On May 01 2019 04:07 solidbebe wrote: [quote] You're being so pedantic here its insane. There is absolutely an objective component to quality of media. Just because it isn't a hard science doesnt mean that anything you can say about art is completely subjective.
You are saying you can measure the quality of human experience like someone measure average rain fall? Can we do this with music and paintings too?
I am not really being pedantic at all. Saying something is “objectively good” makes your read on the quality of the work look weak and unsure. It is like saying “I think” in front of an argument that should be a declarative statement. We all know there is no such thing as objectively good or objectively bad media. Some people enjoy trash. Other people are very picky about the films they watch. All their experiences are valid. Removing the word objectively makes your reads on the work stronger, not weaker.
The fact that you say "some people enjoy trash" already indicates that there is some form of objective criteria that makes something trash. No, quality is not directly measurable. But a notion of quality clearly exists.
How can it be objective if some people enjoy it and other so not? Some of those people think “trash” is good and meritorious. They would like more of the “trash” to be made so they can enjoy more of it. If it was “Objective” it would mean that there is one true perspective that is correct and all others are wrong. It is binary, devoid of nuance.
I think his point is that if you call one trash and the other one not trash.... you've kind of answered your own question.
I never said that my assessment of something being trash was objective. I have asserted that it is subjective. The thing that people enjoy can be both trash and not be trash at the same time. To go even further, I can could hold the viewpoint that the art in question is trash and worthy of being shown to the public at the same time. I, personally, could have two conflicting views of a piece of art and both of them could be completely valid and true at the same time.
"This is trash." "Yeah it is bad, I agree." "WOAH NOW I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS BAD ONLY THAT IT WAS TRASH."
I'm honestly not sure what it is you're trying to say. That subjective is subjective? Sure. But there's also plenty of things objective about storytelling. The former does not preclude the latter.
Because I don't use trash to describe things that are bad when I talk about movies, shows and music I like. Trash is a descriptor to describe the type of enjoyment I derive from the thing. Stranger Things is trash, for instance. But its really wholesome trash that I love. But its fucking trash. If the art were food, icecream and sweet tarts are trash.
So I know you were trying to be funny, but the reality is the meaning of the word trash in this context is subjective.
I can't actually tell if you're trying to honestly convince me that you were using the word trash with no negative connotation. Because... what?
Like yeah you can enjoy trash. Like you said, I enjoy ice cream. I also enjoy trashy pulp action. But they're objectively bad. It can't be trash without being bad in some way, because then we wouldn't call it trash. And there's plenty of things that are bad but enjoyable, but they're still bad.
It's ok to love trash, but calling it "trash you love" and then say it's not bad is so twisty that I think my eyes are pointed backwards in my skull.
If you enjoy them, how they be objectively bad? What does that even mean? Are you saying your enjoyment doesn’t have value? How can trash be bad when I say it with such endearment and joy?
What you are trying to articulate is that trashy pulp has lacks substance beyond the entertainment you derive from it. It isn’t thought provoking. It doesn’t challenge you or expand your world view. It just entertains you, which has its own merit. Like icecream, which one should not eat all the time. Because it is trash. But sometimes trash is good.
On May 01 2019 05:10 VHbb wrote: Is it more acceptable if I say
to me Bran's character's arc is bad writing but it's interesting, compelling and part of an organic story, which I find enjoyable, and fits well in the overall narrative
?
“Bran’s story line didn’t work for me. The route they went with him was to generic and the actor did all the heavy lifting, while also being able to put in any sense of mystery behind his new powers. It was really frustrating because I can see a version of the story that I like, with that actor, but it just wasn’t there. Which only compounded how much it bothered me.”
For me, framing an argument like that is much stronger than using the word “objectively bad” because no one can dispute its validity. It isn’t persuasive, but no one can say it isn’t a thoughtful articulation of what didn’t work in the Bran story line.
Quality and enjoyment are two separate things. You can enjoy something of low quality and not enjoy something of high quality. Enjoyment is a subjective thing and to a certain extent quality is too, but there is also an objective notion to quality. To use your ice cream analogy: ice cream handmade by a professional michelin-starred chef using hand-picked quality ingredients is (likely) higher quality than the ice cream you will find in the supermarket. This doesnt mean I dont enjoy ice cream from the supermarket, or that there arent times where I wouldnt actually prefer the ice cream from the supermarket. My subjective enjoyment is separate from the objective quality.
On May 01 2019 04:22 Plansix wrote: [quote] You are saying you can measure the quality of human experience like someone measure average rain fall? Can we do this with music and paintings too?
