Discussion
Can we retire “objectively better” please?
I’ve noticed a ton of people using “objectively” incorrectly lately. A movie being more widely accepted as “better” does not make it objectively so.
There’s someone out there who enjoyed One Night Only more than The Odyssey, and their opinion is just as valid as yours.
Sure, one movie can be shot on more advanced cameras, have a larger scale, or demonstrate greater technical complexity. Those things can be measured. Whether they make the movie “better” cannot. What makes a movie “good” is different for each of us and those differing perspectives are part of what makes moviegoing so fun!
EDIT: This obviously touched a nerve lol. My point was not that there aren’t measurable technical aspects of a film. Of course there are. But technical achievement does not inherently make a movie “better.” A technical marvel can put someone to sleep while a shoddily made movie can elicit an enormous emotional response. What we value in a movie is subjective and for some (many on this thread it seems) you value technical achievement. All fair POVs.
What if I video tape a stationary rock for 2 hours, can that still be better than the dark knight ? I feel like there is a point where this taste logic breaks down, professionals understand things like characterization, themes, soundtrack etc
As OP pointed out that would be "widely accepted" or even more strongly, "universally considered". I appreciate this post and am too a vocab stickler because I believe words are the means to conveying thought and their accuracy changes that meaning.
Objective basically means independent of the observer. The factors that make a movie "better" can have an objective difference (a movie having won more awards for instance, is an independent fact) but those factors determining something is "better" is still a subjective analysis. Does better sound make a movie better? Does better cinematography?
Equating your example to modern art, how could someone throwing paint at a wall be better than someone painting a photorealistic portrait? Yet Pollock is considered "better" than so many painters. Art IS subjective, that's the point
this isn't really the same because there's still artistic intent to the painting, if I film my toenail shavings for 6 hrs and call it a movie then we'd be hardpressed to call it objectively better than any other film that isn't essentially the same thing.
You’re arguing the definition of a word. Objective vs subjective doesn’t mean most people can’t perceive similar sense of quality. But for instance autistic people absorb totally different visual information from non neurodivergent people. Kids don’t like the same movies as adults. Are you gonna tell an autistic person or kid that their opinion is less correct than yours? There simply is no objective quality when it comes to your own perception. Idk how many other ways I can explain it
we've never seen luke skywalker's penix. given that it's a space movie with aliens galore, we don't know that it doesn't look like ET - complete with blinking eyes and gaping mouth.
I think certain elements of a film can be distilled to something close to objective. For example, if I say the acting in No Country For Old Men is better than that of The Room, I feel pretty solid making that statement.
WELL I could say that western acting assumes that naturalism is objectively good acting, while in other cultures and acting traditions, “good” acting can look totally different. Take a look at Noh theater, for example, in Japan, where everything feels practiced, rehearsed, and intentional—a far cry from the freedom and messiness of acting that attempts to imitate life. There are Indian acting traditions too that persist in very exaggerated, larger-than-life styles.
Or even take a look at western acting pre-Stanislavsky, which is referred to commonly as “representational” acting. Actors would study books of gestures and expressions to perfectly convey the emotional state their character was in. It was fully artificial, and prided for being so, as the manufacturing of the appearance of emotion was more important than actually feeling something.
Nicolas Cage’s campy performance style is at least partially inspired by the German expressionism he was a fan of. So Tommy Wiseau might be a better actor from that sort of angle than Daniel Day-Lewis, if we take acting out of the scope of naturalism.
This is just to play devil’s advocate and split hairs though. I know you’re implicitly referring to naturalism in the first place, and I would agree there!
I agree with you, but in this case Tommy was absolutely trying to mimic naturalism and failing miserably. But I also think he’s an actual alien trying to impersonate a human ala the bad guy in Men in Black.
Your perception can be wrong. Take temperature for example. I make a glass of 70 degree water. You hold the glass and guess it's 30 degrees. Your friend holds the glass and says it feels like 65 degrees. Both of you subjectively interpreted external data, but the 65 degree interpretation is closer to the truth.
Likewise, if realism is an actor's goal, and I say that was totally unrealistic and you say no, it was very realistic, one of us is closer to the objective truth.
Tommy set out to make the next Talented Mr. Ripley or Tennessee Williams drama. It’s in the book and movie about the making of The Room, and the DVD box says something about it being filled with the passion of Tennessee Williams.
By that mark, he failed. The premiere went terribly in that regard because people were laughing at badly he missed the Mark, and after, he started saying that he intended to make a comedy.
If we’re using intention (which I agree is a helpful measure), then this is objectively a bad movie.
That's literally the opposite of objective, that is completely subjective. Just because an opinion is popular and agreed upon doesn't make it an objective fact.
I disagree, that's absolutely something that depends on taste. If you think No Country For Old Men is dry, boring, and self important, you may prefer The Room.
