However, quality is not determined by how many people enjoy a certain thing. If it was then The Phantom Menace would be a better movie than 2001 is, considering the amount of money made by the former, the number of people that viewed it and the number of people that like it all far exceeds the latter.

You are right, quality is not determined by how many people enjoy a thing, but quality can be assumed based on a broad sample of people, some of whom like and some of whom dislike a thing.

Well you can to a reasonable degree objectively assess how well things meet their goals. For example you can say that special effcts are objectively good or bad based on how convincing they are. Note, not convincing as in realistic (e.g. sound effects in Space), but convincing as in don't pull you out of the movie. The super-imposed Jabba in ANH? Objectively bad from a SFX point of view. Similarly acting has discernible intents. Comic over the top acting, believable acting, highly dramatic classical acting... What category are the Prequels going for? Well in the cases of Anakin and Padme's romantic scenes, it's reasonable to say they are attempting to be believed by the audience, not rip you out of belief with their woodenness. Do the scenes between them seem real to human nature? No. Well, Portman's half of the screen does just about, which is credit to her skills. Or more likely credit to her ability to ignore the director, but anyway...

You can to a reasonable degree assess films objectively. Just not at the macroscopic level of "good" or "bad". But you can at a level a little below that.

Actually you can judge movies and other cultural byproducts by a different standard than the age old "it is all a matter of taste" yard stick. Because a. there are criteria that can determine quality besides this and b. it is not all a matter of taste. Plain and simple taste and especially the taste of the masses is in fact a terrible means of determining quality.

I disagree on a fundamental level. This is what my humorous jargon in the previous post was pointing towards. The belief in and acceptance of the notion of something as "good taste" or objectively better than something else based on some criteria (the whole notion of objectively determining anything social (and art is social - and films are art in the broader sense of the term) is inherently flawed). That is the result of symbolic violence, that is the product of contemporary hegemonic discourse telling us what to say or not to say, guiding our thoughts about what can be accepted and not (as true, valid and possible), in a search for some sort of meaningful reference point, to make it all fit, be neat, systematic and predictable... but I shouldn't write my musings on a synthesis of Bourdieu, Foucault and others here on this forum. Sorry. Suffice to say, the taste of the masses is a better indication of quality, sadly, than any indication given my "experts" and know-hows and others that claim authority on the field, of course the masses (i.e. us) are guided by these "experts", but we are also guided by consumer culture and other factors. A fun point: referencing "the masses" as something or someone else, is kind of elitist and peculiar when discussing social phenomena - are you distancing yourself from everyone else? or who is the "masses"? what constitutes the "masses"? who are included and who are not in this rather vague and nonsensical category?

Sorry but I am not English or American so I did not get everything you wrote.

However I will try to answer what I do understand...

The belief in and acceptance of the notion of something as "good taste" or objectively better than something else based on some criteria (the whole notion of objectively determining anything social (and art is social - and films are art in the broader sense of the term) is inherently flawed).

I am well aware of the social nature of at and thus movies and addressed this in my post. I also wonder why you would chose to say "some criteria" because that in itself seems a rather shallow approach of academics. I also don't understand why it would be inherently flawed, just because someone is willing to step away from emotional investment and work out the merits of a certain work of art objectively and using criteria to do so, to me, seems perfectly reasonable.

That is the result of symbolic violence, that is the product of contemporary hegemonic discourse telling us what to say or not to say, guiding our thoughts about what can be accepted and not (as true, valid and possible), in a search for some sort of meaningful reference point, to make it all fit, be neat, systematic and predictable...

This is an enormous leap and I have to say I might be overreaching on my understanding of the English language but it seems like a judgement of my character and a wrong one at that. I would like to point out, again, that I do not think people should enjoy things in the way I do just I am not bound to the same enjoyment others find in other cultural/social works. Heck, my wife listens to Jennifer Lopez for fun. Also, impying that an outlook such as i have would work out to establishing predictability is very much showing me a misunderstanding of what I am trying to say.

but I shouldn't write my musings on a synthesis of Bourdieu, Foucault and others here on this forum. Sorry. Suffice to say, the taste of the masses is a better indication of quality, sadly, than any indication given my "experts" and know-hows and others that claim authority on the field, of course the masses (i.e. us) are guided by these "experts", but we are also guided by consumer culture and other factors.

