A challenge to all the JJ Trek haters

This thread has moved from amusing to sad with "warp speed" rapidity.

Bollucks.

There is no "objective reality" about whether art is "good" or "bad"...it is always the conclusion of the observer about what the observer feels about the art that makes it "good" or "bad" to the observer.

That conclusion is a fact as it pertains to the observer. To me the movie is a good movie. To you it is a bad movie. We are both correct as it pertains to our selves, but you can not turn your observation into a truth for everyone and you look silly trying to.

That's not entirely true. There is a science to art, and that goes for cinematic storytelling, as well. While good art (storytelling included) is subjective on the audience's end, good science underpinning that art is not. I'm not on the audience end. I see the science. I see the craft. And Star Trek (2009) was badly crafted. Therefore, objectively, it's shit. Whether audiences lapped up that shit anyway? Irrelevant. The fact that they ate that turd and smiled does not make it ought but a turd.

Think that's just me? Fair enough: consult the science. I recommend Syd Field and Blake Snyder as your gateway. According to every screenwriter you're likely to ask, including this one, Star Trek (2009) was haphazard, sloppy, half-assed shit. Had the producers not been able to tack it to a pre-sold marquee, that shit would not even have gotten a green light to be produced. That's a fact.

^ Yeah, and there are also "objective" rules to the "science" of writing. By a lot of those rules, some of the great classics of historical literature are bad. Those rules are culturally based, and ultimately derive from "if you do it this way, people will like it." Which brings us right back to subjectivism.

Remember, I write professionally, too.

That's hardly a refutation of my point. People liking shit doesn't mean that what they liked wasn't occasionally shit. My point has only been that, objectively, Star Trek (2009) was shit. It's not subjective, not according to the science I trade in -- and, if you engage in storytelling as a profession (because not all professional writing is professional storytelling) then not according to the science you trade in, either -- it's not subjective, any more than a house that collapses in on itself was "subjectively" badly constructed.

Additionally, if you're going to claim authority on screenwriting, it would help your cause to be a produced screenwriter. I am. Are you?

On on that, you're wrong.

It doesn't matter how arrogant and insulting you are, you're wrong. It isn't objective and it isn't "science." (I also studied science before I got into what I'm doing now. I take a very dim view of things like "the art of screenwriting" being called "science.")

And what you take a dim view of means jack to the industry. There absolutely and in no uncertain terms is a science to storytelling. That you're unaware of, or indifferent to, that doesn't change it. Creative endeavors are called art only by those who can't reproduce them. To those who can, they are absolutely, unquestionably, a science.

Which science? Psychology is a big component of it. Linguistics is another, naturally. Tell me this: Can you create suspense in your readers without knowing how? That's one of the trickier techniques to pull off, and knowing how the human mind will react to stimuli, and which stimuli it will react to in order to engender a sense of suspense in the reader, absolutely and in no uncertain terms requires scientific knowledge of the broadest cross-section of readers and their minds.

You claim there's no science involved in storytelling, but you make that claim at the peril of exposing the staggering depths of your own ignorance of that science, which is very real, which is objectively demonstrable and has been for centuries. And all in defense of a piece of shallow, sensationalist spectacle which doesn't rate defending. That's sad. I mean it -- that's profoundly depressing.

Seriously. To claim that there's no science to storytelling is akin to claiming there's no skill involved in storytelling, which demeans the skill of every writer from now back to Shakespeare and beyond. If there's a skill, there's learning involved in acquiring it, and what is learned is a science. So you may want to rethink your position on this, sincerely.

This thread is the gift that keeps on giving, like Asshair's Thick thunder thighs thread, or watching "Passions."

Only because they don't know science. As someone who knows both science and creative art, I can assure you that there is no good way to apply the scientific method to this so-called "science."

Which is not a real science. And I say that as someone who has studied a lot of psychology and uses it in my work. Thus, I know that psychology is extremely subjective.

Linguistics is not a science, either.

