• Welcome to the Fable Community Forum!

    We're a group of fans who are passionate about the Fable series and video gaming.

    Register Log in

Teeth Reveiw

Arseface said:
But if someone likes the bad acting, then that makes it good from their point of view.
Click to expand...
So it doesn't even have to be bad acting, only from the first person's point of view. :P Even good and bad in manners are that are influenced by opinion. The only thing you can say about anything with absolute certainty is if something is true or false. For example, the color of a vase. If the light that comes off of it has a wavelength of 450-475 nanometers, it has the corresponding color. Most people would call it blue, but you can call it something different if you have a different definition of the exact color 'blue', or if you have something to your eyes. The only absolute fact that is given is that the wavelength of the light is between 450 and 475 nanometers. The same counts for a lot of things. Whether it's good or bad is an opinion, and even if you break that down into sub-parts, some of them can still be opinions. You can only tell facts about these things if you can agree on it, by witnessing the events at hand.
Acting: Does the actor look frightened? Depends on when you think it looks frightened.
Did the actor memorize at least 77% of the words in the text? 77% is not an opinion, so either yes or no.
Should the actor have spoken two seconds earlier, for a more dramatic effect? Depends on how you feel towards drama and climaxes.
Could the actor have divided his attention more equally among the other people (by looking at directly at them)? You can measure the time he looks at someone else, and of each of those people individually. If those times are too unequal, then yes, the actor could have done that. But of course, it depends on your opinion when you think something is equal 'enough'. 40/60 %? 30/34/36 %?
Or absolutely equal, 25% among all of the four others?

This makes it too damn hard to decide whether something, that involves opinions, is good or not. Even if 90% of the people agree on one thing, it shows that it's not necessarily the truth. Of course, it differs if you think about what you think is true. Like, ''does God exist?''. We have no proof for either yes or no, but I go just go with no. It's not an opinion if God exists, it's what you believe. =|

Oh well, it was mainly about the first paragraph. The last one was just an addition about people's views
 
D3m190d said:
So it doesn't even have to be bad acting, only from the first person's point of view. :P Even good and bad in manners are that are influenced by opinion. The only thing you can say about anything with absolute certainty is if something is true or false. For example, the color of a vase. If the light that comes off of it has a wavelength of 450-475 nanometers, it has the corresponding color. Most people would call it blue, but you can call it something different if you have a different definition of the exact color 'blue', or if you have something to your eyes. The only absolute fact that is given is that the wavelength of the light is between 450 and 475 nanometers. The same counts for a lot of things. Whether it's good or bad is an opinion, and even if you break that down into sub-parts, some of them can still be opinions. You can only tell facts about these things if you can agree on it, by witnessing the events at hand.
Acting: Does the actor look frightened? Depends on when you think it looks frightened.
Did the actor memorize at least 77% of the words in the text? 77% is not an opinion, so either yes or no.
Should the actor have spoken two seconds earlier, for a more dramatic effect? Depends on how you feel towards drama and climaxes.
Could the actor have divided his attention more equally among the other people (by looking at directly at them)? You can measure the time he looks at someone else, and of each of those people individually. If those times are too unequal, then yes, the actor could have done that. But of course, it depends on your opinion when you think something is equal 'enough'. 40/60 %? 30/34/36 %?
Or absolutely equal, 25% among all of the four others?

This makes it too damn hard to decide whether something, that involves opinions, is good or not. Even if 90% of the people agree on one thing, it shows that it's not necessarily the truth. Of course, it differs if you think about what you think is true. Like, ''does God exist?''. We have no proof for either yes or no, but I go just go with no. It's not an opinion if God exists, it's what you believe. =|

Oh well, it was mainly about the first paragraph. The last one was just an addition about people's views
Click to expand...

that's insulting to the actor, director, or anyone else who's striving for a good performance. what's the point in trying to do something right way if there's always some percentage of idiots who are going to love it? success depends on likeability, but it can't exist without quality. if what you say is true then i could make a 45 minute film of the largest turd i can muster, take it to the right film festival, and be called the voice of the generation could i not?
 