And this is something I guess we will never sagree upon. When I was sitting in an empty theater watching The Tree Of Life and walked into the main lobby of the cinema to see droves of people lining up for an Adam sandler flick I didn't think "oh look at the puney masses going to see a sh*tty movie" but I was happy they hadn't chosen to visit a movie I wouldn't have enjoyed with them around me not having a good time.

However do I feel that, for instance in such an example, the masses are a better indicator of quality? Hell no!

A fun point: referencing "the masses" as something or someone else, is kind of elitist and peculiar when discussing social phenomena - are you distancing yourself from everyone else? or who is the "masses"? what constitutes the "masses"? who are included and who are not in this rather vague and nonsensical category?

The masses? The masses are just that. The masses. In some fields I am one of them (cars, dance music, sculpture, etc.) in others I am more a more invested party that knows a bit more about it then average (wine movies, music)

I will again stress that I never look down on people, ever, based on their taste in such matters.

You're right, Dante. I don't get what you mean at all, especially since you just basically said, "Look, it's all subjective" in your first paragraph and then "Hey, I do think subjectively" in your second.

Well, I don't know what is confusing about that... I was very clear that I found this to be the case "at times" just like I find that other people have more authority in discussing matters I am not that invested in.

You're right, Dante. I don't get what you mean at all, especially since you just basically said, "Look, it's all subjective" in your first paragraph and then "Hey, I do think subjectively" in your second.

Well, I don't know what is confusing about that... I was very clear that I found this to be the case "at times" just like I find that other people have more authority in discussing matters I am not that invested in.

The only reason it is confusing is because this whole time you've been arguing that your statements are objective.

Then we arrive at that key definer of what apparently makes art great or terrible - the consensus.

I could not disagree more...

You seem to make the opposite point I am making. Do you really believe the masses would find that painting a spectacular work of art? I am pretty sure the majority of people would have the same reaction you have as some art isn't gcreated for the majority, it is in fact created not to appease the majority but to look to challenge the people that look at it/watch it/eat it/hear it.

There is a reason Tom Waits songs are more succesful when covered by others but that people who really understand and love music prefer the Original Waits versions.

I also agree that it's good to be able to enjoy a civil discourse on the subject of art criticism in general, and the Star Wars prequel in particular.

You're right, Dante. I don't get what you mean at all, especially since you just basically said, "Look, it's all subjective" in your first paragraph and then "Hey, I do think subjectively" in your second.

Well, I don't know what is confusing about that... I was very clear that I found this to be the case "at times" just like I find that other people have more authority in discussing matters I am not that invested in.

The only reason it is confusing is because this whole time you've been arguing that your statements are objective.

No, I haven't.

Sorry but I am not English or American so I did not get everything you wrote.

However I will try to answer what I do understand...

Neither am I.

I am well aware of the social nature of at and thus movies and addressed this in my post. I also wonder why you would chose to say "some criteria" because that in itself seems a rather shallow approach of academics. I also don't understand why it would be inherently flawed, just because someone is willing to step away from emotional investment and work out the merits of a certain work of art objectively and using criteria to do so, to me, seems perfectly reasonable.

I chose "some" criteria as the criteria chosen will differ and vary over time and according to position within the knowledge field, and I would not like to determine those criteria - and the ones put down already are poor ones in my opinion as they subscribe to an economic and rational model, which poorly represents human behaviours and tastes.

Stepping away from emotional investment isn't really possible, you can try to ignore them or move away from them, but then you're only trying to put on different and other types of emotional investments and presumed opinions and values you can label and identify, it does not make it objective - this is a common concept within the humanities and social sciences; objectivity is impossible, or implausible. Of course being aware of this doesn't help. The best you can do, in concert with others, is to come up with a more or less generally accepted inter-subjective judgement of quality of the product, but this will be based on agreement concerning the tension and experience that is created when the various subjects perceive the product. And as I pointed out above, this makes for poor objective or indications really, particularly if one is still subscribing to some notion of obtaining an objectivity - as this implies static, defined and deterministic qualities of the product.

That is the result of symbolic violence, that is the product of contemporary hegemonic discourse telling us what to say or not to say, guiding our thoughts about what can be accepted and not (as true, valid and possible), in a search for some sort of meaningful reference point, to make it all fit, be neat, systematic and predictable...

