirical, irrefutable, scientific proof ought to be applied to value judgements is in and of itself a value judgement - and an immature one at that. Thankfully society doesn't say "well, that criminal thinks he wants to kill you and he's no more provably wrong than you who wants to live so we'll just let nature sort it out." This is the fundamental premise of civilization - shared assumed premises of sociological order. When they are removed, civilization, empirically, falls apart. This is an empirically undesirable result - a reductio ad absurdum of your statement that no opinion is more valid than another.
Art is a cornerstone of civilization, along with science. Art teaches civilization its shared premises. When art abandons that objective, collapse of civilized order ensues - it reduces society to what Hobbes calls "bellum omnium contra omnes" - the primitive state where nothing but primitive impulse and action is regarded as true.
But, you can't reason with the unreasonable. And, you, Mr. Nagus, are unreasonable because you demand a standard of evidence beyond what is called for. You demand that "either the universe has pronounced an objective scientific law for a well written story, or there is absolutely no view on the craftsmanship of a story that may be considered superior or more well reasoned to another view." This is a false dichotomy.
Thankfully, we have nothing more to say, because all you'll say it "wah wah, you can't prove it!" You are cultural degeneracy at its finest.
Post edited by penemue#7777 on
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
Well, this degenerated quickly... (Pun not intended.)
Normally I stay away from "well, it's all relative man" arguments when someone doesn't want to dispute something based on the merits of the thing in question. Unfortunately, this is generally a form of censorship via diversionary tactics. Many people seem to fall for the "well you can't prove your argument via the scientific method and therefore it is not valid" nonsense these days when it comes to discussing much of anything.
It's a way to shut down discussion by claiming something may not be discussed based on its characteristics because people perceive characteristics differently. Some people may view something more detailed than I do and when they bring that to my attention my viewpoint is amendable to information I missed. However, if the details are unimportant because the entire premise that "characteristics of an object are basis for discussion of the object" is false, then no discussion may take place.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
I'm not saying they are equal. Personally, I agree the painting and sculpture are a much higher quality of artistic expression. But while that is my opinion, there is absolutely nothing I can do or say that "proves" that is actually the case. And since this is an issue that cannot be proven, then someone who disagrees is not wrong.
You can't prove it's wrong to mass murder or rob people.
You are correct that I cannot prove murder or robbery is wrong with math or science. But the majority of society agrees those things are wrong. And guess what? The majority also agree the JJ-movies are good:
It's a way to shut down discussion by claiming something may not be discussed based on its characteristics because people perceive characteristics differently.
False. I never said you should stop your discussion. What I said is that while you aren't wrong in your personal opinion that a movie is bad, you also aren't any more right than someone who disagrees with you. The issue you seem to have is you think your opinion is fact, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. But that simply isn't the case. You can hate the JJ-movies as much as you want, but your opinion will never trump someone else's.
You are correct that I cannot prove murder or robbery is wrong with math or science. But the majority of society agrees those things are wrong.
Well you can determine they're bad for a group or population by measuring the statistical harm from the actions. Loss of productivity, lack of security etc.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
You are correct that I cannot prove murder or robbery is wrong with math or science. But the majority of society agrees those things are wrong.
Well you can determine they're bad for a group or population by measuring the statistical harm from the actions. Loss of productivity, lack of security etc.
This is true. Murder and robbery violate Maslow's hierarchy of needs principle which is the standard by which human (and animal, to a degree) welfare is evaluated. That's objective scientific standard.
Claiming there are objective standards to judge work of art is dubious. Art is not evaluated by the technique used to create it, that's craftmanship. Art is an intelectual process. Valuing the craft used to create a piece of art over the intelectual process behind it is, again, entirely subjective.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Go thou and read Harlan Ellison's novella "The Deathbird". It lacks a truly coherent through-line, being written completely out of sequence, and deals in concepts most are unfamiliar with.
Now try and tell me that this is objectively a bad story, just because it doesn't do what you say a story "has" to do. Go ahead, I'll wait.
You are correct that I cannot prove murder or robbery is wrong with math or science. But the majority of society agrees those things are wrong.
Well you can determine they're bad for a group or population by measuring the statistical harm from the actions. Loss of productivity, lack of security etc.
This is true. Murder and robbery violate Maslow's hierarchy of needs principle which is the standard by which human (and animal, to a degree) welfare is evaluated. That's objective scientific standard.
That's the bunny . I could't remember the name of the principle.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
That's the bunny . I could't remember the name of the principle.
I'm a Targ
You're welcome
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Murder and robbery violate Maslow's hierarchy of needs principle which is the standard by which human (and animal, to a degree) welfare is evaluated. That's objective scientific standard.
