[Movie] Snyder Cut: Justice League

[Thestrawman]

There's more to art than pure technical skill. Surely whatever art school you went to, taught you this?

So you agree that art isn't 100% subjective. Thank you.

[RobertoCarlos]

There's more to art than pure technical skill. Surely whatever art school you went to, taught you this?

Lol art school good one. Is that where you tell beethoven he can't play piano for shit and introduce him to some machine gun Kelly? You know real music

[Crillam]

vs





You are saying there is no difference between the two. Thats not totally true now is it.

Honestly. I would rahter have the second picture up on my wall just for shits and giggles.
But yes art is subjective. There is no unit of measurement that can be used to determine how good art is.
Sure you can bring things up why something is good but in the end that's just your opinion, same if you find something to be bad.
I don't like kpop, I don't understand why it is the biggest thing right now. That doesn't mean it's bad, it also doesn't mean that I'm wrong. That's just the way I experience it.

[TheRevenantHero]

Not like it matters. You can't polish a turd. All other Zack Snyder DC movies were a dumpster fire. The "uncut" Justice League won't make a difference. It will still be another shitty Snyder movie.

[MyWholeLifeIsThunder]

ah yes, good old gatekeeping. a good movie is purely subjective, i could say, people who dont think BvS is a good movie are the same people that think vaccines cause autism.

Our experience of art is subjective.

You can still measure quality. We have rubrics for art.

You like a bad film? I do like a great many of them! Doesn't make them good films. If you say "a good movie is merely subjective" is no different than saying than "a good car is merely subjective" you might like its vroom vroom and shiny hood, but if the mileage sucks and the gears get stuck and the electronics short constantly, it's not a good car. You just like it, doesn't make it good.

If your logic had any consistency, then "The Room" is a good movie since it's so enjoyable.

So I really don't get the issue; is because you need justification for liking a bad thing, like removing the guilt from a guilty pleasure? Or is because you have to go to mental hoops rather than admitting you like something of poor quality?

[Thestrawman]

Honestly. I would rahter have the second picture up on my wall just for shits and giggles.
But yes art is subjective. There is no unit of measurement that can be used to determine how good art is.
Sure you can bring things up why something is good but in the end that's just your opinion, same if you find something to be bad.
I don't like kpop, I don't understand why it is the biggest thing right now. That doesn't mean it's bad, it also doesn't mean that I'm wrong. That's just the way I experience it.

But there is a technical aspects to it. If the Snyder cut was just the dialogue and sound effects over a black screen would that make a good movie? If none of the wires or pads were taken out by the vfx would you still say that it's good? If Batman suddenly started to talk like a stereotypical surfer bro for no reason every other scene would you call that good writing?

If you want to like it just like it. But don't hide behind your bullshit excuse of "all art is subjective and there's no such thing as quality".

[Egomaniac]

vs





You are saying there is no difference between the two. Thats not totally true now is it.

It is subjective though. If you were to ask me "Which picture shows superior technical skill?"...I'd go with Michelangelo every time. But if you were to ask me "Which picture is a better representation of Ajani Goldmane?"...I gotta tell you...the bottom one blows the top right out of the water.

I mean...the likeness is uncanny:

[Adamas102]

Honestly. I would rahter have the second picture up on my wall just for shits and giggles.
But yes art is subjective. There is no unit of measurement that can be used to determine how good art is.
Sure you can bring things up why something is good but in the end that's just your opinion, same if you find something to be bad.
I don't like kpop, I don't understand why it is the biggest thing right now. That doesn't mean it's bad, it also doesn't mean that I'm wrong. That's just the way I experience it.

That's a gross misunderstanding on how to determine whether art is "good" or not. Basically the point is that there are generally accepted principles of composition that can be objectively analyzed. That holds true for paintings, music, movies, literature, and so on. There are a slew of objective metrics that can be used to measure whether a piece of art is good or not.

To say that there is no such thing as "bad art" is just laughably wrong. If you believed that then you'd see no issue in taking half of two completely different books, shuffling the pages together, and then saying "boom! There's some good literature". Or layering 20 songs on top of each other and calling it music. That's simply not how it works.

You did get it right with the last few lines. A lot of people just don't understand that there is a difference between "I don't like it" and "it's bad". On the same note, just because you like a movie, or piece of music, or any other work of art does not mean that it is "good".