Now you've done it: You've gone ahead and admitted that it's subjective. Because what creates suspense to a person, how important it is to them, and what the result of it is are all subjective criteria.

As I said, no amount of arrogance and insults will get you out of it. Remember, you're talking to someone who also writes professionally.

Absolute nonsense. Skill is not science. If you can't measure it, quantify it, compare it, reproduce the results independent of the subjects and describe the process in terms of cause and effect, it's not subject to the scientific method and no claims to the contrary will change that.

Science can measure the content and nature of wine. But only art will produce "good" wine because "good" wine is very subjective. (The French like dry wines; the Germans like fruity wines.) The skill involved in making "good" wines is not science; it is the application techniques that produce what people happen to like. The techniques themselves may be the result of science, but the criteria that makes them produce "good" wine are subjective.

Oh, an appeal to pity! That's a new one from you.

First a strawman to make you (the one doing all the insulting) seem like a poor victim, then an appeal to pity because your strawman makes you feel bad.

Color me unimpressed.

BTW: If "what is learned is a science," then Jehovah's Witnesses going to Bible studies to learn what their religion teaches are "scientific." I'll try that one on Diacanu!

Incorrect.

Incorrect.

Incorrect.

It may well be that you, personally, don't consider them sciences -- scientists do.

The box office is not subjective. It is, rather, an objective measurement of how successfully a filmmaking team has executed their vision. Suspense is the thematic engine behind a whole genre of films. So while you've dodged the question, you have done so in a rather clumsy and obvious attempt to avoid confronting it -- therefore, I will ask again: Do you possess the ability to invoke a sense of suspense in an audience without understanding how to do so? Furthermore, is understanding the technique necessary for invoking suspense in your audience a science, according to you, or not? Finaly, if you don't consider that to be a science, why not?

And what do you write professionally? Because if it's technical papers, you're not exactly qualified to dispute this with me. Entitled to, sure -- not qualified to.

All right, then, let's tackle this:

Good filmmaking can be measured, at the box office. Good filmmaking can be quantified, by career statistics of filmmakers. Good filmmakers can be compared to bad filmmakers (bad as established by the number of box office successes versus failures). Good films' results are reproduced independent of the subjects all the time, via international distribution. The process is described in terms of cause and effect regularly, by screenwriters such as the ones I named above, Syd Field and Blake Snyder, among others.

So even according to the criteria you've laid out, storytelling absolutely, irrefutably, is a science.

Now then, allow me to spike the ball: I've just proven you wrong according to your rules, and you may now shut the hell up.

That is so rich:

"No, it wasn't a good film and that's science, not opinion."
"What makes it 'science'?"
"If a lot of people like it, it's a good film, by definition."
"Then what about the millions of people who loved it? It was very popular."
"They don't know what they're talking about. Their opinion (and contribution to the box office) doesn't count."

And you can't see the blatant contradiction in that?

And yet what are people here bagging on? The story. Even I have said that the film, purely as spectacle, was entertaining, but almost everyone here -- even those who thought the film was fine as spectacle -- has bagged on the story.

So you were saying?

Oh, right -- you were saying there's no science to learning a skill. Apparently, then, you can't differentiate skills, which are learned, from talents, which are innate. And you want to lecture me about science? Yeah, your credibility on that is a little thin.

Okay, who hacked Asyncritus' account?

His latest responses have been quite out of character. This type of pettiness just isn't his thing.

Can't let this one go.

You're a D-List hack screenwriter at best. No big producers -- hell not even the shitty minor ones -- are breaking down your door for scripts.

Yeah, I just made it personal. But if you're going to invoke your "authority" on a subject, it helps to have some credibility in the first place.

You know that for a certainty, do ya?

As certain as a lighthouse shows the way!

You have an interesting approach.

"I know what Asyncritus' 'style' is, and a lot of his posts aren't part of his 'style.'"

What does that even mean, other than the fact that you're still having a bad day?

And you're sure I tell Wordforge everything, ain'tcha. Just like I brought up that first project while I was working on it, instead of bringing it up long after it had already wrapped. Right?

