4 ms·

Maybe I am missing the point. But I think it is my opinion that is relevant. And yours. And your moms. Why talk about inherent problems in the general case at

Maybe I am missing the point. But I think it is my opinion that is relevant. And yours. And your moms. Why talk about inherent problems in the general case at all, no matter if it is kid's drawings or 3D movies. There is a market for both of them. He's making a case for the objective value of something where I believe only subjective values matter. To each his own.

chc 16y ago
Can you explain why my personal feelings are relevant to the general mass-market utility of a technology? Unless somebody is making a movie just for me and I just happen to think the tech is really neat (which is outside the scope of Ebert's piece), I don't see how it matters one whit. There are objective things and subjective things and some shades between. You're talking about purely subjective tastes and Ebert was not. You may want to talk about subjective things, but that isn't what he was doing.
- martinkallstrom 16y ago
  It's because the mass-market appeal is precisely made up of a lot of personal opinions. There is nothing inbetween. A market is formed by millions upon millions of little purchasing decisions, each one commanded by subjective thought. The objectiveness Ebert is trying to will into existance can never be more than an illusion. The market is utterly made out of the subjective. Otherwise, marketing wouldn't work. And $2B Avatar box office sales is an excellent example of the market not caring about what an old wizard holds forth as the objective truth.
  - MrScruff 16y ago
    The popularity of Avatar tells us little about the long term commercial viability of 3D films. Avatar was the subject of a huge amount of marketing and hype (deserved or not) so there are reasons to think it would have done well regardless. Especially when you consider how the directors previous mainstream effort fared. Also, the box office figures for 3D features are falling. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3ea83ed0-1770-11e0-badd-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1C3Pn4W3x http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3ea83ed0-1770-11e0-badd-00144feabd... You're using hand picked data points to argue against the validity of an attempted reasoned argument.
    - martinkallstrom 16y ago
      Ok, my mistake. Skip the part about Avatar. My reasoning does not rely upon it.

chc 16y ago

Can you explain why my personal feelings are relevant to the general mass-market utility of a technology? Unless somebody is making a movie just for me and I just happen to think the tech is really neat (which is outside the scope of Ebert's piece), I don't see how it matters one whit. There are objective things and subjective things and some shades between. You're talking about purely subjective tastes and Ebert was not. You may want to talk about subjective things, but that isn't what he was doing.

martinkallstrom 16y ago
It's because the mass-market appeal is precisely made up of a lot of personal opinions. There is nothing inbetween. A market is formed by millions upon millions of little purchasing decisions, each one commanded by subjective thought. The objectiveness Ebert is trying to will into existance can never be more than an illusion. The market is utterly made out of the subjective. Otherwise, marketing wouldn't work. And $2B Avatar box office sales is an excellent example of the market not caring about what an old wizard holds forth as the objective truth.
- MrScruff 16y ago
  The popularity of Avatar tells us little about the long term commercial viability of 3D films. Avatar was the subject of a huge amount of marketing and hype (deserved or not) so there are reasons to think it would have done well regardless. Especially when you consider how the directors previous mainstream effort fared. Also, the box office figures for 3D features are falling. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3ea83ed0-1770-11e0-badd-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1C3Pn4W3x http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3ea83ed0-1770-11e0-badd-00144feabd... You're using hand picked data points to argue against the validity of an attempted reasoned argument.
  - martinkallstrom 16y ago
    Ok, my mistake. Skip the part about Avatar. My reasoning does not rely upon it.