You’ve got to leave this BS about ‘art’ behind and look at it from a distance - of course there’s good and there’s bad writing, you’re free to like the bad stuff as well, but you should be able to acknowledge it’s bad, because liking it alone doesn’t make it good.

That quote perfectly summarizes how you don't understand what I'm saying. I don't know if the communication breakdown is on my side or yours, but I really am trying to make it clear. Switching from "objective" to "bad" doesn't in any way change the argument you are making. You are trying to say that you and I and Plok and Joe and everyone else should acknowledge the same set of criteria for judging screenplays. I think that this is not a well-thought out view.

For me, good art (and I include writing in the word "art") moves me, bad art doesn't. It's not about technical execution, or cleverness, or anything else. The good stuff moves me, the bad stuff doesn't. That is my only criteria.

Your good stuff may not be based on it moving you, but instead on some set of technical standards. That's fine - but that's why this is subjective, not objective.

I’m also having trouble understanding why it’s wrong for me to call a plot hole bad writing… it’s a hole in the plot, of course that’s bad - part of the script doesn’t make sense… in and of itself it doesn’t make sense.
That’s bad writing.

You need to step back and look at that quote from a distance - you're making the assumption that the plot matters enough to effect whether the script is good or bad. Their are screenplays (and books, and comics) where the plot is almost irrelevant. You probably don't like those kinds of stories. Fair enough. You not liking them doesn't mean that they're objectively bad.

Every sentence you've written when you try to support your "objectivity" has been full of these kinds of subjective assumptions. My views on art are driven by my assumptions, too, but I don't try to make universal rules out of them by calling them "objective".

I'm not much of a fan of Golden and Silver age Superman, so I can't really comment on the examples you give there.

You were trying to lend some sort of authority to your post by saying “objectively” instead of saying “in my opinion”, and you got questioned on it.

I wasn't trying to add authority, I just believe that there is 'good' and 'bad' when it comes to writing.

You've got to leave this BS about 'art' behind and look at it from a distance - of course there's good and there's bad writing, you're free to like the bad stuff as well, but you should be able to acknowledge it's bad, because liking it alone doesn't make it good.

And as such, I would put The Prestige's script in the category of bad.

I'm also having trouble understanding why it's wrong for me to call a plot hole bad writing... it's a hole in the plot, of course that's bad - part of the script doesn't make sense... in and of itself it doesn't make sense.
That's bad writing.

If a script has enough moments of bad writing, the accumulative effect of them is that the script is bad.

I know it may sound like poor form to strip a script of it's romance and 'art' status and get technical about it, but there's no reason not to.

I reject the characterization, as Funky will reject your well-reasoned argument.

Okay, this is my final attempt. I don't care about the contents of your list of rules. I care about calling the list objective. It's really that simple.

So, you could have the rule "good screenplays don't have plot holes", or it could have the rule "good screenplays don't have characters named Bob", and it wouldn't matter. Because I don't care about the contents of your list of rules.

If I agreed with every single rule you propose it wouldn't matter. I don't care about the contents of your list of rules.

If I came up with examples showing that your list was incorrect, it would have nothing to do with my position. Because I don't care about the contents of your list of rules.

My position, stated several times, quite clearly, is with calling your list, or anybody's list, objective. I think it's absurd to call a subjective set of aesthetic opinions "objective". People have been trying this for thousands of years in different arts, and their rules all tend to fade away, because they aren't objective. What makes art good is subjective, not objective.

Now, I am not a moral relativist, so if we were using the word "good" to denote "morally good" instead of "aesthetically good", maybe I would agree that there are some objective rules. "Screenplays glorifying National Socialism are bad", or "Screenplays encouraging people to behave responsibly are good", etc. But that's not what you were saying. You were trying to lend some sort of authority to your post by saying "objectively" instead of saying "in my opinion", and you got questioned on it. (And, then you got badgered by a third party, but that's not my fault.)

So, to sum up, you are perfectly free to discuss plot holes, of course, but that will not have anything to do with arguing for or against my point. Defending why you think your list of rules is "objective" will.

Oh, stop your whining, you damned fool. Don’t you even realize what it is that you’ve admitted? Are you really that fucking dense?

Sorry about before, I can see your point, I was definitely the rude one in all this.

What shamelessness. Absolutely disgraceful.

Yeah, it's the way I refused to let you frame the debate that really irks me - if only I'd played by your rules, we could have avoided all of this.

I argued with Funky’s statement by pointing out that I believe judgements about screenplays are inherently subjective, not objective.

So you think a plot hole in a script isn't an objective problem?

Or do you feel that labeling something a plot hole is subjective?

Beg to differ, Tyson.

Meaning you do think it's still fun to keep arguing after you've stressed out and your head exploded?

I'm kidding around here, of course, but that post was a good example of what's weak in your arguments. Saying "I don't agree" is not an argument. It's a disagreement. An argument is when you say why you don't agree.

I argued with Funky's statement by pointing out that I believe judgements about screenplays are inherently subjective, not objective. Funky kept asking for examples, which is kind of besides the point, and you just kept saying "you're wrong, you're wrong!", until you then decided to start swearing and calling Funky names.

So just chill out, realize that you don't agree with Funky, and let it go. It's fun to argue about comics, right up until you stress out and your head explodes.

What shamelessness. Absolutely disgraceful.

Do you understand that Tyson didn’t say anything about it?

If you re-read the comments from the top, from before you joined in, you will see Tyson arguing my point.

You may not recognise it as such, because he does better than posting 'Prove it' and then directly after making another post that says 'You can't'.

If you don't want to argue the actual point, then just let this die.
If you do, actually do it.
You haven't been thus far.
No.
You really haven't.

In that passage you quote from me, I am saying you are provably DEAD WRONG about me asking you to repeat yourself.

I assumed you were talking about the issue we're debating, and whether there are objective standards in a screenplay.
Often it seems you are arguing points I'm not making or saying, and as such, I repeat my stance so that the goal posts aren't shifted

I couldn't care less if you've asked me to repeat myself or not, if I feel I have to for my point, or to emphasise that I don't feel you've addressed what I've stated, I will.

You respond as if I was talking about something else.

As if you were talking about my views that you are opposed to?
The thing I was interested in discussing?
Yeah.

Do you understand the problem?

You're hooked on me misreading a line from a post before or something?
I really don't know - you're getting quite obscure.

"The craziest thing is when you go on about how I want you to repeat yourself. I mean, how even to get to anything else, when you’re just cemented onto that absurd thing? And so incredibly, obviously, provably DEAD WRONG about it, but my God you simply will not let it go.

But no one has proved it wrong.
Tyson made the most of the attempt, you’ve just told me I’m dead wrong, and it’s so easy to prove, but you haven’t actually.
Hence, my ’stubborn’ refusal to concede my point - I don’t feel it has been disproven."

In that passage you quote from me, I am saying you are provably DEAD WRONG about me asking you to repeat yourself. You respond as if I was talking about something else.

Do you understand the problem?

Well, but there’s rude and rude — and what is it about all your distortion and ducking, that should merit my politeness?

What is it about my posts that requires that much swearing and accusations of being high?

The craziest thing is when you go on about how I want you to repeat yourself. I mean, how even to get to anything else, when you’re just cemented onto that absurd thing? And so incredibly, obviously, provably DEAD WRONG about it, but my God you simply will not let it go.

But no one has proved it wrong.
Tyson made the most of the attempt, you've just told me I'm dead wrong, and it's so easy to prove, but you haven't actually.
Hence, my 'stubborn' refusal to concede my point - I don't feel it has been disproven.
Saying it's easy to disprove is different from disproving it.
Saying it can't be proven isn't the same as disproving it.
Calling me out for not going into it in greater and greater detail isn't disproving it.

There is such a thing as a bad script.
There are key elements that seperate a good script from a bad script.

Do you really believe I’ve been asking you to repeat yourself?

No, but my point has been distorted several times and so restating what I've already said keeps my points from getting dragged away from me and changed.
I stated my view - as a tangent to my point when starting this disucssion - and you and a couple of others got worked into a huff about it.
I had no interest in debating the point, but I want people to actually say why I'm wrong instead of just telling me I already am - and yet at the same time getting worked up because I'm the one not backing my points up?
I'm sorry, but that's bullshit.

So once again, I shall restate an argument from before:

I know you all want to scream that you can’t have an objective set of criteria for bad script - but look at the problems I laid down as equating a bad script.
One of those is enough to kill most scripts, but all of them?
It’s a bad script.

If you want to prove me wrong, disprove that - my proof is that there's never been a script that is good with these problems.

Note:
You not being able to separate a script from the finished film isn't my problem, so please don't bring that in again.
It only makes your argument seem weak.

And as for "I’ve even answered questions about it"...

No, actually, you haven't. Repeating your manifesto to all and sundry isn't answering questions, it's not answering questions.

By the way, the rage/isolating allies thing really doesn't cut any ice with me. And I'm not here to toot my own horn, I'm here to make rude noises at the way you stubbornly persist in distorting and/or none-too-cleverly avoiding my previous comments. Well, but there's rude and rude -- and what is it about all your distortion and ducking, that should merit my politeness? The craziest thing is when you go on about how I want you to repeat yourself. I mean, how even to get to anything else, when you're just cemented onto that absurd thing? And so incredibly, obviously, provably DEAD WRONG about it, but my God you simply will not let it go. If you can't concede you've been off-base about that, then clearly you can't be trusted to concede anything else either, so why should I debate you? Debate? This isn't a debate, it's a tape-loop. You want to really show me up, break the loop and answer this one question directly:

Do you really believe I've been asking you to repeat yourself?

I dare you to make this good faith gesture. Answer the question. It's just one question, but it's a crucial one.

If you don't...well, there are always rude noises to make, I suppose.