Red Mosquito

tree_ wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

tree_ wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

tree_ wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

tree_ wrote:How something makes someone feel may seem like magic, but if you look closely enough you can see all the moving parts and understand what it's doing to make them feel that way.

Of course. But these things don't work the same way all the time on the same people. It's subjective.

tree_ wrote:Everything has objective values to it but hierarchies of value differ from person to person... for objective reasons, if you look closely enough. When you're attracted to a person, it's not magic. You can look closely enough to make sense out of it. The shape of their face, their smell, etc...

Again, the values differ, though. They are subjective. You may find the shape of your mate's face attractive, while perhaps another does not. Beauty and attraction, like art, are subjective and differ from person to person.

But those reasons can be found and measured. If you look closely enough, you can find out why you find certain faces more attractive at a specific moment in your life. And that attractive face has objective, measurable values that achieve those things well.

But it isn't the same for everyone. And those things can change. Therefore, it isn't objective.

All 'subjective' says is you will have a different opinion than me because you have a different hierarchy of values or level of understanding. The media in question has objective qualities to it that are indeed open to misunderstanding/interpretation from anyone's perspective, such as seeing a red chair as grey, but that doesn't change the reality.

What are the objective realities of The Last Jedi?

Here's one: Rey's obviously wearing makeup which kills my suspension of disbelief a little, because I pay attention to that sort of detail and find it important.

Is Rey wearing make-up? Or is Daisy Ridley wearing make-up? Which is the objective reality/fact?

durdencommatyler wrote:

tree_ wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

tree_ wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

tree_ wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

tree_ wrote:How something makes someone feel may seem like magic, but if you look closely enough you can see all the moving parts and understand what it's doing to make them feel that way.

Of course. But these things don't work the same way all the time on the same people. It's subjective.

tree_ wrote:Everything has objective values to it but hierarchies of value differ from person to person... for objective reasons, if you look closely enough. When you're attracted to a person, it's not magic. You can look closely enough to make sense out of it. The shape of their face, their smell, etc...

Again, the values differ, though. They are subjective. You may find the shape of your mate's face attractive, while perhaps another does not. Beauty and attraction, like art, are subjective and differ from person to person.

But those reasons can be found and measured. If you look closely enough, you can find out why you find certain faces more attractive at a specific moment in your life. And that attractive face has objective, measurable values that achieve those things well.

But it isn't the same for everyone. And those things can change. Therefore, it isn't objective.

All 'subjective' says is you will have a different opinion than me because you have a different hierarchy of values or level of understanding. The media in question has objective qualities to it that are indeed open to misunderstanding/interpretation from anyone's perspective, such as seeing a red chair as grey, but that doesn't change the reality.

What are the objective realities of The Last Jedi?

Here's one: Rey's obviously wearing makeup which kills my suspension of disbelief a little, because I pay attention to that sort of detail and find it important.

Is Rey wearing make-up? Or is Daisy Ridley wearing make-up? Which is the objective reality/fact?

The fact is Daisy Ridley is wearing makeup and playing a character who appears to be wearing makeup. You can interpret this anyway you want, but those interpretations can be explained if you look closely enough. Either you're misunderstanding objective facts or you're not.

tree_ wrote:You can interpret this anyway you want, but those interpretations can be explained if you look closely enough.

Tell me more about this.

durdencommatyler wrote:

tree_ wrote:You can interpret this anyway you want, but those interpretations can be explained if you look closely enough.

Tell me more about this.

Differing levels of understanding and hierarchies of values.

tree_ wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

tree_ wrote:You can interpret this anyway you want, but those interpretations can be explained if you look closely enough.

Tell me more about this.

Differing levels of understanding and hierarchies of values.

Explain.

durdencommatyler wrote:

tree_ wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

tree_ wrote:You can interpret this anyway you want, but those interpretations can be explained if you look closely enough.

Tell me more about this.

Differing levels of understanding and hierarchies of values.

Explain.

