Discussion in 'Star Wars TV' started by Kuestmaster, Mar 11, 2013.
Nothing. Because it's not.
These 'nothing is better than the other' arguments remind me of the book Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance. His views on quality come to mind. The librarian should check it out.
No, I just tend to share Lovecraft's opinion of Eliot's poetry.
And because the past 4 or 5 pages have like nothing to do with anything...
I'm actually interested to see Filoni at work while NOT under Lucas' supervision. I find the guy entertaining to in listening to or reading his interviews, and he does make some sensible decisions. Even when it comes to the appearance of the Republic Commandos in TCW, that was allegedly something he had to "sneak" in. As was the decision to not end the S5 finale with the traditional fanfare, which would have been a phenomenally bad decision IMO.
Yes, he had some ideas I strongly disagree with (the survival of Ahsoka for one), but I think he did an overall good job with what he was given. If I were to write a 4-episode adventure about droids and a slug-frog, and that one of those episodes had to be about "nothing," I'm not sure that anybody could really spin that into anything greater than it was (some people like it, but I hated it, and I don't think anybody else as supervising director could have made me hate it less).
Since Lucas "mentored" Filoni, it's possible that a new show will just be more of the same in quality, but I'm not opposed to giving him a chance. He seemed to have a greater grasp on what makes for a good Star Wars show than Lucas does IMO, but unfortunately his work pretty much had to meet the satisfaction of Lucas.
Actually we can't.
But it is rather hilarious that the people who keep making these statements, keep avoiding the question about what scientific criteria they are using to back it up.
As far as the motorcycles-whatever book in question, no thanks, I'll pass, especially if you are trying to tout that particular author's views on quality as somehow objective.
Well, there are certain things that are objective to being a good actor. Being able to play roles in a convincing manner, the ability to remember long lines helps.
We obviously don't have a huge checklist of what makes the perfect actor as otherwise everyone would be a perfect actor, but there are things that objectively make you a better one. Same thing goes for a director.
A screenplay is different as that's a much more subjective thing to value.
Having said that, I don't disagree that people who state their opinions as fact are obviously doing it wrong.
I agree with you as far as acting criteria; there is some science to acting. I'd even argue that someone like Ewan McGregor who can play many different roles convincingly is a better actor than someone like Hayden Christensen who specializes in one type of role and plays that one convincingly.
That's my opinion though, not objective fact.
The arguments I've heard touting TPM as "objectively bad" are subjective arguments themselves: "bad storytelling," "bad acting," and my favorite, "no clear protagonist." That assumes again that there must be a "clear protagonist," IOW that the story must follow some formula, in order for it to be "good." And who makes this formula? Again, since art is subjective itself and only science is objective, the formula itself is just the opinion of one who dares to call himself an "expert."
Many of the "classics" in the English lit and art fields, I have no idea how they reached that status, but I'm not going to believe they are "objectively good" because some blowhard with a degree or Academy status says so. And don't even get me started on the Academy Awards.
@anakinfansince1983 Yeah, I don't mean that you can objectively state that so-and-so is a great actor. I think there are things that make one objectively better at any job (some things are just expected), but comparisons between actors/directors/films/books/whatever will always contain subjectivity. Basically, you can only objectively say one is better in regards to the individual, not in a comparison.
For instance, the statement; Ewan McGregor can play many diverse roles is an objective statement. Saying that this makes him a better actor than whoever is where the subjectivity comes in.
I mean that's the whole goal of a debate on these things - you're supposed to mix objectivity with subjectivity to back up your argument.
I honestly believe that there are people that don't quite understand the difference. I've always been a supporter of at least basic Critical Thinking being a part of the English course in education.
Should he have said Tennyson?
Nope. The response would still be the same. I'd rather read Seuss than Tennyson any day.
What makes The Ambassadors better than a juvenile farmboy rescues the princess yarn? Why watch a Muppet spout pseudo-philosophy when you could read The Heart is a Lonely Hunter? It amuses me when the OT is always cast as the "true art" to the PT's Transformers status, especially when I sift through plenty of criticism venues that regard all Star Wars as boy's own adventure garbage that doesn't even hold up when compared to other pulp stories, let alone serious art.
Ok, the PT vs OT thing has gone far enough in this thread. Even I had fun with it but this thread is about hopelessly off topic. I'm tempted to close it but since this is still pretty big news 2 weeks later I'm going to give it another chance.
I'm glad Filoni will be working on another show. I think for what its worth the guy did a great job. TCW IMO was one of the best action cartoons currently on TV even in its worse days. I feel like TCW even caused others to step up their game with produced other great shows. I remember what douches all the characters in Young Justice characters were early on. Transformers Prime also seemed to copy the arc formula in the last season. That said I always though the early ideas for TCW sounded even more interesting. Perhaps the new pilot will see that realized.
I'm still pretty sad about the cancellation. TCW was an escape for me which makes it a little harder for me to let go even though its just a show. Silver linings aren't always enough to make some wrongs seem right but a new show to explore it is an okay silver lining along with a hopefully strong conclusion to the series.
This article may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. (January 2013)
In ZAMM, Pirsig explores the meaning and concept of quality, a term he deems to be undefinable. Pirsig's thesis is that to truly experience quality one must both embrace and apply it as best fits the requirements of the situation. According to Pirsig, such an approach would avoid a great deal of frustration and dissatisfaction common to modern life.
