>Playing the "You shit on Night Dog, BUT WHAT ABOUT Q AND
>NOLAN?" turns the conversation on it's head and destroys any
>sense of objectivity. It's the worst kind of agenda, because
>you're playing a defensive game instead of a balanced one.

"Objectivity"

Are you out of your fucking mind?


All criticisms are based on *standards*

WHEN you apply ONE set of standards to one set of
filmmakers and a DIFFERENT set to another, YOU ruin the
contract between art and opinion that fair criticism is
based on.

It becomes a game of people making shit up as they go
along, RATHER THAN evaluating and critiquing "based on
their own merits."

The "based on their own merits" is specifically what the
debate is -- what "merit" is based on changes from filmmaker
to filmmaker, critic to critic.

That's why the criticisms of M. Night are almost always
chuckle worthy as is praise of QT

They are inconsistently and disproportionately
(and inappropriately) applied


----------------------------



O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "