Superman Returns why WB is so confident this time?

Saint said:
My point was that the active role of the other person making the argument is what results in the change.


But there is still a REASON you think this, and that's what I'm asking for: reason.

SHH Posters stomping around screaming "The suit is fine! it's my opinion and I have a right to it therefore you're all wrong and stupid and in denial!" is not a reason. It's nothing: it's a load of crap.

Opinions are supported by evidence; it's just that simple. Well, rather they SHOULD be, and often are. If it doesn't boil down to factual data eventually, it holds no weight. This is the error I see often on these forums. People who argue that because they like something, it must be the best, universally, and that anyone who says different is stupid, lying, or in denial. This is chiefly the mode of though I try to prevent. That is what I mean by being unreasonable. When someone argues something, they need to support their argument with something besides the fact that they "like it."

It would probably be more accurate to say my problem is with unreasonable arguments.


There is nothing unreasonable about arguing. The fact of the matter is that the only thing I've identified as "unreasonable" is pretending that your likes or dislikes dictate what is right or wrong, better or worse universally.

Furthermore:
de·bate
v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
v. intr.

1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
4. Obsolete. To fight or quarrel.

If I enter into a debate with the goal of strictly changing the viewpoint of my opponent, it is still a debate.

I also do not concede that someone has to be "impartial" to consider new evidence and change their mind about something. It certainly makes the process easier, though.


I already addressed that above. But if you do want to get right down to it, I suppose it does end up being a loop. For example: Pre-Miller Batman is the proper interpretation of Batman (This does not represent my actual thoughts on the matter; it's just an example). Why? Because that material is greater in number than post-Miller Batman material. This would be based upon my secondary opinion that a larger amount of material constitutes the right interpretation of Batman and so on. So I suppose you're correct in that regard.


I'm beginning to see your point, but I would contend that a debate is little more than presenting arguments (Such as those found in a pamphlet), allowing the other person to present, then presenting a counter. Even an attempt to debunk an argument still boils down to a presentation of evidence in an attempt to perform the debunking.


Whoever suggested we stop arguing? All I suggest is injecting a little reason into the debate, so we don't have people supporting their opinions with the fact that they're opinions, but instead people supporting their opinions with actual reasons (Which is to say reasons that extend beyond their own preferences).

You see, my problem with the posts I originally quoted in this thread (about Batman Begins) was that they made flat-out statements without even the slightest effort to qualify those statements with any actual reasons. It was simple "Batman Begins is awesome" opposed to "No it's not." That's crap. That goes nowhere. That's just two people pretending their statements are fact, with no reasoning behind them.


I am going to let this stand, with the qualifier, once again, that "evidence" supporting opinion, as you agreed, is circular in nature, because any "evidence" is based on value judgement as well. While confrontation is never pretty, it is entertaining, which is why it happens so often around here. This is, like I said, nothing more than entertainment. If you wanted to be educated about superheroes and such, there are far better places to do it. Many books have been written about them.

However, since any opinion backed up with qualifiers like "Batman Begins is the best movie because it accurately portrays Batman from the comics" presents a giant cesspool of subjective opinion. Why is it accurate? What comics time period? Why is that the definitive Batman? The answer, ultimately and always, boils down to "because I like it." Never any other reason. So what's the point of using all that evidence when it will always boil down to the same ultimate qualifier? "Batman Begins is awesome because I like it." That's the only statement that is honest and accurate. And that is something that is not debateable. Not without lots of unreasonable argument.

The same is true with this movie, so far, or any artistic exercise. You either like it - or you don't. Providing qualifiers and "evidence" is merely supporting your opinion with further opinion. And if somebody changes their mind and agrees with your opinion, it is because they have either realized that they liked it all along, or have been converted by whatever means. But their opinion has changed, and there is no objective reason why.
 
Saint said:
Perhaps if you had been paying attention you would have noticed I branded my comments as being strictly my thoughts and opinions when I made the post. Twice, actually, so your attempt to make me look like a hypocrite by suggesting I presented my thoughts as fact is fruitless.
It still came across as condescending in tone, and I felt the need to point it out. I didn't have to try and make you look like a hypocrite, you were doing a fine job of it on your own. I also didn't have the urge to read all of your posts, I merely made my response in regards to what antaman said commenting on what you were saying in a previous post, I assume.

