Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[rhorle]

We do, she literally don't give fuck about him, when someone you supposedly love goes missing YOU GO FIND THEM, instead, she is going for a pointless and nonsene revenge, of just one of her three brothers.

Why can't both be done at the same time? How do you know she never looked? There are a lot of things that take place off screen but you are so absolutely sure they have never happened in the story. Strange, right? We don't know because it hasn't been stated or shown.

[Triceron]

Yeah, you see how they refute themselves with their own bs, the more you try to explain, more dumb the show become

They're only here to bad faith. Especially with Rhorle, so best to just leave him be. There's no way you'd talk sense into either of em anyways.

[bledgor]

We do, she literally don't give fuck about him, when someone you supposedly love goes missing YOU GO FIND THEM, instead, she is going for a pointless and nonsene revenge, of just one of her three brothers.

I mean she TOTALLY cares about her husband, why else would she only mention him once in the show in a scene that feels tacked on after the fact! Bonus points for them taking imagery from the story of Beren and Luthien.

[rhorle]

I mean she TOTALLY cares about her husband, why else would she only mention him once in the show in a scene that feels tacked on after the fact! Bonus points for them taking imagery from the story of Beren and Luthien.

Where else was it relevant for her to mention it? The show certainly could have addressed it more or better. However it doesn't make sense in any of the other scenes of the show outside of the "prologue" in the first episode.

[Triceron]

I mean she TOTALLY cares about her husband, why else would she only mention him once in the show in a scene that feels tacked on after the fact! Bonus points for them taking imagery from the story of Beren and Luthien.

You can't say that, you haven't watched all 5 seasons yet! How dare you criticize the show's gaping plot holes without watching content that hasn't come out yet?!

[Myradin]

Where else was it relevant for her to mention it? The show certainly could have addressed it more or better. However it doesn't make sense in any of the other scenes of the show outside of the "prologue" in the first episode.

I feel like there's a few times she's mentions vaguely about what she's lost where his name couldn't come up. Likewise when characters know her discuss her desire for vengeance he could have come up.

The prologue would have been the best time to do it though. Going into it having a better idea of what she has seen would have helped.

Instead we just get her vaguely claiming what she's seen is worse than what other elves have...for some reason.

[Adamas102]

No one is. It is purely subjectively valued.

But hey, this os my last word on this since a mod literally gave a warning about this 'what is good' shit a few pages back (412).

I'm still going to address this because you (and yes, eschatological as well) are wrong about this. And honestly, this needs to get hammered home in pretty much every thread in the Cinema/TV Show/Music/Books subforum.

Your appreciation of a work of art is entirely subjective, but to say that it cannot be evaluated with objectivity is absolute rubbish. What you're essentially saying is that there's no such thing as a good actor, or director, or writer. What you're saying is that there's no such thing as skill because whether or not an artist did something well is entirely determined by whatever random person is viewing said art. No, that's pure bullshit.

The issue, which as I've said pops up in pretty much every thread here, is that the average person doesn't know how to separate presenting their opinion from gauging quality. For example, you could take the best baker in the world and have them make the perfect German chocolate cake. I don't like coconut so I'm not going to like it, but if I say it's a bad cake then I would be wrong. Just because I dislike it doesn't mean it isn't a perfectly well done cake that used the correct ingredients in the appropriate amounts. Those qualities are objectively present regardless of what my tastes are.

A few pages back you claimed that there is no objective measure for determining what good or bad acting is ("There is no objective standard to 'call someone out' on saying the acting was bad") which is FUCKING NONSENSE. Acting (like writing and directing) is a skill, and just like any skill it can be done well or it can be done poorly. You're enjoyment does NOT determine whether it was done well or done poorly. You don't know the first thing about what "bad acting" looks like if you've never seen a professional production with actors that can't even get the most basic things right like mumbling lines or maintaining a proper sight line. Just look at typical child actors and realize that there are adult actors who are no better in terms of delivering lines or using their bodies to act rather than just standing still and regurgitating lines. Some of that is on the director to help correct, but it's things like this that just scratch the surface of what differentiates good actors (or even just decent actors) from bad actors. Is there consistency across the performance? If an accent is required is it done well? Is anger, or sadness, or joy conveyed appropriately? Is over-emoting or over-acting appropriate to the role/scene or not? If we're talking about directing we can also talk about framing and pacing a scene. Or for writers we can talk about things like wordiness, inconsistencies, or subtext. And of course it's the ones who are true masters of their craft that can make a performance truly memorable.

