LOTR, The Matrix, and the Star Wars PT: Which trilogy will stand the test of time?

For something to be subjective, it must be open to individual interpretation. The presence of monotone is not. It has a very specific definition; a constant voice level that doesn't waver. When Natalie says "I will not give in to this", her voice level is constant.

Ergo, if someone said something like "She sounded excited when she said that", they'd be absolutely wrong, because monotone by definition does not encompass changing voice levels, which are what we use to determine emotions expressed through vocals.

 

D_I, J-M, Durwood, etc. Were are going no where with this whole fact and opinion debit.

So here's how we will end it. Ever one who thought Natalie did a good job fine your right end of story. Ever one who did not think she did a good job you aer also right end of story. Know let's move on to soemthing else. You guys are going no where you just keep saying the same thing over and over and over and over again.

Pleae move on to something else. No one will win this debit.

 

It's a valid discussion topic, ani. Join in, or don't, at your discretion.

Here's a question; if all acting is subjective in every way, and therefore any one performance is just as inherently strong as the next, why do actors bother to rehearse?

 

"and therefore any one performance is just as inherently strong as the next"

Who said that?

And in response to rehearsal question are you saying that there is only one style of acting that is good or the best? Are there not different groups of opinions that prefer certain types of acting? Have you not seen improvisational acting that has impressed you, maybe even more so than a much rehearsed production? How do you know how much each actor has or has not rehearsed? Is it possible that some of the performance you've deemed as great may have been unrehearsed?

 

To get what THEY want and what the DIRECTOR wants out of the performance.

Here's my story of acting and subjectivity.

I played the Wolf in "Into the Woods" in high school.

A couple of performances in, I realized that the audience wasn't laughing at any of Sondheim's brilliant wordplay or appreciating the sheer coolness of the Wolf's song.

They liked it when I made funny animal noises, though.

So I put more effort into playing the Wolf for cheap laughs and was well-rewarded at the end of the song.

There's no accounting for taste...


Rick McCallum loves you! (Is that fact or opinion?)

 

Ok I will join in with this:

Darth_Insidious just because you say Natalie was saying the line in a monotonous voice does not mean Jedi-Monkey heard the monotonous voice. In fact for him she did not talk that way. That is a cold hard fact that will not change. You both saw heard something different in the in how she said.

Jedi-Monkey jsut because you say she did a good job does not make it so for Darth_Insidious. That is a cold hard fact. He heard it different then you. He heard a monotonous voice. You did not hear a monotonous voice.


You know it woudl be like if I said ever person in the USA was for the war in Iraq. That is opinion. It's not a fact. The fact is there were people who were for the war and people who were not for the war. That is a fact.

So there were people who saw the Fire place in AOTC and really liked it and they really like the way Natalie said the line and said she did a good job with it. That's there opinion they can have it. The same with the people who did not like it.

SO far all I have seen with this fact vs. opinion debit is people trying to say that my opinion is better then yours. Well no ones opinion is better then the next guys.

For me I don't reall care what any one thought of AOTC I liked. IMO it was a really great movie. And really the only opinion I really care about is my own opinion.

 

"Who said that?"

It's the logical extension of all subjectivity, sdj. If there's no objective measure of quality in any given medium, then all attempts to measure quality are ultimately meaningless--but as anyone who's studied acting, filmmaking, visual arts or any other means of expression can tell you, there are ways to tell a pro from an amateur, a natural from a hack.

Now, let me rephrase; the reason actors rehearse, and the reason filmmakers call for multiple takes, is because performers don't always get it right the first time--and yes, some ways of delivering a performance are objectively stronger than others in a given context.

Let's talk about me.

This past week, I had a gig of my own, providing the voice of a narrator in a live accompaniment to an onscreen silent film. For five evenings prior to the event, I worked with the director to hone each line's timing and delivery, developing and memorizing visual cues along the way. The goal was to build a kind of rapport with the onscreen actor, such that even though we were completely separate, we seemed to be playing off each other. Timing was crucial to that, and it didn't come easy; there were opportunities for large mistakes at every turn. Portraying the right persona through my delivery was likewise critical; the script and the film called for an all-knowing, Fifties-style narrator, with a booming (but semi-casual), slightly condescending voice and demeanor. So, he and I fine-tuned the delivery of every line, varying the pitch, speed, volume and timbre as the context of the moment required.

