What makes a movie objectively good/bad? Specifically the Transformers Movies?

Discussion in 'Transformers Movie Discussion' started by Zemah, Aug 25, 2020.

?

Can a movie be objectively good/bad?

  1. Yes!

    18 vote(s)
    43.9%
  2. No!

    7 vote(s)
    17.1%
  3. Maybe...

    2 vote(s)
    4.9%
  4. Not sure...

    3 vote(s)
    7.3%
  5. It depends.

    11 vote(s)
    26.8%
  1. Zemah

    Zemah ’Til all are one

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2016
    Posts:
    595
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    172
    Location:
    Cybertron
    Likes:
    +1,999
    I don't think a thread with this topic has been made, at least in a good while - but moderators can close this one down if I'm wrong.

    I'm not creating this thread to start an argument, but rather to get a good explanation once and for all - especially from the handful of users who argues for the Bay TF movies being, without a doubt, objectively bad - yeah, you know who you are. I'm sure this has been discussed and explained with examples already deep down in some random thread, but I thought the topic could use it's own focused thread.

    I searched the net briefly about this and got plenty of different takes. Here are a few:
    • Movies are art, and art is always subjective - movies are therefore also always subjective.
    • Technical aspects and the production of movies can be discussed objectively (lighting and color, sound mix, huge plot holes, CGI), but the movie itself in general cannot be discussed entirely objectively.
    • Movies can be objectively good/bad, it's your enjoyment that's subjective.

    The thing with objectivity is this: it needs proper facts that are not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings, that's the whole point and definition of the word - so if you either have or know any sources on what exactly makes a movie good or bad, I would greatly appreciate them. I'm currently under the impression that a movie as a whole can neither be objectively good or bad, but I'm not opposed to change my mind.

    So what makes a movie good or bad is the question - How it is filmed? How the story is told? How the dialogue is given? What if someone thought the movie was filmed fine and someone didn't? What if someone had no problem following the story while someone did? I think you get the idea. I'm asking this question in general, but I think examples from the Bay TF movies are more fitting to this forum. I also added a poll just for fun and to easily see how many think what. Don't forget to vote! ;) 

    Again, sort of a controversial topic, but please no heated arguments - keep it civil with the discussions.

    EDIT:
    As I've come to notice - it will be almost impossible to not argue about this topic. Arguing is therefore fine - as long as it doesn't go around in circles, get off topic, or get mean-spirited and overly heated.
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2020
    • Like Like x 6
  2. AutobotAvalanche

    AutobotAvalanche Number One in Boogieland

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2016
    Posts:
    13,240
    News Credits:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    302
    Likes:
    +41,688
    This is fine to have as its own topic as long as it stays on track and doesn't become an argument about the specifics of the movies. Obviously people will be using examples but if it just devolves into "the final battle in DOTM was great", "no, it sucks", etc then you just need to find a thread about DOTM. As long as it can stay as a discussion about objective vs subjective as it relates to TF that's fine.

    May add my own thoughts on the subject later.
     
    • Like Like x 6
  3. electronic456

    electronic456 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2011
    Posts:
    5,086
    News Credits:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    282
    Likes:
    +5,490
    I find this to be a tricky question to answer as I did ask how bad am I supposed to look at the TF movies in a thread that I created. And it is a mix of so many answers.

    For something that is considered 'critically acclaimed', there's gotta be that someone who isn't following that trend and they may have justifiable reasons for doing so.

    For 'critically panned', there's gotta be someone who actually likes it for a justifiable reason.