Now, I never said that RoP had particularly stellar performances (hell, I don't think I've even voiced my opinion on whether I liked the show or not). What I've said is that none of the acting was bad, or more specifically it was "fine". The elephant in the room is of course Galadriel because that's who everyone has their panties in a bunch over. Morfydd Clark is not a bad actor. She's an award winning actor who has been doing this professionally for 8 years now. In the role of Galadriel she doesn't appear to fuck up any of the basics. Her cadence and diction are appropriate. She comes off as angry when the character is supposed to be angry, or arrogant when the character is supposed to be arrogant. Taking this back to the beginning, just because you didn't enjoy the performance doesn't mean the acting was bad.

About 50 pages back I had to explain a particular scene to one of these ever-complaining posters (not going to name names, but you know who you are). It wasn't a complicated scene. It took like two sentences to explain the subtext that was being portrayed by the acting, writing, and directing. And still the poster in question lacked the ability to understand that subtext so to him the words made no sense and therefore the scene was "bad". It's not just textbook Dunning-Kruger, it's also the pervasive myth that everyone's opinion is equally valid in terms of determining the quality of something.

EDIT: now on this very page you're backing posters up on an argument that essentially boils down to "I personally would have acted differently so therefore this is a plot hole"? As if we needed more evidence that none of you are capable of actual, constructive criticism...

[Triceron]

I'm still going to address this because you (and yes, eschatological as well) are wrong about this. And honestly, this needs to get hammered home in pretty much every thread in the Cinema/TV Show/Music/Books subforum.

Your appreciation of a work of art is entirely subjective, but to say that it cannot be evaluated with objectivity is absolute rubbish. What you're essentially saying is that there's no such thing as a good actor, or director, or writer.

There is such thing, but all values would not be objective. There is no absolute objective standard for it, and whatever you're trying to explain here is a roundabout way of merely addressing what a commonly accepted subjective value for it might be.

Like your German cake example. You say you don't like it, and we can't turn that around to say it's a bad cake just because you don't like it. That's fair.

But how do you then define a bad cake on the value of its quality? What is the threshold for bad quality? Well, that is also subjective. There is no absolute objective value that defines what is good or bad quality of a cake. Any time someone says 'that's a bad cake' in referring to the actual quality of it, would be doing so using subjective values. They may be inferring commonly understood thresholds of quality, but these thresholds are all understandably going to be subjective. "The taste is off" "The texture is wrong" "The shape is imperfect", these would all be understandably subjective.

And this plays into exactly what you're trying to describe here with good or bad acting. Doesn't matter if she is a good or bad actor if you are talking about a certain performance being good or bad. And to be absolutely clear - I have never said Morfydd Clark was a bad actress, nor have I ever said her performance in this was bad. I would say that there are articles and reviews that question her acting, and may even call it out for being bad, but that would not be my personal opinion on the matter. I personally think her performance was mediocre, or subpar, but not a bad performance. If you ever got "She is a bad actor" from anything I've said here, I would say you're misunderstanding my point, or projecting an argument that I've never actually made. I kinda think you just went on a rant here, considering I've never actually criticized the actress. Maybe you are thinking I am someone else who made this argument?

At most, I'm putting perspective, presenting the evidence (reviews/articles of her performance) to counter certain posters here saying it's 'objectively good acting'. I have no intention of making it look like she's a terrible actress. IMO, values of acting quality are all subjective, and I would say how people evaluate her acting in ROP is questionable at best, since it ranges quite a bit. There isn't any uniform regard of her performance being either good or bad, it's a completely mixed bag.

I happen to lean on the 'average-to-below-average' scale, since I don't regard her performance to be outstanding at all here. I would probably equate it Natalie Portman in the Star Wars Prequels, where I think the performance was being limited by the material. I have never considered the performance to be a fault of the actress. I personally don't think it's her fault.

now on this very page you're backing posters up on an argument

I'm not backing anyone up anyone's argument. I'm not sure where you're making this assumption.

Just because I throw out snarky comments, suddenly that's backing up their arguments? Could you give a specific example here? Otherwise I'm presenting my own opinions here, not piggybacking on anyone else's. If you want to address it, then address it.

As if we needed more evidence that none of you are capable of actual, constructive criticism...

Which means what? It just sounds like you don't agree with the arguments and are deciding to ignore the rest here. Can you be specific about what criticism you're talking about? Because what I criticized as being bad or poor writing is not the same as what I criticized for being a plot hole, and I feel like you're conflating the two together and dismissing it all at once.

[Adamas102]

But how do you then define a bad cake on the value of its quality? What is the threshold for bad quality? Well, that is also subjective. There is no absolute objective value that defines what is good or bad quality of a cake. Any time someone says 'that's a bad cake' in referring to the actual quality of it, would be doing so using subjective values. They may be inferring commonly understood thresholds of quality, but these thresholds are all understandably going to be subjective. "The taste is off" "The texture is wrong" "The shape is imperfect", these would all be understandably subjective.

How do you define a bad cake? I mean, there's a number of ways. Using the wrong or spoiled ingredients. Not using the correct measurements or techniques (proper mixing, cooking time, etc). You might still end up with something edible that someone might happily enjoy shoveling into their gullet, but failing to meet the basic criteria of the recipe would result in a bad example of whatever it is you were aiming to produce. Hell, lets say you omit the coconut. Now it's just a chocolate cake that I would probably enjoy, but at the same time it's now an objectively bad example of a German chocolate cake. I suppose the best way to describe something as being a bad example of X is if it failed to meet one or more of the basic criteria that defines X.

Those things you mentioned, taste, texture, shape. Those are NOT "understandably subjective". I picked baking because food preferences are certainly a matter of taste but baking is a skill and a matter of precision, and if you've spent any time watching the Great British Bake Off you'd know that these are objective criteria that can be gauged by people with the proper knowledge of the subject. I'd certainly not be able to judge those aspects myself because despite having eaten plenty of birthday cake over the course of my life I lack the knowledge and experience to properly critique them on a technical level. I am ignorant on that subject matter, which is something I wish more people would be comfortable saying rather than blurting out knee-jerk criticism and masking it as "it's just my opinion so it's as valid as anyone else's". And again, that's not to say that people can't enjoy a bad version of something, or hate a good version of something else.

And this plays into exactly what you're trying to describe here with good or bad acting. Doesn't matter if she is a good or bad actor if you are talking about a certain performance being good or bad. And to be absolutely clear - I have never said Morfydd Clark was a bad actress, nor have I ever said her performance in this was bad. I would say that there are articles and reviews that question her acting, and may even call it out for being bad, but that would not be my personal opinion on the matter. I personally think her performance was subpar, but not bad. So really, you have no footing her to somehow throw this back at me as though I ever criticized the actress. If you ever got that impression from anything I've said here, I would say you're misunderstanding my point, or projecting an argument that I've never actually made.

I quoted you, but not every detail of the post was aimed at something you may or may not have specifically said. I'm also addressing other posters who I didn't specifically quote but who will possibly read the post. I brought up Clark because, as you confirm, her performance is the one that other people like to bring up.

"Bad acting" is actually painfully easy to identify. It's like someone who doesn't know the intricacies of baking still being able to tell when something is burnt. Children, athletes-turned-movie stars, low budget/student productions, porn stars, etc. are usually examples that even the most brain-dead posters on this forum would be able to point out because they typically fail at the most basic concepts of acting. Mumbling, poor enunciation, unnatural cadence because they're spending more energy trying to recall the lines so the words are just blurted out as they come, missing their sight lines, missing their marks, etc. These are examples of bad acting, and none of the actors on this show (Clark included) are anywhere close to this level.

Outside of what constitutes legitimately bad acting there's definitely a lot of range. Sticking with the baking analogy, an amateur baker can certainly produce something that ISN'T BAD, while at the same time not being AS GOOD AS something a professional baker can produce. They followed all the basic instructions but maybe lacked in precision or some optional touches that can elevate the end result. And yes, good actors can also make mistakes, but even the average professional dramatic actor (especially one in a production with a big enough budget to do multiple takes) isn't going to be making mistakes throughout an entire performance. If you (the royal you) think a performance didn't quite work then it's more likely an issue with direction than with acting.

Basically that's all a long-winded way of saying that anyone who thinks Clark's performance (or that of any of the actors on the show) was an example of "bad acting" are making hyperbolic statements based little to no actual, legitimate criticism.

I'm not backing anyone up anyone's argument. I'm not sure where you're making this assumption.

Eh, fair enough. That wasn't the meat of what I was looking to talk about anyway so if you just want to snark then snark away I guess.

[Triceron]

How do you define a bad cake? I mean, there's a number of ways. Using the wrong or spoiled ingredients. Not using the correct measurements or techniques (proper mixing, cooking time, etc). You might still end up with something edible that someone might happily enjoy shoveling into their gullet, but failing to meet the basic criteria of the recipe would result in a bad example of whatever it is you were aiming to produce. Hell, lets say you omit the coconut. Now it's just a chocolate cake that I would probably enjoy, but at the same time it's now an objectively bad example of a German chocolate cake. I suppose the best way to describe something as being a bad example of X is if it failed to meet one or more of the basic criteria that defines X.

Is that objective value standardized to a finite value though? You could have made the cake with improper measurements or base ingredients and still come out with a good quality cake, right?

Like some baking recipes are flexible enough to allow ingredient substitutions. Does that make it an objectively bad version of the original? No, it would simply be different.

Hell, lets say you omit the coconut. Now it's just a chocolate cake that I would probably enjoy, but at the same time it's now an objectively bad example of a German chocolate cake.

No, it just simply wouldn't be a German chocolate cake. A Chocolate cake is not an objectively bad example of a German Chocolate cake, make sense? Objectivity deals with facts, and these are not facts. It is merely not what you are expecting it to be, but that doesn't make it bad. I would call that a mistake (either in name or in not following the recipe correctly), not a bad version of a German Chocolate cake. Just like if you wanted a dog and you got a goldfish instead, it doesn't make it an 'objectively bad dog'. It isn't a dog at all.

I would merely say this is an objectively bad example :P

if you've spent any time watching the Great British Bake Off you'd know that these are objective criteria that can be gauged by people with the proper knowledge of the subject.

And how do they grade the quality of the food? Subjectively, with judges, right? It's still down to opinion, because each judge does not grade the same exactly as the others. They may try and abide by the same rules and standards and try to 'be objective' (to judge by taking facts in high consideration) in their grade, but the fact they are even judging it is based on their opinions, which is ultimately a subjective value. Objectivity would not have differential outcomes, like how a math problem wouldn't be judged with different results depending on who is judging it. Make sense?

Even if we're going to use some of the highest standards of judgement like the Olympics, it's still all down to subjectivity, not objectivity. It isn't objectively valued even if they are 'being objective' in their judgement. The fact that it goes through judgement at all is rooted in subjectivity, and is what causes one judge to give the same athlete a different performance rating than their peers. That's why you see multiple scores tallying an average, and not just one universal score which every judge immediately agrees upon. The standards at which they evaluate and judge quality are merely standardized, and just because there is a standard does not mean it becomes objectively valued. That standard can shift and evolve, just like how Olympics judging has evolved over the decades. Watch some of the winning gold medal gymnasts or platform divers of the 60's, and it's stuff that wouldn't make the grade today, because the standards have been raised so high through decades of competition.

Even in the world of law, judgement is subjective. Now, that doesn't mean I'm talking about Judges pushing their worldviews into their practice, it means their judgements will always be a result of opinion rather than on strict doctrine. There will always be cases that need that human element to it, and that is why we have judges.

It is important to make clear that judges do not rule according to their individual worldviews. In fact, they are subject to broad objective limitations that restrict their discretion. They must operate within a defined system – a specific law, accepted principles of legal interpretation, judicial precedents, cultural context, and an internal language – which establishes significant boundaries around their freedom of choice. Nevertheless, even within these objective limits, the exercise of judicial discretion in difficult cases is ultimately subjective

I quoted you, but not every detail of the post was aimed at something you may or may not have specifically said.

Ah. In that case, in the future I hope you make more of an effort to differentiate comments that aren't direct replies to me, cuz I found it an odd response to something I never really made an argument on.

Basically that's all a long-winded way of saying that anyone who thinks Clark's performance (or that of any of the actors on the show) was an example of "bad acting" are making hyperbolic statements based little to no actual, legitimate criticism.

No, that's merely expressing your disagreement in opinion. Just because you don't agree with said statements doesn't immediately mean those statements are not legitimate criticism. Statements don't need to be agreeable to you in order to be legitimate, it just means you don't have the same standard of quality as other people (and that is not a bad thing).

