Just a Thought

[Tim Terner]

"The most credible people on this forum are John Pytlak and David Mullen"

 

While I agree with you on their undeniable credibility on this forum, there are plenty of other contributors here who fall into the same category

[Filip Plesha]

While I agree with you on their undeniable credibility on this forum, there are plenty of other contributors here who fall into the same category

 

 

Well personally I trust most people here, but I said "most" credible.

[Guest razerfish]

This gets my vote for worst thread ever. Pity, because it started off so well.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

This gets my vote for worst thread ever. Pity, because it started off so well.

 

You think THIS thread is bad? Christ... you haven't some of my old ones....

 

Anyway. Instead of going on about it, talk about the actual thread subject.

Edited March 18, 2006 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[James Steven Beverly]

I never really understood this thing about credibility in such discussions.

 

Credibility is good if you are talking about things that require trust, like some piece of personal information, or something you'd use in police investigation.

But these are either technical or philosophical discussion, and have really nothing to do with credibility.

 

If someone gives you some technical information, you really don't need him to have credibility to know if its true or not. You can easily verify it on the internet or books, or wait to see if someone with more knowledge would respond in the same thread. Usually unacurate information is debunked within 5 posts.

 

And when it comes to thinks like philosophy, well there the logic is the imperative, and really either something makes sense or doesn't based on logic, it has even less to do with the person who says it.

 

The most credible people on this forum are John Pytlak and David Mullen, yet when they say something

it is either true or not, and you can verify that by searching for information yourself. The only think that their credibility helps for is that you can lay of the doubt and save yourself the trouble of backchecking the things they say. Same goes for people with lower credibility, like Captain here or other people with no names, or false names. In a logical discussion you can instantly decide wheather something makes sense or not by using your own logic, and when it comes to information, you can check it or wait for someone to debunk it.

 

In a real debate, the debaters can only influence the course of the discussion with arguments, what kind of tie they ware or where they have studied or worked really should have no influence whatsoever

but of course, nobody can halp but to be influenced by such things, and it's a normal reaction for humans, but I don't think we should openly take that as a standard in discussions

 

You have eloquently stated the citeria of debate. As far as my credibilty goes, those who are swayed by my arguments will find me credible, those who are not, will not. I have the unmost respect for David, but have disagreed with him on some issues. This takes nothing from his credibilty nor mine. It simply means that we have differing views on a given subject and can discuss them.

 

When it comes to subjects that are irrefutable, why wouldn't I take advice from someone with far more expirence than I? There are areas in which David has a tremedous amount of expirence, in which I would be far, far less inclined to question his statements, but, although it's never happened yet, if a statement he should make on such subjects, ever give me reason to question it's validity, I would research the subject myself and get verification that what he said was true. So I guess my point is even with with someone as obviously credible as David, would you accept ANYTHING he says on blind faith or would you try to think for yourself?

 

Although I can't speak for him, I'm sure David doesn't think of himself as omnipotent or infalible. I'm also sure he has as much respect for a great many people here, as they do for him, and I'm pretty sure he would also encourge people to think for themselves. That's not to say he would agree nesessarily with a damn thing I've said in this or any other discussion, just that he's sure enough of himself to know noone is perfect. David I'm sorry to hold you up as an example and hope you take no offence at this but I'm just trying to make a point so please forgive me.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Why do most people here treat this place like a gangster hierarchy?

[David Mullen ASC]

I certainly don't want people to take everything I say as gospel -- I'm one of the biggest proponents of "look it up." Cross-check, double-check, separate fact from opinion, whatever. I don't want to be wrong about something technical, so by all means correct me! It only benefits me to have accurate information.

 

Even if some of us have more knowledge in certain areas than others, that doesn't necessarily have to suggest hierarchy. If anything, it's not that I know any particular subject better than anyone here, it's just that I'm a good general digester of various other people's expertise.

 

Anyway, I'd prefer not to be held in too high esteem here, it makes me uncomfortable. When I joined this forum several years ago, I wasn't in the union, I wasn't in the ASC, I didn't have an agent, and I just had several low-budget features to my credit. I'm still that same person, just with more experience now.

[Josh Bass]

"I have the unmost respect for David,"

 

Uh oh. Hope that's a typo. If not, there's gonna be a Mullen-style beatdown.

Edited March 19, 2006 by Josh Bass

[Filip Plesha]

I certainly don't want people to take everything I say as gospel -- I'm one of the biggest proponents of "look it up." Cross-check, double-check, separate fact from opinion, whatever. I don't want to be wrong about something technical, so by all means correct me! It only benefits me to have accurate information.

 

I'm afraid that is exactly what happens on this forum.

How many times has someone started a thread with your name in the subject line? And then in such a thread if someone else gives some answer, it just wasn't good enough. During my stay on this forum, I've seen at least 3 of such threads. Now, while you certainly deserve all the respect and trust that you get on this forum, I'm criticising people who blindly listen to someone because of his reputation.

Some people just can't unhook from the whole authority/hierarchy game.

[David Mullen ASC]

Sometimes I've thought about telling someone to stop being so deferential & complimentary to me, but then I get afraid that I would be turning the conversation towards myself so I just ignore it. Plus it seems oddly rude to admonish someone for speaking too highly of me, as if I couldn't take a compliment nicely.

 

I grew up in a highly critical household where there were a lot of expectations put on me to achieve, so praise is not something I'm comfortable with, although of course I prefer it to criticism like anyone else... But I've always been rather focused, sometimes overly so, with my weaknesses and areas to improve rather than what is working. It's a problem on film sets because when a shot turns out well, my attitude tends to be "well, that's the way it's supposed to be" and I only think about what's not going well, what needs fixing. But some directors, actors, and crew people want some positive encouragement now & then, want me to get happy or self-congratulatory when a shot is great, whatever, celebrate the positive. They don't want to hear "that was OK" or "it was fine" when asked how the last take was. They want to hear "it was awesome! It kicked ass!" I just don't have that personality -- I guess I'll never be a contestant in a game show!

 

As for the forum, some people are just naturally deferential to others, overly so sometimes, while some think the universe revolves around them, if you know what I mean.

[Filip Plesha]

I'm not saying you should not be praised, that's a different thing, certainly you should be praised for what you have done so far.

I'm talking about people who are somehow afraid to challenge you in any kind of discussion.

[James Steven Beverly]

This brings un annother issue. How can you be a good director or a good cinematographer if you as unwilling to challange people when you feel your in the right, especially if they're someone you admire? I mean at some point as a cinematographer you would have to defer to the director's judgement, but wouldn't you fight for estetics that you know are right and will give him the shot he needs even if at first he doesn't see it? As a director, are you going to be afraid to challange a big star just because they're a big star if they're not giving you what you want? You do that and you might as well take your name out of the credits. Collaberation sometimes means confrontation. It may not always be the easiest way to deal with people but sometimes it's the only way. Oh and yes Josh, I meant utmost.

[Max Jacoby]

Sometimes I've thought about telling someone to stop being so deferential & complimentary to me, but then I get afraid that I would be turning the conversation towards myself so I just ignore it. Plus it seems oddly rude to admonish someone for speaking too highly of me, as if I couldn't take a compliment nicely.

I guess we all know which posts you are referring to. To be honest I've come to find them very annoying, because they are so repetitious. There is of course nothing wrong with complimenting people, but doing it over and over again becomes kind of weird after a while.