    Personally, I find looking at things 'objectively' to be annoying and bigoted cause in the end, it always boils down to someone's own opinion. So what I say about the Transformers movies is for sure not a definitive one. It should be more about what's observed and stuff.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  4. Nova Maximus

    Nova Maximus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2020
    Posts:
    11,521
    News Credits:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    277
    Location:
    Mississauga, Canada
    Likes:
    +55,022
    I feel like a movie can only really be judge good or bad objectively based on the technicals of a movie, such as the quality of CGI or the dialog. Other than that it's mostly subjective. For example, I personally don't like the designs of 4 and 5 or the Decepticons or how the action is shot, but there are others who do enjoy those designs and the more cutty action scenes. Meanwhile, I think that the CGI is, for the most part, objectively great. I believe that there are giant robots fighting on the screen and not some poorly rendered models. Or how I think the aspect ratio in TLK is objectively bad for constantly changing every shot and distracting me from the movie and the writing from a storytelling perspective since it actively ignores story points from the previous films.

    So TLDR; I think movies can be objectively bad on a technical level, with the other aspects of them being mostly subjective.
     
    • Like Like x 6
  5. Noble1skull

    Noble1skull Tra nsforme rs

    Joined:
    May 8, 2019
    Posts:
    1,322
    Trophy Points:
    197
    Location:
    my home
    Likes:
    +2,995
    This sums it up pretty well, I think.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Galvatross

    Galvatross Dom Dom, Yes Yes Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2013
    Posts:
    7,476
    Trophy Points:
    292
    Likes:
    +11,131
    First, let me state that while I am not someone who works in the industry, I know people who have gone to film school in Los Angeles. They tell me...no, and I agree.

    It is true that there are techniques that will result in scenes and narratives that will cause emotional reactions in 99% of human beings, but those 99% of human beings are still experiencing subjectivity.

    I do agree that one can objectively describe a movie. Run time. Setting. Story. Characters present and what the characters do. Whether there's character development or not. Etc. However, it is up to the viewer to decide whether a certain story, characterization, etc. makes for a good movie. The very word "subjective" means, "Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." If it's not a fact, it's not objective. "Good" or "bad" are opinions and not facts.

    Now, I DO certainly think there are mistakes that can be observed in movies. For instance, things that don't make sense shot-to-shot. But even then, I think there are plenty of negative things of such nature that are overstated or overemphasized. The term "plot hole" is waaayyy overused, for instance. I would say half of the technical mistakes and "errors" listed on the TFWiki for the movies and shows aren't plot holes or mistakes per se, but simply things that someone somewhere took an issue with.

    However, even in the case of technical errors and plot holes, movies can be more than the sum of their parts to some viewers, so consequently, any technical and narrative errors may not be enough to keep a movie from being a good overall product to some or many viewers.

    Furthermore, critics and film makers themselves don't always agree on whether a film is good or not. Why? Because they're all human beings who view the world subjectively to some degree!

    Even in science, different, well-trained individuals can look at the exact same data and come to different conclusions or come up with different theories! Why? Because even if facts are objective, interpretations are always going to have some degree of subjectivity!

    The Color of Pomegranates makes little sense shot-to-shot (it's very random), doesn't have any character dialogue (it has some background hymns and vocals and background speech), and involved actual cruelty to animals, but it's thought by some as genius and a classic for its pure creativity and imagination! But do those attributes make it bad or good objectively? I don't think so. I have talked with some who considered it a genius movie, and others who don't even consider it a real movie!

    Furthermore, the standards for movie making themselves were established by human beings using methods they subjectively preferred.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  7. TheSoundwave

    TheSoundwave Softy Crime Lord

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2013
    Posts:
    8,234
    News Credits:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    287
    Location:
    My Criminal Empire (Note: No Crime Allowed)
    Likes:
    +16,496
    I don't entirely believe in a piece of art being objectively good or bad. I used to, but now I view it as much more subjective. Art isn't an exact science. There's a time and a place to break every single "rule" of storytelling and filmmaking, and that time and place is going to differ based on who the viewer is. I'm sure every movie that's generally accepted as "good" has people who dislike it, and every "bad" movie has people who like it. Personally, I don't understand why people consider Cars 2 and Pacific Rim 2 awful. I view those as unironically fine movies (not excellent, but certainly more than serviceable). But those are generally considered terrible films.

    On a personal level, I've never really considered the Transformers movies particularly "good" films. I certainly enjoy aspects of them...and I think they have good guilty-pleasure aspects especially...but they don't really align with the stuff I'm looking for when I go to watch a "good" movie. They ignore a lot of the generally accepted storytelling/filmmaking rules and I ultimately don't think they're very well constructed. That being said...a large portion of the population went to see these movies over and over, so they obviously meet someone's artistic sensibilities...which I think is perfectly valid.

    When I go to see a movie, I'm generally looking for (off the top of my head, and not specifically in this order):

    1. Likable characters I can get behind
    2. An interesting story that hasn't been done to death (or has some new spin to it)
    3. Smart and clever writing
    4. A good-looking visual style
    5. Pacing and runtime that doesn't leave me bored
    6. A rewatchablity factor
    7. Represents the brand decently well (if a franchise movie)
    8. General stuff like a good soundtrack, cinematography, acting, and action choreography (if it's an action movie)
    9. Good humor and witty dialog. (At least most of the time. There are some movies I consider good that don't have these, but I connect more with movies that do).
    10. Written in a way that the average Joe can understand what's happening. Not terribly esoteric/only for an limited audience

    To me the Transformers movies don't really excel at any of these (except maybe 10...which is debatable). I'd argue they mostly fail at 3, 5, 6, and 9...and only hit the rest about half the time (if even that). But if your sensibilities include "long movies" or "lots of action" or "complex visual effects" (which are fine things to prioritize)...you'll probably consider these movies better than I do.

    And that's the thing...everyone has different priorities when it comes to art. Personally, stuff like "theme" and "strong emotional core" rarely make or break a movie for me. Like, I can enjoy a movie that has a muddied theme, or isn't particularly emotional. And there are movies I feel have a strong theme and that I get emotional during...but I still just don't like. But a lot of people prioritize these things. A lot of people will like a movie if it makes them cry. A lot of people prioritize "cool action" or "photorealistic CGI" or "feels realistic". My mom almost exclusively likes movies that are set in the real world, and tends to consider anything sci-fi or fantasy 'corny' or downright bad. I've seen a lot of different people with their own ideas of what "good art" and "bad art" is, and everyone's sensibilities are very different. Because of that, I just can't entirely get behind the idea that art is objective. I do think there are general standards to aim for (like a good plot and characters) though.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Autobot Burnout

    Autobot Burnout ...and I'll whisper "No."

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Posts:
    45,563
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    467
    Location:
    [REDACTED]
    Likes:
    +41,511
    A lot of it comes down to narrative and flow primarily, with things like acting and effects being supporting.

    For instance, the film Boxtrolls. Laikia productions, with Travis Knight himself involved. It's a well done stop motion animated film visually in terms of how the animation is smooth...and that's basically all the good things I have to say about it. The film's message about socio-economic class differences is entirely too heavy handed in how it's presented and the story beats are telegraphed far too early. Hell, the henchmen literally just say "oh, we're just gonna stop being bad guys now" or something out of the blue at the climax, and the father just kind of appears out of nowhere with no proper foreshadowing. I also find the visual pallete to be best described with the term moldy with its odd color choices and the design of the characters overall is a bit on the unattractive side (and ironically this is more about the humans than the actual trolls). I would not consider this film objectively good.

    Compare that to, say, 1987's The Running Man. This film doesn't really take itself all that seriously from the outset which is important because this is probably one of the cheesiest Schwarzenegger movies ever and the main villain is an evil game show host (as played by Richard Dawson, an actual game show host). This film embraces the stupidity with its corny theme killers (who for the most part all get dispatched by Arnie with an appropriately cringy one liner) and the plot bounces along fairly well without ever slowing down or getting sidetracked. Thus, I would consider this film objectively good.

    And then there's things like Eraserhead...well, if you've seen it, you know why these kinds of 'experimental' films defy normal standards.

    With Transformers, I would consider them for the most part films that do the job they were intended to do, which was be mindless entertainment action blockbusters and nothing more. Their plots are often scattershot at best and most of the time the humor involved is very questionable at best to downright agrivating at worst. There is little respect paid to actually trying to follow a cohesive narrative that doesn't require a shitload of retcons between films or flat out having to invent personal canon to explain it half the time. Often, criticism is made by the general public that the action is hard to follow and given how almost all the fights are in close quarters and weirdly have the robots in shadow or dark places, this is understandable and valid. And, of course, the frat humor - there's just way too goddamn much of it. Did we really need to see Wheelie humping Megan Fox's leg? Or a robot with a crotch-mounted laser? What was the point of the Romeo and Juliet card scene beyond being creepy and uncomfortable? Why did Devestator need a goddamn scrotum when he doesn't have a reproductive system?

    In fact, the biggest problem with Transformers films is that they simply have too many questions that aren't really answered despite their prominence with regards to an alien race. Such as who the hell were the Creators? For a group supposedly so important to the plot of AoE, they literally do not exist as far as anything actually is concerned. How did Megatron return after becoming Galvatron? How did Megatron even know to conspire with Sentinel to enslave the humans on a planet he couldn't have known existed and still end up there thousands of years before The Fallen even got there to try blowing up the sun the first time? Objectively good films take care of the setting and the characters such that these kinds of critical questions regarding how anything even happens or why anybody should care do not get asked. Which is why, objectively, the Transformers films are not good. They're dumb and enjoyable as far as the first three are concerned and the latter two are absolute garbage fires that make something like Plan 9 from Outer Space look like a regular Citizen Kane in comparison.
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2020
    • Like Like x 2
  9. ChaosDonkey

    ChaosDonkey Lord Brain

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Posts:
    1,963
    Trophy Points:
    227
    Likes:
    +441
    I agree with this.
    And you could add writing, directing, cutting and overall coherence that include the three mentioned. Where many of them fail.
    When it comes to writing, tying in the movies together is not as much important as the movies standalone.

    In other words, is it good craftsmanship or not.
    But, when it comes to movies that part is not as important as the value of overall entertainment.Which is the only reason movies are made, to entertain.
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2020
  10. Galvatross

    Galvatross Dom Dom, Yes Yes Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2013
    Posts:
    7,476
    Trophy Points:
    292
    Likes:
    +11,131
    Subjective, because that's all YOU have to say about it. If it's from your personal point of view or mine, it's subjective.

    "Unattractive" is subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

    "Too much" is subjective. To me, no amount of Shrek puns is, "too much," but to others, such a high amount of Shrek puns might be considered ogrewhelming.

    Subjective. "Enjoyable" is entirely subjective, and your hatred of the latter is entirely subjective.

    See what I mean? If so, Shrektastic!
     
    • Like Like x 4
  11. Hobbes-timus Prime

    Hobbes-timus Prime Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Posts:
    4,960
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    342
    Likes:
    +7,867
    I think art is objective, to a point.

    The goal of the artist is always subjective but, once that's been established, you can objectively measure that goal. If I sit down with a guitar and the sheet music to a Johnny Cash song with the goal of playing that song, I'll objectively fail. I can't read sheet music and I can't play the guitar. I mean, I can get a guitar to make noise. I can pluck on the strings or bang on it. But I can't play a song on it. I don't know how to make it make the noises I want it to make when I want it to make them. I would do an objectively bad job.

    Now, imagine the same sheet music, same guitar, same performance from me. But my artistic goal has changed. Now I want to create a performance piece that invites the audience to consider the nature of objective vs subjective in art. Now that same inept performance from me gets measured by a different standard. Maybe now I'm nailing it. I still can't play guitar, but if the target audience is having the reaction I intended, it becomes an objectively good piece of art.

    In that sense, considering what we know of Michael Bay, I think the Transformers movies are probably objectively good movies. He probably executed what he wanted and mostly produced the reaction he wanted from the people he wanted it from.

    I subjectively don't like them, but that's my problem.
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2020
    • Like Like x 4
  12. AutobotAvalanche

    AutobotAvalanche Number One in Boogieland

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2016
    Posts:
    13,240
    News Credits:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    302
    Likes:
    +41,688
    I'll try to keep things brief because I agree with bits and pieces of what various people have already said.

    In my eyes, any art is a "whole is more than the sum of its parts" situation. To put it into more quantifiable terms, I turn to the toys themselves as an analogy. Why do people still collect vintage G1 toys? In the context of today's standards, they are objectively not as impressive of toys as what we get now. The average legends today has more articulation than the most flexible G1 figure. Toys now have more detail, are more durable, rely less often on stickers and partsforming. Toys now have more complex transformations, don't have rubber tires that will harden and crack, nor chrome that will wear off, nor die-cast parts that will rust. Vintage G1 pieces in good condition can run hundreds or thousands of dollars, whereas the most expensive items in Hasbro's catalogue right now are the $150 Titans. If you were to put G1 and Siege Spinister side by side, Siege wins in just about every single comparison you could make.

    So why do people still buy them? Because that vintage toy is more than all of those factors. Part of it is nostalgia, without a doubt, which is blinding, but some people really do just prefer that kind of toy. Are they wrong for collecting that way? Are they buying bad toys? I think the answer is "obviously not" because we have a dedicated section of the fanbase whose interests are entirely tied up in collecting vintage G1. Someone could look at what I've said and say "yes, Siege Spinister can bend his arms and legs in ways G1 can only dream of, but that's not what is important in a toy to me". I personally would disagree, I love posing my figures, but that doesn't make them wrong. Nor does it make me wrong for not even considering vintage toys which by my own standards are effectively statues.

    The same is even more true for art which has far fewer easily quantifiable factors. There is no protractor to pull out to measure a film's score or cinematography like there is to check the angle of Spinister's elbow bend. As other posters have said there are ways to objectively describe aspects of a piece of art (the film's score is sparse, the cinematography is uninventive), but that doesn't make the work as a whole objectively bad.

    In fact I would say the "objective quality" argument entirely eats itself because it relies on the idea that the majority is always right. Citizen Kane is a beloved movie, suppose I dislike it, I am automatically wrong no matter how valid my criticisms because most people think it's good. You might say "the majority of filmgoers are rational people who view things entirely objectively and push down all the crap". Alright, then explain cult films and anytime anyone mentions an "underrated" movie. I'm not talking about things touted as "so bad it's good", I mean movies that have been generally well received by their audiences but are not very well-known. I recently saw Being John Malkovich, which is a really, really bizarre cult classic, and is highly regarded by its fans, for the most part. It was a regular old movie out in theaters. Why isn't it as widely-known as other "objectively good" movies? You'd basically have to tell me that every little-known movie in fact is objectively bad, or it would have more exposure. The simpler answer is just that most people who saw it thought it was really, really strange, and forgot about it, and there's just a small, dedicated fanbase, because that movie certainly isn't for everyone, or in other words it's all a matter of personal preference.

    I personally thought Siege was the worst Transformers show I'd ever seen, and was a very outspoken critic of it. I offered a lot of things that in my eyes were very poorly written, and a lot of things that just didn't make sense to me. However there were just as many people who loved the show, in fact many more if you look at the poll in the discussion thread here on TFW. For every comment I made criticizing what I felt were heel-face turns on the part of characters, I got multiple replies from people who felt those characters had very well-done character arcs. I don't begrudge them for that. There are a few true issues with Siege, for example, if Ultra Magnus had a set of protocols in him that contained the location of the Allspark, why didn't he get it years ago instead of... just not doing that, so Bumblebee can instead do it the second he gets the protocols? Even the biggest fan of the show would have a hard time explaining that. Either way, though, whether that alone makes or breaks the show is up to each person. I loathed Siege, and there were users who genuinely thought it was the best TF media ever. If there is objective truth to the overall quality of art, one of us is utterly wrong, which is frankly an insulting idea to both of us. Mature people can accept that others have a difference of opinion without feeling a need to disprove the other.