Just like the analogy you had about enjoying a German cake but not to the level of their judges. You could eat the cake and think 'Wow! THis is the best German Chocolate cake I've ever had!' while the judges taste it and could pick apart all the nuanced flaws that you never would have. That perspective difference could easily be percieved as hyperbolic, effectively nitpicking. But that's the whole point of judgement in a high level of standard, right? And it's no different here. What you're considering as hyperbolic is being perceived as being unfair, while the truth is it's merely being judged on a different standard to what you are considering. If someone is expecting a high level of acting and the acting in this doesn't hold up to those expectations, then the criticism is still legitimate. The evaluation of good and bad acting is ultimately subjective. And it's all relative to where and how that criticism is presented. Like, we are more accepting of a baking competition judge's in-depth criticism on a cake on a televised competition than if if that same criticism were presented anonymously on Amazon reviews. It plays into how fair you consider the criticism to be, based on where it's being presented. We consider the criticism through the lens of our subjective perspectives. We don't highly regard criticism objectively if it seems out of place or unexpected to us. And that's what I see happening here. The criticism could be coming from people who are working in the industry, and we wouldn't know if we're all just considering each other as 'anonymous jackholes on a gaming forum'.

What we use to define good and bad acting is all based on subjective standards, ones that are not completely universal. Just like trying to define the standard of a 'good actor' for a popular TV sitcom compared to a theatrical drama; the standards would be quite different in considering what 'good' means. And in the case of Rings of Power, it straddles the line between being a theatrical drama and a regular TV series, so expectations on the format and the acting level has quite a wide range. Some people will ultimately compare it to theatrical blockbusters like Lord of the Rings. Others will merely compare it to its contemporary streaming shows. There's no real standard here that says one type of comparison is legitimate while the other is not.

[Syegfryed]

I'm still going to address this because you (and yes, eschatological as well) are wrong about this. And honestly, this needs to get hammered home in pretty much every thread in the Cinema/TV Show/Music/Books subforum.

Your appreciation of a work of art is entirely subjective, but to say that it cannot be evaluated with objectivity is absolute rubbish. What you're essentially saying is that there's no such thing as a good actor, or director, or writer. What you're saying is that there's no such thing as skill because whether or not an artist did something well is entirely determined by whatever random person is viewing said art. No, that's pure bullshit.

I agree with this, and if we objectively evaluated Rings of Power show, taking all variable into account we can safe say the show is also, absolute rubbish.

The pros can't save the cons

- - - Updated - - -

I feel like there's a few times she's mentions vaguely about what she's lost where his name couldn't come up. Likewise when characters know her discuss her desire for vengeance he could have come up.

The prologue would have been the best time to do it though. Going into it having a better idea of what she has seen would have helped.

Instead we just get her vaguely claiming what she's seen is worse than what other elves have...for some reason.

She doesn't mention her husband because they can ship her with Sauron, and deliver that awful final scene with then

[Rennadrel]

How do you define a bad cake? I mean, there's a number of ways. Using the wrong or spoiled ingredients. Not using the correct measurements or techniques (proper mixing, cooking time, etc). You might still end up with something edible that someone might happily enjoy shoveling into their gullet, but failing to meet the basic criteria of the recipe would result in a bad example of whatever it is you were aiming to produce. Hell, lets say you omit the coconut. Now it's just a chocolate cake that I would probably enjoy, but at the same time it's now an objectively bad example of a German chocolate cake. I suppose the best way to describe something as being a bad example of X is if it failed to meet one or more of the basic criteria that defines X.

Those things you mentioned, taste, texture, shape. Those are NOT "understandably subjective". I picked baking because food preferences are certainly a matter of taste but baking is a skill and a matter of precision, and if you've spent any time watching the Great British Bake Off you'd know that these are objective criteria that can be gauged by people with the proper knowledge of the subject. I'd certainly not be able to judge those aspects myself because despite having eaten plenty of birthday cake over the course of my life I lack the knowledge and experience to properly critique them on a technical level. I am ignorant on that subject matter, which is something I wish more people would be comfortable saying rather than blurting out knee-jerk criticism and masking it as "it's just my opinion so it's as valid as anyone else's". And again, that's not to say that people can't enjoy a bad version of something, or hate a good version of something else.



I quoted you, but not every detail of the post was aimed at something you may or may not have specifically said. I'm also addressing other posters who I didn't specifically quote but who will possibly read the post. I brought up Clark because, as you confirm, her performance is the one that other people like to bring up.

"Bad acting" is actually painfully easy to identify. It's like someone who doesn't know the intricacies of baking still being able to tell when something is burnt. Children, athletes-turned-movie stars, low budget/student productions, porn stars, etc. are usually examples that even the most brain-dead posters on this forum would be able to point out because they typically fail at the most basic concepts of acting. Mumbling, poor enunciation, unnatural cadence because they're spending more energy trying to recall the lines so the words are just blurted out as they come, missing their sight lines, missing their marks, etc. These are examples of bad acting, and none of the actors on this show (Clark included) are anywhere close to this level.

Outside of what constitutes legitimately bad acting there's definitely a lot of range. Sticking with the baking analogy, an amateur baker can certainly produce something that ISN'T BAD, while at the same time not being AS GOOD AS something a professional baker can produce. They followed all the basic instructions but maybe lacked in precision or some optional touches that can elevate the end result. And yes, good actors can also make mistakes, but even the average professional dramatic actor (especially one in a production with a big enough budget to do multiple takes) isn't going to be making mistakes throughout an entire performance. If you (the royal you) think a performance didn't quite work then it's more likely an issue with direction than with acting.

I think the acting is what really made Peter Jackson's LOTR films so timeless. I can't think of a single scene that is poorly acted. Sure, a couple of scenes feel a little stilted in terms of dialogue so they come off less than stellar, but for the most part, the acting is purely superb. But acting can only be as strong as the writing behind it. And that's where Rings of Power really falls short. Even the best actors can't polish a turd that bad. When you have a great story with a compelling narrative and interesting dialogue, the rest can more easily fall into place.

[Adamas102]

Is that objective value standardized to a finite value though? You could have made the cake with improper measurements or base ingredients and still come out with a good quality cake, right?

Like some baking recipes are flexible enough to allow ingredient substitutions. Does that make it an objectively bad version of the original? No, it would simply be different.

When you make a substitution for baking, you're still needing to do so with an ingredient that performs the same basic function. Like, you can't substitute orange juice in place of butter, but you can substitute a vegan alternative that will act similarly to animal derived fat. So yeah, there might be options for different sweeteners or raising agents, but you'd almost assuredly need a sweetener or raising agent in order to achieve the desired outcome. These are the basic, necessary components that if you omit or forget you probably won't even end up with an edible baked good, much less what it was you were trying to make.

And I did point out that there can certainly be a range in quality once the basic components are met. That things can be NOT AS GOOD AS without necessarily being BAD.

No, it just simply wouldn't be a German chocolate cake. A Chocolate cake is not an objectively bad example of a German Chocolate cake, make sense? Objectivity deals with facts, and these are not facts. It is merely not what you are expecting it to be, but that doesn't make it bad. I would call that a mistake (either in name or in not following the recipe correctly), not a bad version of a German Chocolate cake. Just like if you wanted a dog and you got a goldfish instead, it doesn't make it an 'objectively bad dog'. It isn't a dog at all.

It's not that a chocolate cake without coconut is always a bad example of a German chocolate cake. The assumption though is that you're aiming to specifically make a German chocolate cake and have failed to do so by missing a key and defining ingredient.

The dog/goldfish analogy doesn't quite work because unlike baking, or acting, or writing, or painting, etc you're not talking about a creative process based on knowledge and skill which is really the heart of what this discussion was about. What does it take for someone doing something they're skilled at to end up with a bad outcome? That no matter how skilled or experienced an artist might be, if a layperson with no real knowledge of the craft says they did a bad job then there's no arguing against that because there's apparently no objective way to determine success?

Even if we're going to use some of the highest standards of judgement like the Olympics, it's still all down to subjectivity, not objectivity. It isn't objectively valued even if they are 'being objective' in their judgement. The fact that it goes through judgement at all is rooted in subjectivity, and is what causes one judge to give the same athlete a different performance rating than their peers. That's why you see multiple scores tallying an average, and not just one universal score which every judge immediately agrees upon.

The thing you're missing here is that at this level of competition these athletes are all objectively good at what they do or they simply wouldn't be at the Olympics. The base requirements for the craft have been met and the scoring at that point is essentially determining how close to perfect they can get. AND of course it takes experienced judges to even attempt to make a fair determination on that level.

If anything, this helps support my point which is to say that all of these professional, experienced actors are beyond the point of fluctuating between good and bad acting. They might make mistakes here or there (like an Olympic gymnast not sticking a landing and losing some points) or give an unremarkable performance (like an Olympic gymnast doing a routine that lacks the complexity to beat the other competitors) but they are still performing in a tier well beyond what would be encompassed by "bad acting".

[Triceron]

When you make a substitution for baking, you're still needing to do so with an ingredient that performs the same basic function. Like, you can't substitute orange juice in place of butter, but you can substitute a vegan alternative that will act similarly to animal derived fat. So yeah, there might be options for different sweeteners or raising agents, but you'd almost assuredly need a sweetener or raising agent in order to achieve the desired outcome. These are the basic, necessary components that if you omit or forget you probably won't even end up with an edible baked good, much less what it was you were trying to make.