The crowd loved the results, and if the director and I hadn't spent those hours in preparation, I shudder to think how the piece could have gone over--but by paying attention to the smallest details of the performance's every aspect, we put together something they greatly enjoyed.

To reiterate, the point of all this is that there's much more detail to a fine performance than most lay-people realize, and whether an actor hits all the right notes on Take One or Take Hundred and ****ing Fifty (as an old friend of mine used to say), those notes--those standards--are most certainly there, put in place by the writer, director, the character, and that character's circumstances. There isn't always one ideal way to tackle a scene, but there's always a way to go completely against what the scene calls for, and diminish the scene's potential as a result.

EDIT:

Good point, Adam. There are ways to connect with your target audience, and there are ways to lose them. The kind of wordplay you're talking about is usually lost on most high schoolers (sadly enough), but almost all of them respond to cheap laughs.

Whether in a play or a film, seducing your audience is like seducing a girl (don't worry mods, I'll keep this clean); some respond best to physical contact, some to old-fashioned romance, and if you want to make a connection, you find out what they respond to best and run with it.

Obviously, not all films are aimed at the same target audience, and a film aimed at adults isn't likely to draw many children. If you ask me, the real test of a film's success is whether or not it connects with the audience it's aiming for. Some films aim to please both children and their parents, and Toy Story and its descendants succeed admirably, while Roberto Benigni's Pinnochio sent kids running from the theater in tears as their parents shuddered at the sight of Benigni playing an 8-year-old in tights. Lord of the Rings drew acclaim from almost all sides, while Dungeons and Dragons fled theaters in disgrace.

The study of film isn't just a study of how films are made; it's also an examination of how they connect with their audiences (or fail to do so), and there are many, many factors involved in that beyond the simple question of the viewers' tastes.

 

seducing your audience is like seducing a girl

Oh, yeah, great analogy to use on a frickin' Star Wars message board. I'm sure we all know what that's like.





Rick McCallum loves you! (Seductive...)

 

Oh, yeah, great analogy to use on a frickin' Star Wars message board. I'm sure we all know what that's like.

Bah. I'm getting too old for this sort of thing.

 

Ok let me draw on my own personal experience. I've been a musician for over 10 years. I've made records and been on a film soundtrack not to mention played many gigs with several of them containing more than a 500 people at once. Now I consider myself knowledgeable about music having been there and done that. I do have my tastes and I do have my opinion about what makes a good musician and/or songwriter. But many of the bands I like are not so popular and even more to the point many bands that are considered influential and great can literally barely play their instruments.

It is the same for acting. Keanu Reeves to me has difficulty onscreen. He has difficulty putting himself in the scene of the film, but he is a very successful actor regardless. Some people even think he is great. So does the fact that he seems like a sore thumb in Dracula even matter? No. Do some people think he's gods gift to the big screen? Yes. Who is correct? Neither and both.

 

Fun point about critics and subjectivity.

Life has gotten to the point where me and Roger Ebert disagree on 75% of all movies ever made. If he gives it four stars chances I will too; if he hates it chances I will too... BUT if he gives it two, I'll probably give it three, and vice versa.

So sometimes his opinion is of no use to me. But I read all his reviews. Because I like his writing.

I read reviews at AICN all time time. Harry Knowles is useless; he spends half his review talking about who he saw it with, what he had for dinner that day and mentioning movies he grew up on. But I like his enthusiasm for movies, so I read his stuff.

I don't read reviews to get their opinions. Heck, I mumble "Roger, you're full of ****" at least once a week. I read reviews because I know I'm gonna have a guy who knows about film talk to me about film and share things with me I might not have noticed by myself, and often write it well.


Rick McCallum loves you!

 

sdj:

See, now we have something to talk about.

You might look at a less successful band and ask, "What is it that's holding them back?" or look at a more successful, less proficient band and ask, "What is it that makes up for their lack of skill?" You might consider their charisma, their connections in the business, their circumstances/luck, their target audience, and so on. For whatever reason, their performances and personas resonate with their audiences, managers and executives, more so than some less famous bands, and to search for that reason is to broaden your knowledge of the art, the business and its fandom immensely.

Reeves is what a lot of people consider to be a good looking guy, and he's well-suited to certain roles; he made his name playing a confused valley dude, and he's passable as a stone-faced hero (see Little Buddha). He portrays loud-mouthed anger convincingly enough (witness his angry tirade in Johnny Mnemonic), but his persona shows its seams when a scene calls for more subtle emoting, such as his turn in Dangerous Liasons or his less stoic moments from TMR.

