Subjectivity in media discussions

Chagen · 2011-09-05 21:17:10

"By that logic, the Room wouldn't be so dismissed. Then, what makes the Room being called a bad movie and not a good movie?"

Because, if viewed completely seriously (as it was intended to be viewed as), the entire movie is patently ridiculous.

Bob · 2011-09-05 21:18:44

But you just said they were entertaining. Ergo, their quality must be somewhat good in their eyes.

Not necessarily. Something can be entertaining yet still bad. People have guilty pleasures and like things ironically.

Malkavian · 2011-09-05 21:20:05

I actually don't find the Transformers movies entertaining, but I realize in that regard I have a lot of weight against me.

Though even the people who enjoyed it at least acknowledged from every standard made for storytelling and visual media the films are shit.

Nova · 2011-09-05 21:20:11

But you just said they were entertaining. Ergo, their quality must be somewhat good in their eyes.

Entertainment does not imply quality.

RedEyedAbyss · 2011-09-05 21:20:17

"By that logic, the Room wouldn't be so dismissed. Then, what makes the Room being called a bad movie and not a good movie?"

But then you assume the only two quality adjectives are "good" and "bad". There's a difference between "amusingly inept" (Plan 9 From Outer Space) and "painfully inept" (Monster A Go Go), for one thing.

^Then I'm still perplexed as to what this "quality" thing is. Everyone talks about it as if everyone knows what it is, yet I haven't been able to follow the definition of it.

Chagen · 2011-09-05 21:20:21

"Not necessarily. Something can be entertaining yet still bad. People have guilty pleasures and like things ironically."

If you enjoy it, then it clearly is good in your eyes. The good simply outwieghs the bad in your opinion.

I don't believe in guilty pleasures. I don't feel ashamed to like anything.

MillerCross · 2011-09-05 21:21:04

But you just said they were entertaining. Ergo, their quality must be somewhat good in their eyes.

What appeals to you is not quality. I would never ever give any of my proffessors any of my stories about space bounty hunters because they're all fun stuff I do for my own entertainment. And they appeal to me. But I know they're wrong. Cliche'd dialogue, memes, etc etc. Because they are supposed to be that. And that's why I enjoy them.

Because, if viewed completely seriously (as it was intended to be viewed as), the entire movie is patently ridiculous.

OK, next question.

Does this mean the movie loses its entertainment value? And how so?

Nova · 2011-09-05 21:22:43

Then I'm still perplexed as to what this "quality" thing is. Everyone talks about it as if everyone knows what it is, yet I haven't been able to follow the definition of it.

Quality is not exactly easy to pin down.

Maybe Juan or Malkavian could give you a better answer.

Bob · 2011-09-05 21:24:37

If you enjoy it, then it clearly is good in your eyes. The good simply outwieghs the bad in your opinion.

Again, not necessarily. I like the room, but the bad far outweighs the good. In fact, the only good I can get from it is also quite bad.

I don't believe in guilty pleasures. I don't feel ashamed to like anything.

Must... not... type... subjectivity...

But, yeah, not all people feel that way about the things they like.

~~Besides, you're 15, you're supposed to like stupid things.~~

MillerCross · 2011-09-05 21:29:31

Quality (As I, and I think many scholars agree...at least, the ones I have met): Quality refers to a set of characteristics in a work that define whether this work has set out to accomplish what it intends to do (Which is, after all, the the measure by which a message is measured. And after all, media in all its forms intends to leave a message)

By this logic, then the movie or work's quality is not measured by what is about, but HOW is it about it. In other words, Ebert's law.

How do you measure this how? For starters, by the intelligent use of the medium's trappings in order to convey a message. So, for example, good camera work in a movie counts towards a movie quality. In a game, it's gameplay. In a book, it's prose, wording. etc etc

Then you go to the universal qualities: Characterization and plot. This must be consistent and logical (Unless the author doesn't intend for consistency for whatever purposes.)

Now, to go back to the Room and applying this knowledge: Why is the movie bad? Because, as Chagen said, if you take the movie seriously, as intended, it fails. Because its intention is to make you cry, and you instead laugh at Wisaeu's character's plight.

Myrmidon · 2011-09-05 21:30:30

As a great troll once said

"A lot of movies these days tend to hide their terrible writing by "fluffing" them up with either fantastic special FX, beautiful sound tracks, fluid animation, great acting, and other forms of audience pandering. The whole process is akin to polishing a turd. You can strip away all these elements that are just bought with money and you would be left with a shitty script. A turd."

Nova · 2011-09-05 21:32:49

How do you measure this how? For starters, by the intelligent use of the medium's trappings in order to convey a message. So, for example, good camera work in a movie counts towards a movie quality. In a game, it's gameplay. In a book, it's prose, wording. etc etc

Use, too, can refer to deliberately not using the medium's trapping in favour of using a different effect to play with the audience's expectations and deliver a different experience.

MadassAlex made me think about that e_o

Malkavian · 2011-09-05 21:32:58

One of the things about 'old things' getting more acknowledgement of quality (though that's changed in the last half-century) is it's easier to analyze something when you're a century or more away from popular tastes and subjectivity of the time. Let's not forget that Dracula, Sherlock Holmes, The Count of Monte Cristo, and pretty much everything Shakespeare made were meant to be populist consumption filled with badasses and kickass action. People just ignore that because they're old and 'stuffed shirts' like them.

In any case, quality for recent things is harder to pin down. A lot of people have embraced The Dark Knight and Spider-man 2 because a lot of critics these days are grown up geeks and these films brought a level of technical and emotional sophistication people wanted. The fact that things need to be at least a year or two old to have any sort of influence affects things. In all things, it has to be identified on a case-by-case basis. Why is Army of Darknesss a glorious camp romp, but Batman & Robin a disaster of cinema, for example? Nothing is universally good or bad.

That said, you don't necessarily need to be good these days to be influential. Twilight and Smallville are now considered influential despite being universally acknowledged to be terrible.

MoeDantes · 2011-09-05 21:33:41

Not necessarily. Something can be entertaining yet still bad. People have guilty pleasures and like things ironically.

And sometimes see the good things that the masses miss (*cough*eighties cartoons*cough*)

Nova · 2011-09-05 21:34:36

Twilight and Smallville are now considered influential despite being universally acknowledged to be terrible.

Twilight

universally acknowledged to be terrible.

wut

Maybe among the people you know. Certainly not among tweens.

RedEyedAbyss · 2011-09-05 21:39:10

Though in that sense, I suppose it was intended to be a masturbation fantasy, which it succeeded to those people. Of course, it fails in characterization and plot (or lack thereof).

Malkavian · 2011-09-05 21:40:20

^^Okay, fair enough. I was more talking about people who actually seriously discuss literature.

Bob · 2011-09-05 21:40:24

Not to mention, it's (presumably) supposed to be all deep and romantic, whereas to many it just comes off as corny, creepy and flat.

Nova · 2011-09-05 21:42:17

^^Okay, fair enough. I was more talking about people who actually seriously discuss literature.

Now if only I knew any of them ;-;

Then again, if I did I wouldn't for long

Malkavian · 2011-09-05 21:47:24

I'm really hoping Twilight's influence blows over as a fad, but I dunno... =/

Nova · 2011-09-05 21:48:45

It's tweenage girl wish fulfilment in literary form.

MillerCross · 2011-09-05 21:49:37

I don't see Twilight being as anything but a product of its time. In fact, I see it just as, erm...

Help me out, I need a good comic analogy.

Malkavian · 2011-09-05 21:50:17

That in and of itself isn't what makes it bad though. I maintain that teenage wish fulfillment can be well done.

^Todd McFarlane?

MillerCross · 2011-09-05 21:51:34

Yeah, again, it seems I'll have to repeat a thing I've been trying to smack into people before.

Here it goes

Everything can be done right in fiction as long as you have the guts and the skills to pull it off.

Nova · 2011-09-05 21:51:59

That in and of itself isn't what makes it bad though. I maintain that teenage wish fulfillment can be well done.

The 'w' makes the difference.

>_>

More seriously, it's good- on the surface, as long as you don't read between the lines or pay close attention.

Then you need to notice the subtle little troubles beneath the surface, and the prose begins to grate, and then it all turns into a spiral of awfulness.

RedEyedAbyss · 2011-09-05 21:53:32

I only watched the movies, and they were the most soporific things I've ever watched. Can't imagine what reading it must be like.

"More seriously, it's good- on the surface, as long as you don't read between the lines or pay close attention."

Better things than Twilight fall apart under that condition. Harry Potter, for instance.

Nova · 2011-09-05 21:54:21

Better things than Twilight fall apart under that condition. Harry Potter, for instance.

Nah, Harry Potter lasts a lot longer. It's a lot better- Twilight falls apart near instantly.

Myrmidon · 2011-09-05 21:55:59

Twilight is just a book written straight from someone's id, and said person had a boring enough id that people liked it instead of going OH JOHN RINGO NO

At least until the last book.

MillerCross · 2011-09-05 21:56:13

^Todd McFarlane?

Yeah, that works perfectly.

Basically, Twilight is an imitation of a far better story (Harry Potter)* while missing all the points and cues that made such a story cool.

* The comparison here is based around the fact that both of them are a fantastical interpretation of an old literature genre (Twilight = Romance. Harry Potter = Bilsdungroman)

RedEyedAbyss · 2011-09-05 21:56:43

Speaking of which, I regard a good cartoon as something you can enjoy on the same level or higher years after you've first watched it. The thing about quality discussions is that they tend to lean towards extreme ends of the spectrum, so what about things that seem good at first, but do not have as much replay value afterward?

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Subjectivity in media discussions

Comments