In the book, the Narrator describes the "Romantic" approach to life of his friend, John Sutherland, who chooses not to learn how to maintain his expensive new motorcycle. John simply hopes for the best with his bike, and when problems do occur he often becomes frustrated, and is forced to rely on professional mechanics to repair it. In contrast, the "classical" Narrator has an older motorcycle which he is usually able to diagnose and repair himself through the use of rational problem solving skills.
In an example of the classical approach, Pirsig explains to the reader that one must pay continual attention: when the Narrator and his friends came into Miles City, Montana  he notices that the "engine idle is loping a little," a possible indication that the fuel/air mixture is too rich. The next day he is thinking of this as he is going through his ritual to adjust the valves on his cycle's engine. During the adjustment, he notes that both spark plugs are black, confirming a rich mixture. He recognizes that the feel-good-higher-altitude-mountain-air is causing the engine to run rich. New jets are purchased, and installed, and with the valves adjusted, the engine runs well again.
With this, the book details two types of personalities: those who are interested mostly in gestalts (romantic viewpoints, such as Zen, focused on being "In the moment", and not on rational analysis), and those who seek to know the details, understand the inner workings, and master the mechanics (classic viewpoints with application of rational analysis, vis-a-vis motorcycle maintenance) and so on.
The Sutherlands represent an exclusively romantic attitude toward the world. The Narrator initially appears to prefer the classic approach. It later becomes apparent that he understands both viewpoints and is aiming for the middle ground. He understands that technology, and the "dehumanized world" it carries with it, appears ugly and repulsive to a romantic person. He knows that such persons are determined to shoehorn all of life's experience into the romantic view. Pirsig is capable of seeing the beauty of technology and feels good about mechanical work, where the goal is "to achieve an inner peace of mind". The book demonstrates that motorcycle maintenance may be dull and tedious drudgery or an enjoyable and pleasurable pastime; it all depends on attitude.
Ancient Greek philosophy in Athens, romantically depicted by Raphael
Pirsig shows that rationality's pursuit of "Pure Truths" derives from the first Greek philosophers who were establishing the concept of truth, against the opposing force of "The Good". He argues that although rational thought may find truth (or The Truth) it may not be valid for all experiences. Therefore, what is needed is an approach to viewing life that is more varied and inclusive and has a wider range of application. He makes a case that originally the Greeks did not distinguish between "Quality" and "Truth" – they were one and the same – and that the divorce was, in fact, artificial (though needed at the time) and is now a source of much frustration and unhappiness in the world, particularly overall dissatisfaction with modern life.
Pirsig aims towards a perception of the world that embraces both sides, the rational and the romantic. This means encompassing "irrational" sources of wisdom and understanding as well as science, reason and technology. In particular, this must include bursts of creativity and intuition that seemingly come from nowhere and are not (in his view) rationally explicable. Pirsig seeks to demonstrate that rationality and Zen-like "being in the moment" can harmoniously coexist. He suggests such a combination of rationality and romanticism can potentially bring a higher quality of life.
I don't do philosophy.
Agghhh it reminds me of school.
If I want philosophy from looking at machinery I'll stare at this for 20 minutes.
It is true that, some technical issues aside, there is no such thing as "objective" in any sort of art criticism, including literature or film. Things like this cannot be proven with any sort of certainty in the mathematical sense of that word. The closest we can get is either 1) the informed opinions of people who know a lot about the subject, or 2) the consensus opinion of people in general over a longish period of time. Neither of these are the same as objective fact (though neither are meaningless, either).
But that said, yes, there are some things that can be said with as much certainty as can be had on these matters. We can say with a high, but not total, degree of certainty, that Die Hard is a better movie than Psycho Kickboxer, that A Tale of Two Cities is a better book than the novelization of Honey, I Blew Up The Kid, that Final Fantasy VII is a better game than Chase the Chuck Wagon, that Botticelli's Birth of Venus is a better painting than Dogs Playing Poker on black velvet, and that Revolver is a better album than Planet Jedward. There are some pieces of art that do essentially the same thing - The Birds vs. Birdemic, or Never Let Me Go vs. Parts: The Clonus Horror, for example - where it's true that you can't prove in a mathematical sense which one did it better, but you're still a retard if you seriously choose the wrong one. Those are extreme examples, of course - I don't mean to put OT vs. PT in the same category - I just use them because sometimes extreme examples illustrate a point the best.
Let me remind you guys that I said we were done with the PT vs OT discussion. Lets move on.
LOL. Anyone who decides what he or she is going to like based on the "informed opinions" of so-called "experts" or the "consensus" of strangers is a sheep. Period.
If I'm deciding about a book or a film, I'll read the summary in the book or ask friends who know my taste. No way in hell would I trust the opinion of some "expert" with a pole up his or her ass, who has no idea what I like to read or watch.
And if someone prefers Captain Underpants to Shakespeare, it's none of your business. Not cool to call people "retards" because they don't share your taste.
Ok, I think this thread is a lost cause now. I'm just going to close it. We can pick up discussing the Cancellation more in the General thread if needed.