cheezMcNASTY said:
that's insulting to the actor, director, or anyone else who's striving for a good performance. what's the point in trying to do something right way if there's always some percentage of idiots who are going to love it? success depends on likeability, but it can't exist without quality. if what you say is true then i could make a 45 minute film of the largest turd i can muster, take it to the right film festival, and be called the voice of the generation could i not?
Click to expand...
You could, though the majority would disagree. Or all. Anyway, I tried to explain that there are just certain things that are not facts, which should be clear. Note that most peopl would agree on if it's either good or bad, thus making an imaginary system for whether something is good or bad. But that doesn't mean that it is a given fact that something is good or bad. I tried to explain the difference between fact an opinion, because it involves a combination of those, in acting. Luckily for us, most people have a shared view of when they think someone acts good. Factual parts of it can be positive, that's true. But the opinion parts of it are mostly just thought of as 'good'. Meh, I don't know if this message comes across. I'm not trying to say if something is good or bad in my view, I just want it to be clear that there are many things that are actually still opinions, while you might see it as a fact. /=|
 
  • Like
Reactions: cheezMcNASTY
D3m190d said:
You could, though the majority would disagree. Or all. Anyway, I tried to explain that there are just certain things that are not facts, which should be clear. Note that most peopl would agree on if it's either good or bad, thus making an imaginary system for whether something is good or bad. But that doesn't mean that it is a given fact that something is good or bad. I tried to explain the difference between fact an opinion, because it involves a combination of those, in acting. Luckily for us, most people have a shared view of when they think someone acts good. Factual parts of it can be positive, that's true. But the opinion parts of it are mostly just thought of as 'good'. Meh, I don't know if this message comes across. I'm not trying to say if something is good or bad in my view, I just want it to be clear that there are many things that are actually still opinions, while you might see it as a fact. /=|
Click to expand...

it comes across as a compromise. :)
+like

i was only defending that there is recognized things that are better than others, which is strived for when something is created. therefore reviewing a movie objectively isn't like spinning around 20 times in an unlit room and then trying to pour water into a glass. you're right though, it is not always black and white.
 
  • Like
Reactions: D3m190d
whenever you talk for a film you ARE saying what YOU see.. The only thing that you really can\t object too is simple plain facts.. It had so many effects that were the newest of the generation. The most paid actor. The #1 drama actor on THIS poll etc.. BUT good or bad is for you to decide.. nevertheless you can say why do YOU think it's bad/good and WHY you should/shouldn't see it. THEN given your reasons and reading a coupe more reviews/critics/opinions/whatever you can deicde.. 1 person has no impact no matter what.. :D
 
Ummm... How can you measure good acting with numbers? You can't measure acting, it is simply what would be more realistic in a situation like that or if it doesn't seem like acting, ie, looks realistic.

The difference between good and bad acting is very large.

Again, it doesn't matter if someone likes the bad acting or not, bad acting is still bad acting, no how much you think bad acting is "better".
 
  • Like
Reactions: cheezMcNASTY
Skotekal said:
Ummm... How can you measure good acting with numbers? You can't measure acting, it is simply what would be more realistic in a situation like that or if it doesn't seem like acting, ie, looks realistic.

The difference between good and bad acting is very large.

Again, it doesn't matter if someone likes the bad acting or not, bad acting is still bad acting, no how much you think bad acting is "better".
Click to expand...

Not if you thought it was more believable. Good and bad are 100% subjective ideas.
 
Skotekal said:
If someone told me the acting in the movie Mortal Kombat was actually believable I wouldn't know if I should just disregard their opinion or bludgeon them to death with a shoe.

Believable acting is not subjective to me. At all.
Click to expand...

You just contradicted yourself. Believable acting is completely objective, but only when it comes to you, which nullifies the term objective.

I might think that someone's performance is believable, whilst you may not. It's just a difference of opinion. Just because you disagree with someone's opinion, doesn't make their opinion wrong.
 
I said it wasn't subjective to me just because there are obviously others with a different opinion on believable acting being subjective/objective, so I put "to me" because of that. Winning an argument through semantics is ridiculous.