This is an enormous leap and I have to say I might be overreaching on my understanding of the English language but it seems like a judgement of my character and a wrong one at that. I would like to point out, again, that I do not think people should enjoy things in the way I do just I am not bound to the same enjoyment others find in other cultural/social works. Heck, my wife listens to Jennifer Lopez for fun. Also, impying that an outlook such as i have would work out to establishing predictability is very much showing me a misunderstanding of what I am trying to say.

It's not such an enormous leap, is a pretty established notion. It's not a judgement of your character, it's a judgement and pretty well backed notion (I'd like to say fact, but that would be misleading) about people, society and social interaction. Of course one might disagree, but that's irrelevant, it's a sound theoretical approach to social interaction, they call is a post-structural approach, I'm not so sure, but it's well founded in empirical data as well as sound theoretical reasoning. Whether you listen to Lopez, watch reality tv-series or not isn't really relevant (neither do I), these are but some of the available discourse positions we have available to take, along with the roles that comes with them.

but I shouldn't write my musings on a synthesis of Bourdieu, Foucault and others here on this forum. Sorry. Suffice to say, the taste of the masses is a better indication of quality, sadly, than any indication given my "experts" and know-hows and others that claim authority on the field, of course the masses (i.e. us) are guided by these "experts", but we are also guided by consumer culture and other factors.

And this is something I guess we will never sagree upon. When I was sitting in an empty theater watching The Tree Of Life and walked into the main lobby of the cinema to see droves of people lining up for an Adam sandler flick I didn't think "oh look at the puney masses going to see a sh*tty movie" but I was happy they hadn't chosen to visit a movie I wouldn't have enjoyed with them around me not having a good time.

However do I feel that, for instance in such an example, the masses are a better indicator of quality? Hell no!

So the "masses" are the undefined group that prefer what you consider to be beneath you? This is a typical example of symbolic violence (just as me ranting on about this, showing off my social and cultural capital as an educated scientist with a similar habitus from the get go). When you watched the Tree of Life I'd be one of the guys thinking "man, who'd watch crap like that? ah, yeah, the 'masses'" As with reality shows (or dirtbag tv as it's also called over here) people watch that and Sandler movies for various reasons, the problem is that judging that is also based on the assumption that you know why they watch it, and you cannot know that - sure you can know why some of them watches it, but not all, and such inductive reasoning is fallacious, and unscientific... but of course, we do not think and act scientifically... we think and act by inference, and that's the whole problem.

So the "masses" must include everyone, not just those that we judge as people with worse taste than us, for whatever reason and whatever criteria we choose to use as a measuring stick - and also the stick that we use to perform symbolic violence.

A fun point: referencing "the masses" as something or someone else, is kind of elitist and peculiar when discussing social phenomena - are you distancing yourself from everyone else? or who is the "masses"? what constitutes the "masses"? who are included and who are not in this rather vague and nonsensical category?

The masses? The masses are just that. The masses. In some fields I am one of them (cars, dance music, sculpture, etc.) in others I am more a more invested party that knows a bit more about it then average (wine movies, music)

I will again stress that I never look down on people, ever, based on their taste in such matters.

Well, I'm being confrontational now, but it's all in good spirits and well meant, but the previous quote and this quote is indicative of you "looking down on people" which opinions and tastes differs from yours in one direction (I'm sure there are others that you would look up to or appreciate more or something, we all have that).

Ah well, I'll stop my violent use of symbols now I was only trying to drive home the points that: objectivity is impossible in the sense that most use it (and how I understand it beign used here) - if on the other hand one equates it with a more or less inter-subjective notion, then sure, one possibly could, but even then it's problematic and misleading to use the term objectivity.

My 2 credits is, they all had their moments. There were parts of them that I felt were better than what we got in the Classic Trilogy - namely Qui-Gon Jinn - and parts that were much worse - namely Jar-Jar Binks.

No, I haven't.

Yes, you have.

I agree however that they are objectively bad movies.

Just two things:

Jar Jar Binks and Midi-chlorians

it cost me 2 years of therapy to get rid of these memories

No, I haven't.

Yes, you have.

I agree however that they are objectively bad movies.

That is not an objective statement nor a claim that it's objective. It's a subjective statement, very much so. "I agree" more than qualifies this the statement to be subjective. He agrees with the idea or statement or suggestion that someone made that the prequel trilogy can be considered "objectively bad" - however ludicrous such a suggestion is. Objectively the prequel trilogy is a series of films, partly on celluloid (or our contemporary equivalent, I'm aware that celluloid isn't in use anymore, it's a figure or speech), partly digitally stored. You could go further to say that it's a series of images on a film roll, or a bunch of binary coded information that can be, with the proper equipment, shown as moving images with accompanying sound.

Jegeryte, while I appreciate the distinction you are making, aligning one's subjective view with what one believes is an objective truth is the closest we humans come to objectivity in our opinions and is tantamount to declaring one's view objective.

Might I make a suggestion? Instead of trying to determine if a movie is bad or not and the subjectiveness therein, why not go if you enjoyed it or not?

Look, I love bad movies. Plan 9 From Outer Space, by any sense of filmmaking standards, is a TERRIBLE movie - consistently mind-bending dialogue, spacecraft and airliner cockpit sets that were assembled from plywood (where you can still see the wood grain on the "metal"), backdrops made of shower curtains, boom mikes in the shot, actors calling each other by their real names - not their characters, word war II surplus electronics bravely attempting to standing for state of the art spaceship controls, cardboard tombstones constantly being knocked over by the cast members, a stand-in that spends the entirety of his scenes traipsing about holding a cape over his face because he has no resemblance to the original actor whatsoever, jumps between day and night and back again in the same scene, recycled footage, stilted acting and continuity errors that would make a mortal director weep.

And yet, I love the hell out of Plan 9. It's fun, it's entertaining, it's cheesy as hell, but I'll defend it to my last breath - all this despite it being a terrible, terrible movie. Same thing with House of the Dead or Hell Comes to Frogtown or Blacula or Bride of the Monster or . . . well, you get the idea.

The most important thing I need out of a movie is 2 hours of entertainment. It doesnt need to be well acted or well scripted - although both of those cant hurt - it just needs to be fun. Was Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clone and Revenge of the Sith fun? Did you get two hours of pleasure from them? If the answer is yes, then quality be damned. The movie was a sucess.

Jegeryte, while I appreciate the distinction you are making, aligning one's subjective view with what one believes is an objective truth is the closest we humans come to objectivity in our opinions and is tantamount to declaring one's view objective.

Right, I see your point and I don't necessarily disagree, but I think there's a difference (and important one at that) between agreeing with an assumed objective claim (whether valid or not) and claiming what one states is objective. Because motivation behind the statement is also important, and while I can agree somewhat with your interpretation of the statement, I also think that the motivation and intention behind a statement is equally important to the interpreter - more (reliable) data equals more a precise (if not valid) interpretation.

So yeah, I see what you mean, but I seriously doubt that was his intention - he seems far more interested in the discussion to be constructive and enjoyable, than to claim that he is right and everyone else is wrong, a notion I agree with. There is also another issue here, which concerns linguistic (and by extension cultural) differences and challenges. For us that have English as a second, or third, language certain conventions might zip right past us, and we may come across a lot more blunt, direct and undiplomatic than intended.

Great ideas, subpar execution. Sums up how I feel. Also ROTJ wasn't that great either.

Personally, I enjoyed the prequel trilogy. If they were just a trilogy of separate films that had nothing to do with Star Wars, would most of you still watch them? They are basically Macbeth in space, just as the OT is Hamlet in space. Are there weaknesses to the films? Absolutely. However, the most common arguments I here for what is wrong with the films are Jar-Jar, Anakin's acting, and midichlorians.

In my opinion, and to make sure everyone is clear on this it is entirely my subjective view (what an opinion really is) based on the fact that I watched the OT just before the PT and was 10 at the time, Jar-Jar is no more annoying than ewoks. He's clumsy and talks funny but somehow everything always works out for him. Ewoks are the same way. At least Jar-Jar doesn't have an entire children's show based off of him as well as a series of movies that show just how dumb they are. Both of them were added to the movies to add something to appeal to children because what 9 or 10 year old, male or female, would want to sit there and watch what is basically Lucas rewritten Shakespeare? None. And ultimately, they helped grow the fandom. Am I fan of Jar-Jar and ewoks though? Yes. Sure, they are annoying, but they have their moments. Ewoks somehow manage to fight off the Imperials and Jar-Jar always comes off looking like a general to his people because his clumsiness constantly sees him charging towards danger with no real plan but somehow always coming out of it okay, and he also helped create the peace between the Gungans and Nabooians.

I can understand the hate for midichlorians as well, however Lucas did the same thing so many others are doing now with magic in large franchises, trying to give it some grounds in science so that it becomes something that has its limits and that people can understand instead of some mystical unlimited power that could be used for just about anything. Current examples of large movie franchises doing this: Marvel's the Avengers and DC as they work towards the Justice League. That's start with Marvel. They have firmly tried to explain everything scientifically, from the explaining all of the "mystical" in Thor in science to having the Scarlet Witch's powers created by the power of an Infinity Stone instead of her being the mutant daughter of Magneto. DC is doing the exact same thing which is part of why Man of Steel didn't get the best reviews (albeit the acting was not exactly great either and plot holes were plentiful). And in their TV universe they are even keeping everything founded in science and explaining the origins of each hero in some way to avoid magic as long as possible. When you introduce magic into a fantasy setting, you open up the possibility to do just about anything with it. Sure, midichlorians suck, but they give force users limitations instead of having them be all powerful space wizards that can destroy a planet with their mind.

As for Haden Christensen's acting, yes, it's bad. Honestly though, the acting in the OT wasn't much better, albeit no single character had as bad of an actor. But, you can't fault an entire movie for the mistakes of a single actor, especially when it had other actors that were, in my opinion, better than many of the actors in the original. As for his dialogue, yes, it's unrealistic, but this is a fantasy world. And out of place, unrealistic one liners were rampant in the original trilogy as well. "I have you now" as Vader is coming down the trench targeting Luke is a great example. I mean really? Who would actually say that out loud before that movie came out if they were in that situation? No one, and if you say you would have, just admit to yourself it's because you have Vader envy. As for character development, yeah Wanakin sucks (but hey, he's Macbeth), but character development in the OT was just as bad. Okay, so Han shot first, and by the end of the movie he is coming back to save Luke. OMG him shooting first is so important to seeing his character develop from a scoundrel to a hero! Except it's not. Most o his screen time is spent showing him as a scoundrel, heck that's why we love Han. Show me where he stops thinking about money and decides to risk everything for the Rebellion besides in the final scenes. This is in no way meant to say don't like Han. Han is great, but it doesn't change the fact that as a child I saw how weak of a plot point that was and as an adult I can see it even more so. So the basis of saying that Anakin sucks because his character development sucks, well at least he has professional development that we could see instead of just a sudden change of heart.

The isn't to say that anyone is wrong if they think the PT is bad. I respect you as a Star Wars fan whether or not you like the PT or not and I respect the difference of opinion as well. Just because I think they are good and you think they are bad doesn't make you or I wrong or right, because it's an opinion so there is no wrong or right (sorry, but that is the vibe get reading through this thread from some people that they think less of people's opinions because they are different. That makes you just as bad as my feminist composition professor that takes points off of essays for dissenting opinions.). However, there are plenty of reasons to enjoy the PT, and realistically the OT had just as many flaws but most people see it through rose tinted glasses so they think it is better and want to be dismissive of the PT, just like how I enjoy Hamlet more than Macbeth (I read Hamlet first and have memories with friends around it vs. having read Macbeth on my own and it only being a discussion piece). But if you eliminate the OT from the equation, I think the PT would have done just fine as their own series and are comparable to many films today.

If this came off as overly aggressive or argumentative in any way, I apologize. That was not my intent. I am only trying to present my view of things and thoughts around the main arguments I commonly encounter against the PT.

I really don’t know what happened to that text...

Yeah, hard to read. Hohum!

So was yours though

Anyway, as much as I enjoyed our discussion I will bow out anyway. I think this could be an interesting discussion over a beer though, so if you are ever in Holland!

Never been to Holland. Might never.

But I do like Hollandaise sauce...

But I do like Hollandaise sauce...

Yeah, that’s French...

But Frenchaise sauce makes for lowsy Eggs Benedict!...

(Another )

Sorry that my writing is hard to read, but there you are, corrupted by academia and the habitus

When, or if, I ever get to go to Holland I'll look you up, in the phonebook! if you want to have that beer after my long winded reply. I'd love to, because I love beer and you seem like a similar person, i.e. one that loves beer.

Which „ ones put down”? I didn’t put any down as far as I recall...

Not necessarily by you, but in the discussion - most references were to how much money it made, how many people liked it based on reviews or online voting - these are poor indicators and criterias for quality, but of course not worthless.