Saint said:
As far as Superman Returns is concerned, I said nothing about the project itself, be that positive or negative. All I said was that I don't care if the studio is confident, then explained why.
Gotcha.
 
WOW there is some heavy post seperating debating going on here.I think WB are so confident this Time b/c Superman was the first of the comic book characters to ever make the transition and he has the appeal of Spidey with the mainstream and we all know how well those movies did
Also now they have singer who has proven he can make a superhero movie a hit
 
Nuk Nukk said:
It still came across as condescending in tone, and I felt the need to point it out. I didn't have to try and make you look like a hypocrite, you were doing a fine job of it on your own. I also didn't have the urge to read all of your posts, I merely made my response in regards to what antaman said commenting on what you were saying in a previous post, I assume.
.
Unfortunately for you, I cannot be blamed when you read a portion of my comments in somebody's quote, then make false assumptions about my tone or implications in the post.

In the future, make sure you know what I'm saying before you start trying to nail me on it, because your comments about me looking like a hypocrite are baseless within the actual post.
 
MatchesMalone said:
I am going to let this stand, with the qualifier, once again, that "evidence" supporting opinion, as you agreed, is circular in nature, because any "evidence" is based on value judgement as well. While confrontation is never pretty, it is entertaining, which is why it happens so often around here. This is, like I said, nothing more than entertainment. If you wanted to be educated about superheroes and such, there are far better places to do it. Many books have been written about them.

However, since any opinion backed up with qualifiers like "Batman Begins is the best movie because it accurately portrays Batman from the comics" presents a giant cesspool of subjective opinion. Why is it accurate? What comics time period? Why is that the definitive Batman? The answer, ultimately and always, boils down to "because I like it." Never any other reason. So what's the point of using all that evidence when it will always boil down to the same ultimate qualifier? "Batman Begins is awesome because I like it." That's the only statement that is honest and accurate. And that is something that is not debateable. Not without lots of unreasonable argument.

The same is true with this movie, so far, or any artistic exercise. You either like it - or you don't. Providing qualifiers and "evidence" is merely supporting your opinion with further opinion. And if somebody changes their mind and agrees with your opinion, it is because they have either realized that they liked it all along, or have been converted by whatever means. But their opinion has changed, and there is no objective reason why.
To that I would as why somebody likes something.
 
To that I would ask why you like that which makes you like the original.
 
AND THEN THE MONKEYS WILL EXPLODE.



And I'll ask why.
 
Saint said:
Unfortunately for you, I cannot be blamed when you read a portion of my comments in somebody's quote, then make false assumptions about my tone or implications in the post.

In the future, make sure you know what I'm saying before you start trying to nail me on it, because your comments about me looking like a hypocrite are baseless within the actual post.
I was going by antaman's post..in which he paraphrased you, so I felt there was no need to read your actual post. I jumped the gun, but my intent wasn't to make you look bad or any of the sort. I just thought it was humerous, because you are generally the one who always lectures about the way people project their opinions as fact.
 
Saint said:
AND THEN THE MONKEYS WILL EXPLODE.



And I'll ask why.

skinpop.gif
 
Nuk Nukk said:
I was going by antaman's post..in which he paraphrased you, so I felt there was no need to read your actual post. I jumped the gun, but my intent wasn't to make you look bad or any of the sort. I just thought it was humerous, because you are generally the one who always lectures about the way people project their opinions as fact.
Yes, I'm aware of the fact that you decided knowing what I was actually saying wasn't necessary, and decided instead to baselessly call me a hypocrite.
 
Saint said:
Yes, I'm aware of the fact that you decided knowing what I was actually saying wasn't necessary, and decided instead to baselessly call me a hypocrite.
Dude, I wasn't "attacking" you. If I offended you, I'm sorry. If I could do something to promote the peace between us, I would... :(
 
Batman Begins gives confidence...and perhaps the script is good.
 
ROBOCOP CPU001 said:
Batman Begins gives confidence...and perhaps the script is good.

The script is definately well written.
 
Don't know but this is kinda different. I'm more looking forward to this movie then I was for Batman Begins. Everyone'll want to see it and they're in the hands of a great director.
 
are you still thinking the same. ;)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"