Lenny unconsciously associates the hue of blue on Rey's lips with the time he was anally raped by Burt, who at the time was wearing the same color on his lips. He finds himself traumatized and hating everything about the movie.

durdencommatyler wrote:

stip wrote:To that point - even if we disagree about whether or not Luke's actions are consistent with the character, that conversation can and should be informed by what we know about the character, how we might reasonably extrapolate their response to new circumstances based on past actions, etc. Even if we disagree, we are disagreeing about something beyond subjectivity, in that we think the other person is incorrect. Whereas someone saying "I like this portrayal of Luke/I don't like this portrayal of Luke' is just subjective. It does what you want it to or it doesn't.

I'm not sure I get what you're saying here.

There is interpretation that comes down to whether or not you like something personally (which is purely subjective) and then there are interpretations where, even if one cannot objectively speak to the 'truth' of an interpretation, that interpretation is nevertheless is based on reference to specific external facts, text, history, theory, etc. So in those cases you can have real argument and engagement and someone can be right or wrong (for a certain value of right/wrong) based on how accurately they reference/understand those external factors.

I want Luke to be a hero who never gives up and never doubts is purely subjective. You can't argue that.

Luke's presentation in TLJ is out of character/is in character given the events in the film and his prior history can be argued since we can reference and discuss the prior presentation of Luke, make reasonable guesses as to how that character might respond, etc. is at least partially objective in the sense Tree and I are using it here. There's something to debate

I like/dislike the execution of that interpretation would be purely subjective.

Does that make sense?

tree_ wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

tree_ wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

tree_ wrote:You can interpret this anyway you want, but those interpretations can be explained if you look closely enough.

Tell me more about this.

Differing levels of understanding and hierarchies of values.

Explain.

Lenny unconsciously associates the hue of blue on Rey's lips with the time he was anally raped by Burt, who at the time was wearing the same color on his lips. He finds himself traumatized and hating everything about the movie.

You're losing me. What does this have to do with the "objective" "reality" of the film.

stip wrote:

blueviper wrote:

Anders wrote:

blueviper wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:Name your five things you loved about this movie. This is a test.

I’ll wakt.

5. Porgs

aw man, Porgs are cool!

I have a porg in my office

Is it chewing up your chair and other pieces of furniture?

durdencommatyler wrote:

tree_ wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

tree_ wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

tree_ wrote:You can interpret this anyway you want, but those interpretations can be explained if you look closely enough.

Tell me more about this.

Differing levels of understanding and hierarchies of values.

Explain.

Lenny unconsciously associates the hue of blue on Rey's lips with the time he was anally raped by Burt, who at the time was wearing the same color on his lips. He finds himself traumatized and hating everything about the movie.

You're losing me. What does this have to do with the "objective" "reality" of the film.

In objective reality, Rey's lips are that shade of blue and serve their intended purpose in the movie, no matter what you think of them or how they effect you, and what you think of them and how they effect you is the result of what's important to you, and there are reasons why this is so.

blueviper wrote:

stip wrote:

blueviper wrote:

Anders wrote:

blueviper wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:Name your five things you loved about this movie. This is a test.

I’ll wakt.

5. Porgs

aw man, Porgs are cool!

I have a porg in my office

Is it chewing up your chair and other pieces of furniture?

still worth it

stip wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

stip wrote:To that point - even if we disagree about whether or not Luke's actions are consistent with the character, that conversation can and should be informed by what we know about the character, how we might reasonably extrapolate their response to new circumstances based on past actions, etc. Even if we disagree, we are disagreeing about something beyond subjectivity, in that we think the other person is incorrect. Whereas someone saying "I like this portrayal of Luke/I don't like this portrayal of Luke' is just subjective. It does what you want it to or it doesn't.

I'm not sure I get what you're saying here.

There is interpretation that comes down to whether or not you like something personally (which is purely subjective) and then there are interpretations where, even if one cannot objectively speak to the 'truth' of an interpretation, that interpretation is nevertheless is based on reference to specific external facts, text, history, theory, etc. So in those cases you can have real argument and engagement and someone can be right or wrong (for a certain value of right/wrong) based on how accurately they reference/understand those external factors.

I want Luke to be a hero who never gives up and never doubts is purely subjective. You can't argue that.

Luke's presentation in TLJ is out of character/is in character given the events in the film and his prior history can be argued since we can reference and discuss the prior presentation of Luke, make reasonable guesses as to how that character might respond, etc. is at least partially objective in the sense Tree and I are using it here. There's something to debate

I like/dislike the execution of that interpretation would be purely subjective.

Does that make sense?

Yes, but I'm still uncertain how that relates to the conversation today. I could be wrong, perhaps I'm totally misunderstanding everyone, but I don't think I've seen anyone argue against the baseline point you're making here. I always hesitate to speak for others, but when LV or M_D or platy or myself have taken issue with tree's statements about objectivity, those statements haven't been statements that relate to the point you're making now.

Of course the Luke example you give can be argued. But, again, unless I'm being SUPER obtuse (if so, apologies), the whole conversation here has been about "I like/dislike". That's where we're all challenging the notion of objectivity. I haven't seen anyone argue that you can't make reasonable guesses a to how Luke might respond. I've only seen people taking issue with "it's lame." Or "the writing is bad."

Porgs are cool. They are so well used in the movie.

tree_ wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

tree_ wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

tree_ wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

tree_ wrote:You can interpret this anyway you want, but those interpretations can be explained if you look closely enough.

Tell me more about this.

Differing levels of understanding and hierarchies of values.

Explain.

Lenny unconsciously associates the hue of blue on Rey's lips with the time he was anally raped by Burt, who at the time was wearing the same color on his lips. He finds himself traumatized and hating everything about the movie.

You're losing me. What does this have to do with the "objective" "reality" of the film.

In objective reality, Rey's lips are that shade of blue and serve their intended purpose in the movie, no matter what you think of them or how they effect you, and what you think of them and how they effect you is the result of what's important to you, and there are reasons why this is so.

Okay. Now tie it all together.

I guess, wait,... tree, when you asked LV if he thought there were objective "elements" in movies, is this the kind of thing you were talking about? Because I thought when you said "elements" you meant artistic elements of film making, not personal elements brought into analysis and discussion ABOUT a movie.

Do you think the people of Crait drank a lot of margaritas?

durdencommatyler wrote:

tree_ wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

tree_ wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

tree_ wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

tree_ wrote:You can interpret this anyway you want, but those interpretations can be explained if you look closely enough.

Tell me more about this.

Differing levels of understanding and hierarchies of values.

Explain.

Lenny unconsciously associates the hue of blue on Rey's lips with the time he was anally raped by Burt, who at the time was wearing the same color on his lips. He finds himself traumatized and hating everything about the movie.

You're losing me. What does this have to do with the "objective" "reality" of the film.

In objective reality, Rey's lips are that shade of blue and serve their intended purpose in the movie, no matter what you think of them or how they effect you, and what you think of them and how they effect you is the result of what's important to you, and there are reasons why this is so.

Okay. Now tie it all together.

When deciding if Rey's color of lips is objectively done well or not, you have to take your biases out of the picture. What are the criteria you're judging its success by? If we're going to ask: Is it realistic, from what we know of this universe and where we're at in this story, for a girl like her to be wearing makeup? I'd say... maybe. We need more answers. Is she trying to look attractive? Why? Will that help bring Luke back? Maybe. As far as I can tell, yeah, it's somewhat realistic. But when did she put it on? It was never shown. From what I can tell, it's plausible. Done well enough.

Objectively, was Luke's character change explained well and in line with what we knew about him before? No. Does that matter to you? That's a different question. Maybe you prefer this and like filling in the gaps with your imagination or from other media.

Does it make sense for Poe to leave Holdo standing in that spot without checking her for a gun? No. Because from what we know of Poe, he's smarter and more capable than this. This makes him look stupid. It's inconsistent with his character and poor writing. Does character consistency matter to you? That's another question.

So according to Tree. Rey has make up. Yet we clearly see her struggling to find water and food.


But he’s definitely seen these these films and not trolling at all.