Come on dude, there was a shorter way to say you deem objectivity impossible.

But while I agree on some level, it should be noted that you can bring subjectivity down to a level where it shouldn’t interfere with the ability to reason.

Yes, there could've been an easier way to say it - and it's not so much me that deems it impossible as most of social sciences and humanities, basically the fields that deal with art, the social animal we know as the human being and what it does and creates.

Now, objectivity being impossible does not negate the ability to reason - those are two distinctly different things, areas, fields, ball parks... not to be confused with each other.

So the "masses" are the undefined group that prefer what you consider to be beneath you?

Absolutely not what I said and I resent that remark.

Well so would I, but that is what your statement can easily be read like - you refer to the "masses" in relation to Adam Sandler, the latter's films you obviously (the way I read you at least) resent, and therefore it seems like you resent the masses, or the masses are people of poor taste that like stuff that you resent, so they must have poorer taste, and therefore not as good taste as you...

Again, not what I said and I am not sure why you would think I am using this as an indicator I think more highly of myself then I think of the people I mentioned. However when it comes to abilities that becomes a different matter, sure knowledge and expertise in a field is somewhat of a different beast but let me try to explain myself through an example or two. If I study playing guitar for years, pick up a guitar and play a tune I am indeed a better guitar player then the guy that had his first lesson yesterday and knows two chords. If I am a chef that spend years of his life dedicated to the art of cuisine and established a fine reputation that proceeds him I am a better cook then the guy that heads a tin of baked beans every night. If I study movies, read scripts and books on movie theory, now the history of cinema and have a working knowledge of what cinema is about then I sure as hell am a better judge of what constitutes good movies then the guy going to see „That movie that has Adam Sandler on the poster”.

The first two examples never set any off any discussion, ever. And no one would say the guitarist or the chef would look down on the others in the third example though a lot of people seem to think that every opinion is equally valid and I certainly do not agree with that. I don’t look down on anyone but I do not think that establishing that you yourself are more of an expert in a certain field is a bad thing.

Whether or not my reasoning is unscientific and fallacious is in that aspect just you being obtuse as you are of course perfectly aware why 99% of those people visit such a movie and having a few people among the hundreds that go there for any other reasons then, „ I knew the guy on the poster and usually he is funny” hardly seems relevant (and probably constitutes a negligible number as well.)

Perhaps it was only how you phrased yourself earlier, but it seemed like you indirectly - apparently unintentionally - did just that, at least from my reading of it.

You guitar player example: Yes, you would be better at playing guitar, but what would constitute a good guitar solo would still be dependent upon taste, premisses for what type of music and solos you like, or just plain old playing for that matter, if its prog, country, rock or folk you prefer, then your taste dictate what you like, there is no objectively better guitar solo. Sure, as a better guitar player you will know what certain types of playing involves, you know advanced techniques from basic techniques, you can perhaps hear how they do it, or if they play a wrong note here or there, but your skill and knowledge doesn't make you judgement of a guitar solo or guitar playing objective, it makes it informed, learned and educated - the premisses for the evaluation of someone playing guitar is different and more knowledgeable. Although there can be no claim to objectivity.

You chef example: Being better skilled at making food doesn't mean that your taste is objective or in any way "better" - what if that other guy loves baked bean and hates all other kinds of food, whatever your skills as a chef your food will never be good enough for him.

What we're touching upon is the problem with expertise and modernity, a well established sociological discussion with many different views, but basically the trust in experts is imperative, but also problematic - fragmentation of knowledge, and so on ad nauseam.