For many actors, looks and physical presence are all that's required to sustain their career and their fanbase (for a while, at least); others get by on their charm, their sense of timing, their gift for improvisation, or simply their pull in the industry. An actor who connects with the ladies can draw a male fanbase too; part of the appeal of filmgoing is the way in which a film invites the viewer to vicariously become the character of his or her choice, and a guy who sees how well Reeves nets the ladies may not mind a chance to play his role for a couple of hours.

Actors also draw praise and heat for the films they appear in, and the roles in which they're cast; a viewer may dislike Mimi Leder simply because she reminds him of Lost in Space. Geena Davis could easily have been an A-List star today if she weren't best known for Cutthroat Island. Some actors are lucky enough to end up in all the right films, while others, despite their own skill, find themselves sinking with the wrecks of the films they get stuck in.

Audiences' tastes do play into this equation, of course, but when one film succeeds and another fails, both of them aimed at the same audience, the wise filmmaker does all he can to learn why.

 

Oh this should be good. How does Natalie's character call for her to be monotone and standing stiff while saying that line? I'm all ears.

Well, the common complaint seems to be that the vast majority of her lines were apparently delivered this way. To me, that would suggest that this is the way the character talks, especially since she does not talk like this in other films. It seemed fairly simple to me. Hope that was worth the wait.

Also, their parties are never any fun... no one ever wants to play Twister.



But to say that Natalie was speaking with a monotonous voice when delivering that line is a fact, not an opinion. To say that this wasn't in accordance with the circumstances of the scene, in which she emphasizing that no matter how she and Anakin felt about eachother that they could never be together, to say that this did not beget a monotonous tone is a fact, not an opinion. And to say that the mark of good acting is to convey the emotions that the scene requires is a fact, not an opinion.

Therefore, to say that her delivery of this line constituted poor acting is a fact, not an opinion.

Unless of course, that was the way her character talked...

And also of course, not everyone saw it the same way you did, which would make it your opinion.

For something to be subjective, it must be open to individual interpretation.

You mean like...acting?

The presence of monotone is not. It has a very specific definition; a constant voice level that doesn't waver. When Natalie says "I will not give in to this", her voice level is constant.

Ergo, if someone said something like "She sounded excited when she said that", they'd be absolutely wrong, because monotone by definition does not encompass changing voice levels, which are what we use to determine emotions expressed through vocals.

No one said she sounded excited. Some people simply do not agree with your opinion that she was terrible, that's all.

Here's a question; if all acting is subjective in every way, and therefore any one performance is just as inherently strong as the next, why do actors bother to rehearse?

It's not that any one performance is as strong as another one. It's that not everyone agrees on which ones are the strong ones. That is why it's subjective.

And I would assume they reherse because they want to do the best they can, in accordance with their own standards. And perhaps so they can learn their lines, or what their character, as well as any other character they are interacting with, is supposed to be doing.

SO far all I have seen with this fact vs. opinion debit is people trying to say that my opinion is better then yours. Well no ones opinion is better then the next guys.

Actually, I think you missed the point of what I have been saying. I was not say that Insidious' opinion was wrong, and mine was right. I have absolutely no problem with his opinion being different than mine. Obviously we haven't gotten the same thing out of the movie. All I am saying is that it IS just an opinion, and not a fact as he is trying to convince us all. That's all.

Lastly, Darth Geist;

You said a lot of good stuff there, although I don't think anyone doubts that the work an actor has to go through is much more than what appears on the screen. We all realize that actors do not come out of their trailers, deliver their lines perfectly on the first try, and then that's it. That there's a lot of hard work and dedication that goes into what they do. What I have been saying is that when we view that performance in the finished film, or in the play or whatever, different people will see it in different ways. That it why it is subjective. Perhaps for the actor it isn't, but I'm not an actor, and that's not the viewpoint I was talking about. I was talking about the viewpoint of those of us regular people watching the film, and that varies from person to person. It's not to put down the actors, or ignore the work they do, just that since we are all different, w

 

anidanami124 - It's one thing having different opinons about a scene in a movie but it's another if it's because one of the people who have a differing opinion lack the insight as to what makes a bad scene or how good a scene could have been potentially if certain aspects were utilized better! Sure it boils down to opinion but when the opinon is a huge one against the scene in question, one has to question why and re-evaluate the points of concern. I agree about your point that everyone takes from a scene something different but that doesn't mean the scene isn't a bad one because one person likes it and a nother doesn't. I like the scene because it's funny how bad it is, other hate it because it's bad while others simply can't see what's wrong with it.

The fireplace scene suffers form really bad editing more than really bad acting. For example, the point when Anakin reaches out to her and says "Listen to me" and she backs off in retort saying "No, you listen" - Her Dialogue is supposed to cut off his line abrubtly in order for it to have effect. If you watch the same scene in one of the trailers for the movie, it does that! In the actual movie however, there is a slight gap in between Haydens line and Natalie jumping in, it's terrible. He says "Listen to me" and then makes no statement before she sudenly jumps in like some bad stage production where the actors have forgotten the next line! It's crazy that the same scene could be presented better than in the finished movie but there it is for all to see and compare!

Sure to some they don't see it, to others more atuned to what makes better quality acting, it stands out like a a beacon! The film is full of things that didn't need to be so badly presented that's why those with a little imagination or understanding of how movies are made are shocked at its poor editing and narrative while others remain cluesless as to what they're on about, simply watching the film without question and enjoying the spectacle for what it is. Sure it's a difference of opinion, but its not without ground due to a wider perception some have about films as opposed to others. I like AOTC, I can sit through it a lot easier than TPM and enjoy the film but I can see so many places where it could be improved, the scene in question at the fireplace would have been better if they started it with Anakin standing at the fireplace and her sitting on the couch, it then wouldn't be prone to looking like they sat down to smooch together and she suddenly pulls her panties up because his dialogue is so bad! Even worse is the fact that everyting he says to her gets a comicalsilent reaction from her with a rolling head movement, it looks stupid. At one pint he advances to her and she does the head thing again and it looks like bad acting when all it really is ; is bad choice of camera shots. If Lucas had chosen to show a wider shot of the couch and her moving backwads slightly instead of just her head it would have worked better. In honesty, she needed to have been following a more intelligently written script which would allow her to make more rational verbal reactions to Anakins corny statements. Even if it meant only having her shake her head and softly beg for him to say no more a few times in the exchange.

The film is fun but its poorly edited and full of uninspired pefomances but not because the actors are lousy, its more because the so called director doesn't concentrate on capturing collected performances as much as he cares about capturing individual ones he can then recompositte later together in the same frame. That and the lousy dialogue throughout doesn't make the film exactly a great example of basic movie-making but to those who don't care about the such things, they would hardly stand oout as much as opposed to those used to seeing such poor efforts in much lower budgeted films! For example.

Bad Editing:
Kenobi informs Yoda and Mace about Jango and the Clones and is told to take him in for questioning which he immeadiately goes off to do. This apparenty takes a who

 

anidanami124 - It's one thing having different opinons about a scene in a movie but it's another if it's because one of the people who have a differing opinion lack the insight as to what makes a bad scene or how good a scene could have been potentially if certain aspects were utilized better! Sure it boils down to opinion but when the opinon is a huge one against the scene in question, one has to question why and re-evaluate the points of concern. I agree about your point that everyone takes from a scene something different but that doesn't mean the scene isn't a bad one because one person likes it and a nother doesn't. I like the scene because it's funny how bad it is, other hate it because it's bad while others simply can't see what's wrong with it.

The fireplace scene suffers form really bad editing more than really bad acting. For example, the point when Anakin reaches out to her and says "Listen to me" and she backs off in retort saying "No, you listen" - Her Dialogue is supposed to cut off his line abrubtly in order for it to have effect. If you watch the same scene in one of the trailers for the movie, it does that! In the actual movie however, there is a slight gap in between Haydens line and Natalie jumping in, it's terrible. He says "Listen to me" and then makes no statement before she sudenly jumps in like some bad stage production where the actors have forgotten the next line! It's crazy that the same scene could be presented better than in the finished movie but there it is for all to see and compare!

