Those who disliked TLJ, are you still buying toys from it?

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
And not everything. Many things are indeed objective. Films aren't one of them.

I didn't see this before.

So here's where we disagree. You believe films are not objective... and you think I do.

Well, first, I never said that.

Second, films are subjective of course.

Lastly, and I'm getting exasperated why you're not getting this, I said story structure is not subjective. There is a structure that is right or wrong. You do it correctly or you do it incorrectly.

You can not like it. That's everyone's choice. But it doesn't make it subjective -- it make you subjective.

Here's the easiest way I can explain it: A structure is not subjective. Period. Take the structure for a house -- that house can be bricks or cement or rock or straw -- how you build the house is subjective -- but the structure itself remains consistent.
 
Of course not, because it's a fact it actually happened. What one feels is the right and wrong way to structure a film though, isn't fact.

By the way, I'm not doing this for the sake of argument at all, this is a genuine discussion to me. I personally just can't fathom how films aren't subjective, even the structure of them and what is the right and wrong way to do it and who or what is the authority on that. Sure there's books, but that doesn't mean what the author wrote is invariably correct.

I see what you are saying, but literary criticism of story isn't completely subjective because the structure CAN be objectively examined against the historical and established methods of a particular craft. There are "facts" concerning whether a story or movie follows good story structure or not. Now that doesn't always make it a "bad" movie if doesn't or a "good" movie if it does by many other, perhaps more subjective standards, but there are more objective aspects of story telling that can be factually checked if they are used or not. This is not just merely about if someone likes a movie or not. Sometimes the "rules" aren't followed when crafting a story or making a movie, or they are even broken on purposes. But even that can become an interesting discussion about why something may or may not work when that happens. It's a lot like art, and there are tons of philosophical discussions about what makes something art. It's always part craft, with rules and method, but always also part something else which transcends those things too.

I can see both sides to what you are saying and what Wor-Gar is saying. I think "truth" is often found in the wisdom of understanding the merits and limits of both your positions and holding them in tension.

And yes, I know you are not trying to argue. You, and Wor-Gur are some of my favorite people on the board. Because you are both thoughtful about what you say and I can appreciate it even if I might not agree with you.
 
I didn't see this before.

That’s what happens when people constantly flash edit their posts. That little grace period the board gives you where you can edit your posts without it being subjected to the edit stamp can make for a disjointed reading for others at best, and at worst, a misrepresentation of your rebuttal :dunno
 
I didn't see this before.

So here's where we disagree. You believe films are not objective... and you think I do.

Well, first, I never said that.

Second, films are subjective of course.

Lastly, and I'm getting exasperated why you're not getting this, I said story structure is not subjective. There is a structure that is right or wrong. You do it correctly or you do it incorrectly.

You can not like it. That's everyone's choice. But it doesn't make it subjective -- it make you subjective.

Here's the easiest way I can explain it: A structure is not subjective. Period. Take the structure for a house -- that house can be bricks or cement or rock or straw -- how you build the house is subjective -- but the structure itself remains consistent.

Ah ok, I gotcha. I can agree with that regarding storytelling, point stipulated. :duff

I think a better analogy would be songwriting, in the sense that a song always contains a least a couple of verses and a main chorus, generally in a verse-chorus-verse-chorus formation. However, sometimes artists decide to start out the song with the chorus and then go into a verse. My point with who gets to decide what is the correct structure for a film would be similar to who gets to decide what is the correct structure for a song regarding the arrangement of the verses and the chorus. It doesn't make it a "bad" song or a poor arrangement of a song if the artist decided to start out with the chorus then go into a verse, rather than follow a traditional verse-chorus-verse-chorus structure.

I see what you are saying, but literary criticism of story isn't completely subjective because the structure CAN be objectively examined against the historical and established methods of a particular craft. There are "facts" concerning whether a story or movie follows good story structure or not. Now that doesn't always make it a "bad" movie if doesn't or a "good" movie if it does by many other, perhaps more subjective standards, but there are more objective aspects of story telling that can be factually checked if they are used or not. This is not just merely about if someone likes a movie or not. Sometimes the "rules" aren't followed when crafting a story or making a movie, or they are even broken on purposes. But even that can become an interesting discussion about why something may or may not work when that happens. It's a lot like art, and there are tons of philosophical discussions about what makes something art. It's always part craft, with rules and method, but always also part something else which transcends those things too.

I can see both sides to what you are saying and what Wor-Gar is saying. I think "truth" is often found in the wisdom of understanding the merits and limits of both your positions and holding them in tension.

And yes, I know you are not trying to argue. You, and Wor-Gur are some of my favorite people on the board. Because you are both thoughtful about what you say and I can appreciate it even if I might not agree with you.

Thanks! Feeling is mutual. :duff

That’s what happens when people constantly flash edit their posts. That little grace period the board gives you where you can edit your posts without it being subjected to the edit stamp can make for a disjointed reading for others at best, and at worst, a misrepresentation of your rebuttal :dunno

You're taking the fact that I disagreed with you regarding the handling of TLJ Luke way too personal, bud. It's just a film. Like you said earlier in another thread, perhaps you're taking SW too seriously for your own good.
 
Ah ok, I gotcha. I can agree with that regarding storytelling, point stipulated. :duff

I think a better analogy would be songwriting, in the sense that a song always contains a least a couple of verses and a main chorus, generally in a verse-chorus-verse-chorus formation. However, sometimes artists decide to start out the song with the chorus and then go into a verse. My point with who gets to decide what is the correct structure for a film would be similar to who gets to decide what is the correct structure for a song regarding the arrangement of the verses and the chorus. It doesn't make it a "bad" song or a poor arrangement of a song if the artist decided to start out with the chorus then go into a verse, rather than follow a traditional verse-chorus-verse-chorus structure.


:duff

OK, back to your regularly scheduled program.
 
Ah ok, I gotcha. I can agree with that regarding storytelling, point stipulated. :duff

I think a better analogy would be songwriting, in the sense that a song always contains a least a couple of verses and a main chorus, generally in a verse-chorus-verse-chorus formation. However, sometimes artists decide to start out the song with the chorus and then go into a verse. My point with who gets to decide what is the correct structure for a film would be similar to who gets to decide what is the correct structure for a song regarding the arrangement of the verses and the chorus. It doesn't make it a "bad" song or a poor arrangement of a song if the artist decided to start out with the chorus then go into a verse, rather than follow a traditional verse-chorus-verse-chorus structure.



Thanks! Feeling is mutual. :duff



You're taking the fact that I disagreed with you regarding the handling of TLJ Luke way too personal, bud. It's just a film. Like you said earlier in another thread, perhaps you're taking SW too seriously for your own good.

Nah, just annoying when the posts change outta the blue and are reworded without the edit stamp for transparency. Don’t let yourself believe there’s any other motive for me calling you out on the frequency you tend to do it other than what I’ve said, man. I thought we had ended our debate fairly amicabley.
 
Nah, just annoying when the posts change outta the blue and are reworded without the edit stamp for transparency. Don’t let yourself believe there’s any other motive for me calling you out on the frequency you tend to do it other than what I’ve said, man. I thought we had ended our debate fairly amicabley.

Sorry to hear it bothers you. Others do it and it doesn't bother me at all, and you're free to do it as well. In fact, you might want to do it on your above post. Just saying.
 
Your presumption above was not my intent -- my response to your comment was meant that academia and lawyers mull over and debate "the truth" and can present convincing arguments one way or the other. It's their job. Separately, as an idea, if enough people agree to a lie over time then I suppose it can become the truth. That was my comment about the winners writing history. Imagine all the misinformation we have been given over the generations. The past is likely nothing the way we understand it. But that's another subject.

Let's get back to the point of this:

If a volcano erupts and I convince you that it did not, does that mean the volcano did not erupt?

There is some base truth in things. Even if its an agreed truth at a given moment in time that we all accept. This truth gives us structure. That structure shapes rules. We all follow rules so we can understand each other. You are writing in a way that I can understand -- is this because you want to? No -- it is because you must if you want to communicate. You follow a structure. As should storytelling.

Thanks for this. I agree. I think people often overlook that storytelling is as much a craft as it is an art. While it's true that aesthetics are subjective, those same aesthetics have certain requirements that must be fulfilled, in order to accomplish something in the real world: like communication.

People often forget that the goal of storytelling is to express ideas. While the joy that someone gets from a certain expression of ideas differs from one individual to the next, the ability to communicate those ideas effectively requires all kinds of obstacles and boundaries, where you either succeed, or fail in attempting it.

There are academics who argue that we never actually communicate ideas, but instead, project meaning onto the text itself. Post Modernist philosophers would argue that meaning is also subjective; that you bring yourself to the book, rather than learn from it. I don't agree with this perspective, but when I studied literature in university, there were many attempts to convince me of this perspective. There was a conscious effort to undermine realism, objectivity or evade bias. We were taught that bias is inevitable, and that you can never know the intentions of the author, even when they state them explicitly. Language deceives you. Can you imagine paying tuition to learn this nonsense?!

In many ways, I think Post Modernism is responsible for a lot of unintelligible narratives in modern fiction, including The Last Jedi. Film schools probably throw Derrida at everyone, in hopes of creating something avant-garde, when in reality it makes for convoluted fiction that doesn't work. You can like it in a vacuum, but you'll never learn anything about the world, from it.

I'll still buy toys from the OT, because Lucas tapped into the theories of Joseph Campbell regarding archetypes that coincided with the evolution of our species. There are certain aspects to mythology that have always encapsulated what we are as people, because they reflect how we experience the world. The OT was about the rights of passage one had to endure, to become an adult. There was a linear structure involving cause and effect, where you felt something for the characters because you were dragged through their tribulations in attempting to get what they wanted, watching them change in the process. The new trilogy fails, in this regard.
 