    Someone could say the 2007 film is the greatest movie of all time, and they're entitled to that. If they said it was flawless, I would take issue, no one can explain how it shifts between night and day every fifteen minutes, for example. But there is no objective answer as to whether the flaws in a film combined with one's own personal assessment of its other qualities make the entire work good or bad.

    And if you're the one promoting the idea of objective truth in art, you need to be constantly reassessing your own opinions -sorry, knowledge- of art, lest you suddenly find the majority of people disagreeing with you -- it might turn out you've been "wrong" all along. Isn't it a bit convenient that the people promoting this idea always happen to be on what they view as the objectively right side of any given argument?
     
    • Like Like x 4
  13. Novaburnhilde

    Novaburnhilde ジェノサイダー

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2013
    Posts:
    25,489
    News Credits:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    362
    Likes:
    +54,347
    I think often people mistakenly mix up personal enjoyment of a film with it's objective qualities that can be measured and analyzed. Meaning they take their enjoyment of a movie and think that means it's a good film, which isn't actually true because personal enjoyment isn't tied to quality of the game, film, story being talked about. It can, but just because you enjoy something doesn't mean it's objectively good. It's perfectly reasonable and acceptable to like bad content, we all do in some form for many different reasons.

    This is a pretty big topic, and I'll probably miss a lot of points but I'll try to cover as much as I can at the moment before getting bored because ultimately I feel like I've had this discussion way too much, and I'm personally tired of talking about it. The time of the Bay movies is mostly over, thankfully, so now we should keep our eyes trained on the horizon.

    With few exceptions the Bay Transformers movies fail in pretty much every regard, both in terms of adapting an existing property and also in just making a solid film on its own.

    Now it seems people are arguing more about the idea of the films (a new universe not borrowing too heavily from one generation but from all generations) than the final execution. The idea was solid, I don't think many would disagree with that but at the end of the day the final product is not good to look at.

    When the first teaser hit, remember what it ended on?

    [​IMG]

    This is a symbol that says "hey fans of Transformers, this is a movie for you!" Not long after we got a Decepticon symbol as well, and given how at this point "G1" had become quite old it made a lot of sense to try and breathe new life into it through a blockbuster film.

    Yet the final product alienated and pushed away the fans more than anything, which is a huge problem. What was also a huge problem was the amount of tribalism and animosity towards people who thought "maybe this could be better.." or "Do they have to look so messy and incoherent?" If you're gonna whine to me about "but death threats over flames on a paintjob" 1. I'd like to see receipts and 2. everyone online receives nasty comments so why should I care?

    I'm gonna try not to get too long-winded since I know I can do that, so I'll return to the main topic.

    An adaption ideally should both satisfy the fans of said thing while also being a good entrance for newcomers to also get into it. Obviously not everyone will be satisfied, and when you try you'll inevitably satisfy no one but that doesn't then mean to just not try or disregard everything that came before. If you want to make your own thing then make your own thing, don't take something people already like and shove your poorly made fanfiction into it.

    The human characters are mostly two dimensional and not that well developed, the Autobots and Decepticons (the main draw of Transformers) are mostly non-entities and may as well be some other generic alien species, very few of the characters resemble who they're probably meant to, despite it being something they want kids to watch there's a lot of inappropriate humor that kids and even some teens wouldn't get. Even reading the earlier script treatments for the film it always feels like these guys don't truly GET Transformers and are just winging it as they go.

    In the novel for the first movie which is based on the earlier script, the Allspark is called the "Energon cube"

    That makes it sound like this species of aliens are warring over the last box of hot pockets. :lolol  :lolol 

    Anyways, part of me fears this thread is going to just become the same thing as past threads in this area of the site. The OP asks a question I assume is in good faith, but given how they never are willing to concede that maybe their 'side' is wrong, they just stubbornly march ahead and never give any ground regardless of how thoroughly their points are deconstructed. First it was about the designs, then the idea / concept of the film and now someone is asking about how a film is objectively good or bad.

    There's this pervasive idea in post modernist thinking that objectivity isn't a thing and that all things (including reality and truth) are just subjective, so by this line of thinking there are no good or bad films, just films. It puts all forms of film, from Sicario to I Am Legend, to A Serbian Film and Aqua Man all on the same level, regardless of how well one does something more than another. It's depressing because it treats all films as if they're equal, and how can we learn to make better content and appreciate what's so good, and also learn from our mistakes if all films are just the same? And for what reason? Because you grew up with these bad films and feel a strong emotional attachment to them and feel the need to attack anyone who critiques them?

    There are bad critics, don't get me wrong, but that doesn't mean the concept of criticizing film is invalidated. To say all films are equal and all art is subjective and it can't be measured in any objective way you're basically invalidating critique as well as basically saying that

    I apologize if this is so long and meandering, I feel like I've talked about this a lot and repeated myself many times and it inevitably gets tiring.

    Objectivity isn't a dirty word, and I'm tired of it being treated as such. You can like the Bay movies, but if your only real argument is to invalidate media criticism in order to feel justified, then you're probably in need of introspection.

    Feel free to come at me, if I made mistakes correct me, but I think I'm mostly right and honestly I'm tired of talking about this specific topic until I decide to release those long-form reviews I've been working on, but until then... I wanna be done with the Bayverse.

    Hopefully the next live action film, whenever that may come, continues to improve on the foundation Bumblebee established.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  14. ChaosDonkey

    ChaosDonkey Lord Brain

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Posts:
    1,963
    Trophy Points:
    227
    Likes:
    +441
    Many years ago I was at the Dali museum in figueres. And I overheard a kid arguing over one of the paintings with his parents.
    He was constantly stating his own opinion on the painting, while the parents were constantly trying to correct him with what was typical school examples of how theoretically to interpret his work.
    He was 8 or 9 and gained my respect :) 
     
    • Like Like x 2
  15. Arrogant Arachnid

    Arrogant Arachnid Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2019
    Posts:
    2,132
    Trophy Points:
    212
    Likes:
    +4,398
    Awe baby, just for me? Alright, I'll bite.

    I don't really have any sources I could give you, mainly because you already found one yourself when it came to the objective part. I think that technically speaking movies can be objectively good. Where the Bay movies fail on that end is when it comes like the the camera in TLK, where it switches from IMAX to normal shot by shot, messing with the aspect ratio. Obviously that's objectively a bad thing, there's no defending that.

    However when it comes to everything else, it is mainly subjective, I'd say. The thing is that in order to be good, movies usually need stuff like good pacing, good story, good characters. However that is very broad. How you do those things is up to you, and depending on the movie, you need to do it a correct way. That's where the Bay movies fail for me at least.

    No movie is objectively good or objectively bad, because it does depend a lot on your enjoyment. Hell The Room is beyond enjoyable and that movie is terrible. However that's not to say there aren't certain things movies need or try to do in order to be good, it all mainly just depends on the movies itself.
     
  16. AutobotAvalanche

    AutobotAvalanche Number One in Boogieland

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2016
    Posts:
    13,240
    News Credits:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    302
    Likes:
    +41,688
    Just a passing thought that crossed my mind before I head to sleep:

    Someone says that art, or let's narrow it down to movies, can be determined objectively good or bad through one's analysis.

    Let's assume that whenever this person debates with someone about a given movie, they aren't just arguing aimlessly and contradicting whatever the other person says, they have a point in mind. And obviously let's assume they believe the point they are making is right.

    Now consider all the times this person argues about a movie, assuming they don't randomly decide to one day argue a point they don't believe in for some reason.

    This would mean that out of all possible interpretations, said person is right every single time. If you truly believe every movie can be quantified as objectively good or bad, and you seek to win the argument, all you have to do is pick the objective truth and stick with it. So assuming said person is rational, this means every time they make an argument about a movie they are objectively right in their mind. To me this sounds either incredibly arrogant or just incredibly unlikely.

    If the response is "well you can only be objective sometimes, about some movies" that sounds to me like subjectivity with a veneer of "I don't like this one so everyone should think it's bad. How can I sound right?"
     
    • Like Like x 6
  17. Furnace

    Furnace Antroid at a picnic

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2014
    Posts:
    3,000
    Trophy Points:
    262
    Likes:
    +5,500
    It seems that your conclusion is contingent on someone merely believing their own analysis to be correct (and therefore being arrogant) rather than whether or not said analysis actually is correct (and by extension, whether or not there is an objective set of criteria by which to analyze movies). In that case, hasn't the question of whether movies are objectively evaluable gone unaddressed by your argument?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. daniel 97

    daniel 97 Autobots' second in command

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2013
    Posts:
    4,533
    News Credits:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    257
    Location:
    Wherever Bumblebee is
    Likes:
    +2,720
    YouTube (Legacy):
    Objectivity is soo subjective! :D 
     
  19. AutobotAvalanche

    AutobotAvalanche Number One in Boogieland

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2016
    Posts:
    13,240
    News Credits:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    302
    Likes:
    +41,688
    A movie is objectively evaluable in terms of many of its elements. I worded my post the way I did because I don't believe they can be determined objectively good or bad. To put it another way:

    Hypothetically, you subscribe to the idea that a movie can be objectively good or bad, and whenever you discuss a movie you are discussing it with an objective truth you have observed in mind. Let's suppose you say Die Hard is an objectively great movie.

    I on the other hand don't care for Die Hard and say it wasn't that good. This means at least one of the following is true by your standards (in this hypothetical situation)

    1. I'm willfully lying
    2. I'm stupid, ignorant, or misinformed
    3. I used the wrong set of criteria when evaluating the movie while you used the right one
    4. You actually are right while I simply think I'm right

    All of which are frankly incredibly arrogant conclusions. If movies as a whole can be evaluated objectively, and it just comes down to yes/no, good/bad, then anyone who disagrees with you is as dumb as someone saying 2 and 2 is 5. And if this hypothetical version of you says "well.... no, I wouldn't say they're stupid, that's harsh, they just think about it differently" then you've pretty much thrown the possibility of an objective answer out the window.

    Suppose we decide on a movie to watch, we write out a list. If the movie meets all those items it's good. Then somehow through some impossible science we make it so we both interpret all the words in exactly the same way but are otherwise still unique people. The criteria for both of us are identical. There's still a good chance we would come to different conclusions about the movie. Then what happens? Rock paper scissors? 100 meter dash? If we can't even reach a consensus when controlling for different interpretations of evaluation how can we reach one when there is no way to control like that? You're pretty much just left with "my own conclusion is the objectively right one" which is again massively arrogant.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  20. Autobot Burnout

    Autobot Burnout ...and I'll whisper "No."

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Posts:
    45,563
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    467
    Location:
    [REDACTED]
    Likes:
    +41,511
    I guess an excellent example of trying to see how this is possible is if we take a sample movie that is almost nigh-universally hated and try to explain to ourselves why it is objectively bad.

    Good thing we have a film like The Last Knight, which almost everybody universally hates, so that should be an excellent starting point.
     
    • Like Like x 1