But that's again an example of subjective value.

Like a vegetarian alternative to a dish is not going to be held to the same standard by everyone. I know plenty of people (foodies) who will say that a vegetable broth for Ramen is simply unacceptable, even if it is viable. The broth is a key ingredient in Ramen, and substituting the fattiness with a vegan alternative would result in a completely different experience, even if it's still being called 'Ramen'.

So is it bad Ramen? Depends on who you ask. There is no objective standard here that says what is right or wrong, and someone with higher standards could easily consider an alternative to be unacceptable. That just means their standards are different, not that the vegetable broth objectively makes 'bad ramen'.

And I did point out that there can certainly be a range in quality once the basic components are met. That things can be NOT AS GOOD AS without necessarily being BAD.

Again, depends on the individual.

Let's play Devil's Advocate. Pick a movie you think is objectively bad. Now, can you argue against your own example by implying that it isn't bad but merely isn't as good as other movies? I'm sure you could. This applies to any bad movie you can think of, because ultimately what you're talking about here is subjectively valued. Of course a 'bad movie' is 'not as good as other movies'. The threshold for defining good and bad is based on whether it is effective, and 'not as good as others' is merely an excuse to cover for a movie's ineffectiveness.

It's not that a chocolate cake without coconut is always a bad example of a German chocolate cake. The assumption though is that you're aiming to specifically make a German chocolate cake and have failed to do so by missing a key and defining ingredient.

Then that is a mistake, not a bad example.

These are not the same things.

That no matter how skilled or experienced an artist might be, if a layperson with no real knowledge of the craft says they did a bad job then there's no arguing against that because there's apparently no objective way to determine success?

But it sounds like you're talking about a certain craft that isn't subjectively valued like arts and entertainment.

And yes, there is no objective way to determine success. It IS rooted in subjectivity. Like Van Gogh's paintings being fairly worthless when he was alive, while being highly regarded now after his death. That is not valued objectively, it is absolutely valued subjectively, and through a wide margin of standard difference depending on the time and era we're talking about. Van Gogh was not as successful or highly regarded in life as he is post-humously. His paintings were never objectively regarded, nor was the acknowledgement of his skill compared to his contemporaries. It simply can't be.

If you're saying that there's an objective way to determine success, then can you explain why Van Gogh was not successful in his lifetime through said objective standards? You can't, because that success was never based on 'facts'. It's based on perception of value, and how that value has been realized and changed over time. He wasn't painting in a style that was popular in the time that he lived in, and that discrepency factors into how his success was ultimately determined. That being said, just being popular doesn't immediately equate to success either. I can just as easily point at something like popular memes that did not bring success to their original creators. Success isn't determined objectively.

The thing you're missing here is that at this level of competition these athletes are all objectively good at what they do or they simply wouldn't be at the Olympics. The base requirements for the craft have been met and the scoring at that point is essentially determining how close to perfect they can get. AND of course it takes experienced judges to even attempt to make a fair determination on that level.

Yes but the 'objectively good' you're talking about refers to their health and fitness; their ability to perform. Those aren't standards that are being used to value to their performance. It's not like you can objectively compare the performances of one gymnast doing 3 flips in the air to another who does not, and somehow objectively imply that 'well we know they can physically could do it but they didn't so they don't get these points'. It's all a part of the performance and executing on their strengths, rather than just meeting an arbitrary standard of needing to do '3 flips in the air' to check off some box. Do you immediately knock down points because they did not do the same routine? Because that's what it would mean to objectively evaluate. This isn't exactly a driving test, where the conditions are uniform.

Just like if you're evaluating a cake in its taste and presentation, you aren't objectively evaluating the quality of the ingredients on an individual level, you're judging the complete package. It's like those click-bait youtube videos of 'Pro chef using $10 ingredients vs Dudebro using $100 ingredients', the results may vary. Objectivity does not drive the final judgement. We can objectively see that inferior ingredients are being used, or inferior talent is being applied, but those objective facts don't drive the final result. It's not an immediate result of 'inferior ingredients' or 'imperfect execution'. It's the subjective evaluation of the final product (performance) that encapsulates the final judgement.

[Koriani]

Its a simple fact the books were never really popular until the movies came out, they may of been popular for a book but not selling the millions and being a billion dollar industry that the films made them into, most of the copies sold after the release of the first film and that is a fact, there is barely any information on book sales mentioned for tolkien books prior to the release of the films. Good luck on always being wrong about things.

I already linked you an official website showing the exact opposite of what you claim the last time you said this in the thread. You obviously didn't read it so I won't provide it again. Instead, I'll do your argument - "Its a simple fact. I don't have to prove anything, because I'm right. But you do. Good luck on always being wrong about things."

You're such a predictable troll-bot. You have the exact same defense in every thread, in every opinion, you state.

I think I'm almost around to the idea that you're actually doing this on purpose, for fun, and seeing how long you can last on a forum by just repeating your logic fallacies as often as possible. I'm sure you're getting a good laugh every time we engage and start the circle again. I'd call it brilliant except its not entertaining and only drives people away from discourse out of frustration.

- - - Updated - - -

You are basically saying Galadriel a spoiled brat with brain damage

Truly a good protagonist to head the show

Don't forget, Kenn also says LOTR wasn't a popular book series until the movies. These are his facts.

[kenn9530]

I already linked you an official website showing the exact opposite of what you claim the last time you said this in the thread. You obviously didn't read it so I won't provide it again. Instead, I'll do your argument - "Its a simple fact. I don't have to prove anything, because I'm right. But you do. Good luck on always being wrong about things."

You're such a predictable troll-bot. You have the exact same defense in every thread, in every opinion, you state.

I think I'm almost around to the idea that you're actually doing this on purpose, for fun, and seeing how long you can last on a forum by just repeating your logic fallacies as often as possible. I'm sure you're getting a good laugh every time we engage and start the circle again. I'd call it brilliant except its not entertaining and only drives people away from discourse out of frustration.

- - - Updated - - -



Don't forget, Kenn also says LOTR wasn't a popular book series until the movies. These are his facts.

Nope i provided you with multiple sets of information that backed up everything i said, you had no proof at all that more books sold before the films when all the evidence proves otherwise, most of the books were sold after the films as all articles say the same thing.

Being popular as a book series is different from the popularity of a multi billion dollar series after the films release alone proves where the popularity came from.

"More than 2 million copies of the one-volume trade paperback have been sold in the United States the past three years. More than 25 million Tolkien-related books have been sold.

"That's just in the U.S.," Harper says. "Tolkien has been a cultural phenomenon for years. The Lord of the Rings has sold 50 million copies worldwide. But there's been nothing like the audience growth we've experienced coinciding with the new movies. I know of no other publishing experience like it."

The Orlando Sentinel is a Tribune Co. newspaper." an article from 2003, so as you can clearly tell most of the LOTR books sold after the first film so less than 25 million were sold prior to the films release, its simple math, 150 million sold by 2007 so again my point is 100% correct as most of its popularity was from the films.

Are you going to deny simple math, more books sold after the films release as a films release gives it a much wider audience and more ppl will actually know what LOTRs is actually about, book popularity is nothing compared to what happens when its made into a film.

[Koriani]

Nope i provided you with multiple sets of information that backed up everything i said, you had no proof at all that more books sold before the films when all the evidence proves otherwise, most of the books were sold after the films as all articles say the same thing.

Being popular as a book series and being a multi billion dollar series after the films release alone proves where the popularity came from.

Ok, now you're just lying. You never even *responded* to the post I made to you linking the actual facts. Much less provided anyone, or me, 'multiple sets of information'. I waited, and waited, I even looked forward to seeing what you could possibly respond with after I linked the facts - and you never did.

Just outright LYING. Talk about dishonest arguments.

[kenn9530]

Ok, now you're just lying. You never even *responded* to the post I made to you linking the actual facts. Much less provided anyone, or me, 'multiple sets of information'. I waited, and waited, I even looked forward to seeing what you could possibly respond with after I linked the facts - and you never did.

Just outright LYING. Talk about dishonest arguments.

Simple facts is i did provide a min of 3 different sources backing up everything i have said so you should look at previous posts, just because you want to act ignorant and ignore the simple facts doesnt change what is actually true, did you not read what i posted or are you claiming its BS because it proves you to be wrong.

I also just gave you a source of information proving what i said was accurate so its you being completely dishonest when you wont admit your own mistake.

[Triceron]

Simple facts is i did provide a min of 3 different sources

lol you didn't provide anything.

Just like you still aren't now. You're so full of shit dude.

[kenn9530]

lol you didn't provide anything.

Just like you still aren't now. You're so full of shit dude.

https://web.archive.org/web/20181120...249-story.html

so this article from 2003 doesnt prove what i said does it.

Most of the sales and popularity was from the films, the article backs me up.

You are full of BS. Just because ppl are too lazy to do thier own actual research.