Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[rhorle]

Lots of people liking something does not make it "good". It just makes it liked by a lot of people. End of story.

In a technical sense you are correct. However if it is still good to a large group then doesn't that make it good? Take a song for example. You don't like it but 10 million do. Is that song good or is it bad? What are the thresholds for good and bad? Isn't something that is successful good by virtue of being successful? Society even has phrases such as "It is so bad it is good" which further complicates these types of discussions, right?

Because it really is subjective and the technical aspects that can be objectively ruled are often times of little importance.

[Specialka]

In a technical sense you are correct. However if it is still good to a large group then doesn't that make it good? Take a song for example. You don't like it but 10 million do. Is that song good or is it bad? What are the thresholds for good and bad? Isn't something that is successful good by virtue of being successful? Society even has phrases such as "It is so bad it is good" which further complicates these types of discussions, right?

Because it really is subjective and the technical aspects that can be objectively ruled are often times of little importance.

There is no "truth" about something being good or not. We could say there is several truth, to each its own. But saying that something is "good" because lots of people find it good is idiotic at best.

[Triceron]

In a technical sense you are correct. However if it is still good to a large group then doesn't that make it good? Take a song for example. You don't like it but 10 million do. Is that song good or is it bad? What are the thresholds for good and bad? Isn't something that is successful good by virtue of being successful? Society even has phrases such as "It is so bad it is good" which further complicates these types of discussions, right?

Because it really is subjective and the technical aspects that can be objectively ruled are often times of little importance.

Demographics isn't really a strong basis for determining what is good and what isn't, because what people prefer at a given time is tied to certain things that are indicative of the times. Liking Bill Cosby has a very different context 20 years ago compared to now.

[Skulltaker]

Everything said here is subjective, none of what you said is true, what is best is entirely subjective itself, there is no definitive best movie/book/song/art If someone wants to think Robert Jordan is 'peak literature' they can, you cannot just tell them they are wrong because you think differently... a lesson this forum needs to learn..

I agree with you that you shouldn't tell anyone their opinion is wrong, or worse. However, the lines aren't always that clear.

first of all, many people conflate opinion and fact. The earth being round(ish) is a fact, not an opinion. Your (not you, personally) opinion of it being flat doesn't make that true.

And second, while taste cannot really be judged other than by standards set by society, there are qualities in movies, art, most form of media, actually, that can be sorted by quality.

Can you enjoy the movie 'The Room'? Yes. And anyone who tells you you can't is wrong. Can you say you think it's better than The Godfather? Yes, sure. Is it, factually, better? If you ignore all factors that are down to personal preference, the subjective ones, and just look the objective factors, like acting, set design, soundtrack, cinematography, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who'd agree with you if you claimed The Room did any of those better than The Godfather.

The middle ground, however, seems to be a lost or dying art. No matter how feverishly one enjoys, or dislikes, something, you shouldn't forget that anyone disagreeing with you isn't necessarily wrong, our out to get you. Trying to see it the way other people might see is a lesson I'd like a lot of people to learn.

- - - Updated - - -

In a technical sense you are correct. However if it is still good to a large group then doesn't that make it good? Take a song for example. You don't like it but 10 million do. Is that song good or is it bad? What are the thresholds for good and bad? Isn't something that is successful good by virtue of being successful? Society even has phrases such as "It is so bad it is good" which further complicates these types of discussions, right?

Because it really is subjective and the technical aspects that can be objectively ruled are often times of little importance.

A lot of people like cocaine. A lot of 'trashy' movies have cult followings. Hell, people know some things are bad (for them) and enjoy them anyway, for the sake of them being bad.

There is no such thing as an ultimate 'good' or 'bad' for any one piece of art. That doesn't mean it is beyond criticism. There are things you can rank, or describe as bad or good, in most things. And you can find good and bad both in most things, as well.

Take Rings of Power, for example. For me, it's pretty bad. But that scene with Elrond meeting Durin the 4th again, after 20 years? I thought that was pretty good. It perfectly showed how different the two species and their perception of time was. There were some actual emotions in there.

I generally think people should 'live and let live' when it comes to entertainment. As long as people keep to themselves, whether they like it or dislike something, I'm fine with it. If you go off on someone because he hates/likes a show you hate/like, that's when the issues start to pile up.

And never mislable your opinion as fact.

[rhorle]

There is no "truth" about something being good or not. We could say there is several truth, to each its own. But saying that something is "good" because lots of people find it good is idiotic at best.

Why when you said there is not truth about the subject? It really sounds like that is a defense for "I don't like it but others do so it can't be called good under any circumstances".

- - - Updated - - -

Demographics isn't really a strong basis for determining what is good and what isn't, because what people prefer at a given time is tied to certain things that are indicative of the times. Liking Bill Cosby has a very different context 20 years ago compared to now.

Then why are you and others using User Reviews to determine if this show is good or not? Isn't it strange how when it aligns with your viewpoint that such things are acceptable. Yet if it doesn't align with your viewpoint then we can't use those things? Your example of Bill Cosby is that such. His performances do not change just because he was found out to be a bad person, right? So if his show was good back then wouldn't it be good now?