It's a value judgement that other people are entitled to life, an opinion. Maslow's hierarchy of needs is empirical, yes, but there's no objective law which says that the weak are entitled to it.
In fact, objectively, the law is the strong has the right to dispose of and prey upon the weak because there is no objective non-human force in nature which will prevent it.
This is why Data defaults to ethical subroutines lest he arrive at logical, objective conclusions.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
Go thou and read Harlan Ellison's novella "The Deathbird". It lacks a truly coherent through-line, being written completely out of sequence
Being a huge fan of modernist literature, I'm certainly not saying all stories which do not adhere to conventional storytelling techniques are bad. Neither does this mean that all stories which do not adhere to conventional storytelling techniques are good either. Nor is a story good because it does adhere to conventional storytelling techniques.
My previous argument on the new Star Treks was whether it makes internal sense - not whether or not it takes "artistic liberties" to achieve an effect. Kirk is supposed to be a hero of the franchise, he makes mistakes sometimes, but he is never this immature and irresponsible egotist we have in Orci's film.
Maybe it was his intent to make Kirk look bad by, for example, by putting him in a very morally compromising position in that he's willing to fire torpedoes full of people at a planet simply because he doesn't want to follow advice of his subordinates. If it is his intent is to make Kirk look bad - then why are we watching it being fans of Star Trek? We're supposed to care about Kirk - this is an objective goal of the writer writing the Star Trek franchise.
If you still care about Kirk after almost committing mass "depraved-heart murder" of 70+ unarmed people in their sleep - then you may have an ethical problem.
However, there are plenty of postmodern works I will argue are bad despite them being argued as good by pretentious airheads.
As I mentioned earlier, Ulysses has a terrible, menial, boring plot, but it's character development is second to maybe only Faulkner, Conrad, and Shakespeare.
Faulkner tells things out of order all the time, working towards a thematic climax rather than a climax of plot. The themes of his novel are the plot and they all come to bear in the rising action and climax. The same is true of Joyce, making his iconic "yes I will yes" phrase well known pushing the themes to a strong emotional conclusion at the end of his piece.
The reality is that these authors still do adhere to conventional storytelling techniques despite a story that doesn't occur in temporal order. Memento is a mediocre movie that tells a story backwards due to its protagonist's memory loss. The plot still works towards a climax wherein a major twist of something the character has forgotten is revealed from earlier his story. In no way does the fact that the story is out of order affect the structure of "rising action, climax, epilogue."
Regardless, you couldn't say this plot structure doesn't apply to Orci, he certainly does have rising action, climax, and falling action. My arguments are regarding his character development as well as his general disregard for prior art in the franchise which should be taken as disrespectful to everyone who has come before to make the franchise worth rebooting. Franchise writing is a collaborative effort - not the product of a single mind like the first three Star Wars. There are other things to concern yourself with than just what you want to say. As I said, the whole "well can you really call anything good or bad?" is an excuse to divert attention from the merits and points of an argument - a red herring.
Harlan Ellison might be a bad author or might be a good author, I don't know. A lot of contemporary writing is no better than modern visual art - a parody of the masters that came before intended to degrade the artform and the culture. Jack Kerouac is an excellent example of an author that some people respected but is actually gutter trash writing.
But, if you're all stupid enough to think Rothko might be as quality an artist as Michelangelo - it all depends on the viewer - then that's what it is.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
And that last line seems to be the problem at issue. We're not arguing whether or not we like the film. That would indeed be opinion. We are saying it's badly made - badly crafted. The problem with the film isn't its likability, it's the craftsmanship, which is poor.
And that's fine. However, what YOU think makes a movie "badly made - badly crafted" may not be the same thing as someone else. And that other person ISN'T wrong just because they have a different standard of measurement than you do about a movie.
However, there are plenty of postmodern works I will argue are bad despite them being argued as good by pretentious airheads.
But, if you're all stupid enough to think Rothko might be as quality an artist as Michelangelo - it all depends on the viewer - then that's what it is.
These 2 comments are a perfect example of your problem. You hate people who disagree with you so much you feel the need to insult them. And yet, you actually want people to take what you say seriously. Those 2 things just don't jive.
These 2 comments are a perfect example of your problem. You hate people who disagree with you so much you feel the need to insult them. And yet, you actually want people to take what you say seriously. Those 2 things just don't jive.
I have nothing more to say to you. You vastly understate my hatred for relativists.
Good day.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
These 2 comments are a perfect example of your problem. You hate people who disagree with you so much you feel the need to insult them. And yet, you actually want people to take what you say seriously. Those 2 things just don't jive.