Thanks for this. I agree. I think people often overlook that storytelling is as much a craft as it is an art. While it's true that aesthetics are subjective, those same aesthetics have certain requirements that must be fulfilled, in order to accomplish something in the real world: like communication.

People often forget that the goal of storytelling is to express ideas. While the joy that someone gets from a certain expression of ideas differs from one individual to the next, the ability to communicate those ideas effectively requires all kinds of obstacles and boundaries, where you either succeed, or fail in attempting it.

There are academics who argue that we never actually communicate ideas, but instead, project meaning onto the text itself. Post Modernist philosophers would argue that meaning is also subjective; that you bring yourself to the book, rather than learn from it. I don't agree with this perspective, but when I studied literature in university, there were many attempts to convince me of this perspective. There was a conscious effort to undermine realism, objectivity or evade bias. We were taught that bias is inevitable, and that you can never know the intentions of the author, even when they state them explicitly. Language deceives you. Can you imagine paying tuition to learn this nonsense?!

In many ways, I think Post Modernism is responsible for a lot of unintelligible narratives in modern fiction, including The Last Jedi. Film schools probably throw Derrida at everyone, in hopes of creating something avant-garde, when in reality it makes for convoluted fiction that doesn't work. You can like it in a vacuum, but you'll never learn anything about the world, from it.

I'll still buy toys from the OT, because Lucas tapped into the theories of Joseph Campbell regarding archetypes that coincided with the evolution of our species. There are certain aspects to mythology that have always encapsulated what we are as people, because they reflect how we experience the world. The OT was about the rights of passage one had to endure, to become an adult. There was a linear structure involving cause and effect, where you felt something for the characters because you were dragged through their tribulations in attempting to get what they wanted, watching them change in the process. The new trilogy fails, in this regard.

Great post.
I agree with everything here, except buying figures from TLJ lol, I just can't bring myself to pay for anything from this film.
 
Great post.
I agree with everything here, except buying figures from TLJ lol, I just can't bring myself to pay for anything from this film.

No, I'd only buy toys from the OT (Original Trilogy), not TLJ! I'm not that crazy!
 
So wait, now we've determined this is an objectively bad movie because it doesn't adhere to certain screenwriting rules as some want to interpret them? And that countless other SW fans as well as hundreds of professional movie critics (who watch tons of movies a year and usually have a low tolerance for badly written Hollywood blockbusters) who were able to love and find a lot of depth and complexity in the movie, are all just wrong?

Hmm, I'm thinking it's more likely that some fans just didn't care for the story and character decisions that were made in this movie, or didn't like how it told its story in a slightly different kind of way from the previous SW movies. ;)
 
I didn't completely dislike it but the after my initial intent to purchase the deluxe Old Luke, the headsculpt still bugs me, I changed my mind and will only get Luke from THAT one scene. And thats a big IF they even make it, maybe as a toy fair exclusive or something. One can only hope.
 
This is my nutshell thoughts and probably make absolutely zero sense:
But I thought it was an awful movie and a great movie at the same time. I love Star Wars because it’s Star Wars but also recognize all the flaws TLJ has.
That being said I am def getting the Deluxe Luke because it’s Luke. May not have been the best portrayal I would have wanted from the character, but it is the portrayal we got, and I’d rather enjoy this figure than hate it. This is such a confusing time to be a Star Wars fan. Love it and hate it lol.
 
This is my nutshell thoughts and probably make absolutely zero sense:
But I thought it was an awful movie and a great movie at the same time. I love Star Wars because it’s Star Wars but also recognize all the flaws TLJ has.
That being said I am def getting the Deluxe Luke because it’s Luke. May not have been the best portrayal I would have wanted from the character, but it is the portrayal we got, and I’d rather enjoy this figure than hate it. This is such a confusing time to be a Star Wars fan. Love it and hate it lol.

Here are my sentiments on SW overall:

ANH - Third favorite SW film.
ESB - Favorite SW film.
RotJ - Second favorite SW film.

TPM - Disliked overall film. Liked Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan and Darth Maul.
AotC - Disliked pretty much all of it.
RotS - Liked it.

TFA - Liked it.
R1- Liked it.
TLJ - Disliked overall film. Liked Luke, Rey and Kylo.
 
Here are my sentiments on SW overall:

ANH - Third favorite SW film.
ESB - Favorite SW film.
RotJ - Second favorite SW film.

TPM - Disliked overall film. Liked Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan and Darth Maul.
AotC - Disliked pretty much all of it.
RotS - Liked it.

TFA - Liked it.
R1- Liked it.
TLJ - Disliked overall film. Liked Luke, Rey and Kylo.

Your sentiments pretty much match mine except for I hate ROTS. That one and AOTC are pretty much tied for me.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top