Yet now that your view of an actor has changed so to does your judgement of a show they appeared on. It really shows that good and bad are meaningless and only exist to reinforce whatever narrative about something is being pushed at the time.

[kenn9530]

Lots of people liking something does not make it "good". It just makes it liked by a lot of people. End of story.

This is not like science since it is rather based on subjectivity rather than facts and objectivity.

Thats the very definition of making something good when more ppl just like it than not, its a pretty simple thing to understand, your in the minority of ppl who dont like it and thats fine but you cant claim the show is bad when all the evidence proves otherwise.

[Specialka]

Thats the very definition of making something good when more ppl just like it than not, its a pretty simple thing to understand, your in the minority of ppl who dont like it and thats fine but you cant claim the show is bad when all the evidence proves otherwise.

Which evidences ? Link plz.

- - - Updated - - -

Why when you said there is not truth about the subject? It really sounds like that is a defense for "I don't like it but others do so it can't be called good under any circumstances".

- - - Updated - - -



Then why are you and others using User Reviews to determine if this show is good or not? Isn't it strange how when it aligns with your viewpoint that such things are acceptable. Yet if it doesn't align with your viewpoint then we can't use those things? Your example of Bill Cosby is that such. His performances do not change just because he was found out to be a bad person, right? So if his show was good back then wouldn't it be good now?

Yet now that your view of an actor has changed so to does your judgement of a show they appeared on. It really shows that good and bad are meaningless and only exist to reinforce whatever narrative about something is being pushed at the time.

You understand what you want to understand. Not my issue if you can't comprehend the subject at hand.

[Kumorii]

Which evidences ? Link plz.

His evidence that more people like the show than not are critic scores. Which is weird because they aren't indication of what the masses think at all...
Also ,you should ignore the audience score because those are fake and doesn't indicate what the audience thinks.

It's bizarre tbh.

[rhorle]

You understand what you want to understand. Not my issue if you can't comprehend the subject at hand.

In other words you have no argument and instead turn to insulting. You indicate that you were lying as you have a clear truth on something being good or bad.

[Hansworst]

Tbf I trust critic score more then audience score. However I don't watch scores much at all or reviews for that matter. I'll just form my own opinion about something.
There is a lot of criticism that's true for RoP. But people saying it's 1/10 are really review bombing, same goes for the 10/10. I'll give it a 6/10, 7/10 if I'm generous. Is it one of the best series ever made? Not even close.
Is it the best Tolkien adaptation? No its just slightly under the Hobbit.
Is it the worst thing ever on television? Nah, it's not a CW show.

[Specialka]

In other words you have no argument and instead turn to insulting. You indicate that you were lying as you have a clear truth on something being good or bad.

Again, you not being able to understand what I said does not mean I have no argument.

[Triceron]

Then why are you and others using User Reviews to determine if this show is good or not?

I'm not using them to determine good or bad anything. I've been adamant to say that quality of the show is based on the individual's subjective opinions. Why are you jumping to this conclusion if you aren't actually following my arguments?

If someone presents the idea that the show is generally favourable because of Critic reviews, then I'm pointing at user reviews as a contrast to that point. I'm not using it to determine anything, I'm debunking the idea that the evidence for the show being favourable is somehow inherrently true just because of critic reviews. That's not a great metric for how receptive this show has been overall.

That being said, User Reviews aren't fool-proof either, but it's not something to be ignored in favour of Critic reviews. I personally don't use it as a metric for anything, since I think the entire way shows are reviewed is ultimately flawed. I'm simply pointing out that there is plenty of evidence to show that the show's reception is mixed at best.

Your example of Bill Cosby is that such. His performances do not change just because he was found out to be a bad person, right? So if his show was good back then wouldn't it be good now?

It impacts people's enjoyment of the material. And that is a real and tangible thing when we're talking about something that is ultimately subjective. It's not so simple to distance the art from the artist always. Ideally, we could all be ideal critics who distance the art from the artist and pretend that it doesn't affect enjoyment of the shows, but that's simply not true. I'll even say that I personally distance Art from the Artist in a way that I still am capable of enjoying Michael Jackson's music no matter how the public wishes to perceive him, but I don't think this is true across the table especially when cancel culture is so apparant in today's world. I'm not a part of it, but I recognize it exists, and it's becoming more and more influential to the point where they're literally defining what should be good and what shouldn't be.

That's the whole point of my argument here. Democracy is a fallible metric for determining 'Good'.

[rhorle]

I'm not using them to determine good or bad anything...

...then I'm pointing at user reviews as a contrast to that point...

And yet you are and have in the past. Others have and you have brought up or defend the use of user reviews as a counter. If they are meaningless then they can't counter anything. Because they have no value to add or subtract.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, you not being able to understand what I said does not mean I have no argument.

Yet you continually fail to make an argument in favor of insults. Strange, right? You say there are no truths while at the same time saying something is idiotic because it doesn't agree with "your truth"? Strange right? If 100 million people watch a show it is objectively good regardless of your viewpoint. Why? Because that will be seen as a success by the broadcaster. It will be seen as good by both a large audience and the network making money off of that audience.