I have nothing more to say to you.
That's completely fine. Whether you reply or not, your subjective opinion about a movie will never be more right than any other random joe.
That's completely fine. Whether you reply or not, your subjective opinion about a movie will never be more right than any other random joe.
That's your subjective opinion.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
Comments
Actually, that is the exact opposite of what I am saying. Notice the part where he mentioned science? If something is based on math or science, you can actually PROVE it. But Art is not math or science. It is an expression of imagination. You cannot "prove" whether it is good, bad, right, or wrong by any test or equation. All you can do is give your personal subjective opinion on it. And while valid, that personal subjective opinion is not more right than any other.
And one person's "good" is not necessarily the same as another person's "good". So what you consider the be the objective elements to make a "good" story may not make a story "good" to someone else, or vice versa.
It only lacks what YOU consider be the the "necessary elements" to make what YOU consider to be a "good" story. Other people disagree, think the movie is excellent, and neither you, nor they, are wrong. There is simply nothing you have said or will ever say that can "prove" a movie is "good" or "bad", except to you personally.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Cue rebuttal in three... two... one...
On a more serious note, while I've made it clear that I definitely side strongly with Marik here, there is a certain element in Nagus' claims that is true.
For example, I consider romance-heavy stories to be bad stories in general (Romeo and Juliette being one notable example that I somehow managed to get to the end of - never again
However, when there are certain expectations from a genre/franchise, one can quantify different stories as 'bad' stories within the context of that genre/franchise with a relative degree of objectivity. (Apparently the 'relative' has to be strongly emphasized with Star Trek.
Personally, I'm not sure anymore if that was my only problem with the new movies - it certainly may have helped color my opinion of their other aspects. That, and the ridiculous quantity of glaring technological anachronisms, some of which predate Nero's incursion and can't be explained by it - such as everything on and around the Kelvin. Red bolts instead of blue beams in this era? This isn't Star Wars, nor does it take place anywhere near STO (or TMP, for that matter - we've still got decades there).
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
So when someone includes an element to Star Trek that was never apart of it that means it's bad? Star Trek was always about the Enterprise trekking around the galaxy....does that mean DS9 is bad because it takes place on a space station or Voyager is bad because it doesn't take place on a ship named Enterprise?
again comparing this universe to the Prime universe is wrong. It's not the prime universe. Things happen differently. If they made a movie version of the mirror would you nitpick that Spock has a goatee and in the series he never had one? It's a different universe....what happened before doesn't apply to this.
In order for a property to survive and achieve longevity it needs to be flexible and needs to adapt to the times of the audience. If one is to look at Batman. Batman has gone from night vigilante in the early comics (who used guns and had no qualms about killing) to being a jovial character in the '66 series then becoming this gothic nightmare in the first two Burton films and then this hyper realistic vigilante in the Nolan films.
Trek has to be just as flexible in order for it to survive. It has to appeal to more than just the Trekkies.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
A: Not have any reason to complain about Spock's goatee, because it's canon.
B: Expect the same thing I expect of the prime universe or the Abramsverse - some degree of internal consistency and at least a minimal application of common sense. The Abramsverse's failure to meet the latter requirement (going to go back to Cadet Kirk being permanently glued to the bridge of the Enterprise) also prevents it from meeting the former, as Starfleet's upper echelons being composed of a bunch of incompetent idiots is not internally consistent with Starfleet being a military organization of any kind. It might be, if whoever's responsible for the composition of said upper echelons were themselves established as incompetent idiots, but aside from the fact that this is probably not intended by the authors, there's also the fact that those whoevers would be voted out of office (or just kicked out when the superiors' superiors were voted out of office).
'Increasing the flexibility of Star Trek' is not an excuse for bad writing, and comparing DS9 or Voyager (regardless of whatever flaws they do have) to the Abrams movies in that regard is comparing apples to rotten apples.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
That is a taste difference - not a qualitative difference. Your subjective opinion is that you don't like Romance stories. Your subjective opinion bears no effect on the quality of the story. There are bad romance stories and good ones. As I said earlier, I despise Handle (the composer) - but I am not arrogant enough to believe that my opinion of Handle affects its quality. Similarly, something doesn't become good simply because it's popular.
Both of these songs went multiple Platinum, under "Nagus'" view, that makes them as good as Mozart.
Got it? Nagus is an sophist. He believes that subjective opinion makes the quality of these two songs:
as equal quality to this:
Viewpoints like that are why Ferengi are regarded as space trash throughout Star Trek...
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
Nope, that is not what I said. I do not personally think "song A" is as "good" as "song B". I have my own personal opinions about what is "better" and why, just like everyone else. However, I understand that there is no measurable test(besides actual sales and popularity, which you do not want to recognize), which can "prove" one song is "better" than the other.