Someone acting believable is a fairly obvious thing to spot.
 
Arseface said:
You just contradicted yourself. Believable acting is completely objective, but only when it comes to you, which nullifies the term objective.

I might think that someone's performance is believable, whilst you may not. It's just a difference of opinion. Just because you disagree with someone's opinion, doesn't make their opinion wrong.
Click to expand...
then by your logic your opinion is also subjective and true only to you. skot's view point is more widely accepted, and therefore the greater truth by your own logic.
 
If something is believable depends on the audience. The majority might say it's believable, therefore you say it is believable. But another person, with different standards in their life and different way of socializing might see thtough it. To that person, it is not believable. Also, Skotekal, whether it's 'obvious' if that acting is believable is also subjective. You might see it, but another person not. You may see through non-believable acting, stating it's obvious. But to the other person, who hasn't learned yet, when something is 'obviously' fake, it's -in his eyes- obiously believable. You, or someone else, might say this argument is obviously worthless, but that doesn't make it so. I think it's obviously useful, since I just proved you that the obviousness depends on the person. Anyway, main point: whether something is believable or not, depends on the way people interact. Even though you may think it's bad acting, maybe the person actually acts like that in real life. Or is that 'obviously' impossible?...
 
cheezMcNASTY said:
then by your logic your opinion is also subjective and true only to you. skot's view point is more widely accepted, and therefore the greater truth by your own logic.
Click to expand...

There are two kinds of "truth". The classical idea of true, that is: a simple fact of the universe, which is a completely objective thing. There is also a more philosophical one, where the idea of truth is completely subjective. The classical idea of truth does exist; there are 100% certain truths in the universe. However, the nature of humanity means we can only ever know the subjective truth. But no matter what we percieve as being true, that does not make it true.

In short: Consensus does not a fact make.
 
Arseface said:
There is also a more philosophical one, where the idea of truth is completely subjective. The classical idea of truth does exist; there are 100% certain truths in the universe. However, the nature of humanity means we can only ever know the subjective truth. But no matter what we percieve as being true, that does not make it true.

In short: Consensus does not a fact make.
Click to expand...
i understood it perfectly from your previous posts. this philosophical line of thought no doubt must be incorporated to its own laws, yes? so therefore your theory is true only to you but most other people don't think that way. by it's own logic it's a relatively insignificant truth surrounded by greater truths which outdo it, rendering it overruled by its very nature. in short, it contradicts its self.

i do think it's true to a degree, but you're arguing an extreme case. quality isn't purely an illusion, it's skewed sure, but there are definite superiorities. and furthermore, if i'm arguing my truth and you're arguing yours, it's pretty damn ironic that you would use such an arguement to try and play down what me or skotekal have to say. borrowing from an ED article i wrote:

"those who like to remind people that they are entitled to their opinion like to do so with an iron fist, ironically."
 
cheezMcNASTY said:
right, so in other words your theory is true to you but most people don't think that way. by it's own logic it's a relatively insignificant truth surrounded by greater truths which outdo it because they are more widely accepted. in short, it's a paradox.
Click to expand...

If most people don't think that way, it doesn't make it untrue. If I have a blue ball, which reflects light, with a wavelength of between 450-475, it doesn't make it non-blue when someone says it isn't. Now, I agree with what Arseface says, and think that is a factual truth. You may disagree with it being true, which makes it a subjective truth, or untruth, in your eyes. Though, from my point of view, it's a fact that you may deny. Meh, it's all weird, and now it's just about objevtive and subjective truths, and finding the paradoxes in someone else's post.
I stick with my opinion that it is a fact that it depends on the audeniece's view whether someone acts 'good' or 'bad', rather than that it can be measured with a 'universal and scientific system, that everybody has to agree with, otherwise they are ignorant'.
 
D3m190d said:
If most people don't think that way, it doesn't make it untrue. If I have a blue ball, which reflects light, with a wavelength of between 450-475, it doesn't make it non-blue when someone says it isn't.
Click to expand...

dammit stop replying to my posts before i'm done editing.
i'm a recursive poster, i can make as many as 5-6 edits before i'm through. i changed that word. :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom