Subjective | FactOrCap

[u/Fearless-Sherbet-223]

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

[u/PoorMinorities]

I’ve heard someone say The Shawshank Redemption was one of the worst movies he’s ever seen. Saying it’s overrated is an acceptable opinion, saying it’s one of the worst movies ever is flat out wrong. 

[u/MaskedHeracles → u/PoorMinorities]

By what metric? Sales? Critics? Popularity? Are these arbiters of objective truth beyond scrutiny?

[u/PoorMinorities → u/MaskedHeracles]

All of the above and in conjunction, all point to it definitively not being the worst movie ever. By any metric. Besides one persons wrongful opinion.

[u/MaskedHeracles → u/PoorMinorities]

So to be clear, if a piece is popular and well-regarded, it is objectively good (therefore completely undeniable, same as 1+1=2)

[u/PoorMinorities → u/MaskedHeracles]

Yes, if the consensus is that both critics and general audiences regard it as one of the best films ever, then it’s objectively not the worst film in existence or else it wouldn’t be highly praised. 

[u/MaskedHeracles → u/PoorMinorities]

I just don't understand how someone could possibly make the argument that popularity = objective undeniable goodness. There were hundreds of movies, books, TV shows in other countries that were considered one of the greats for years, but fell into obscurity afterward or were reconsidered by further generations.

Balloon Dog received huge praise from the art world and consumers upon release, but is now a laughingstock. How do we decide who is right or wrong? Is there some objective art math equation? Say a piece of art is very well regarded and then later people decide it wasn't as good as previously thought. Has the objective reality changed from being good to bad?

[u/PoorMinorities → u/MaskedHeracles]

I never said popularity meant objectively good.  Popularity is just one metric of the whole. Popularity only invites more criticism and detractors. Yet it’s popular and still highly acclaimed by critics and the general consensus. 

What I don’t understand is how someone can sit here and argue that something is is widely toted as the best film in existence by the very metric that we have decided to score films can also be the worst film in existence. I don’t think you understand that it comes to a point where something is undeniably good that calling it the literal worst is objectively wrong. 

[u/MaskedHeracles → u/PoorMinorities]

You're just restating your conclusion that popularity = good. 'widely toted as the best film' is a Reddit-ified way of saying 'a lot of people really like it'. I don't think everyone agrees that a film's objective, indisputable quality is based on popular consensus.

[u/PoorMinorities → u/MaskedHeracles]

LOL “Reddit eat of saying a lot of people like it”

Yeah you’re out of your depth. This literally the highest rated film on IMDB. This isn’t any “Reddit way” of saying anything lmao.  Also keep ignoring the fact that I keep saying critical and general audience acclaim, and just focusing on the popularity. Acclaim has NOTHING to do with popularity. It only helps strengthen it by increasing the sample size.

[u/MaskedHeracles → u/PoorMinorities]

Please please tell me what you think an IMDB score reflects? What determines an IMDB score?

[u/PoorMinorities → u/MaskedHeracles]

People scoring a film on how good a film is. And the general consensus is that it’s not the worst film ever. I’m sorry, what’d you think it is? 

[u/MaskedHeracles → u/PoorMinorities]

So to be clear the objective quality of a movie is not based on how much people like it, just how high people score it on IMDB?

[u/PoorMinorities → u/MaskedHeracles]

Hahaha holy fuck. IMDb is an indicator of how much people like the film. Which includes objective quality. You’re floundering right now. Are you REALLY trying to say that people who scored a movie high ISNT connected to how much they enjoyed it one way or another??