So back to the actual topic of movies, you are free to think one movie is better than another. You are free to write a thousand page dissertation explaining why you feel that way. You can post a million youtube videos or picture quotes to try to make your argument for you. But there is simply nothing you can say or do to PROVE one movie is better than another, or that one movie is "good" or "bad". You can't PROVE anything, except that you have an opinion. And while you aren't "wrong", neither is anyone else who has a differing or even opposite opinion.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
That's your opinion. You can't prove to me your opinion that there's no objective criteria for evaluating artist talent and ability.
In fact, it insults my intelligence for someone to tell me these things even might be of equal quality:
Because, for example, I have eyes.
Pic relevant btw for cultural relativists.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
If you want to call something "objective criteria", that's fine. You aren't wrong. However, someone else may have a completely different "objective criteria" than you, yielding completely different results, and they aren't wrong either.
I'm not saying they are equal. Personally, I agree the painting and sculpture are a much higher quality of artistic expression. But while that is my opinion, there is absolutely nothing I can do or say that "proves" that is actually the case. And since this is an issue that cannot be proven, then someone who disagrees is not wrong.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Now, if you could just grasp that your opinions are no more objectively valid in these matters than anyone else's, and that the concept of "objective opinion" is self-contradictory nonsense, perhaps we could actually have a conversation.
You can't prove it's wrong to mass murder or rob people. But we establish objective criteria for these actions in order to facilitate the development and maintenance of civilization. In reality your viewpoint is childish for the same reason someone who engages in some "Al Qaeda is no more right to believe they ought to destroy the twin towers and kill 3000 people than Americans who think they shouldn't" hypothetical argument is childish. It beleaguers a mature discussion on what is best for society and ultimately is a red herring. It's an immature line of discourse because it is the pseudo-intellectual equivalent of a toddler throwing a tantrum.
In fact, that you think empirical, irrefutable, scientific proof ought to be applied to value judgements is in and of itself a value judgement - and an immature one at that. Thankfully society doesn't say "well, that criminal thinks he wants to kill you and he's no more provably wrong than you who wants to live so we'll just let nature sort it out." This is the fundamental premise of civilization - shared assumed premises of sociological order. When they are removed, civilization, empirically, falls apart. This is an empirically undesirable result - a reductio ad absurdum of your statement that no opinion is more valid than another.
Art is a cornerstone of civilization, along with science. Art teaches civilization its shared premises. When art abandons that objective, collapse of civilized order ensues - it reduces society to what Hobbes calls "bellum omnium contra omnes" - the primitive state where nothing but primitive impulse and action is regarded as true.
But, you can't reason with the unreasonable. And, you, Mr. Nagus, are unreasonable because you demand a standard of evidence beyond what is called for. You demand that "either the universe has pronounced an objective scientific law for a well written story, or there is absolutely no view on the craftsmanship of a story that may be considered superior or more well reasoned to another view." This is a false dichotomy.
Thankfully, we have nothing more to say, because all you'll say it "wah wah, you can't prove it!" You are cultural degeneracy at its finest.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Normally I stay away from "well, it's all relative man" arguments when someone doesn't want to dispute something based on the merits of the thing in question. Unfortunately, this is generally a form of censorship via diversionary tactics. Many people seem to fall for the "well you can't prove your argument via the scientific method and therefore it is not valid" nonsense these days when it comes to discussing much of anything.
It's a way to shut down discussion by claiming something may not be discussed based on its characteristics because people perceive characteristics differently. Some people may view something more detailed than I do and when they bring that to my attention my viewpoint is amendable to information I missed. However, if the details are unimportant because the entire premise that "characteristics of an object are basis for discussion of the object" is false, then no discussion may take place.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
You are correct that I cannot prove murder or robbery is wrong with math or science. But the majority of society agrees those things are wrong. And guess what? The majority also agree the JJ-movies are good:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_into_darkness/
False. I never said you should stop your discussion. What I said is that while you aren't wrong in your personal opinion that a movie is bad, you also aren't any more right than someone who disagrees with you. The issue you seem to have is you think your opinion is fact, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. But that simply isn't the case. You can hate the JJ-movies as much as you want, but your opinion will never trump someone else's.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Well you can determine they're bad for a group or population by measuring the statistical harm from the actions. Loss of productivity, lack of security etc.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
This is true. Murder and robbery violate Maslow's hierarchy of needs principle which is the standard by which human (and animal, to a degree) welfare is evaluated. That's objective scientific standard.