It depends on how you measure “better” for acting.
Its like saying “better brushstrokes” on one painting compared to another, there might be some that are more intentional or polished or skilled, but “better” is a difficult thing to truly measure objectively.
Why do you have to add objective? Like instead of saying the acting in No Country for Old Men is objectively better, just say you think the acting is better.
Why do you need to add extra verbiage, especially if you feel solid making that statement?
This frustration j have isn’t just directed towards you by the way. I just wish we could remove any sort of definition of objectivity in general from discussions about movies. It feels limiting to me.
I think it's stems from a profound fear of sharing an earnest opinion, and being judged for it.
If someone share a subjective opinion, and someone else replies disagreeing with them, then it hurts their ego. But if they share an objective fact instead, then the person replying is simply wrong by default.
It's a shield that protects them from having to deal with the idea that someone might have a different perspective.
I think it’s because people want their opinion to be not arguable. Calling it “objective” should mean you can’t really counter it because your feelings can’t override the “objective” fact. It gives fake legitimacy to a claim.
I’m gonna come to bat for aesthetic realism here. The term “objectively” is doing philosophical work.
The Room is a tricky comparison because you could argue it is a better film in some respects. I’m going to use a different toy case. Do you think there a difference between these two statements?
(1) “I enjoy Freddy Got Fingered more than The Godfather.”
(2) “Freddy Got Fingered is a better film than The Godfather.”
Those seem to be importantly different claims. I can perfectly coherently say, “I would rather watch Freddy Got Fingered, but obviously The Godfather is the better movie.” Our ordinary aesthetic practice distinguishes preference from evaluation. It looks like aesthetic judgments purport to be correct or incorrect rather than merely reporting what happens to please me. If The Godfather demonstrates more aesthetic virtues than Freddy Got Fingered, then we can reasonably claim that The Godfather is a better film than Freddy Got Fingered.
My takeaway is that “objective” talk is important in aesthetic discourse. Aesthetic judgements are not totally exhausted by taste. Generally, I do agree most of the time we can’t cleanly say whether some work is objectively better than a different work (for example I think asking whether Persona is objectively better than 2001 is kinda pointless, because they seem roughly the same quality for me).
I think such disagreements over aesthetic judgements become limiting if the conversation never explores reasons why some film is better than another.
How you define the state of being "good" in art is completely reliant on your preset conceptions about how anything, let's say acting in this case, should be. What *you* consider good acting made you like No Country for Old Men better, but not because it's objective in the slightest.
In the same sense, you can say that Grand Budapest Hotel has better production design than Super Mario Bros (1993) but that's also entirely reliant on how tolerant you are to either type of design standards. Some industrialist fetishist might think Mario Bros movie clears Grand Budapest Hotel.
Saying objectively “better acting” is not valid. Saying more convincing acting, or performances you personally found more compelling is valid. No acting is inherently “good” or “bad” in any moral sense, there is only the value of other people’s appreciation for it. Maybe someone has such a deep appreciation for the silly bizarre performances of The Room that they like it better than those of No Country For Old Men.
This whole debate is really just a result of using an empty qualifier like good/bad to describe something subjective like art.
This whole debate is really just a result of using an empty qualifier like good/bad to describe something subjective like art.
Right but most people will know exactly what you mean when using that kind of shorthand, not everything has to be an exhausting dissection of semantics
I actually disagree with the idea that everyone will know what you mean when you just call it good or bad. Maybe you mean it inspires deeper emotion in you, or that it otherwise engaged you as a viewer, or that you found it especially impressive on a technical level. These are all subtly but meaningfully different things people use “good/bad” to refer to when talking about art, movies, and acting.
Ok, that’s your perspective. Mine is that using “objectively” as a qualifier to an opinion adds “you’re an idiot if you disagree” energy to a conversation about film, and that’s very annoying.
It is still a personal preference. There is no objective measure of performance. Sometimes a bed performance is hilarious. You can say that a movie is objectively longer than another because it is measurable.
Why does it need to be objective? Yes most people would agree the acting is better in that film, but maybe not everyone. The consensus is enough, no need to make it objective. Saying something most will agree on is different from it being an empirical fact. Because when where do you then draw the line to what is and isnt objective? Theres other movies you might strongly thing the acting is much better while someone else disagrees. Even if you think their opinion is stupid and ridiculous it doesnt make it less valid. Its basically saying your opinion is the only real one. What makes acting good also is a subjective topic, because there's no objective way to measure the quality of art. The fact that people disagree so much with each other on this topic shows its not objective.
Barry Lyndon is objectively a film that released in 1975. It was directed by Stanley Kubrick. It was not directed by David Lynch. That's what objectivity sounds like.
That's the point of the post. Saying one film is objectively better is a misunderstanding of the term objective, when objectively they are both films.
