• 0 Posts
  • 69 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 14th, 2023

help-circle








  • objective relative to the rules or conventions of visual storytelling in an anatomic sense

    Ok, do you have a handy list of these objective narrative measures then, along with precise, unambiguous methods of quantifying them in a manner that can objectively determine an action movie’s quality?

    that is motivated by the character’s actions on the screen

    This is a subjective determination, unless you can somehow quantifiably show otherwise. How can we objectively know when a character’s actions are or aren’t sufficiently “motivated”? And even if the beginning-middle-end can somehow be shown to be objectively motivated by the character’s actions on the screen, how can you prove that a lack of this sort of beginning-middle-end is objectively bad?

    the lack of wasted frames on characters

    This is a subjective determination, unless you can somehow quantifiably show otherwise. How can “wasted” be objectively defined here? How do we even know that “wasted” frames are objectively bad?

    There isn’t unmotivated action.

    This is a subjective determination, unless you can somehow quantifiably show otherwise. How can “unmotivated” be objectively defined here? How do we even know that “unmotivated” action is objectively bad?

    There is not an unnecessary or missing character on screen.

    This is a subjective determination, unless you can somehow quantifiably show otherwise. How can “unnecessary” or “missing” be objectively defined here? Also, how do we even know that “unnecessary” or “missing” characters are objectively bad?

    And the framing from edit to edit does not yank your eye somewhere it’s not meant to be.

    By your subjective judgment, unless you can somehow show otherwise. Also, how do we even know that the camera yanking your eye somewhere its not meant to be is objectively bad?

    Bourne Ultimatum […] has an insane volume of superfluous or narratively unmotivated camera coverage in its action

    This is a subjective determination, unless you can somehow quantifiably show otherwise. How can “superfluous” and “narratively unmotivated” be objectively defined here? And even if they could, how can you show that this is objectively bad?

    there are definitely objective storytelling mechanics that are binary insofar as they are present or not on a scene to scene, shot to shot basis.

    Great! Back to my original question then, since nothing you’ve said here has been relevant to it: what are they, and by what metrics are they precisely defined and quantified? And more importantly, how does that objectively prove that Fury Road is a top 10 action movie?

    In short, judging art is always subjective. That is inescapable, and attempts to “objectify” it are doomed to fail, because in the end there’s just no accounting for taste. You can tell me why you like Fury Road, and you can even show me that your opinion lines up with “critics” or professors at your film school, but even that is an appeal to authority, and their opinions have as little to do with true objectivity as yours or mine do.

    There are many things that are objectively provable, but Fury Road being a top 10 action movie according to “narrative measures” is not one of them.











  • Like go ahead and argue for an end to misandristic violence if you’d like.

    Nah, I’ll go ahead and argue for an end to all violent crime, and not exclude the victims who aren’t lucky enough to have their gender be the reason they were murdered.

    I’ve never understood this prevalent idea that murder victims are only worth caring about if their gender played a role. Like, how horribly fucked-up is it to say that some murder victims are more worthy of concern than others, especially when those victims only comprise a small minority of murders?

    Being killed because of your gender and being killed because you were in the wrong place or because you looked like an easy mark are all equally bad reasons to murder someone. They’re also all phenomena that could just as easily be addressed by government programs like in the OP, and yet all we ever hear about is the “violence against women” epidemic that only affects a minority of victims.

    Plus, even if the numbers of women murdered for their gender is going up (which is obviously horrible and inexcusable), that number still has a long way to go before it even approaches the much higher number of men who are already being killed every year. Like, of course it’s a horrible thing that the number of murdered women is increasing, but I fail to see how that’s so much more important than the much higher number of men who are already being killed, but that nobody is doing anything about.

    I mean, the reason for it is the same as it always is - men are seen as disposable by society and therefore issues affecting them are ignored - it just sucks to constantly be inundated with evidence of just how deeply ingrained this misandry is in our society.