[Kallisto]

Why do movies have award shows then

A great sense of autofellatio by the film industry.

[Adamas102]

It is subjective though. If you were to ask me "Which picture shows superior technical skill?"...I'd go with Michelangelo every time. But if you were to ask me "Which picture is a better representation of Ajani Goldmane?"...I gotta tell you...the bottom one blows the top right out of the water.

And you might have a point if both pictures were SUPPOSED to represent Ajani Goldmane...

[The Oblivion]

Our experience of art is subjective.

You can still measure quality. We have rubrics for art.

You like a bad film? I do like a great many of them! Doesn't make them good films. If you say "a good movie is merely subjective" is no different than saying than "a good car is merely subjective" you might like its vroom vroom and shiny hood, but if the mileage sucks and the gears get stuck and the electronics short constantly, it's not a good car. You just like it, doesn't make it good.

If your logic had any consistency, then "The Room" is a good movie since it's so enjoyable.

So I really don't get the issue; is because you need justification for liking a bad thing, like removing the guilt from a guilty pleasure? Or is because you have to go to mental hoops rather than admitting you like something of poor quality?

nothing needs justified, it IS subjective. You can develop criteria for what might make something the best, but that would still be a subjectively created criteria, and then vote or select movies, but that again, would be subjective to your own views and thoughts. The most technical skill might make something the best to one person, but not all. You can try and frame it any way you you, but the FACT is, it is all subjective when determining the best art. (movies, tv, paintings, etc). Any movie could be the best movie to someone. Your views and criteria do not invalidate that. Any movie like the room, could be a "good" movie to any given person. this is because IT IS SUBJECTIVE.

[Varitok]

It doesn't matter if it's good or not, the people wanting the Snydercut so bad will just say it's the greatest gift from god himself, they've bought so much into it that it won't matter.

[The Oblivion]

That's a gross misunderstanding on how to determine whether art is "good" or not. Basically the point is that there are generally accepted principles of composition that can be objectively analyzed. That holds true for paintings, music, movies, literature, and so on. There are a slew of objective metrics that can be used to measure whether a piece of art is good or not.

To say that there is no such thing as "bad art" is just laughably wrong. If you believed that then you'd see no issue in taking half of two completely different books, shuffling the pages together, and then saying "boom! There's some good literature". Or layering 20 songs on top of each other and calling it music. That's simply not how it works.

You did get it right with the last few lines. A lot of people just don't understand that there is a difference between "I don't like it" and "it's bad". On the same note, just because you like a movie, or piece of music, or any other work of art does not mean that it is "good".

all measurements are just that, measurements, the ones you include or exclude to determine what would be the "best" would be subjective. You can see, this move has the least amount of cuts, thus making it the best, i can say thats stupid. Its subjective. You CAN measure some things in art, but anything conclusions from those measurements would be subjective if used to determine what is the best.

[Adamas102]

nothing needs justified, it IS subjective. You can develop criteria for what might make something the best, but that would still be a subjectively created criteria, and then vote or select movies, but that again, would be subjective to your own views and thoughts. The most technical skill might make something the best to one person, but not all. You can try and frame it any way you you, but the FACT is, it is all subjective when determining the best art. (movies, tv, paintings, etc). Any movie could be the best movie to someone. Your views and criteria do not invalidate that. Any movie like the room, could be a "good" movie to any given person. this is because IT IS SUBJECTIVE.

Yeah, you still can't seem to wrap your mind around the difference between something being good and something being liked. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

Given your reasoning there's pretty much nothing in this world that can be considered "bad" because there is probably someone out there who enjoys it.

[Kyphael]

I'll see it but I'm not sure I'll go as far as signing up with HBO Max. Of all the streaming services, it's the one I'd never been interested in. There are literally zero shows on HBO that I watch or want to watch. Hopefully it gets released on Blu-Ray, but if not, I'll just pay for one month, watch it then unsub.

[The Oblivion]

Yeah, you still can't seem to wrap your mind around the difference between something being good and something being liked. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

Given your reasoning there's pretty much nothing in this world that can be considered "bad" because there is probably someone out there who enjoys it.

bad or good is subjective, i am sorry you are unable to understand.

[Crillam]

But there is a technical aspects to it. If the Snyder cut was just the dialogue and sound effects over a black screen would that make a good movie? If none of the wires or pads were taken out by the vfx would you still say that it's good? If Batman suddenly started to talk like a stereotypical surfer bro for no reason every other scene would you call that good writing?

If you want to like it just like it. But don't hide behind your bullshit excuse of "all art is subjective and there's no such thing as quality".

That would not make a good movie becuase that would not be a movie, you know "motion picture" needs to be part of you know... a movie.
There are always aspects of a movie that can be good or bad. Good example is todays CGI that can go from unnoticeable to pull you out of a movie.
But even with bad cgi, the way I experience a movie is personal, just like music. The writing in the Star Wars prequels is fucking shit, the story in the recent rise of skywalker is bad. I still think Revenge of the Sith is a good movie, and the other two are watchable. Or the latest SW film. I still had a good time with Rise of Skywalker, I found it entertaining and saw it 3 times in the theater. I wouldn't mind watching either of em right now. Sure I would prefer a vastly superior movie like The Nice Guys. But I would also rather watch those SW movies instead of Blade Runner. Movie that the majority of ppl like or even love and I can't even watch it again, imo it was that bad.

Yes art is objectively subjective as it is self expressive which some one can self express there disagreement with but that just proves it is subjective. This make a value of art to be subjective and would be a oxymoron to be objective.

[MyWholeLifeIsThunder]

nothing needs justified, it IS subjective. You can develop criteria for what might make something the best, but that would still be a subjectively created criteria, and then vote or select movies, but that again, would be subjective to your own views and thoughts. The most technical skill might make something the best to one person, but not all. You can try and frame it any way you you, but the FACT is, it is all subjective when determining the best art. (movies, tv, paintings, etc). Any movie could be the best movie to someone. Your views and criteria do not invalidate that. Any movie like the room, could be a "good" movie to any given person. this is because IT IS SUBJECTIVE.

See that's why the "art is entirely subjective" logic is bananas.

Because you end with the insanity of saying "the room could be a good movie depending of perspective."

Seriously. not because you like something shity it makes it "good". And this whole problem is rooted in people being unable to understand that "Good" can be either a subjective appreciation or a quantifiable one and end up thinking that "I like this" is the same that "this is good"

And, god forgive me for using this phrasing, I'm tired of pretending they are the same thing.

No, your completely subjective "I like it" does not hold the same weight than addressing the holistic quality of something. You can recognize something as being on the objective side of good and not liking it in the same manner.

[The Oblivion]

See that's why the "art is entirely subjective" logic is bananas.

Because you end with the insanity of saying "the room could be a good movie depending of perspective."

Seriously. not because you like something shity it makes it "good". And this whole problem is rooted in people being unable to understand that "Good" can be either a subjective appreciation or a quantifiable one and end up thinking that "I like this" is the same that "this is good"

And, god forgive me for using this phrasing, I'm tired of pretending they are the same thing.

No, your completely subjective "I like it" does not hold the same weight than addressing the holistic quality of something. You can recognize something as being on the objective side of good and not liking it in the same manner.

good and bad are always subjective when it comes to art. best and worst, subjective. these are facts based in reality. i am sorry if you cannot understand. no point in continuing the back and forth though as the thread will be totally derailed

[MyWholeLifeIsThunder]

It is subjective though. If you were to ask me "Which picture shows superior technical skill?"...I'd go with Michelangelo every time. But if you were to ask me "Which picture is a better representation of Ajani Goldmane?"...I gotta tell you...the bottom one blows the top right out of the water.

I mean...the likeness is uncanny:

A telling point of actually good art is if stands on its own; if it remains good removed from context, if it's quality is evident and intrinsic, self contained and understood within its framing. It's evocative, but not based on contextual subjectivity.

A crucifix in a vat of pee is not good art, because if you remove the context, is just a figurine in pee.

This Ajani Goldmane? Good art, it's lovely, it makes you see something that doesn't really exist, but now it could.

- - - Updated - - -

good and bad are always subjective when it comes to art. best and worst, subjective. these are facts based in reality. i am sorry if you cannot understand. no point in continuing the back and forth though as the thread will be totally derailed

"good and bad are always subjective when it comes to art" You keep saying this, presenting it as a fact, when your point is literally about subjectivity being the only relevant measure. It's hilarious. "fact is this subjective opinion" good lord.

This is why the "good and bad are always subjective when it comes to art" is intrinsically so, so stupid.