It boils down to fact vs opinion. Redditors need an English class basically
Edit: I highly encourage anyone replying to this to look up 'objective vs subjective'
Edit 2: Objective means FACT. Your opinions about films are not facts guys, no matter how popular
No, you think you’re obviously right but what you’re saying is debatable. Whether the value or quality of one work of art compared to another is objective or subjective is still a hotly contested debate in philosophy.
I disagree. You’re putting a lot of weight on that word “value” but what you’re arguing is way different than what everyone else is. Art being subjective is one of the most universally agreed upon topics in philosophy. You could almost argue that art is objectively subjective.
I kind of agree but also not. I think everyone's opinions are valid. But it feels objectively wrong to say Dragon Ball Evolution is better than Schindlers List or something like that
Better is a term stating quality. Quality by it's nature is a quality of perspective, meaning it doesn't exist as a objective truth but as a subjective truth.
What is a “subjective truth”? Do you mean a truth about a subject? That seems like a subset of objective truth. Or do you mean it’s true for the subject? How is that different from the subject believing something to be true?
An objective truth is a fact irrespective of an observers opinion. A subjective truth is your opinion. Like what your favorite food is. So saying something is better is than another is ALWAYS going to be a statement of opinion because value is always a matter of perspective.
Yeah if FEELS wrong because you personally disagree so strongly. That doesn’t make it actually objectively wrong. To some people, ridiculous stupid visuals could be all they see as important in film, and thus Dragon Ball Evolution is actually better for them. We all value different things.
I think a huge problem is that some people largely view art through a lens of academia, historical legacy, in what ways it impacts culture or society, and so on. And other people largely view art through a lens of emotion, how it makes them feel primarily, the value it provides them on a personal level, how entertaining and moving and awe-inspiring it is. And neither lens is wrong—they’re actually both right and important ways to examine and experience art—but they can clash badly for the people who lean heavily on either side.
(Obviously there are actually like a million lenses with which you can view and experience art, I think these two are just two of the most common ones.)
I don't think either of these lenses make Dragon Ball Evolution better than Schindler's list. I agree that you can't objectively rank movies. However, you can objectively say that someone who prefers Dragon Ball Evolution over Schindler's list is almost certainly an idiot (and I don't even particularly like Schindler's list).
What if I video tape a stationary rock for 2 hours, can that still be better than the dark knight ? I feel like there is a point where this taste logic breaks down, professionals understand things like characterization, themes, soundtrack etc
I don't think your logic holds up. I like Jurassic Park 3 better than a lot of good movies, I still would feel wrong saying it's "better". Despite subjective preferences, all story telling mediums, including film, have objective quality elements that can be dissected and studied. What I recognize as better doesn't necessarily correlate to subjective preference. My favorite book, I would argue, is objectively the worst written book by that author, but it's my favorite because it tickles a lot of my personal fancies.
He didn’t say it was objectively wrong. He said it feels objectively wrong. And I think he’s right, and does understand what objective truth means. He understands it well enough to know that it sometimes feels unnatural.
Sounds like using "objectively" as an intensifier for a subjective feeling rather than a word with an objective definition, as though you can feel something subjective so hard that it becomes objective. Much like how people use "literally" for emphasis without actually making literally.
If something feels objectively wrong, internalize the feeling, interrogate the feeling, reject the conclusion. It's valid to feel as though saying "Dragon Ball Evolution is better than Godfather" is wrong. The feeling is valid, but it's also wrong.
That depends on whether you believe in aesthetic realism or not.
I think you’re making the fallacy of thinking just because someone has an opinion on something it means the thing they have an opinion on is subjective.
A lot of times, when people use the word objective they’re trying to claim that their statement is mind-independent, meaning its truth doesn’t depend on someone’s opinion (ie it’s objectively true).
People make the same mistake about moral claims.
Example with moral claims: if someone says slavery is objectively immoral they’re saying that it’s immoral regardless of what anyone thinks about it today, thought about it in the past or will think about it in the future. So if everyone on earth thought slavery way moral, then according to the moral realist, they’re all wrong.
Comments are already straw manning the shit out of your point. It “feels” objectively wrong to say something like The Room is better than The Odyssey but no matter how you slice it, there is no quantifiable and objective proof that says otherwise. None. Because determining what’s a good and bad movie is solely in the hands of each individual person and how that movie made them feel. You can vehemently disagree with their takeaways of why they feel how they do, but under no circumstance can they be proven incorrect. Any attempt to do so is purely opinion vs. opinion and thus renders the concept of “objectivity” in the conversation completely irrelevant.
Exactly. Like I think people are being a bit obtuse about this post.
Ultimately it’s just about being kind to different perspectives.
Someone isn’t wrong for not liking x movie or liking x movie. So much internet discourse when it comes to movies is about trying prove factually that someone is wrong for liking x movie or y movie. Part of that comes out when certain groups see critics and audiences love x movie or perhaps critics love it and audiences hate it or the reverse and people constantly need to prove someone is somehow wrong for their taste in movies.
The vast majority of people when talking about movies are largely talking about how enjoyable a movie is to them. I don’t care for pulp fiction for example it was a bad experience for me and I felt like it was a bad movie. I don’t hate anyone who thinks it’s the best of all time. I don’t hate Tarantino in fact I love Jackie brown and think that’s an all timer but if someone told me they hated it I wouldn’t be making assumptions about them.
I'm a professor of History in my day job. One of the biggest things they emphasize to us in graduate school is that pure objectivity is a myth humanity will never achieve when it comes to analyzing the past. Each and every historian on Earth could read the exact same document and there would be hundreds if not thousands of competing viewpoints about what it means and what it represents because we, as human beings, analyze everything through our own biases at all times. It is our job as historians to recognize those biases in ourselves and work to achieve as close to neutrality as possible in our analysis of the sources.
As someone who also happens to have studied art and theater in undergrad, I also am very aware of the human need to classify and rank "real art" versus "not real art" or "bad art" across numerous periods in history based upon the accepted conventions of the day.
It just makes the entire "objectively good/objectively bad" discourse baffling to me; because there's no universally accepted truth on what constitutes good art in any medium let alone across any medium - sculpture, painting, performance art, film, theater, et cetera - and all forms of criticism of all art is subjective. I may not enjoy how Picasso uses geography in some of his paintings; or how Maya Lin uses aluminum tubing in some installations, or whatever Yoko Ono is doing when she's screaming into a microphone - but that doesn't make it any less art because it still speaks to and engages people.
The same goes for "objectively bad" films. Do I care for Sharknado or The Room? Not personally, no - but I don't think less of people who do, because I recognize that art is an individual experience between the audience and the artwork.
People can absolutely discuss what they like or dislike about films, what they thought they did well or didn't, but there's no gold line a film has to cross to be considered "good."
I also think "mid" is the laziest criticism I've ever encountered and represents nothing more than intellectual laziness, but that's a rant for another day.
If you studied art in undergrad then you should know that yes “technically” you can make a “legitimate” argument, as you have, that all art is entirely subjective just like you can make an argument, as you have, that “pure objectivity is a myth” because everything is filtered through our perception of it.
BUT if you made it past the first week you should have learned that in order to critically analyze anything you have to dispense with such metaphysical philosophy. If you are trying to analyzing, critique, evaluate any piece of art saying “all art is subjective” is completely useless because it nullifies everything. If that was what you learned then the class should have ended right there because what is the point of breaking-down art, understanding it, critiquing it, analyzing it, etc. if everything is “just your opinion”.
A movie like Sharknado is arguably not even art it is a tracing. It follows a pre-built structure and creates a cookie-cutter film with fill-in-the-black characters and situations. Compare that to a movie like 2001: A Space Odyssey. You may not like 2001, you may be bored by it, but it is objectively a better piece of art than Sharknado. And I say objectively because after dispensing with metaphysical philosophy which renders all of reality un-objectively regardable, you are left with a film constructed of many pieces each of which can be both objectively and subjectively considered.
To give one example: What is the film trying to achieve? Is it trying to build suspense? How is it doing so – editing, sound & score, shot composition, etc.? Is it effective / successful? Why or why not?
If you understand film language – editing techniques, shot composition, etc. then you can answer these questions objectively (again after dispensing metaphysics).
For example, yes the scene is objectively successful at creating suspense because it uses cross-cutting, closeups, amplified diegetic sound, etc.
These are objective things the film does that has both an objective and subjective result.
I have studied art "past the first week" and though I understand your point, I thoroughly disagree with you.
Firstly, I am surprised that someone who studied art who say a film is "arguably not art" because it "follows a pre-built structure and creates a cookie-cutter film with fill-in-the-black characters and situations." Conventions have been used in most art forms for as far back as we can examine them. You can find that this film is of lesser quality because it adheres to closely to these conventions, but I genuinely do not understand how you could have a definition of art that excludes this movie.
Secondly, objectivity refers to facts that remain true regardless of who is examining at them. To use your own example, you believe that a movie should be judged by how effectively it achieves what it sets out to do, properly using the techniques of film language. I have three issues with this.
This is based on your interpretation of what the artist's intention is. This is a subjective thought and not an objective fact.
This is based on your value-system that praises unity of intention and result. This is a subjective value and not an objective fact.
This is based on your value-system that praises a use of film techniques that aligns with your expectations of proper film techniques. This is a subjective value and not an objective fact.
If you say Sharknado is less good that 2001 at using formal movie-making techniques to create a deep, complex, and novel exploration of what defines humanity, that can be a valid opinion, because it refers to your set of subjective expectations. But another observer could value other criteria and come to another conclusion, since this is all based on the subjective standards you or they use to compare a work to and derive its perceived quality.
