Goodie's craziness is causing people to nit up this thread imo.

For the good of man kind it should probably stop

Question 2 is irrelevant to the determination of what the GOAT show is. It is relevant only to what the cinema professors think is the GOAT show. Basically, you just reduced the size of the voting population. In the first question, it's 15 and in the second, it's 5.

Question 3 is where we are at odds. I do not believe that Cinema Professors should have any more say that anyone else in determining GOAT. And as I've been saying for pages, THAT is the crux of the argument even though you're really trying to make it about something else.

Progress! So then, if you admit that in your position, there is no ACTUAL GOAT, then there can never be an answer to the question of what is GOAT (only what is considered GOAT at a certain time by a certain sample).

Thus, all opinions, arguments, and evidence towards discussing GOAT is meaningless because there can never ever actually be one.

So both your own opinion, as well as the consensus of all mankind equally weighted, are actually meaningless, worthless, useless, and have zero significance, because there can be no answer and the words and questions themselves make no sense. You might as well be asking, What is the squarest circle, a Simon Cowbell or a flatulence?

So can you admit this futility of your position? That your own words and posts in his thread have no meaning?

And Rei, thanks for the subscript shout-out! I feel special! I didn't even know you could do sub-sub-script.

Dude, no matter what grading system you use or how you wish to measure it, there isn't one true GOAT show/movie/song/painting. And obviously it can change over time.

Not to mention, you're completely backwards on this. IF there was a way to divinitively say what the GOAT was then AT THAT POINT there would be no more use for discussion. The way I measure it allows for maximum discussion and opinion on the matter.

Logic, how does it work?

This turns out to be a fairly difficult question, and probably deserves its own thread. Preferably one started by Goodie.

Why shouldn't cinema professors (or film critics, or the DGA, or the Academy, or anyone who knows wtf they're talking about) have more say than other people? Do you think everyone should have the same say about fixing a car engine, or do you tend to trust car mechanics more? Do you think there isn't specialized knowledge in film theory? Why do you think this?

It seems to me that the thing bothering you here is a kind of perceived elitism w/r/t aesthetic know-how/taste/what have you. Well, you know what, it is elitist--knowledge is inherently elitist, it favors those who have it over those who don't. That there's no way to objectively determine which work of art is better than the other, is a point so obvious as to not be worth making. Nonetheless, great art somehow stands the test of time, and ****ty art disappears, often largely on the basis of the expert opinion you casually dismiss.

I believe the proper phrase here is GTFO.

Well, Goodie, if I could divinitively say so, then I would be God.

You really don't understand the words you are typing, do you? You keep confusing actual GOAT with considered to be GOAT.

You say that there isn't one true GOAT. Well then, are there 2, or 3, or infinity? No, you say that there are ZERO. And that there is only what is considered to be GOAT. Well then, by your logic, they would actually be WRONG to consider it as GOAT because actually, THERE IS NO GOAT.

So then, all of your considerations, whether they change over time or not, whether they sample 2 people or all of humankind, whether they weight opinions equally, are WRONG and meaningless, because in your position, the only correct answer is that there is NO ACTUAL GOAT.

So your opinion and posts are meaningless and worthless...in your own position. How does that feel? Can you be a man enough to admit that? That either your position is wrong, or your words/arguments are meaningless? Just admit it. A real man PROVIDES for his position.

The fixing a car engine analogy is obviously flawed as how to fix a car is not subjective. There's a right way and a wrong way.

I just think there's a right and wrong way to watch TV. I don't think it's a skill. MAKING tv is obviously a skill. Analyzing TV is a skill from the perspective of why the maker did certain things and what it potentially means. But having that knowledge does not mean that a person is more qualified to critique the entertainment value of a show. That's subjective.

Most critics and most people loved the last few seasons of BB. Iggy did not and he made very good points as to why that all made sense and his reasons outlined what's important to him when he watches tv. Others may have the same type of critique or others may love another show because of what they deem important when they watch TV. Nobody should be able to tell anyone else what they should deem important when watching a TV show.

This is a misguided view. The only tools we have to diagnose an engine's state, or for that matter its very existence, is thorough the window of our own perception. Which is inherently flawed and unreliable. Even the very notion of 'fixed' is a human construct open to a variety of interpretations.

That's true. Very good point.

I was just saying you presumably accord people who go to car mechanic school the respect that they know more than you about cars. Why not with criticism?

Are you just talking about entertainment value? There seems to be some goalpost shifting going on here. Clearly no one has the authority to tell someone else what to find entertaining. But if you admit that analyzing TV is a skill that some have and some don't, why aren't some people more qualified to analyze it than others?
Your phraseology is weird here. No one is telling anyone what they should deem important. You are welcome to think the Adventures of Bruno Mars is the best film ever made, but that fact doesn't invalidate the field of film theory.

Yes

Oh okay

So then, there is no right way or wrong way to fix a car, only a matter of interpretation. And everybody's opinion is equally valid. Right?

Btw, you didn't reply to my post, but have replied to others. I'm assuming that's because you have no response, because your position is wrong, and you cannot answer, and you are also not man enough to admit when you are wrong. Cheers!

I was kidding with Metaname. I guess I thought that was obvious. Apparently not.

I'll reply. Let me go back.

Wow, just wow. I'm not responding to this foolishness again. I've explained it already. See my last response to basically the exact same post.

What you don't understand is that all people that watch shows, movies and what have you all use those same factors to determine what they like and don't like. Just because I don't necessarily know how to make a scene more compelling or how to truly develop a character does not mean that I can't judge the quality of a show based on those factors. Knowing HOW to do it, in my mind, does not make you any more qualified to judge the quality that I am. It's still just a matter of what's pleasing to you and it IS preference. It's ALWAYS PREFERENCE. Don't dilute yourself to thinking that the critics, film makers, tv makers, film students, and everyone else isn't judging on preference.

And at the end of the day, the shows that are considered the best are usually the most popular because EVERYONE judges these shows on the same factors you talk about. Even if people don't know why or how, they are still using those factors to judge.

You believe that people that DO know why and how are better equipped to make judgements on what shows are best. I don't. And given that what the critics judge to be the best is usually the most popular, that proves my point, not yours.

I don't think opinion means what you think it means.

No need. You'll just spew another rant about the fact that somehow ranking tv shows has nothing to do with opinion or preference yet this entire thread and others are literally dedicated to ranking tv shows based on opinion and preference.

It's the ultimate irony that no one seems to be getting.

Hmmm, maybe you're right! Please, enlighten me - what does 'opinion' mean?

Oh Goodie, you were so close. You partially recognized that you were wrong, but somehow, whether out of pride, stubbornness, or intellectual inability, you just can't close the gap and admit or understand the contradiction and futility of your own position.

Hint: Your above post is entirely wrong.

Hint #2: Reread the thread. The answers are there. Seek, and ye shall find.

We disagree. I'm absolutely 100% certain that you're wrong. You just think because you happen to know a lot about film or what not that you're opinion of what show is better should be weighted more heavily than mine. It's just pride and an elitist attitude. Which annoys me but such is life.

You'll continue being wrong I'll continue being right and that gives me solace.

Have a nice day!!!

But Goodie, I never said any that! Please, at least make the pretense of trying to understand the words you read! Or is it because in your view, there's no right or wrong way to comprehend words? Reading comprehension - it's all a matter of opinion! "I'm not convinced you know how to read, you've just memorized a lot of words!"

And I thought you said that 'opinion' doesn't mean what I think it means! That there's no right or wrong to an opinion something something something! Well then, how could I possibly be wrong or you be right?! It's all opinion, man!