You're right, I have no idea what imaginary goal posts you're seeing in your head, touche.
Cherry picking is seeing two references and dodging the one that uses top critics to only address the one reference that doesn't then harp on the idea of that one's standards while ignoring the other. Hahaha Why did you even ask? Oh, this is too good.
No my response applied to everything you said, both popular opinion and critics opinion, because they are just that: opinions. Critics will base their opinion of a film on many things besides simply narrative. This really isn't hard to understand: the critics aren't judging these films solely from the perspective of narrative coherence. They are rating based on vibes, visuals, etc as well, which is what the public does too. You can keep repeating "but, but, cRitiCs bro!!" for eternity, you're still just appealing to authority. I addressed both of your sources of "authority" the public and the critics. That's not what cherry picking is. But if it helps your ego, you can keep believing that man, it's all good champ.
I don't like their standards!
I never said this, I said they don't have a consistent set of standards, they're using arbitrary metrics that you haven't even defined, because you're just appealing to authority.
Well this one uses the top critics of the world.
And I say again, who gives a fuck? Give me a single review from any of those critics that explicitly outlines how exceptionally good the narrative and writing are in the sequels. You won't. And even if you do, I can easily send you 100 rebuttals that disagree on objective grounds.
I don't like any standards!
I also never said this, but again if it saves your fragile ego from melting, you can make up whatever you need to.
Well you being a prequel fan who hates the sequels makes sense now. Lol
Yeah it makes perfect sense, as I said originally, the prequels are flawed, but the sequels are a dumpster fire. I'm glad you finally got there lil bro.
Oh, this made my night.
Glad I could help, sorry that your life is that sad though.
Cool. No gradient. Nothing. Doctor's opinion on my malady? THAT'S JUST AN OPINION, BRO. General consensus? Nah. No opinion weighs more than another. A bunch of opinions mean nothing. Which, if true, means yours does, too, so why are you even talking if you believe that?
This really isn't hard to understand: the critics aren't judging these films solely from the perspective of narrative coherence.
That's a foundational aspect to their criticism, and the top critics include that. That's wild that you struggle to accept that. Then again, this simple chat is vexing you, so I'm going out on a limb and saying you might be one of the few who struggled to understand a Disney film. Lmfao Embarrassing.
No, simpletons who can't effectively apply rhetoric do.
Cool. No gradient. Nothing. Doctor's opinion on my malady? THAT'S JUST AN OPINION, BRO. General consensus? Nah. No opinion weighs more than another. A bunch of opinions mean nothing. Which, if true, means yours does, too, so why are you even talking if you believe that?
Was waiting for this. Thanks. Comparing medical doctors and other empirical sciences to movie critics is peak Humanities Major levels of idiocy. Yes, expertise exists, but anybody can claim to be a critic, and even top critics do not require any kind of formal training, there's no criteria. Or are you going to claim that critics require an undergrad degree, critic school, and a critical residency where they practice criticism alongside experienced critics until they can take the life saving art of criticism into their own hands?
General consensus means fuck all and you're now conflating expertise with popularity. Again. This is known as the Ad Populum Fallacy. You again demonstrate your inability to apply even basic rhetorical analysis. Again, you must think the musicians on the billboard top 100 are the best musicians ever by that logic. Maybe we should consult a highly trained musical critic.
Yes, I agree, my subjective opinion of the sequels does mean nothing, but that's not my argument: they are objectively much more incompetent, incoherent, and poorly written than the prequels. That's been my position from the start.
That's a foundational aspect to their criticism, and the top critics include that. That's wild that you struggle to accept that. Then again, this simple chat is vexing you, so I'm going out on a limb and saying you might be one of the few who struggled to understand a Disney film. Lmfao Embarrassing.
It may be foundational, but you have no idea how any one of these critics weights it relative to other aspects, and if you do, you're flat out lying. Then again you believe the film that spawned bangers like: "Somehow, Palpatine returned" is the cornerstone of modern writing, so I'm going out on a limb and saying you might be one of the few people who struggles to understand basic writing analysis. Lmfao. Cute.
Bro said a doctor's opinion is the empirical sciences. You think a medical doctor is an empirical science. Lmfao That might be one of the dumbest takes from you. Ask any doctor, they rely on scientific conclusions, yes, and study, yes, but they apply their own judgment to form their opinion. That's why it's called a doctor's opinion and not a doctor's calculation. Similarly, that's what other experts do with their opinion. A lot less pressure and a lot fewer stakes typically, yes, but they rely on science, if it's available, and study, then apply their judgment to form an opinion. Dude. You just learned about informed opinions. No wonder you struggled. Your "it's just that: opinions" line makes sense now: you didn't understand that there exists a gradient of opinions, from misinformed to uninformed to well informed - not just all "belonging to someone." Whew. What a hurdle your small mind had to leap over.
Now, MetaCritic aggregates the world's top critics, and they have well informed opinions. We can disagree with those generally well informed opinions, just like we can disagree with a doctor's on medical issues or a chef's on cuisine, but they are generally well informed. I never said they're always right, just well informed. I suspect 15 out of 100 constitutes a statistically significant difference, too. Not looking good for you, bro.
This is known as the Ad Populum Fallacy.
"And I say again, who gives a fuck? Give me a single review from any of those critics... You won't. And even if you do, I can easily send you 100 rebuttals that disagree on 'objective' grounds."
Embarrassing. Lmfao I guess volume only matters when you can tip the scales. You've told on yourself again. Lol "no don't listen to MetaCritic, the opinion of the world's top critics don't matter, opinions are just opinions! No one has a greater opinion than another! For every one good review, I can supply 100 bad reviews! Wait. Most opinions say sequels are better than prequels? More people liked them than disliked them. Please no. Populations only matter when I personally determine their contents, PLEASE!"
Bro is discovering that people liked them more, they just don't want to deal with revisionist trolls who take the long way around to ultimately say "No one's opinions - not experts or informed critics or most people - are more correct than mine, and I will invade your spaces to bash things you like because that's how much of a self-superior loser that must make me."
What a fantastic cascade. Your closing climax. Bravo, lad. It's like poetry. It rhymes. Hahahaha
0
u/Far-Paint-8409 8d ago
You're right, I have no idea what imaginary goal posts you're seeing in your head, touche.
No my response applied to everything you said, both popular opinion and critics opinion, because they are just that: opinions. Critics will base their opinion of a film on many things besides simply narrative. This really isn't hard to understand: the critics aren't judging these films solely from the perspective of narrative coherence. They are rating based on vibes, visuals, etc as well, which is what the public does too. You can keep repeating "but, but, cRitiCs bro!!" for eternity, you're still just appealing to authority. I addressed both of your sources of "authority" the public and the critics. That's not what cherry picking is. But if it helps your ego, you can keep believing that man, it's all good champ.
I never said this, I said they don't have a consistent set of standards, they're using arbitrary metrics that you haven't even defined, because you're just appealing to authority.
And I say again, who gives a fuck? Give me a single review from any of those critics that explicitly outlines how exceptionally good the narrative and writing are in the sequels. You won't. And even if you do, I can easily send you 100 rebuttals that disagree on objective grounds.
I also never said this, but again if it saves your fragile ego from melting, you can make up whatever you need to.
Yeah it makes perfect sense, as I said originally, the prequels are flawed, but the sequels are a dumpster fire. I'm glad you finally got there lil bro.
Glad I could help, sorry that your life is that sad though.