Sure to some they don't see it, to others more atuned to what makes better quality acting, it stands out like a a beacon! The film is full of things that didn't need to be so badly presented that's why those with a little imagination or understanding of how movies are made are shocked at its poor editing and narrative while others remain cluesless as to what they're on about, simply watching the film without question and enjoying the spectacle for what it is. Sure it's a difference of opinion, but its not without ground due to a wider perception some have about films as opposed to others. I like AOTC, I can sit through it a lot easier than TPM and enjoy the film but I can see so many places where it could be improved, the scene in question at the fireplace would have been better if they started it with Anakin standing at the fireplace and her sitting on the couch, it then wouldn't be prone to looking like they sat down to smooch together and she suddenly pulls her panties up because his dialogue is so bad! Even worse is the fact that everyting he says to her gets a comicalsilent reaction from her with a rolling head movement, it looks stupid. At one pint he advances to her and she does the head thing again and it looks like bad acting when all it really is ; is bad choice of camera shots. If Lucas had chosen to show a wider shot of the couch and her moving backwads slightly instead of just her head it would have worked better. In honesty, she needed to have been following a more intelligently written script which would allow her to make more rational verbal reactions to Anakins corny statements. Even if it meant only having her shake her head and softly beg for him to say no more a few times in the exchange (everyone else in the audience was).

The film is fun but its poorly edited and full of uninspired pefomances but not because the actors are lousy, its more because the so called director doesn't concentrate on capturing collected performances as much as he cares about capturing individual ones he can then recompositte later together in the same frame. That and the lousy dialogue throughout doesn't make the film exactly a great example of basic movie-making but to those who don't care about the such things, they would hardly stand oout as much as opposed to those used to seeing such poor efforts in much lower budgeted films! For example.

Bad Editing:
Kenobi informs Yoda and Mace about Jango and the Clones and is told to take him in for questioning which he immeadiately goes of

 

It's one thing having different opinons about a scene in a movie but it's another if it's because one of the people who have a differing opinion lack the insight as to what makes a bad scene or how good a scene could have been potentially if certain aspects were utilized better!

Well Jedi-Monkey just gave the best answer here. What one person will see as a bad scene. Someone else will see as a good scene.

What someone hears as bad music someone else will hear as good music.

What someone read thinks it's a bad book. Well someone else will think it's a good book.

What someone see as bad art. Someone else will see as good art.

Be it a painting or a book. What one person is as a bad book someone else will see it as a good book.

D_I said: For something to be subjective, it must be open to individual interpretation.

J-MYou mean like...acting?

Acting is open I individual intepretation. So is music, So is reading a book. So is looking at art. Way do you think when you sit 20 people in a room and ask them who the best acter is you will come up with many different answers? That's because we all have a different opinion on what and who a good acter/acteress is. The only fact there is is that we have are own opinions. Art all ways has been and all ways well be open to individual intepretation.

It's not liek sports. We have the Det Lions if someone were to say they were the best team in the NFL not only would I ask them to PORR I would ask them where they have been for the past like 30 years or so. Why? Because it is a fact the Lions are one of the worst teams in the NFL. That is fact not opinion and all you have to do is look at there record for the past two years. 5 wins three this past year two the year before that. That shows that they are no good.

It's a fact that in Hockey right know that the Ducks and N.J. are tied to games in the finals. It's a fact that The Ducks sweepit the Wings. That is not my opinion. There can be no opinion there. Why? Because on like movies, books, music, and art. Sports can not be open to individual intepretation bad team is a bad team.

But what's a badly acted scene in a movie to one person is nto so for another. What is a good work of art to one person is not so for another. And so on.

Edit: Heck right with in this thread we have tow groups peopel who said Natalie did a good job and those who said she did not do a good job. Then we have the group that does not really care one way or the other.


Edit2: For example, the point when Anakin reaches out to her and says "Listen to me" and she backs off in retort saying "No, you listen" - Her Dialogue is supposed to cut off his line abrubtly in order for it to have effect.

Well for you it was not good. But for others they it was just fine. And I'm not talk about the 10-year olds. I'm taling about the 17 year old and above people. There are people that loved that scene. There are people that is that as Natalie's best scene. For you it did not work. For me and other's it did work. Again art is open to individual intepretation.

Lase Edit: Here's to show you why movies are open to individual intepretation. There is a movie coming out called form From Justin to Kelly As bad as it will be. There will be a lot of people who will like the movie. But why? Why would there be people who like it. Well them both being form 'American Idol' is one thing. But the another thing is as much as you and I would not like Ceejay. As much as you and I know that it may not even be the best movie. Tell that to the people who will see a good movie that they like weather it be two people form 'American Idol' or not.