IOW: "I've got nothing. I thought my opinion about whether or not it was a good story was 'objective science' and I can't demonstrate that in a logical manner, so I resort to insults and telling those who disagree with me to shut up."

If you like the film, fine. That doesn't make it perfect, because it had some serious plot holes. If you don't like the film, fine, but that doesn't make it a bad film, either, because a lot of people did like it, and that's the bottom line in filmmaking.

I do not know of a single work of literature that does not have some serious shortcomings. LOTR was almost unsellable for decades (except to a very small market of specialized geeks), because the story bogs down into boring details of backstory so often. And now, it's become one of the great classics. What changed? Not LOTR, but people's tastes.

You have not demonstrated, or even tended to demonstrate, that the evaluation of art is "scientifically objective." You have just claimed it, with a lot of bluster and insults to cloud the issue. I assume the reason you have not proven it is because you wouldn't know how to set up a scientific proof if your doctorate in physics depended on it.

I started out in math and science, before moving to the so-called "human sciences" (psychology, sociology, the dynamics of history, economics...). I know that since "science" is today's "religion," everyone likes to pretend their work is "science." But that doesn't make it objective truth anymore than the claims "It's the will of God!" made something objective truth back when theology was considered the final answer to everything.

In fact, from both a psychological and sociological standpoint, the approaches are remarkably similar.

Ladies and gentlemen of Wordforge I ask you, does this sound like something Asyncritus would say? Or how he would say it? For goodness sake it's only three lines long!

Actually, I used your criteria for what is science -- you know, the criteria you laid down -- to demonstrate that it is a science. And then I told you to shut up.

You can harp on about style over substance, but it doesn't hold water when I provided both.

I'm inclined to agree with Clyde here -- this can't really be Asyncritus, because Asyncritus isn't this retarded.

This is science.

Anyone who thinks moviemaking or screenwriting is science is a and should be removed immediately from civilized society.

Really? Then how do people learn to do it well?

Oh, wait -- nobody does it well, right? Not, for example, Joss Whedon, who is really good at cinematic storytelling -- nope! According to you, he's not measurably better at it than, say, Ed Wood. Nope! So not! Because there's no skill to it! Skill is not a factor! Can't be -- why can't it be? Because we looooooooooooove the shallow (some would say hollow) spectacle that is J.J. Abrams' generic sci-fi turd! Must defend it at all costs! Therefore, there's no objective measurement for whether the story was good or not! And for that to be true, storytelling can't involve technique! And studying that technique can't be a science! Nope nope nope!

You're a fuckin' moron. Siddown and shyaddap.

Or you could make a clean breast of it and just admit that, "Yep, the story was shit. I liked the spectacle. That's as high as my standards go." Then you'd be back in the realm of subjective opinion, you'd be disappointing but at least not wrong, and while your taste would be in doubt, your integrity and intelligence wouldn't be.

I happened to like the story and the spectacle. But I also recognize that it's not a great work of art.

So fuck you, failboy.

P.S. - feel free to PM me your address so I can send you a complimentary copy of the Oxford English Dictionary. It may help you understand the differences between skill, technique and science.

And on that note, I'll turn this back to Async just for Clyde's amusement.

I couldn't disagree more, and this shows how entirely unreasonable you are.

[?="Wanna know why?"]Because that implies that such a person is currently part of "civilized society." Now I ask you, is that in any way reasonable?[/?]

Do you think Skin even understands his own bullshit, or does he just start going with it and get so far out in left field that he's somewhere in Outer Mongolia?

No, Art isn't Science, skippy. Never has been, never will be. One is subjective, one is objective, and they are fundamentally different things.

Calling it a science is taking it too far, but there is a technique to the analysis of storytelling and of film specifically as a visual medium. You can complain all you like, but according to everything that is instructed on the subject, Abrams Trek is objectively bad.

C'mon, give him a break. He's a scientist, man! They always tend to be a bit absent-minded, don't they?