ctrl-control wrote:
ki adi moonshine wrote:
Yes I don't like TLJ and I think TROS is simply poorly put together, but, you're missing the point. Art is subjective. There is no scientific process (coming from someone who worked in social research) to this at all. Every single "criteria" you listed is subjective.
To be scientific it would need to be objective. And even your descriptions lack objectivity. sorry kthxbye
Art is not purely subjective. There are qualitative aspects of art to which they can be judged. Such as technique.
If I were to subjectively rank these movies, it would be something like TESB, ROTJ, TPM, ANH, ROTS, AOTC, TROS, TFA, TLJ. But one should strive to understand what and why you feel that way and subject these movies to this criteria and see if you get the same result. So I'm sticking with my objective ranking.
Your ranking isn't objective. Just look at your "criteria." Objective=scientific. I'm well educated enough to know this. and DP I'm sorry if I'm coming off a bit strong but this is total bullshit.
ctrl-control wrote:
1. Story - things happen for reasons
2. Character Development - being invested in the main characters and their growth
3. Newness Factor - seeing something we haven't before
4. Technical - acting, cinematography, continuity
5. Visual Effects - mind blowing awesomeness
"things happen for reasons" - subjective and everything happens for a reason. this is an oxymoron.
"being interested in the main characters and their growth" - this is subjective because everyone has different reasons for identifying with certain characters based on their own experiences in life and their personalities. For instance, I identify most with Anakin due to my life experiences and my personality. Others will identify with Luke, or Rey, or Han for different reasons. This doesn't make their OPINIONS less valid. Again, subjective.
"seeing something we haven't before" somewhat objective but you're not specific. you could point to so many things and say "oh we haven't seen that before" and it can be the smallest thing. this is subjective because you're not being specific in your measurement of what something different is; it's not defined.
"acting, cinematography, continuity" - again, subjective. there are different styles of acting. I think Hayden did an amazing job with the prequels. Some don't. I think Adam Driver does not do a good job in the ST. I think Mark Hamill is only good in ROTJ. If you look at continuity the ST has issues all over the place. Opinions on cinematography are subjective. None of this is objective and merely conjecture and opinion.
"mind blowing awesomeness" - this is the most ridiculous criteria of the bunch. The visual effects vary from OT to PT to ST. the PT has the best special effects in the Saga, but, Lucas was very smart. The space battle in ROTS in the beginning was meant to be fundamentally different than the battle at the end of ANH so it didn't take away from the magic of the first Death Star battle. You can't really compare the two; the technology wasn't as advanced and the battles are completely different. The lightsaber battles in the OT and PT are very different, mostly on purpose, but the OT lightsaber battles are still great. I prefer the battles in the PT but that is my PREFERENCE. It's not objective, it's subjective.
Basically your criteria is bullshit and I can respect your opinion if you were to say that hey, this is my ranking, it may be different than yours but that's cool. But to say that yours is 100% scientific and more correct than the rest of the posters here, who have posted here and other boards together for the better part of 20 years? gtfo. you joined like yesterday.