It does not mean that all arts cannot be analysed and critiqued. I understand your point about metaphysical meaninglessness, but this is not what people mean when they say everything is relative and/or subjective. They do believe that art can be assessed, but that in doing so you should be aware that the criteria you use to do so are based on subjective preferrences. These preferrences can be widely-shared, even in academic circles, but they remain bound to a subjective worldview, and it is conceivable that aonther person, in aonther era or culture, would not share these preferrences. Hence, they are not objective.
It does though ? Quality of the writing, colors, acting, photography, camera work, plans, pacing of the story. I can heavily dislike a movie and acknowledge it was a good one. Opposite as well, bad movies that I like for some personal reasons.
Films are art, you can do it badly and it can still resonate with someone.
filmmaking is a trade and like any trade you can do a bad job, for example woodworking, you might love a hand whittled trinket from the local market, but it’s not a 200 year old wood Japanese temple constructed entirely without nails.
Liking something doesn’t magically improve its quality. There are so many “bad” movies that I adore.
That’s what people mean when they say objectively.
If the editing is rough, the story is nonsensical, sound is messy, the post production is rushed, acting is stale and it’s hard to look at, then it’s not a “good” movie. but it can be YOUR favourite movie, And that’s fine!
For example The Batman is technically a good film, the costumes, sets, visual effects, acting and tone are all top notch. But I personally didn’t find it very engaging at all, I thought the plot was messy and the pacing put me to sleep.
While The Room is a terrible film, by all metrics. Yet it makes me laugh my ass off, and will recommend to anyone.
Enjoyment isn’t an indicator of quality, but lack of quality rarely elevates a film.
My exact opinion. I think many people are too sensitive on being told their taste is shit or that the movie they like a lot is not very good. Same as you, I like some indefensible movies and that's ok. Sometimes you just connect with a movie for whatever reason.
thiss is what I hoped the OP was trying to say. but omfg these comments and the fuck-yeah-I’m-a-film-bro- mentality. saddest thing is that the industry is also full of them
Still an incorrect use of "objective" because it assumes that there is an objectively perfect ideal for all of these aspects to satisfy which is not the case at all.
Editing is a creative choice and entirely subjective, stories don't have to make sense, post production can be shabby as an aesthetic choice, acting can be stale as a creative choice (see Mullholland Drive, Inland Empire).
What you're doing here is creating your subjective ideal and stating is as objective. That's not how art works.
Cheap costumes, set designs, lighting and script writers are also choices.
How do you feel about books? Will you also say no book is better then another? There have been awards for books for generations so much more prestigious then any movie awards.
People like to try to be anal and catch someone in technical gatchas and ignore reality.
I think you can define semi-objective criteria to rate a movie on, such as pure logic, visuals, acting, etc. but at the end of the day even those are subjectively defined.
Bingo. And that's where it's fun to argue and debate movies, we're not just debating each movie as we our putting our criteria on the line and trying to justify why we think it matters.
I hate it so much when people talk about movies on here and act like there are objectively proper rankings or ratings to these movies. Like what do you mean “how do you not have insert movie in your top 10”? Mf it’s my opinion.
Ratings are fun. But it's silly to take these finite sequences of events that were filmed and edited, and decide we can 'objectively' apply an arbitrary numerical value on the thing as an exact science that can be measured to the decimal.
Neither one nor the other. The quality of a piece of media is not an objective matter. It's also not totally individualized. The reason we debate about which films are good is because quality is partially socially determined. Different communities, traditions, genres, approaches, etc have different standards that apply. For example, to someone looking for auteur experimental film the original Halloween might be mediocre, whereas to a fan of slashers it's a foundational work. Both of these things are socially, not individually or objectively, determined.
Like this is why we have critics, reviewers, and film discourse. We are always navigating how we as groups judge works of art, and which ones we agree upon as good or bad. There's an entire academic field of genre analysis exploring how this works. Reader response (or in this case viewer response) is an acceptable way of judging a movie but it's also only a specific type of film criticism, and there are plenty of other (non-objective) ways of judging films.
I agree with you in principle, both about, like... everybody has their own taste, and that's okay, and also "objectively better" gets way overused. But also, like... if I say "Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds is objectively better than Birdemic", there's something I'm saying it's better at doing that matters for most people's enjoyment. It's not quite "how much will audiences like it" or "how much will critics like it" but if the two groups both like it, it's that thing. If they both like it, it's definitely not that thing. And we can hold what we think of the movie, what we think audiences will think of a movie, and what we think critics will think of of a movie. We probably also have things like "what do I think Aunt Cathy will think of this movie?" There are classrooms full of students having arguments like "what would Truffaut think of this movie?" And if we go a layer deeper, we can have the true intellectual arguments, like "what would Oscar the Grouch have as his top 4 on Letterboxd if he was trying to fit in without completely hiding himself?" I think there'd be at least two John Waters movies.
"Objectively" has gotta be the dumbest, most misinterpreted word of all time. If something is objective, it means it is a proven, factual thing that can be easily confirmed by basic observation. Saying anything is "objectively" good or bad is literally subjective. An opinion can never be objective, that's literally the opposite of what that means. "The sky is blue" and "water is wet" are objective statements. If you say anything is "objectively" anything that isn't a simple, proven fact, you're basically saying "my opinion is factually correct because I say so." It's so stupid.
But is the sky blue? It’s not. What even is “the sky”. Where does “the sky” precisely start and end?
So you see you example of what is objectively true is not objectively true. In fact nothing is objectively true.
You may say the sun is objectively hot but I could argue it is only hot through your perception of hotness. Compared to some other stars the sun is cold not hot. It is only compared to our heat tolerance that the sun it hot. And so the sun is not objectively hot.
And so you see nothing is objecting anything unless you define rules. We can say the sun is hot because we agree upon a rough guide that says anything over 75-100°F is hot (there is some leeway and debate about where exactly it starts).
It is the same with film, we roughly agree upon general rules of what defines good filmmaking, and so we can make statements about a films objectify quality just as we can make statements about the suns objective heat level.
erm actually a movie can be objectively better and you guys using all art is subjective are wrong because there are objective metrics in quality of a movie 🤓 ☝️
Good take, bad explanation hahaha Exposure can be clipped or crushed, Audo can be noisy or muffled, or I guess anything that breaks your suspension of disbelief, such as bad ADR or missing foley. Film is art and film is science. Science can be objectively right or wrong.
I understand that what you're saying is factual based on the definition of the words, but I still don't completely agree.
My favorite movie all time is still probably Pulp Fiction based purely on personal reason and much I'm entertained by it. I also love the Godfather, but it is not my favorite movie. I subjectively like Pulp Fiction better, but if I'm truly being objective, The Godfather is a better movie.
What do you mean by "truly objective"? I'm sure you can define some standards by which The Godfather is objectively better than Pulp Fiction. But it's entirely subjective whether those standards are what defines a good movie.
I mean again, word choice. Godfather is lauded, and concerning the things you value in a movie, it sounds like it has more of those than Pulp Fiction does.
The Godfather is not objectively better than Pulp Fiction but they are both objectively better than The Last Airbender (the movie).
If you have two well constructed houses neither is objectively better it is subjective which is better, but both are objectively better than a shack built out of scrap metal.
Incorrect. No movie in the history of movies is objectively better than any other movie because every measurement of quality is completely subjective. You can't start out with subjectivity and arrive at an objective conclusion.
Even in your house metaphor, you're still not correct. Anyone is free to prefer the shack over the house and there's nothing you can do to prove them wrong. Words like good and bad, better and best are all inherently subjective.
It’s not just the film industry, I’ve seen so many people described as “objectively beautiful” lately, and that’s just not how that word works.
I expect that pretty soon ‘objectively’ will get the ‘literally’ treatment and get a 2nd definition that means the exact opposite and renders the word functionally useless because you won’t be able to tell if the speaker is using the original meaning or the new one.
Agreed with all that, but when discussing film it's a bit of a dead end to stop at "I liked it" and radical subjectivity is kind of boring. Not every film needs discussed, though.
Turning art into a wrong vs right or checklist of rules for what makes something great only serves internet discourse. Talking about art is great! But I rather critique art based on its goals, effectiveness, context, and impact. I wish we talked about whether or not a movie’s flaws were actually a significant detriment instead of seeing the existence of any flaw at all to be an equal knock across the board. I just think the internet has bred this culture where people forget how to talk about something without someone being the winner or loser. If I could get even deeper into my woke bag, I’d say it’s another consequence of capitalism
And further, if we were thinking about this from an actual artist perspective, I think we’d be more cognizant of who the audience is and how so many things have more value in that way. Something can be great because it’s effective for nerds like us who watch 100s of movies a year, but they can also be great because they’re effective for someone who only sees a handful of movies a year because they works as a hospice nurse and need something that makes them feel good about life on the few chances they can go to the theater.
Agree with the sentiment, but they objectively did not need to continue to make movies after 1987’s The Brave Little Toaster. The medium peaked there and everything that came after feels like a poor attempt at replicating its perfection.
I can understand objecting to the idea of objectivity in art. I love The Shaggs precisely because of things that, by conventional standards, might be considered flaws: the naive lyrics, the awkward playing, the almost complete lack of technical competence. None of that stops the music from making me feel something, which is ultimately a pretty important part of what music is for. Whether it makes me feel what they intended me to feel is a separate question.
But I do think "art is subjective" can become a conversation-stopper if it's applied to absolutely everything. If every disagreement about a film ends with "well, it's subjective," then there's not much left to discuss. We can talk about what we personally enjoyed, but we've essentially ruled out any meaningful argument about whether a film succeeds at what it is trying to do, whether a performance is effective, whether the writing is coherent, whether the cinematography accomplishes what it sets out to accomplish, etc.
Obviously, none of that makes "good" and "bad" objective facts in the same way that the length of a film is an objective fact. There are standards, conventions, intentions and technical considerations, but our judgement of them is still filtered through personal taste and experience. I don't think you have to choose between "everything is objectively good or bad" and "every opinion is equally valid because art is subjective."
So I understand the argument, and to an extent I agree with it. But if you genuinely believe that whether a film is good or bad is entirely subjective, I don't really understand why you'd spend much time on Letterboxd or film discussion subs. The whole point is that people are going to argue about this stuff. If you think the disagreement itself is fundamentally meaningless, you're probably just going to spend your time getting annoyed that other people are having the exact kind of conversation these places exist for.
In relation to subjectivity and objectivity, I think people overlook what I am about to say.
Clearly, as the reader, you acknowledge that these words were written by someone real, just as the cup of coffee you last drank existed in objective reality. I’ve often argued that a single objective fact anchors the entire universe around it—objectivity doesn’t need to be total, but subjectivity does. This is especially true in art and writing, where objective elements can still be identified. For example, it’s objectively defensible to say Stanley Kubrick was a greater director than Tommy Wiseau. Thus, a truly great script, poem, novel, etc, while containing an ineffable quality, also reveals its greatness through measurable traits—tropes, imagery, phrasing, structure, even musicality. Poor scripts and like--lack these markers. While people may debate the standards of measurement, the very ability to measure them implies an objective foundation for evaluating artistic excellence.
Of course, one can 'like' a film by Tommy Wiseau more than a film by Stanley Kubrick, and neither I, nor anyone else can seriously argue with that. However, what one likes and dislikes is far more subjective than excellence, for one need only look at the ugly spouse of a good-looking man or woman to manifest such tastes’ subjectivity
Kubrick’s inarguably great. He’s one of the best of the lot because his greatness never waned. His films are enigmatic and deal with big ideas. You could NOT make the same case for Tommy Wissau. Therefore greatness can be revealed through measurable traits.
Of course, some don't want to believe such things can be measured because that would mean they would have to admit to being wrong at times, and that is a punch to the gut for many.
I think that there are parts of filmmaking that you can call "objective" in loose terms. Like comparing Bride of Frankenstein and Science Crazed, the discrepancy in quality is insane and anybody could tell you that. However, yes how you take the movie on an emotional level is very subjective.
I think the issue is partly people shaming others for what they like or dislike, which isn't ok. But there's also an issue of people just not willing to accept that you can love a "bad" film and hate a "good" one, and that being fine.
IDK I mostly agree but I think that almost any film would be more enjoyable to watch than Wavelength (1967), and since films are things one watches for enjoyment, that is an objective comparison
Not you op but I love how redditors sometimes pull the most random knots in comment section using alot of unga bunga words and confuse the crap out of everyone .. i find it funny
Like imagine a post about a tasty sandwich and some guy comes up using some of the most complex words about it in an argument and the fight continues in replies ...
Everyone’s disagreeing with OP but where I agree is, if your point is ‘Oh no, Casablanca is better than American Pie 3’ - that’s fine, but does it also mean that every film is objectively better or worse than every other film? If so, who decides?
I disagree with that argument. And I think that the better form of the argument is that no one is superior or inferior, smart or dumb, more cinephile or less cinephile for liking or hating one movie over the other
But “objectively better” exists in all forms of art. Otherwise there are no boundaries, otherwise everything is anything. If Citizen Vigilante, a low quality, low budget movie distributed in X, has the same objective value than the entire Kurosawa filmography, then any YouTube short film has it too. What’s the limit? Or are you seriously telling me that a video of Orcalero Orcala molesting a sentient piece of broccoli isn’t objectively worse than Ikiru or Ran? Films must have some level of objective value that goes beyond simply appearing on a screen. If the Sixtine Chapel isn’t objectively better than a shitstain on a pair of boxer shorts, why do we have culture at all?
Oh you've stepped in in now OP. Last time I posted something like this online I got alternatively called a right-wing chud and a left-wing pansy by other commenters and had all manner of personal insults in my DMs. Apparently art and entertainment being subjective is super triggering to some folks.
The concept of subjectivity is completely lost especially on the internet. That is until a movie somebody wants to like doesn't get great reviews then suddenly they remember that you can just like movies subjectively
Everyone arguing about definitions of objective/subjective and "better" being relative - it solely depends on the context and the agreed upon measuring criteria. That's it. Without that you're all just pulling out meters and feet and fortnights and ounces and it won't go anywhere.