Now your study-movie example. As with the above, your knowledge lets you recognise and gives you more pegs, so to speak, on which you can put your observations, that is it gives you tools to analyse it differently and with different premisses, but it doesn't make you taste any better - and also there is no objectivity in it, nor is it more valid than any other. It is based on taste, and perhaps yours is more refined and educated, but that, when it all comes down to it, is meaningless. This is where the symbolic violence comes in, using your cultural capital (i.e. education in film and cinema history and stuff) to claim some sort of defining and elevating authority, because that is what you are saying that you get through education (and not only you, that is how it is viewed and partly why education is so highly regarded globally). Now, opinions are equally valid, but unequally founded, and in cases where one can talk about "facts" these will change the opinion to arguments, and opinions are not equal to arguments, because arguments are - or should be - well founded and backed, opinions don't have to be (and often aren't). So with taste in the cultural arena - be it theatre, film, dance, music, architecture, drink, food, and so on - opinions are equal, because it's based upon what the observer/consumer likes , what he or she feels comfortable with, it's taste, and no ones taste is "better" than anyone else's, but again, more refined and educated sure, but that doesn't mean that someone that prefer the "stylish" Tupperware post-functionalism architecture style that's so popular over here now has better taste than someone who prefers functionalism or the more classic styles. Where the inequality surfaces is whether both can argue their case, the premisses for why they like this or that - if one can and the other cannot, well, the one who can will certainly be seen as someone with better taste by spectators to a potential discussion about it in a social gathering, but really, is the ability to argue your case a sign of better taste or just a narrow minded focus on playing the social game and come out on top (i.e. above the other which taste you disagree with). So in that case the opinion, as it serves as an argument, is more valuable, but only as a social currency. It's can be marker as to where you position yourself in the cultural field of taste, it determines your relation to low-, mid- and high-culture, as defined by the cultural elite - which is in constant change, as we can see in art history.

I'm not aware why those 99% go see Adam Sandler films, I'm aware why I would or wouldn't see an Adam Sandler film, but I'd refrain from speaking for them, or pre-judge others. And who are you and I to say that Adam Sandler films are "objectively" worse, or better, than any other film? Sure, I don't like those films, but that doesn't put me in a position to make some sort of authoritative claim as to the universal quality of said film. Of course I'll do it in the right company, with people whose taste I share, but the fact that I've studied art and films, doesn't make me a better judge of quality - it makes me a better judge of seeing more in the product than someone not trained and educated. So I'll probably be more easily bored with films that have less in it, fewer dimensions and is less complex, but that doesn't necessarily make the film worse or bad, just simpler, boring and not to my taste, and perhaps not good craftsmanship, poor camera control, poor sound - but again, these are qualities that won't necessarily take away the enjoyment of the experience. For instance we say Hayden Christensen's acting abilities are crap, but why? Because we've seen films, we're not convinced by his delivery, but we still enjoy the films, and kids, the intended audience, might really like his acting and believe it.

Well, I'm being confrontational now, but it's all in good spirits and well meant, but the previous quote and this quote is indicative of you "looking down on people" which opinions and tastes differs from yours in one direction (I'm sure there are others that you would look up to or appreciate more or something, we all have that).

Utterly untrue. Sorry to fall into easy examples again but sometimes I find that when people get extremely theoretical a simple example speaks more than a rebutal by word games. My wife is a terrible cook. Plain awful. In our 12 years together she cooked something halfway decent twice.

Do I look down on my wife for acknowledging this? Do I look down on a mute man for acknowledging he’ll probably suck at singing? Do I look down on a Nigerian for not speaking Finnish? Do I look down on someone going to see an Adam Sandler movie because to him/her „going to the movies should be relaxation” ? No. I have the highest regard in the world for my wife but she is an awful cook and the more good food I eat the more I start to notice many people can’t cook worth a ****.

Acknowledging someone’s shortcomings, inexperience or lack of education in a certain field shows no disrespect whatsoever.

My interpretation of your statements cannot be untrue (unless I lie about my interpretation, but then that wouldn't be my interpretation, but a lie...). Whether you wife is a good cook or not is irrelevant, I'm referring to how I interpret your statements. I might interpret them "wrong", i.e. not as you intended, but then you have not expressed yourself precisely and clearly enough for me to understand you as you want me to understand you. Just like you probably think that I'm an arrogant s#it for still discussing this like I do, seemingly not giving an inch and being paternalistic and a know-it-all, however that is not how I want to be perceived, but I have serious difficulty saying what I mean without sounding like a complete a$$hat... so I try to live with it, and change my delivery, unsuccessfully most of the time.

Now, your examples I agree with, but that is not how you've come across to me (in this particular exchange of arguments about this topic, today) - however others might also think that I've misunderstood you and then that's my bad, but that is how I've interpreted your statements, because while you've said one thing (not judging people for instance) your statements have seemed, at times, judgemental to me. Perhaps I put too much into it, but there you are, using terms like "shortcomings" a rather loaded term I jest! Written communication 101: "forum netiquette and other ways to commit online social suicide."

And to end on a different note, my favourite american artist: "Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel peace prize."
-Tom Lehrer