What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[Vger23]

Those well versed in the arts and science of drama for a start. Yes there is a lot of art, but there is some science. A drama has beats and you need to hit them to make a good story. Bad stories (Generations, looking at you) fall apart quickly. The thing is the production values were excellent. It was not on the page. The plot had holes you could drive the Enterprise through.

Bad production? Well the plethora of the same ship in Picard comes to mind. It was a careless detail that sticks out like a sore thumb. Entire film? Hawk the Slayer comes to mind. A pro film that looks and reads like it was made by a high school film class.

So there's an international committee of some sort that will make definitive, objective decisions based on certain measurable criteria that will determine what art or film is considered "quality" and what is not?

Who appoints these people? How do they come up with and define what the objective, data-based, measurable metrics are going to be applied to their assessments? What happens when people's opinions differ from the "findings" of these appointed "experts?" Who determines, for example, the quality of what one culture would find a "poorly written character" and what another culture would find different? What's the definition of a "plot hole" vs. something that was left unsaid purposefully for audience interpretation? Are these people appointed for life, or are they rotated out? Who holds them accountable for their determinations and who decides if they are qualified or not to be making these determinations?

Most importantly, who would actually give a shit about any of this, since a pronouncement of what is "quality" and what is not in the realms of art, literature, film, etc is meaningless and would have no bearing whatsoever on what my own personal, subjective opinion on something is.

Do you see how ridiculous this is?

I'm not sure what we're driving at here. It sounds a lot like needing affirmation for the "I really think this (show, painting, song, movie, sculpture, interpretive dance, street mime, etc) sucks...but it seems that a lot of people disagree with me. And, since I clearly am basing my opinions from a more intellectual and informed place than they....I'd really like to have a way to validate MY correct opinion and invalidate the incorrect opinions of those who think differently than me" scenario.

Interesting stuff, no?

 

[Falconer]

You mean like this?

 

[1001001]

The idea that there is a measurable objective quality to art and entertainment is so ridiculous it's not even worth discussing. There are simply degrees of agreement.

 

[tesral]

So there's an international committee of some sort that will make definitive Interesting stuff, no?

You're spending a lot of energy on it. I'm moving on.

 

[Lord Garth]

The best creators don't treat creativity like a democracy. They treat it like a benevolent dictatorship.

 

[cooleddie74]

The art I create is - first and foremost - to please my own creative impulses. That others enjoy it is immensely rewarding but a secondary concern. If one considers it great then I'm very thankful. If one thinks it sucks then all I can say is: different strokes for different folks.

 

[tesral]

The best creators don't treat creativity like a democracy. They treat it like a benevolent dictatorship.

Yea, it runs you and benevolent is optional.

My muse is a six inch Marine drill sergeant with fairy wings. Full sized bellow. I have been dragged out of bed by a thought and will be again.

 

[Lord Garth]

Yea, it runs you and benevolent is optional.

My muse is a six inch Marine drill sergeant with fairy wings. Full sized bellow. I have been dragged out of bed by a thought and will be again.

I'm a filmmaker. I write scripts and I'm directing my second (very) independent film. It's fun stuff. Benevolent is optional but I think you end up with a happier day and less drama if you keep it benevolent. I've seen what the opposite is and I don't need those people in my life anymore. No, I don't care to elaborate on that.

My day job is public access television. So independent filmmaking gives me more of a chance to flex my creative muscles. I'm only interested in doing it on the side. Because I don't want my work to become corporate-ized and Hollywood-ized. Though, if I'd been an adult in the '90s, I would've submitted a spec script to Star Trek.

 

[Mudd]

Ok.



So, who decides what is objectively "good" and what is "bad" with regard to quality?

No one. The guys who pony up the cash decide what gets made, so they better like the show.

 

[tesral]

I'm a filmmaker. I write scripts and I'm directing my second (very) independent film. It's fun stuff. Benevolent is optional but I think you end up with a happier day and less drama if you keep it benevolent. I've seen what the opposite is and I don't need those people in my life anymore. No, I don't care to elaborate on that.

No, no, not the people. The very creativity isn't always benevolent. Mine can get rather demanding.

 

[Lord Garth]

No, no, not the people. The very creativity isn't always benevolent. Mine can get rather demanding.

Ah, gotcha. Yes, I know what you mean.

 

[Mudd]

La Strada is a brilliant film, but none of that is in the plot - note that this is distinct from story - or founded on "science." In other words, the genius of it "ain't on the page."

What are being described here are not markers of "objective quality" but simply tools useful for constructing a saleable commercial product.

 

[fireproof78]

The art I create is - first and foremost - to please my own creative impulses. That others enjoy it is immensely rewarding but a secondary concern. If one considers it great then I'm very thankful. If one thinks it sucks then all I can say is: different strokes for different folks.

I don't even share the stuff I create. I tend to share very little.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I don't even share the stuff I create. I tend to share very little.

Barney is sad.

 

[tesral]

I don't even share the stuff I create. I tend to share very little.

I understand. Most of my stuff never sees the light of day. It takes a certain class of ego to even place you work in public and an equally thick skin to leave it there.

But "most" of my stuff is no where near the range of complete.

 

[cooleddie74]

I have the ego. I just don't have the completion rates.

 

[tesral]

I have the ego. I just don't have the completion rates.

No stones to throw in that department.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Popularity is subjective. I would argue that quality is not.

When it comes art I find quality subjective.

I think when it comes to art, it's 100% subjective.

Of course "quality" is subjective when it comes to art and entertainment.

The very fact that you're debating whether or not quality is subjective proves that it's subjective. If quality was objective, we wouldn't be debating this. We could just do the math. "Hmm... The numbers show that Project A is 92% good while Project B is 94% good! Therefore, Project B is 2% better!"

The most you can ever have is a consensus of opinion. Most people think that the Beatles were great, but two people at my last job hated them. No matter what you think of a particular piece of art, someone out there has the exact opposite opinion.

Respectfully, saying that "quality" can be objectively quantified when it comes to art or television is pretty ridiculous.

Yup.

 

[FormerLurker]

Quality is only objective on the manufacturing line. Does the product work? Yes? Then quality is good. No? We need to do better, people!

 

[cooleddie74]

Technically Speed 2 was a quality production from a technical standpoint. It was just a flaming bag of poop from a storyline and premise standpoint which made the movie terrible by extension.