What's new

The Girlfriend Experience

Was Transformers entertaining? Yes. Was it popular? Yes. Was it visually stimulating? Yes.

These are all conclusory statements. Not an ounce of criticism to be found.

Criticism and film enjoyment are subjective, and to paraphrase Roger Ebert, while no one can take your personal opinions from you it's when you give the reasons behind those opinions that you lay yourself bare.

There are significant qualitative differences between opinions and criticism. Let's examine two statements about Armageddon.

The first is a four-star review from "kdm 1063011" on Netflix. It reads, in its entirety:

This was a Bruce Willis movie that I have added to our movie collection. I don't like many of his movies but this one was very good.The cast was great

The second is a one-star review from Roger Ebert, it reads in part:

Disaster movies always have little vignettes of everyday life. The dumbest in ``Armageddon'' involves two Japanese tourists in a New York taxi. After meteors turn an entire street into a flaming wasteland, the woman complains, ``I want to go shopping!'' I hope in Japan that line is redubbed as ``Nothing can save us but Gamera!'' Meanwhile, we wade through a romantic subplot involving Liv Tyler and Ben Affleck. Liv plays Bruce Willis' daughter. Ben is Willis' best driller (now, now). Bruce finds Liv in Ben's bunk on an oil platform and chases Ben all over the rig, trying to shoot him. (You would think the crew would be preoccupied by the semi-destruction of Manhattan, but it's never mentioned after it happens.) Helicopters arrive to take Willis to the mainland so he can head up the mission to save mankind, etc., and he insists on using only crews from his own rig--especially Affleck, who is ``like a son.'' That means Liv and Ben have a heart-rending parting scene. What is it about cinematographers and Liv Tyler? She is a beautiful young woman, but she's always being photographed while flat on her back, with her brassiere riding up around her chin and lots of wrinkles in her neck from trying to see what some guy is doing. (In this case, Affleck is tickling her navel with animal crackers.) Tyler is obviously a beneficiary of Take Your Daughter to Work Day. She's not only on the oil rig, but she attends training sessions with her dad and her boyfriend, hangs out in Mission Control and walks onto landing strips right next to guys wearing foil suits.

Characters in this movie actually say: ``I wanted to say ... that I'm sorry,'' ``We're not leaving them behind!,'' ``Guys--the clock is ticking!'' and ``This has turned into a surrealistic nightmare!'' Steve Buscemi, a crew member who is diagnosed with ``space dementia,'' looks at the asteroid's surface and adds, ``This place is like Dr. Seuss' worst nightmare.'' Quick--which Seuss book is he thinking of? There are several Red Digital Readout scenes, in which bombs tick down to zero. Do bomb designers do that for the convenience of interested onlookers who happen to be standing next to a bomb? There's even a retread of the classic scene where they're trying to disconnect the timer, and they have to decide whether to cut the red wire or the blue wire. The movie has forgotten that *this is not a terrorist bomb,* but a standard-issue U.S. military bomb, being defused by a military guy who is on board specifically because he knows about this bomb. A guy like that, the first thing he should know is, red or blue? ``Armageddon'' is loud, ugly and fragmented. Action sequences are cut together at bewildering speed out of hundreds of short edits, so that we can't see for sure what's happening, or how, or why. Important special-effects shots (such as the asteroid) have a murkiness of detail, and the movie cuts away before we get a good look. The few ``dramatic'' scenes consist of the sonorous recitation of ancient cliches. Only near the end, when every second counts, does the movie slow down: Life on Earth is about to end, but the hero delays saving the planet in order to recite cornball farewell platitudes.

A pure popularity measurement has no way to account for those differences in opinion, one of which is clearly much more well reasoned and thought out than the other. And frankly there's a LOT more of the completely empty material than thoughtful arguments about the merits of a movie.
 
A pure popularity measurement has no way to account for those differences in opinion, one of which is clearly much more well reasoned and thought out than the other.

I could just as easily argue that one is pretentious and way over thought in an attempt to find meaning and thought provoking moments. I thought the Dr. Suess line was pretty good and Ebert highlights it as a point of derision. Ebert is one of the critics that if he gives a movie the thumbs up I tend to go into the experience expecting disappointment. Likewise, if he says he hates a movie I tend to expect a better than average show.

By the way, I really like Armageddon. Cheesiness, over-used cliches, Liv Tyler on her back and all.
 
Last edited:
Popular:

transformers2.jpg


justin_bieber.jpg


tracy.jpg


Watch-Jersey-Shore-Season-1-Episodes-Online-for-FREE-Download-Jersey-Shore-Season-1-Episodes-Torrents.jpg


Does the popularity infer quality?
I don't like any of those things... but to achieve a certain amount of popularity a certain amount of "inferred/perceived" quality is required. Not necesarrily from the educated public, but from (as given by your examples) special folk, teenagers, and Archie Moses... hell even my AP Government teacher liked jersey shore.

All i'm saying
in most cases popularity= perceived quality from some demographic
Quality doesn't have to equal popularity.
 
These are all conclusory statements. Not an ounce of criticism to be found.

Criticism and film enjoyment are subjective, and to paraphrase Roger Ebert, while no one can take your personal opinions from you it's when you give the reasons behind those opinions that you lay yourself bare.

There are significant qualitative differences between opinions and criticism. Let's examine two statements about Armageddon.

The first is a four-star review from "kdm 1063011" on Netflix. It reads, in its entirety:



The second is a one-star review from Roger Ebert, it reads in part:



A pure popularity measurement has no way to account for those differences in opinion, one of which is clearly much more well reasoned and thought out than the other. And frankly there's a LOT more of the completely empty material than thoughtful arguments about the merits of a movie.

There's also the idea that Roger Ebert is wrong... ever think of that?
 
Not a good comparison. You need something that is accessible to everyone regardless of their socio-economic position in life. Not everyone can afford Ethan Allen so as to compare it to O'Sullivan. I'd guess that most of the people that have purchased O'Sullivan have no idea what Ethan Allen even is.

Now if Ethan Allen were just as inexpensive as O'Sullivan and better quality yet still less popular you could use it as an example.

What exactly makes a movie good, bad, entertaining, popular? This is highly subjective and viewers have varying criteria. Was Transformers entertaining? Yes. Was it popular? Yes. Was it visually stimulating? Yes. So how do turn around and say it was of poor quality? It was poorly written and some of the acting was questionable but it wasn't unwatchable. Now compare this to something like The English Patient. The story is well written and the acting good but it is so damn boring you want to slam your head against a wall. Great, it's a quality show but is near unwatchable. Chariots of Fire? Bleh.

I know what Sirkicky considers as quality based on his reviews and quite frankly, I think a lot of times his reviews suck based on reasons that I don't care about. I find this to be the case with a lot of film critics.

+1
I don't know if you're agreeing with me or not, but I'll just assume you are.
The entertainment center question, is more of a question of supply and demand and has to deal with a different definition of popularity, but is sometimes applicable.
The cheaper something is, the more people will want to buy it: this is an assessment of popularity molded on sacrifice of goods for gain of some object.
Maybe you sell 10 x the amount of cheap crap then you do of expensive crap, that's economics. How much more the people with the expensive crap enjoy their crap then the people with cheap crap... that's a relevant discussion.

Quality and popularity are more associated with demand, then the incorporation of supply--- which is an incoporation of the sad truth of life, that you can't have everything you want.


Also....

bring it kicky
 
This is the best that you could come up with?

I'm sorry that was a first grade answer.

With IMDb rating scale system it incorporates the" logical thought-out" answer with the "ehhh I'm gonna give this movie a 7 because I only saw side-boob" logic. The only difference between them is the likely hood of being published in a newspaper, and having chicks think you're educated at parties. Both opinions are worth the same, and with many many more opinions being incorporated, they create a center of the road evaluation for a movie. You have the up and the down the left and the right, in the end all providing one base score. You get the tards droned out by the snobs, and the ignorant droned out by the enlightened.
Kicky thinks its wrong, because he doesn't like stupid people and rather they lived in densely populated camps so he could keep an eye on them. I like it though, because its perfectly unbiased... everyone has the opportunity to vote. And the end result is the collaboration of so many votes, that you get an idea of where you're likely to stand at the end of the movie. Are you going to feel the same way then the 8.2 or 5.6... most of the time you won't, but more times than not you're going to be closer than further.

I'll admit I like the 5 star rating that netflix has a little more, that adjusts as you rate movies... it's the same concept, that a lot of people are contributing to one system, it just adjusts based on similar preferences.
 
+1
I don't know if you're agreeing with me or not, but I'll just assume you are.
The entertainment center question, is more of a question of supply and demand and has to deal with a different definition of popularity, but is sometimes applicable.
The cheaper something is, the more people will want to buy it: this is an assessment of popularity molded on sacrifice of goods for gain of some object.
Maybe you sell 10 x the amount of cheap crap then you do of expensive crap, that's economics. How much more the people with the expensive crap enjoy their crap then the people with cheap crap... that's a relevant discussion.

Quality and popularity are more associated with demand, then the incorporation of supply--- which is an incoporation of the sad truth of life, that you can't have everything you want.


Also....

bring it kicky

George Bush won the election and popular vote in 2004. Was he better quality than Kerry? I ****ing doubt it.

My point? People are so ****ing dumb in this country.
 
+1
I don't know if you're agreeing with me or not, but I'll just assume you are.
The entertainment center question, is more of a question of supply and demand and has to deal with a different definition of popularity, but is sometimes applicable.
The cheaper something is, the more people will want to buy it: this is an assessment of popularity molded on sacrifice of goods for gain of some object.
Maybe you sell 10 x the amount of cheap crap then you do of expensive crap, that's economics. How much more the people with the expensive crap enjoy their crap then the people with cheap crap... that's a relevant discussion.

Quality and popularity are more associated with demand, then the incorporation of supply--- which is an incoporation of the sad truth of life, that you can't have everything you want.


Also....

bring it kicky

I'm agreeing with you for the most part.

Going back to the Ethan Allen vs. O'Sullivan point. Ethan Allen is no doubt higher quality than O'Sullivan but what happens when you put an Ethan Allen table up against a Chippendale table? The Chippendale is going to cost you tens of thousands of dollars but the quality is no better than the Ethan Allen. This will also make the Ethan Allen table much more popular due to it's accessibility. Quality is the same.

At some point you stop paying for quality and you just start paying.
 
George Bush won the election and popular vote in 2004. Was he better quality than Kerry? I ****ing doubt it.

My point? People are so ****ing dumb in this country.

Since Kerry has never been president all you have is an opinion and you know what they say about opinions...
 
George Bush won the election and popular vote in 2004. Was he better quality than Kerry? I ****ing doubt it.

My point? People are so ****ing dumb in this country.
Kerry was a bad bad candidate... they could have run Al Sharpton and probably picked that election up.

But its the perceived quality... its the stupid people having the same say as the elite, and because they outnumber the elite their "perceived" quality becomes popular, and other quality falls by the wayside.
 
The point stands that a complete ******** can be selected as the best quality for this country. Or maybe he was just the most popular. How can we really discern between the two?

Elections are based on perceived future quality, people like the outlook of Bush more than they did of Kerry.
 
I could just as easily argue that one is pretentious and way over thought in an attempt to find meaning and thought provoking moments. I thought the Dr. Suess line was pretty good and Ebert highlights it as a point of derision. Ebert is one of the critics that if he gives a movie the thumbs up I tend to go into the experience expecting disappointment. Likewise, if he says he hates a movie I tend to expect a better than average show.

By the way, I really like Armageddon. Cheesiness, over-used cliches, Liv Tyler on her back and all.

It doesn't matter whether you agree with Ebert or not, what matters is that he actually engaged in the process of criticism.

I'm positive one could find an equally well thought out positive review of Armageddon and that opinion would be equal in value to Ebert's. The point is that there is an interplay between those ideas and people are free to assign degrees of validity to each claim.

Purely numerical rating systems like IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes destroy that interplay entirely by distilling everything one could say about cinematography, the silliness of particular lines, poor pacing etc etc into a single number. Criticism is inherently qualitative, and the process of turning it into a quantiative valuation is destructive and appeals to those too lazy to think or to read.
 
It doesn't matter whether you agree with Ebert or not, what matters is that he actually engaged in the process of criticism.

I'm positive one could find an equally well thought out positive review of Armageddon and that opinion would be equal in value to Ebert's. The point is that there is an interplay between those ideas and people are free to assign degrees of validity to each claim.

Purely numerical rating systems like IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes destroy that interplay entirely by distilling everything one could say about cinematography, the silliness of particular lines, poor pacing etc etc into a single number. Criticism is inherently qualitative, and the process of turning it into a quantiative valuation is destructive and appeals to those too lazy to think or to read.

On this I agree.
 
There's also the idea that Roger Ebert is wrong... ever think of that?

This is a nice spot for an object lesson.

The point was that Roger Ebert actually said something while the random Netflix reviewer said nothing.

You might see a parallel here in that your post is entirely unresponsive to anything in the thread.

+1
Quality and popularity are more associated with demand, then the incorporation of supply--- which is an incoporation of the sad truth of life, that you can't have everything you want.

Also....

bring it kicky

I read your entire discussion of economics about four times. Besides the fact that it was mind-numbing to try to figure out where the hell you were going, I'm entirely perplexed what it has to do with taste or your assertion that, and I'm quoting here because you're using two words incorrectly in the same sentence and I want to preserve that, nothing "discerns overall popularity from inferred quality."

In the interest of fairness, I'm going to assume that a) you mean distinguish instead of discern and b) that you mean impute as opposed to infer.

With IMDb rating scale system it incorporates the" logical thought-out" answer with the "ehhh I'm gonna give this movie a 7 because I only saw side-boob" logic.

I have made significant arguments both in this thread and the other previous thread about why these opinions should not be given the same valuation. You state only that IMDB accords them the same value, and have no justification for why this should be the case. That's the fundamental disconnect you seem to be having. You keep asserting your conclusion without ever justifying the underlying statement that a vote for side-boob is the same as a vote based upon reasoned thought and analysis. In related news, you're a college freshman.

I like it though, because its perfectly unbiased...

It is not perfectly unbiased. I have given you significant examples as to its recency bias and the bias it has towards franchises and "fanboy" pictures.

As to recency, I proved it mathematically by demonstrating how it affects IMDB's formula.

As to the franchise and fanboy issue, that fundamentally kills your entire argument because it shows that the sample isn't random.

You have thus far advanced no responses.
 
This is a nice spot for an object lesson.

The point was that Roger Ebert actually said something while the random Netflix reviewer said nothing.

You might see a parallel here in that your post is entirely unresponsive to anything in the thread.



I read your entire discussion of economics about four times. Besides the fact that it was mind-numbing to try to figure out where the hell you were going, I'm entirely perplexed what it has to do with taste or your assertion that, and I'm quoting here because you're using two words incorrectly in the same sentence and I want to preserve that, nothing "discerns overall popularity from inferred quality."

In the interest of fairness, I'm going to assume that a) you mean distinguish instead of discern and b) that you mean impute as opposed to infer.



I have made significant arguments both in this thread and the other previous thread about why these opinions should not be given the same valuation. You state only that IMDB accords them the same value, and have no justification for why this should be the case. That's the fundamental disconnect you seem to be having. You keep asserting your conclusion without ever justifying the underlying statement that a vote for side-boob is the same as a vote based upon reasoned thought and analysis. In related news, you're a college freshman.



It is not perfectly unbiased. I have given you significant examples as to its recency bias and the bias it has towards franchises and "fanboy" pictures.

As to recency, I proved it mathematically by demonstrating how it affects IMDB's formula.

As to the franchise and fanboy issue, that fundamentally kills your entire argument because it shows that the sample isn't random.

You have thus far advanced no responses.

Have you ever said anything significant ever? I dare you to challenge me, and you do this nancy boy lawyer dance that is purely criticism, and nothing of real worth.

I could criticize me, I do it all the time... you're not impressive. MAKE ME BEG FOR MESSAGE BOARD MERCY!


and yes i didn't get the inferred thing right.
 
As to the idea that popularity and quality are the same I would like The Joker to justify the following music series:

Now+9.jpg
 
Back
Top