I am not really being pedantic at all. Saying something is “objectively good” makes your read on the quality of the work look weak and unsure. It is like saying “I think” in front of an argument that should be a declarative statement. We all know there is no such thing as objectively good or objectively bad media. Some people enjoy trash. Other people are very picky about the films they watch. All their experiences are valid. Removing the word objectively makes your reads on the work stronger, not weaker.
The fact that you say "some people enjoy trash" already indicates that there is some form of objective criteria that makes something trash. No, quality is not directly measurable. But a notion of quality clearly exists.
How can it be objective if some people enjoy it and other so not? Some of those people think “trash” is good and meritorious. They would like more of the “trash” to be made so they can enjoy more of it. If it was “Objective” it would mean that there is one true perspective that is correct and all others are wrong. It is binary, devoid of nuance.
I think his point is that if you call one trash and the other one not trash.... you've kind of answered your own question.
I never said that my assessment of something being trash was objective. I have asserted that it is subjective. The thing that people enjoy can be both trash and not be trash at the same time. To go even further, I can could hold the viewpoint that the art in question is trash and worthy of being shown to the public at the same time. I, personally, could have two conflicting views of a piece of art and both of them could be completely valid and true at the same time.
"This is trash." "Yeah it is bad, I agree." "WOAH NOW I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS BAD ONLY THAT IT WAS TRASH."
I'm honestly not sure what it is you're trying to say. That subjective is subjective? Sure. But there's also plenty of things objective about storytelling. The former does not preclude the latter.
Because I don't use trash to describe things that are bad when I talk about movies, shows and music I like. Trash is a descriptor to describe the type of enjoyment I derive from the thing. Stranger Things is trash, for instance. But its really wholesome trash that I love. But its fucking trash. If the art were food, icecream and sweet tarts are trash.
So I know you were trying to be funny, but the reality is the meaning of the word trash in this context is subjective.
I can't actually tell if you're trying to honestly convince me that you were using the word trash with no negative connotation. Because... what?
Like yeah you can enjoy trash. Like you said, I enjoy ice cream. I also enjoy trashy pulp action. But they're objectively bad. It can't be trash without being bad in some way, because then we wouldn't call it trash. And there's plenty of things that are bad but enjoyable, but they're still bad.
It's ok to love trash, but calling it "trash you love" and then say it's not bad is so twisty that I think my eyes are pointed backwards in my skull.
If you enjoy them, how they be objectively bad? What does that even mean? Are you saying your enjoyment doesn’t have value? How can trash be bad when I say it with such endearment and joy?
What you are trying to articulate is that trashy pulp has lacks substance beyond the entertainment you derive from it. It isn’t thought provoking. It doesn’t challenge you or expand your world view. It just entertains you, which has its own merit. Like icecream, which one should not eat all the time. Because it is trash. But sometimes trash is good.
On May 01 2019 05:10 VHbb wrote: Is it more acceptable if I say
to me Bran's character's arc is bad writing but it's interesting, compelling and part of an organic story, which I find enjoyable, and fits well in the overall narrative
?
“Bran’s story line didn’t work for me. The route they went with him was to generic and the actor did all the heavy lifting, while also being able to put in any sense of mystery behind his new powers. It was really frustrating because I can see a version of the story that I like, with that actor, but it just wasn’t there. Which only compounded how much it bothered me.”
For me, framing an argument like that is much stronger than using the word “objectively bad” because no one can dispute its validity. It isn’t persuasive, but no one can say it isn’t a thoughtful articulation of what didn’t work in the Bran story line.
Quality and enjoyment are two separate things. You can enjoy something of low quality and not enjoy something of high quality. Enjoyment is a subjective thing and to a certain extent quality is too, but there is also an objective notion to quality. To use your ice cream analogy: ice cream handmade by a professional michelin-starred chef using hand-picked quality ingredients is (likely) higher quality than the ice cream you will find in the supermarket. This doesnt mean I dont enjoy ice cream from the supermarket, or that there arent times where I wouldnt actually prefer the ice cream from the supermarket. My subjective enjoyment is separate from the objective quality.
Not when it comes to art. Maybe if you are talking about a cutting board or a vacuum cleaner, we can draw a direct line between quality and enjoyment. But even then there is a factor of subjectivity. But there is no measurement of quality of a piece of art that is not directly linked to if people enjoy it. How that enjoyment is derived varies, but the enjoyment or satisfaction is critical to assessing the “quality” of art. Even the venue where the art is viewed or experiences impacts how people feel about that art and perceive it quality.
- Bran first discover that Jon is a "Sand", a bastard son of Targaeryen and Stark born in Dorn - Sam finds out that Raeghar (or how you write it) marriage was annulled and re-married
when Sam and Bran talk in Winterfell they compare notes and they realize Jon might be a legitimate Targaeryen, hence Bran goes back with his vision and sees the actual marriage between Reaghar and Lyanna
From this alone, we could say that without Bran we would not know about Jon's true lineage, or am I missing something?
Other note: re watching the scene where he gives the dagger to Arya, it's hard to think it's casual. He mentions that he can see "quite a lot", which would lead me to believe he has some sort of prescience that this will be important later on (as it is).
Finally: during Season 7 is Bran that wargs into some crows and sees that the army of the dead has broken through the wall and is marching south (Tormund and Edd knows but they only reach Winterfell at the beginning of Season 8), so he's also responsible for sending out ravens to the rest of the houses in the North and start preparing for the battle (again, am I missing something?)
On May 01 2019 04:27 solidbebe wrote: [quote] The fact that you say "some people enjoy trash" already indicates that there is some form of objective criteria that makes something trash. No, quality is not directly measurable. But a notion of quality clearly exists.
How can it be objective if some people enjoy it and other so not? Some of those people think “trash” is good and meritorious. They would like more of the “trash” to be made so they can enjoy more of it. If it was “Objective” it would mean that there is one true perspective that is correct and all others are wrong. It is binary, devoid of nuance.
I think his point is that if you call one trash and the other one not trash.... you've kind of answered your own question.
I never said that my assessment of something being trash was objective. I have asserted that it is subjective. The thing that people enjoy can be both trash and not be trash at the same time. To go even further, I can could hold the viewpoint that the art in question is trash and worthy of being shown to the public at the same time. I, personally, could have two conflicting views of a piece of art and both of them could be completely valid and true at the same time.
"This is trash." "Yeah it is bad, I agree." "WOAH NOW I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS BAD ONLY THAT IT WAS TRASH."
I'm honestly not sure what it is you're trying to say. That subjective is subjective? Sure. But there's also plenty of things objective about storytelling. The former does not preclude the latter.
Because I don't use trash to describe things that are bad when I talk about movies, shows and music I like. Trash is a descriptor to describe the type of enjoyment I derive from the thing. Stranger Things is trash, for instance. But its really wholesome trash that I love. But its fucking trash. If the art were food, icecream and sweet tarts are trash.
So I know you were trying to be funny, but the reality is the meaning of the word trash in this context is subjective.
I can't actually tell if you're trying to honestly convince me that you were using the word trash with no negative connotation. Because... what?
Like yeah you can enjoy trash. Like you said, I enjoy ice cream. I also enjoy trashy pulp action. But they're objectively bad. It can't be trash without being bad in some way, because then we wouldn't call it trash. And there's plenty of things that are bad but enjoyable, but they're still bad.
It's ok to love trash, but calling it "trash you love" and then say it's not bad is so twisty that I think my eyes are pointed backwards in my skull.
If you enjoy them, how they be objectively bad? What does that even mean? Are you saying your enjoyment doesn’t have value? How can trash be bad when I say it with such endearment and joy?
What you are trying to articulate is that trashy pulp has lacks substance beyond the entertainment you derive from it. It isn’t thought provoking. It doesn’t challenge you or expand your world view. It just entertains you, which has its own merit. Like icecream, which one should not eat all the time. Because it is trash. But sometimes trash is good.
On May 01 2019 05:10 VHbb wrote: Is it more acceptable if I say
to me Bran's character's arc is bad writing but it's interesting, compelling and part of an organic story, which I find enjoyable, and fits well in the overall narrative
?
“Bran’s story line didn’t work for me. The route they went with him was to generic and the actor did all the heavy lifting, while also being able to put in any sense of mystery behind his new powers. It was really frustrating because I can see a version of the story that I like, with that actor, but it just wasn’t there. Which only compounded how much it bothered me.”
For me, framing an argument like that is much stronger than using the word “objectively bad” because no one can dispute its validity. It isn’t persuasive, but no one can say it isn’t a thoughtful articulation of what didn’t work in the Bran story line.
Quality and enjoyment are two separate things. You can enjoy something of low quality and not enjoy something of high quality. Enjoyment is a subjective thing and to a certain extent quality is too, but there is also an objective notion to quality. To use your ice cream analogy: ice cream handmade by a professional michelin-starred chef using hand-picked quality ingredients is (likely) higher quality than the ice cream you will find in the supermarket. This doesnt mean I dont enjoy ice cream from the supermarket, or that there arent times where I wouldnt actually prefer the ice cream from the supermarket. My subjective enjoyment is separate from the objective quality.
Not when it comes to art. Maybe if you are talking about a cutting board or a vacuum cleaner, we can draw a direct line between quality and enjoyment. But even then there is a factor of subjectivity. But there is no measurement of quality of a piece of art that is not directly linked to if people enjoy it. How that enjoyment is derived varies, but the enjoyment or satisfaction is critical to assessing the “quality” of art. Even the venue where the art is viewed or experiences impacts how people feel about that art and perceive it quality.
episode 3 was an entertaining action flick, but story wise it was complete shit. all the previous seasons were about the slow inexorable march of the Others down south. LOL JK ARYA P0WNED J00000 U MAD U BAD? wtf was the point of bran? wtf was the point of all that buildup? so anticlimactic.
heres how i would've made it more enjoyable:
bran gives some exposition about the weakness of NK. Perhaps its his one weak point - he has to be stabbed in a specific spot. he goes back in time with samwise to study previous general tactics. both study and become COMPETENT military tacticians. they jointly propose the groundbreaking idea - DONT PUT TREBUCHETS IN FRONT OF YOUR INFANTRY AND YOUR TRENCH. DONT SUICIDE CALVARY - CALVARY ARE MEANT FOR SHOCK ACTION ON THE FLANK AND REAR. bonus, bran and samwise learn how to make greek fire flamethrowers used by byzantines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_fire
melissa shows up. casts fire spell to add visibility to battlefield.
battle starts. CALVARY DOES NOT SUICIDE ITSELF. trebuchets fire. archers fire. trench is lit on fire. zombies stand still. archers keep firing INSTEAD OF JUST STANDING AROUND DOING NOTHING. zombies then suicide themselves onto the trench, until their bodies fill up the trench. now they charge the walls where infantry await. infantry man the walls, throwing down oil and stones from murder holes. oil is set on fire.
NOW THE MONGOLIAN CALVARY FLANK/REAR attack the zombies who are massed on the walls. calvary still get slaughtered but at least they get more bang for their buck. walls overrun anyway.
now fast forward to NK about to kill Theon. Melissa, sensing the danger, sacrifices herself to cast the ultimate spell - FIRE EMP!!!!! all zombies are EMPed and disabled TEMPORARILY. NK is immune!!!! Bran summons a raven swarm to molest the NK. Theon takes his best shot, but NK is too good and drives Theon back. Jon Snow has joined the battle! NK kills Theon, takes a non mortal blow from jon snow, but disarms jon as well and is about to land killing blow. NOW ARYA SHOWS UP, uses bow to snipe NK, who is bent over in pain. the FIRE EMP is about to wear off!!!! Jon rushes NK, who stabs at jon, another non fatal blow to jon snow who survives but is in trouble!!! BUT NK HAS TURNED HIS BACK ON ARYA WHO FINISHES HIM OFF WITH THE DAGGER!!!!111111
On May 01 2019 05:35 VHbb wrote: Btw rewatching part of Bran past story
- Bran first discover that Jon is a "Sand", a bastard son of Targaeryen and Stark born in Dorn - Sam finds out that Raeghar (or how you write it) marriage was annulled and re-married
when Sam and Bran talk in Winterfell they compare notes and they realize Jon might be a legitimate Targaeryen, hence Bran goes back with his vision and sees the actual marriage between Reaghar and Lyanna
From this alone, we could say that without Bran we would not know about Jon's true lineage, or am I missing something?
I do believe Howland Reed is still alive in the show and is the lone person besides Ned to know of the truth. At this point I'm guessing he won't be making an appearance (which is odd, given that we meet his kids), but that was another option that they could've gone for.
Regardless, Jon was way cooler when he was thought to be a bastard who overcame great adversity. Not to mention, this might lead to major issues with Dany now that he has a better claim to the throne, don't think Jon desires it though.
Other note: re watching the scene where he gives the dagger to Arya, it's hard to think it's casual. He mentions that he can see "quite a lot", which would lead me to believe he has some sort of prescience that this will be important later on (as it is).
Well, isn't that the obvious thing for him to do? He sure as hell won't be using it, and he knows of Arya's training.
Finally: during Season 7 is Bran that wargs into some crows and sees that the army of the dead has broken through the wall and is marching south (Tormund and Edd knows but they only reach Winterfell at the beginning of Season 8), so he's also responsible for sending out ravens to the rest of the houses in the North and start preparing for the battle (again, am I missing something?)
The majority of the forces were already heading to Winterfell and apparently this didn't help much as House Umber got wrecked. Actually...Ned Umber was in Winterfell after the NK broke through, Bran really should've warned him :p
On May 01 2019 04:27 solidbebe wrote: [quote] The fact that you say "some people enjoy trash" already indicates that there is some form of objective criteria that makes something trash. No, quality is not directly measurable. But a notion of quality clearly exists.
How can it be objective if some people enjoy it and other so not? Some of those people think “trash” is good and meritorious. They would like more of the “trash” to be made so they can enjoy more of it. If it was “Objective” it would mean that there is one true perspective that is correct and all others are wrong. It is binary, devoid of nuance.
I think his point is that if you call one trash and the other one not trash.... you've kind of answered your own question.
I never said that my assessment of something being trash was objective. I have asserted that it is subjective. The thing that people enjoy can be both trash and not be trash at the same time. To go even further, I can could hold the viewpoint that the art in question is trash and worthy of being shown to the public at the same time. I, personally, could have two conflicting views of a piece of art and both of them could be completely valid and true at the same time.
"This is trash." "Yeah it is bad, I agree." "WOAH NOW I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS BAD ONLY THAT IT WAS TRASH."
I'm honestly not sure what it is you're trying to say. That subjective is subjective? Sure. But there's also plenty of things objective about storytelling. The former does not preclude the latter.
Because I don't use trash to describe things that are bad when I talk about movies, shows and music I like. Trash is a descriptor to describe the type of enjoyment I derive from the thing. Stranger Things is trash, for instance. But its really wholesome trash that I love. But its fucking trash. If the art were food, icecream and sweet tarts are trash.
So I know you were trying to be funny, but the reality is the meaning of the word trash in this context is subjective.
I can't actually tell if you're trying to honestly convince me that you were using the word trash with no negative connotation. Because... what?
Like yeah you can enjoy trash. Like you said, I enjoy ice cream. I also enjoy trashy pulp action. But they're objectively bad. It can't be trash without being bad in some way, because then we wouldn't call it trash. And there's plenty of things that are bad but enjoyable, but they're still bad.
It's ok to love trash, but calling it "trash you love" and then say it's not bad is so twisty that I think my eyes are pointed backwards in my skull.
If you enjoy them, how they be objectively bad? What does that even mean? Are you saying your enjoyment doesn’t have value? How can trash be bad when I say it with such endearment and joy?
What you are trying to articulate is that trashy pulp has lacks substance beyond the entertainment you derive from it. It isn’t thought provoking. It doesn’t challenge you or expand your world view. It just entertains you, which has its own merit. Like icecream, which one should not eat all the time. Because it is trash. But sometimes trash is good.
On May 01 2019 05:10 VHbb wrote: Is it more acceptable if I say
to me Bran's character's arc is bad writing but it's interesting, compelling and part of an organic story, which I find enjoyable, and fits well in the overall narrative
?
“Bran’s story line didn’t work for me. The route they went with him was to generic and the actor did all the heavy lifting, while also being able to put in any sense of mystery behind his new powers. It was really frustrating because I can see a version of the story that I like, with that actor, but it just wasn’t there. Which only compounded how much it bothered me.”
For me, framing an argument like that is much stronger than using the word “objectively bad” because no one can dispute its validity. It isn’t persuasive, but no one can say it isn’t a thoughtful articulation of what didn’t work in the Bran story line.
Quality and enjoyment are two separate things. You can enjoy something of low quality and not enjoy something of high quality. Enjoyment is a subjective thing and to a certain extent quality is too, but there is also an objective notion to quality. To use your ice cream analogy: ice cream handmade by a professional michelin-starred chef using hand-picked quality ingredients is (likely) higher quality than the ice cream you will find in the supermarket. This doesnt mean I dont enjoy ice cream from the supermarket, or that there arent times where I wouldnt actually prefer the ice cream from the supermarket. My subjective enjoyment is separate from the objective quality.
Not when it comes to art.
Rather funny that you are making an objective statement on that.
On May 01 2019 04:41 Plansix wrote: [quote] How can it be objective if some people enjoy it and other so not? Some of those people think “trash” is good and meritorious. They would like more of the “trash” to be made so they can enjoy more of it. If it was “Objective” it would mean that there is one true perspective that is correct and all others are wrong. It is binary, devoid of nuance.
I think his point is that if you call one trash and the other one not trash.... you've kind of answered your own question.
I never said that my assessment of something being trash was objective. I have asserted that it is subjective. The thing that people enjoy can be both trash and not be trash at the same time. To go even further, I can could hold the viewpoint that the art in question is trash and worthy of being shown to the public at the same time. I, personally, could have two conflicting views of a piece of art and both of them could be completely valid and true at the same time.
"This is trash." "Yeah it is bad, I agree." "WOAH NOW I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS BAD ONLY THAT IT WAS TRASH."
I'm honestly not sure what it is you're trying to say. That subjective is subjective? Sure. But there's also plenty of things objective about storytelling. The former does not preclude the latter.
Because I don't use trash to describe things that are bad when I talk about movies, shows and music I like. Trash is a descriptor to describe the type of enjoyment I derive from the thing. Stranger Things is trash, for instance. But its really wholesome trash that I love. But its fucking trash. If the art were food, icecream and sweet tarts are trash.
So I know you were trying to be funny, but the reality is the meaning of the word trash in this context is subjective.
I can't actually tell if you're trying to honestly convince me that you were using the word trash with no negative connotation. Because... what?
Like yeah you can enjoy trash. Like you said, I enjoy ice cream. I also enjoy trashy pulp action. But they're objectively bad. It can't be trash without being bad in some way, because then we wouldn't call it trash. And there's plenty of things that are bad but enjoyable, but they're still bad.
It's ok to love trash, but calling it "trash you love" and then say it's not bad is so twisty that I think my eyes are pointed backwards in my skull.
If you enjoy them, how they be objectively bad? What does that even mean? Are you saying your enjoyment doesn’t have value? How can trash be bad when I say it with such endearment and joy?
What you are trying to articulate is that trashy pulp has lacks substance beyond the entertainment you derive from it. It isn’t thought provoking. It doesn’t challenge you or expand your world view. It just entertains you, which has its own merit. Like icecream, which one should not eat all the time. Because it is trash. But sometimes trash is good.
On May 01 2019 05:10 VHbb wrote: Is it more acceptable if I say
to me Bran's character's arc is bad writing but it's interesting, compelling and part of an organic story, which I find enjoyable, and fits well in the overall narrative
?
“Bran’s story line didn’t work for me. The route they went with him was to generic and the actor did all the heavy lifting, while also being able to put in any sense of mystery behind his new powers. It was really frustrating because I can see a version of the story that I like, with that actor, but it just wasn’t there. Which only compounded how much it bothered me.”
For me, framing an argument like that is much stronger than using the word “objectively bad” because no one can dispute its validity. It isn’t persuasive, but no one can say it isn’t a thoughtful articulation of what didn’t work in the Bran story line.
Quality and enjoyment are two separate things. You can enjoy something of low quality and not enjoy something of high quality. Enjoyment is a subjective thing and to a certain extent quality is too, but there is also an objective notion to quality. To use your ice cream analogy: ice cream handmade by a professional michelin-starred chef using hand-picked quality ingredients is (likely) higher quality than the ice cream you will find in the supermarket. This doesnt mean I dont enjoy ice cream from the supermarket, or that there arent times where I wouldnt actually prefer the ice cream from the supermarket. My subjective enjoyment is separate from the objective quality.
Not when it comes to art.
Rather funny that you are making an objective statement on that.
And it ended with him disagreeing with my assessment, which shows my statement was in no way objective since we did not come to agreement. And if we had come to an agreement, it still wouldn’t be objective as we are two people and others could have differing views.
Everybody knows that cavalry excels at frontal assaults in the dark without infantry support. If Hannibal taught us anything, it's that he consistently mindlessly rammed his horses against fortified positions and that's how Rome was nearly defeated.
On May 01 2019 07:03 zatic wrote: Someone posted a few sample dialogs from past seasons which prompted me to watch a few random ones. Man this show used to be good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue_URYDfPoA
Pre-Essos Tyrion and Not Dead Tywin... rarely gets better
Everybody knows that cavalry excels at frontal assaults in the dark without infantry support. If Hannibal taught us anything, it's that he consistently mindlessly rammed his horses against fortified positions and that's how Rome was nearly defeated.
Apparently the knowledge on how to use cavalry vaguely correctly died with Stannis, although he himself seemed to forget all he knew about generalship towards the end anyway.
I dunno, I don’t think it takes away from spectacle having these set pieces at least vaguely make any kind of sense, throw in a bit of shrewd generalship and it adds to characters skillsets.
Granted dragons got a bit too overpowered for such things to matter, unless Qyburn has been working his little socks off .
On May 01 2019 04:22 Plansix wrote: [quote] You are saying you can measure the quality of human experience like someone measure average rain fall? Can we do this with music and paintings too?
I am not really being pedantic at all. Saying something is “objectively good” makes your read on the quality of the work look weak and unsure. It is like saying “I think” in front of an argument that should be a declarative statement. We all know there is no such thing as objectively good or objectively bad media. Some people enjoy trash. Other people are very picky about the films they watch. All their experiences are valid. Removing the word objectively makes your reads on the work stronger, not weaker.
The fact that you say "some people enjoy trash" already indicates that there is some form of objective criteria that makes something trash. No, quality is not directly measurable. But a notion of quality clearly exists.
How can it be objective if some people enjoy it and other so not? Some of those people think “trash” is good and meritorious. They would like more of the “trash” to be made so they can enjoy more of it. If it was “Objective” it would mean that there is one true perspective that is correct and all others are wrong. It is binary, devoid of nuance.
I think his point is that if you call one trash and the other one not trash.... you've kind of answered your own question.
I never said that my assessment of something being trash was objective. I have asserted that it is subjective. The thing that people enjoy can be both trash and not be trash at the same time. To go even further, I can could hold the viewpoint that the art in question is trash and worthy of being shown to the public at the same time. I, personally, could have two conflicting views of a piece of art and both of them could be completely valid and true at the same time.
"This is trash." "Yeah it is bad, I agree." "WOAH NOW I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS BAD ONLY THAT IT WAS TRASH."
I'm honestly not sure what it is you're trying to say. That subjective is subjective? Sure. But there's also plenty of things objective about storytelling. The former does not preclude the latter.
Because I don't use trash to describe things that are bad when I talk about movies, shows and music I like. Trash is a descriptor to describe the type of enjoyment I derive from the thing. Stranger Things is trash, for instance. But its really wholesome trash that I love. But its fucking trash. If the art were food, icecream and sweet tarts are trash.
So I know you were trying to be funny, but the reality is the meaning of the word trash in this context is subjective.
I can't actually tell if you're trying to honestly convince me that you were using the word trash with no negative connotation. Because... what?
Like yeah you can enjoy trash. Like you said, I enjoy ice cream. I also enjoy trashy pulp action. But they're objectively bad. It can't be trash without being bad in some way, because then we wouldn't call it trash. And there's plenty of things that are bad but enjoyable, but they're still bad.
It's ok to love trash, but calling it "trash you love" and then say it's not bad is so twisty that I think my eyes are pointed backwards in my skull.
If you enjoy them, how they be objectively bad? What does that even mean? Are you saying your enjoyment doesn’t have value? How can trash be bad when I say it with such endearment and joy?
What you are trying to articulate is that trashy pulp has lacks substance beyond the entertainment you derive from it. It isn’t thought provoking. It doesn’t challenge you or expand your world view. It just entertains you, which has its own merit. Like icecream, which one should not eat all the time. Because it is trash. But sometimes trash is good.
On May 01 2019 05:10 VHbb wrote: Is it more acceptable if I say
to me Bran's character's arc is bad writing but it's interesting, compelling and part of an organic story, which I find enjoyable, and fits well in the overall narrative
?
“Bran’s story line didn’t work for me. The route they went with him was to generic and the actor did all the heavy lifting, while also being able to put in any sense of mystery behind his new powers. It was really frustrating because I can see a version of the story that I like, with that actor, but it just wasn’t there. Which only compounded how much it bothered me.”
For me, framing an argument like that is much stronger than using the word “objectively bad” because no one can dispute its validity. It isn’t persuasive, but no one can say it isn’t a thoughtful articulation of what didn’t work in the Bran story line.
Quality and enjoyment are two separate things. You can enjoy something of low quality and not enjoy something of high quality. Enjoyment is a subjective thing and to a certain extent quality is too, but there is also an objective notion to quality. To use your ice cream analogy: ice cream handmade by a professional michelin-starred chef using hand-picked quality ingredients is (likely) higher quality than the ice cream you will find in the supermarket. This doesnt mean I dont enjoy ice cream from the supermarket, or that there arent times where I wouldnt actually prefer the ice cream from the supermarket. My subjective enjoyment is separate from the objective quality.
you say these things about quality, but really would you still prefer the supermarket ice more even if the michelin star chef made the icecream tailored to your explicit taste? then you would find out that bland chocolate icecream made by a chef is just better then the supermarket one and that your subjective taste isn´t really subjective at all because everyone else likes it better too.
i would argue that quality is not subjective at all.
but then if you try to argue that quality is objective, you would run into the problem that you would never be able to say exactly why this icecream tastes good.
its all very tricky and regardless of how long you keep argueing you are going to end up at a chicken egg impass.
Everybody knows that cavalry excels at frontal assaults in the dark without infantry support. If Hannibal taught us anything, it's that he consistently mindlessly rammed his horses against fortified positions and that's how Rome was nearly defeated.
Apparently the knowledge on how to use cavalry vaguely correctly died with Stannis, although he himself seemed to forget all he knew about generalship towards the end anyway.
I dunno, I don’t think it takes away from spectacle having these set pieces at least vaguely make any kind of sense, throw in a bit of shrewd generalship and it adds to characters skillsets.
Granted dragons got a bit too overpowered for such things to matter, unless Qyburn has been working his little socks off .
Been a while man, hope you're doing well
But I don't know, spectacle was never GoT's strength in the first place, I can go watch John Wick if I want spectacle, or 300 of I want swords involved. It's done better in that movie from 2006 and many others. In the penultimate episode of the first season, the battle that leads to the Starks capturing Jaime is literally off screen. When Tyrion brings the hills tribes to the Lannister camps and they end up fighting against the Starks, they at least give a sense that there's a battle by showing a bit of it until Tyrion gets knocked out. That's not to say battle scenes can't add value, but they generally prop up the story. In this case, they're clearly a centerpiece and I think that's not what A Song Of Ice And Fire was about.
Everybody knows that cavalry excels at frontal assaults in the dark without infantry support. If Hannibal taught us anything, it's that he consistently mindlessly rammed his horses against fortified positions and that's how Rome was nearly defeated.
Apparently the knowledge on how to use cavalry vaguely correctly died with Stannis, although he himself seemed to forget all he knew about generalship towards the end anyway.
I dunno, I don’t think it takes away from spectacle having these set pieces at least vaguely make any kind of sense, throw in a bit of shrewd generalship and it adds to characters skillsets.
Granted dragons got a bit too overpowered for such things to matter, unless Qyburn has been working his little socks off .
Been a while man, hope you're doing well
But I don't know, spectacle was never GoT's strength in the first place, I can go watch John Wick if I want spectacle, or 300 of I want swords involved. It's done better in that movie from 2006 and many others. In the penultimate episode of the first season, the battle that leads to the Starks capturing Jaime is literally off screen. When Tyrion brings the hills tribes to the Lannister camps and they end up fighting against the Starks, they at least give a sense that there's a battle by showing a bit of it until Tyrion gets knocked out. That's not to say battle scenes can't add value, but they generally prop up the story. In this case, they're clearly a centerpiece and I think that's not what A Song Of Ice And Fire was about.
Likewise, also I hope I was doing well too haha :p
Maybe I’m just getting old and even more grumpy, I just can’t get into spectacle because I just lose track of where everyone is in relationship to each other, this is magnified greatly by stuff that is clearly there just to look cool and makes no degree of sense whatsoever, like those bloody siege engines being where they were and barely used. I thought Hardhome hit pretty damn hard at the time, I haven’t rewatched in ages but I don’t recall feeling so baffled/irritated at teleporting.
GoT has too much going on generally and is a rare example of a show where ‘tell don’t show’ fits in pretty well, so I was happy enough until they started to flip on that and increasingly do it badly.
Stannis is this great military mind, continually reverence’s all the time, Ramsay managed to outdo him continually, somehow. I mean I’m crowbarring that in hardcore but the difference in Stannis’ rep and him getting BTFOed is just jarring.
I think we lost a few too many of the interesting grey characters too, they’ve been gradually swapped out for heroes and villains over time, or the focus isn’t on them anymore. Your Tywins’, your Stannis’ and Roose Bolton etc. Perhaps not those people individually, but they complemented others well, granted it was a different era for the show in many ways.
They might still pull something out that I enjoy, and plenty of others have enjoyed this season thus far, but I enjoyed it as a political intrigue show with fantasy trappings with lots of characters and development there, with a semi-grounded feel, I don’t go to many Marvel films outside of taking the kiddo as it’s not really my interest but they really don’t feel all that different of late.
EPT
and they realize Jon might be a legitimate Targaeryen, hence Bran goes back with his vision and sees the actual marriage between Reaghar and Lyanna
