https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZecyoE_uBc&list=PLLnfvt0TjwhoiZb0V9hlGK_wmEwTGTn6T&index=14
>if you don't have an eye for what is good and what is bad, you're not going to make it.
are we losing this mentality? almost every conversation I have about movies that are bad with people they always say "well that's your opinion" or something to that measure in a conversation about OBJECTIVE quality.
This is a very important thing that people need to realize, and every autist outside of the industry will run around telling you about how RWBY is good.
>Stan Lee
>an eye for what is good and what is bad
>>71759417
regardless of the man saying it, it's sound advice
He'll be fine
>>71759442
The fact he can't differentiate good from bad advice because of the Stan Lee meme, is ironic.
I like this.
>>71759417
What the hell are you even blaming the guy for?
Stan Lee made great comics then gave away the control to them then he helped make some pretty fun and solid Marvel movies, I think he is allowed to brag about his eye for whats good.
What makes a movie bad? Who decides?
Stan was referring to knowing what's good and bad for the sake of "making it" or being a success. Does this mean that if something is successful it's automatically good?
They probably said "that's your opinion" because you were acting like a total sperg and didn't want to talk to you anymore.
It's up to you personally to determine objective quality, but it's not your place to shitpost about other people's taste in real life or on the internet.
No one fucking cares.
>>71759497
>Stan Lee made great comics
>some pretty fun and solid Marvel movies
>>71759391
Why is his wig always on crooked?
Why are his glasses on crooked?
Does he have crooked eyesight?
stan made dormammu
he's alright in my eyes
>>71759589
He's 93 leave him alone.
>>71759391
>almost every conversation I have about movies that are bad with people they always say "well that's your opinion" or something to that measure in a conversation about OBJECTIVE quality.
any "objective" discussion about film would be nothing but a recitation of facts: runtime, who it stars, the title, etc.
film criticism, and all art criticism, is inherently subjective and based primarily on personal taste.
something is considered "good" insofar as it's well-liked by a majority of people, or by the right people (critics).
if something is disliked by the majority of people, or disliked by the right (wrong) people, that doesn't make it bad, particularly since popular opinion fluctuates over time.
>>71759595
That was Ditko tho. I'm not even one of these guys obsessed with Stan allegedly stealing credit, it's just fact that Stan basically let Ditko go hod wild with Dr. Strange.
There is no such thing as "objective quality". What is considered good is decided by consensus.
>>71759694
>>71759659
can you justify a movie like birdemic or plan 9 from outer space as anything other than objectively bad.
if you can I would like to hear it.
>>71759659
is this not objectively bad? is the anatomy not objectively wrong?
>>71759725
Those films are considered bad by subjective standards. If someone thought those films were good for any reason, they wouldn't be wrong.
>>71759761
The anatomy is objectively wrong, but wrongness doesn't equal badness.
>>71759391
>almost every conversation I have about movies that are bad with people they always say "well that's your opinion"
This can be true and still be within the parameters of what Stan is saying. While he says "bad vs good," I think the distinction he is making is "competent vs incompetent." The picture he described in his wasn't just "bad," it was incompetent. As moviegoers, we rarely see movies that are incompetent. Almost all Hollywood films, even the "bad" ones are competent. There are plenty of incompetent films produced, the kind of trash they review on "Best of the Worst," but those tend not get wide releases for obvious reasons. There is a level of subjectivity in deciding whether a competent film is bad or good. Take something like August Osage County. Not many people would argue that that is a "bad" movie-- It is well written, well shot, well acted-- but I personally don't care for it. Other people are free to feel differently, and that's where subjectivity comes in. I really don't think there is an objective definition for what makes a competent movie "good."
>>71759793
this is a good post that clears up some semantics.
Film is subjective. Canon however is more consensual.
Ever got visibly upset or snotty when someone tells you why one of your favorite movie is shit? Thats because that film or the author behind it is in the 'canon'. Same reason why plebs get angry when someone says any of the MCU flicks are trash, because that is what they are but the canon says otherwise.
But anyone dismissing your points by saying 'woah dud thas like your opinion man' is imbecilic and should not be allowed to call himself a cinephile. Whats funny is that this happens to be the case with /v/ tier dudebros
>>71759849
what's canon? I'm confused
>>71759896
Kind of an imaginary circlejerk where every artist that hasnt gotten a flop by critical or audience standards is in.
![Ecw_raven[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/hBWtieT.jpg "Ecw_raven[1].jpg")
>>71759391
>tfw I was listening to this and then started fucking about in new tabs and not paying attention
What the hell is wrong with me? Here is earnest advice from a god damned legend being directed right at me and I can't even sit and listen for 5 minutes.
I'd genuinely like to see a biopic on the man
