Quality is subjective.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Popularity is subjective. I would argue that quality is not. There are good things, both loved and hated, and bad things both loved and hated. Being good or bad does not much affect loved or hated.
When it comes art I find quality subjective.
Art is whatever you make of it. Quality in art is also subjective and based entirely on overall context.
I consider certain elephants a more accomplished artists than Jackson Pollack.
o/c my opinion is totally subjective.
o/c my opinion is totally subjective.
Last edited:
Nor was it supposed to be. Just an observation of it's commercial success. The first 4 TF films were financial successes because they delivered popcorn big screen action for a couple of hours - not something that a weekly TV series can replicate, since the audience and entertainment niche is different.
It does seem though that the DSC seems to be delivering what audiences want though, since said audiences have now tuned in for 42 weekly episodes.
Are the episodes good or bad? Well....
Ah but who determines what is "good" or "bad"? And is everyone in agreement?
Ah but who determines what is "good" or "bad"? And is everyone in agreement?
Depends on what you are quantifying. The design of a ship can be judged on function, in this case moot as the models do not function. The pretty is as pretty does standard. You can judge on the axioms of design. Why do some things look better than others. There is science behind it. golden ratio, rule of thirds and so forth. These are not subjective. Humans, I believe the entire population here, I could be wrong, like things better when designed to these standards. Last is to the design. Was it made right? Nothing subjective to that. It matches the blueprint or it does not. Lego is a prime example of objective Quality of the first order. I have 50 year old pieces that work perfectly with new ones. That, is Quality.
Whether you like something, regardless of quality that is subjective. Liking or dis-liking is not a matter of Quality.
The 2009 Trek movie made enough money that they made 2 sequels and then re-launched the franchise with multiple streaming shows. So it did well enough for me
You can subjectively choose a standard to judge an item again objectively.
This car is built accurately to the plans - GOOD
It won't fit in my garage - BAD
Its design utilises the golden ratio - GOOD
The engine is extremely polluting - BAD
The choice about which standard to use is always subjective
Robert Mapplethorpe, for instance. You can't tell me he didn't deliberately intend to anger a lot of the people who'd see his works of art.
I went to see the Mapplethorpe exhibition when it was in Cincy because I was curious what all the hullabaloo was about, a whole lot of wasted hell broke loose.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-art-fought-law-and-art-won-180956810/
Ah yes, I remember the Wasted Hell. I'm in Southeast Michigan, so I did not see the exhibition. Ergo, no comment on Mr. Mapplethorpe's art. And a burn in Heck to the censors. May Phil bash you with his spoon.
Yes, I am against the censors. As Voltaire stated: "I will defend to the death your right to disagree with me."
He was not/is not "my cup of tea" but I and my friends wanted to see what all the shit-stirring was about. The Piss in christ and not the bull-whip photo was the one that put the bible-thumpers over the edge IMHO.
Respectfully, saying that "quality" can be objectively quantified when it comes to art or television is pretty ridiculous.
Who gets to decide what is "good" and what is "bad" objectively?
C'mon.
Two groups can take the same script, let us say a good drama that hits its marks had has no plot holes. One can do a good job producing it, or a bad job. TV has the money and skill that a good job of production is pretty assured.
But there is also the old Broadway axiom: "If it's not on the page, it's not on the stage." The writing must make sense as well, and a drama has rules. You want to avoid plot holes, and plot orphans. Five minute plots are of issue in Star Trek. Five minutes after leaving the theater you have the thing picked part, even if the ride was fun. Inconsistencies in how a character is portrayed must be avoided as well. You can judge a screenplay as good or bad on objective criteria.
That does not dismiss the subjective subject of did you like it? Vis-à-vis, I do not like horror, no matter how objectively good.
Ok.
So, who decides what is objectively "good" and what is "bad" with regard to quality?
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.
Similar threads
- Locked