Claiming there are objective standards to judge work of art is dubious. Art is not evaluated by the technique used to create it, that's craftmanship. Art is an intelectual process. Valuing the craft used to create a piece of art over the intelectual process behind it is, again, entirely subjective.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Now try and tell me that this is objectively a bad story, just because it doesn't do what you say a story "has" to do. Go ahead, I'll wait.
That's the bunny
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I'm a Targ
You're welcome
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
It's a value judgement that other people are entitled to life, an opinion. Maslow's hierarchy of needs is empirical, yes, but there's no objective law which says that the weak are entitled to it.
In fact, objectively, the law is the strong has the right to dispose of and prey upon the weak because there is no objective non-human force in nature which will prevent it.
This is why Data defaults to ethical subroutines lest he arrive at logical, objective conclusions.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
Being a huge fan of modernist literature, I'm certainly not saying all stories which do not adhere to conventional storytelling techniques are bad. Neither does this mean that all stories which do not adhere to conventional storytelling techniques are good either. Nor is a story good because it does adhere to conventional storytelling techniques.
My previous argument on the new Star Treks was whether it makes internal sense - not whether or not it takes "artistic liberties" to achieve an effect. Kirk is supposed to be a hero of the franchise, he makes mistakes sometimes, but he is never this immature and irresponsible egotist we have in Orci's film.
Maybe it was his intent to make Kirk look bad by, for example, by putting him in a very morally compromising position in that he's willing to fire torpedoes full of people at a planet simply because he doesn't want to follow advice of his subordinates. If it is his intent is to make Kirk look bad - then why are we watching it being fans of Star Trek? We're supposed to care about Kirk - this is an objective goal of the writer writing the Star Trek franchise.
If you still care about Kirk after almost committing mass "depraved-heart murder" of 70+ unarmed people in their sleep - then you may have an ethical problem.
However, there are plenty of postmodern works I will argue are bad despite them being argued as good by pretentious airheads.
As I mentioned earlier, Ulysses has a terrible, menial, boring plot, but it's character development is second to maybe only Faulkner, Conrad, and Shakespeare.
Faulkner tells things out of order all the time, working towards a thematic climax rather than a climax of plot. The themes of his novel are the plot and they all come to bear in the rising action and climax. The same is true of Joyce, making his iconic "yes I will yes" phrase well known pushing the themes to a strong emotional conclusion at the end of his piece.
The reality is that these authors still do adhere to conventional storytelling techniques despite a story that doesn't occur in temporal order. Memento is a mediocre movie that tells a story backwards due to its protagonist's memory loss. The plot still works towards a climax wherein a major twist of something the character has forgotten is revealed from earlier his story. In no way does the fact that the story is out of order affect the structure of "rising action, climax, epilogue."
Regardless, you couldn't say this plot structure doesn't apply to Orci, he certainly does have rising action, climax, and falling action. My arguments are regarding his character development as well as his general disregard for prior art in the franchise which should be taken as disrespectful to everyone who has come before to make the franchise worth rebooting. Franchise writing is a collaborative effort - not the product of a single mind like the first three Star Wars. There are other things to concern yourself with than just what you want to say. As I said, the whole "well can you really call anything good or bad?" is an excuse to divert attention from the merits and points of an argument - a red herring.
Harlan Ellison might be a bad author or might be a good author, I don't know. A lot of contemporary writing is no better than modern visual art - a parody of the masters that came before intended to degrade the artform and the culture. Jack Kerouac is an excellent example of an author that some people respected but is actually gutter trash writing.
But, if you're all stupid enough to think Rothko might be as quality an artist as Michelangelo - it all depends on the viewer - then that's what it is.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
And that's fine. However, what YOU think makes a movie "badly made - badly crafted" may not be the same thing as someone else. And that other person ISN'T wrong just because they have a different standard of measurement than you do about a movie.
These 2 comments are a perfect example of your problem. You hate people who disagree with you so much you feel the need to insult them. And yet, you actually want people to take what you say seriously. Those 2 things just don't jive.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I have nothing more to say to you. You vastly understate my hatred for relativists.
Good day.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert
That's completely fine. Whether you reply or not, your subjective opinion about a movie will never be more right than any other random joe.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
That's your subjective opinion.
"At the end of the movie, I really care about what happens to the characters … but I’m pretty much missing Gene Roddenberry in J.J.’s interpretation … and at the end of the day, that’s just not OK for me." - Levar Burton
"[OrciTrek] doesn’t have the story heart that the best of my Star Trek had," - William Shatner
"It doesn’t have that element that made … Gene Roddenberry‘s ‘Star Trek,’ what it was." - George Takei
"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action." - Roger Ebert