Yet you call that idiotic and have no argument to back it up.

[Fortress of Arrogance]

Tbf I trust critic score more then audience score.

Why?
Critics can(and are being) be bought, along with "their" "opinions"
Audiences can(and are most often) biased one way or another.
I think choosing between sellout and bias is a no-brainer.

[Triceron]

And yet you are and have in the past. Others have and you have brought up or defend the use of user reviews as a counter. If they are meaningless then they can't counter anything. Because they have no value to add or subtract.

I didn't say they're meaningless, I simply said they aren't metrics for determining something to be good or bad.

I'm illustrating the point that there are many people who are voicing that they are unsatisfied by the show and are giving it low review scores legitimately. This is in direct reply to people who are merely dismissing any and all low reviews as 'Review bombing 1/10'.

You're taking this out of context to imply that I'm propping them up as ideal metrics for the show, and that's just fucking bullshit that you're inventing for the sake of arguing. Like I said, why don't you actually take time to read the argument instead of inventing one.

Yet you continually fail to make an argument in favor of insults.

Are you going to conveniently forget that you labelled me as a Galadriel Hater when you had had zero reason to even jump to this conclusion? It's funny how you're quick to attack and insult just as well.

[Fortress of Arrogance]

That's the whole point of my argument here. Democracy is a fallible metric for determining 'Good'.

Don't say such things (c)
It's been well-established that The Democracy is The Ultimate virtue, The absolute truth, The undeniable value of the west.

[Specialka]

And yet you are and have in the past. Others have and you have brought up or defend the use of user reviews as a counter. If they are meaningless then they can't counter anything. Because they have no value to add or subtract.

- - - Updated - - -



Yet you continually fail to make an argument in favor of insults. Strange, right? You say there are no truths while at the same time saying something is idiotic because it doesn't agree with "your truth"? Strange right? If 100 million people watch a show it is objectively good regardless of your viewpoint. Why? Because that will be seen as a success by the broadcaster. It will be seen as good by both a large audience and the network making money off of that audience.

Yet you call that idiotic and have no argument to back it up.

If only it was that simple. See ? You can't understand what I am saying. Something making money or being "successful" business wise is not automatically "good".

[rhorle]

I didn't say they're meaningless, I simply said they aren't metrics for determining something to be good or bad.

Which means they have no meaning. Ratings are solely there to determine if something is good or bad. If they can't do what they exist for then they have no meaning. Lmao.

- - - Updated - - -

If only it was that simple. See ? You can't understand what I am saying. Something making money or being "successful" business wise is not automatically "good".

Isn't it? What is the purpose of entertainment if not to entertain? Wouldn't 100 million being entertained be a good thing? Wouldn't a return on investment be a good thing? It enables more entertainment to be created. The view you are trying to push is often of those unwilling to accept that something that don't like is seen as good by others. Yet instead of putting forth an argument you still turn to insults of ability to understand.

[Specialka]

Which means they have no meaning. Ratings are solely there to determine if something is good or bad. If they can't do what they exist for then they have no meaning. Lmao.

- - - Updated - - -



Isn't it? What is the purpose of entertainment if not to entertain? Wouldn't 100 million being entertained be a good thing? Wouldn't a return on investment be a good thing? It enables more entertainment to be created. The view you are trying to push is often of those unwilling to accept that something that don't like is seen as good by others. Yet instead of putting forth an argument you still turn to insults of ability to understand.

That is a pure capitalist view on things (not surprising from someone I guess is American) but sorry, not everyone thinks as you do. There is something more beyond that.

[Triceron]

Which means they have no meaning. Ratings are solely there to determine if something is good or bad. If they can't do what they exist for then they have no meaning. Lmao.

And I'm not putting any value on the ratings themselves. The numbers are meaningless to me.

I've consistently said look at the written reviews people are posting, particular the ones that are being rated low. The written reviews will give much more clarified insight than the number rating people give. That's how to determine something isn't just a simple review bomb.

I've been pretty clear that I don't stand behind the numbers, I'm merely pointing out that there's more to it than simply a group that should be conveniently ignored for the sake of defending the show. It's not a bad show, but it's not exactly good either. It's mediocre and middling at best, and with people swayed on either side in either liking or not liking it for what it is. For the amount of money they put into this show, there's no excuse for the story and writing to be so much worse than a comparable show that's out there on the market right now, like House of Dragons. And yes, you can argue semantics of 'worse' all you want, but I'm using the term in relative to the general concensus that has spoken out about comparisons of the shows, most of whom say House of Dragons is the superior product. I haven't even started watching HoD yet and I'm literally talking about what's already out there talking about these two shows, critics and users alike.

It's not a matter of whether RoP is a good or bad show. It's a matter of pointing out that the product we have is flawed, and there are expectations that it should be better than what it is. That's why I'm pointing out that there are user reviews that legitimately comment on this that aren't merely '1/10 This show sUx' review bombs. There are people here who are literally arguing that any and all user reviews should be ignored on the basis of 'a few bad eggs spoil the bunch', and I think that's a flawed argument.