I'm just happy this show thus far doesn't suck and in fact is 180 degrees the opposite.
Spoilers Star Trek: Strange New Worlds 1x03 - "Ghosts of Illyria"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
There's no such thing.
Seriously, if that was the standard observed when ranking things, all scales would be wasting a slot at the high end, because it would always be empty. There's a granularity to these things. It's discrete; it you're in the zone, you get full credit (basically what @Serveaux said about .5).
In your view. However some people other than you may consider certain movies, episodes or other pieces of fiction or entertainment to be flawless, or essentially flawless, and vote accordingly. Or they may give them a 10 for whatever other reason, which is why I gave a list of possibilities to inquire about it from Serveaux, a list which you've cut out, giving the impression that it was the only possibility I mentioned.
But your response also highlights the entire problem with numbered rating systems: it's obvious that different people will see the same numbers as having different meanings, which is the whole point of my question to Serveaux: to understand how he sees this rating.
In fact, this is probably the time to remind everybody that every one of my posts is an expression of my opinion, every single last fucking one of them.
And you've nothing to offer in alternative than your view.
Remarkable symmetry, isn't it?
People can believe in whatever nonsense they like, and if for some reason they like to believe in "flawless" commercial art, well, they have to live that way.
Gotta love:
as if that's not what I said to begin with.
I mean, the operative word was "absolutely," but somehow that got swept under the rug.
Is it even necessary to say that the criterion for 10/10 is stated as merely "Excellent!"?
"However some people other than you may consider certain movies, episodes or other pieces of fiction or entertainment to be [...] essentially flawless"
as if that's not what I said to begin with.
I mean, the operative word was "absolutely," but somehow that got swept under the rug.
Is it even necessary to say that the criterion for 10/10 is stated as merely "Excellent!"?
I don't feel any entertainment is "flawless." Look long enough and you can find flaws in, say, Saving Private Ryan or The Godfather. Humans are incapable of absolute artistic perfection. We can only come subjectively close because as flawed, mortal beings with our own shortcomings our creations will reflect that.
I base my score how it made me feel immediately upon finishing it.
That is false, and you know it. I've offered several alternatives, only one of which was my view.
I see no reason for this sort of argumentative answer, given that I made a simple request of you, and that we then exchanged our respective understanding of a 10 rating.
Why did you cut out the rest of the sentence? I said "flawless, or essentially flawless", so as to cover all the bases. I added the second just to avoid any wiggle-room. Some may see it as flawless, other as having flaws not worth mentioning.
Since Serveaux called it "real good" instead I think it's not necessarily the case that we all understand it the same way regardless. I don't think it's somehow weird or wrong that I sought to understand his position, or that I express an awareness that the same rating can mean widely different things. In fact I thought it was rather self-evident. I don't know what all the fuss is about.
And artists have driven themselves mad chasing after imagined "perfection". If I were to fixate on writing the perfect bit of prose, I'd never get a word down on the page. With that in mind, I don't expect perfection from others. Excellence, yes. Perfection? Never.
Last edited:
Exactly. The two aforementioned movies are excellent but certainly not perfect and that's all we can reasonably ask for in our art.
Even Persian rugs have flaws built into their very construction.
Even Persian rugs have flaws built into their very construction.
Relax. No one suggested that a 10 should be perfection, or even that it's likely to be.
HEMMER: Just call me Mickey Mantle from now on.
When / where did this happen?
I'm curious if that was from her actual Starfleet bio or the partly imagined and hallucinatory recitation of her Starfleet career when she experiences an early form of transporter psychosis in "Vanishing Point."
I've only seen three episodes of SNW, but I've seen three distinct stories. I've also seen twenty episodes of PIC and 40+ episodes of DSC, but I've only seen a total of six stories of those shows, and I much prefer the three stories of SNW to the six stories of the others. So I think there's enough, just from a story basis to make a comparison.Yep.
Now, I haven't seen a lot of SNW yet, but I've seen an awful lot of those other shows. Enough to know.