Heck there are people who really liked that Brintey Spears movie. But what was a bad movie for you and me was great for others. Oh but the thing about that is. You and I did not see it so we would never really know. On less you did see that Brintey movie. Which in that case I will pray for your soul

 

Sorry about the double post stupid error messages!

 

Sorry about the double post stupid error messages!

Don't worry we all get those form time to time.

 

Monotone is a voice description, and it isn't a subjective one. . . to say that Natalie was speaking with a monotonous voice when delivering that line is a fact, not an opinion.

Sure it is. "Reserved" is just as good a description as "monotone." It all depends on how you want people to perceive the acting. In your case, you want everybody to agree that the acting is bad, so you use the negative sounding description of "monotone" to try and steer the argument towards a conclussion that you consider most favorable to your position.

Honestly, if you want to argue your position in hopes of convicing others to agree with your opinion, more power to ya, but you really need to get a better grasp on subjectivity vs. objectivity and fact vs. opinion. Until you do, I fear engaging you in debate will continue to be a chore. If you've notice, I've avoided trying to argue with you because I hate going through the futile exercise of redefining the language every time you get a new notion in your head. As national radio talk show host Glenn Beck once said, "He who controls the language wins the debate," and it's true. You're trying to win debates not by using facts and well reasoned arguments but by controlling the language. And you know what? I'm calling your bluff.

 

Here's a question; if all acting is subjective in every way, and therefore any one performance is just as inherently strong as the next, why do actors bother to rehearse?

Ahhh...what an adorable little straw man!

 

I thought Natalie Portman put in a great performance. I certainly enjoyed watching her

 

Durwood, I stand by what I said; if there were no objective standards for separating a strong performance from a weak one, then all performances would be inherently equal, which they're quite clearly not.

A flubbed line is always a flubbed line. A missed cue is always a missed cue. ani, you could at least acknowledge that.

 

if there were no objective standards for separating a strong performance from a weak one, then all performances would be inherently equal, which they're quite clearly not.

I agree completely, which is why I and nobody else in this thread has claimed that "all performances are inherently equal." That's something you pulled out of thin air and then turned right around and shot down. So you've proven you're able to construct weak arguments and then immediately refute them. Good for you.

Now how about discussing the real issue which is, when all other things are equal, determing whether or not you consider a performance good is purely subjective. More to the point, Natalie Portman never flubbed her lines, she never missed her cues, she gave a technically solid if understated performance. Now whether you consider her performance to be "good" or not is your opinion and nothing more.

I also find it interesting that you've tried to narrow it down to simply "strong" and "weak" performances, which seems to imply there is no middle ground. There are varying degrees of strength, and even a strong actor will have some weaknesses, so there's really a lot of subjective grey area rather than the broad black and white strokes you're trying to paint here.

 

"I agree completely, which is why I and nobody else in this thread has claimed that "all performances are inherently equal."

You yourself know better than to claim that. Not everyone here does, not to name any names. No one's said it in those exact words, but that's the logical extension of what some people are driving at.

"Any mistake you could make doesn't matter at all," some people might say. "Not in the slightest. Your first take is just as good as your fortieth, no matter what you do, because someone somewhere might like it."

To say that is to look every actor in the world in the eye, point to the most inept actor on the planet, and tell them all, "You're no better at this than that guy!" There's no logical basis for it, there's no technical understand behind it, but it seems to be the approach some people insist on taking, regardless of what else is said here.

I also find it interesting that you've tried to narrow it down to simply "strong" and "weak" performances, which seems to imply there is no middle ground. There are varying degrees of strength, and even a strong actor will have some weaknesses, so there's really a lot of subjective grey area rather than the broad black and white strokes you're trying to paint here.

Of course there are degrees to the strength of a performance. Did you see what I said about Keanu Reeves?

 

that's the logical extension of what some people are driving at.

You say "logical extension," I say "straw man argument." Try to refute people's actual arguments rather than the so-called "logical extension" of said argument.

"Any mistake you could make doesn't matter at all," some people might say. "Not in the slightest. Your first take is just as good as your fortieth, no matter what you do, because someone somewhere might like it."

That has neither been said nor implied. Honestly, arguing against such abusrd hypothetical statements doesn't really strengthen your stance in the slightest and in fact weakens it considerably.

Knock down all the straw men you want. Just understand that our arguments remain untouched.