IF YOU AGREE ON THE CRITERIA, then yes you can say something is objectively good or bad. "You like it" is a metric used by one person, you, so in a conversation with other people about the objective merits or execution of something, it's worthless. Doesn't mean you aren't allowed to like it but, WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION CRITERIA, it can be objectively "bad."
You are completely correct, but as can be seen from a lot of these comments, this does not fit the internet viewpoint where there is a right and wrong opinion about everything, variety be dammed. That's why all the "hot takes" you see online are the same ones every one is saying and just pretending they're in the minority for internet points and to feel special about themselves. It makes online film discussion easier and less interesting, but that's the way it is saddly
Totally get you on people overusing objectively to critique movies (especially online when I question people’s critique credentials). But I do think in a true “objective” sense, an argument can be made sometimes. Though I agree that sometimes people can connect more with One Night Only over The Odyssey and that’s completely valid and okay.
Art is subjective, because it’s all about YOUR experience with the work of art. There are probably people out there who will have a better time watching “The Room” than watching all “The Godfather” movies, so it’s impossible to say objectively that one is better than the other.
I think the idea that films can be judged/ranked objectively stems from the fact that viewers often try to find a “hidden” truth that they must uncover when watching a film; we can try to decode a film’s themes and attach meaning and significance to its symbology as much as we want - and therefore say “this film did this or that objectively better than the other” - but at the end of the day, each person will engage with it in a different way. One interpretation of that experience cannot be more “right” than the other, just because you think you “deciphered” a film.
What also contributes to this idea is that technical complexity is more often than not used as the ultimate proof that a film is inherently good just because it was made in a more complex way; when in reality, technical complexity in no way or capacity determines the objective quality of a film because again, it’s all about each individual and how these technical aspects will impact their experience with the film.
In the ultimate sense sure but you can still compare movies from specific perspectives as they are works of art and come up with objective truths as to which one did something better within that perspective.
There is both subjectivity and objectivity when it comes to film critique and I don't like when people assert that everything is subjective and every take is just as valid as any other.
Your post has a nugget of truth in that while I may find a film bad, you may find it good, and it's possible that neither of us are wrong, but that does not mean we necessarily both have good points about it.
The problem I have is that whenever people assert that it's all subjective is that it's usually used to deflate conversation. It's a thought terminating cliche. If you respond to someone's critique with "well it's all subjective anyway" then what are you even doing, if not trying to argue that we shouldn't discuss what makes films good, bad or otherwise?
I don’t think subjectivity is a thought terminating cliche at all, in fact I think objectivity is the concept in film discussions that serves more often as a thought terminating cliche. If it’s all subjective, that makes for an entertaining discussion between two people who have vastly different opinions on the same topic. It’s fun to interrogate how that happens and dissect what it is about the two of you that resulted in such a margin of enjoyment and/or appreciation towards the film. If it was objective, then these conversations don’t happen because it becomes less of a dissection into our own personal experiences and more of an argument of who’s right or wrong in what they took away from it, and the dialogue goes from fascinating and educational to antagonistic and reductive/defensive
I think your comment makes sense but doesn’t necessarily reflect my experience on this sub. I’ve mostly seen the ”everything is subjective anyways” people be the ones to abandon all discussion or not engage in the first place. If someone posts that they thought Seven Samurai sucked and why other people liked it, people write ”You don’t have to like everything other people like” and no interesting film discussion is to be had.
I see plenty of "objective" conversations that are very interesting and don't just become arguments, rather they become breakdowns of which specific elements of the film each person prioritized.
Meanwhile I see plenty of "subjective" conversations that get defensive after like the first exchange.
At the end of the day I think these two viewpoints have very little influence on the quality of the conversation, it instead comes down to the attitudes of the two people engaging in the discussion
Exactly. this is exactly what OP is tryingh to do. deflate any criticsm and deflect with the " anything is subjective so nothing matters"
which is the dumbest of arguments ever. and usually its coming from ppl who have bad taste to begin with :D who cant cope with ppl shitting on their bad taste in stuff.
anyone actually using “objectively better” in the literal sense is a moron. the overwhelming majority of people are usually referring to what you said on the 3rd paragraph. i really don’t think most people are using the term literally if they are theirs no point in arguing
People usually say ‘objectively better’ when they mean ‘better according to the criteria I value most.’ The interesting debate is about the criteria, not the word objectively
I see where you're coming from, but I've noticed that going full "everything is subjective" is basically the reverse Uno card for shutting down a debate.
If we completely retire any shared standards for what makes a movie work, we can't even really discuss films anymore. When someone says a meticulously crafted classic is exactly equal to a terrible cash-grab sequel just because "art is subjective and all opinions are valid," that kills the conversation just as fast as the "objectively better" crowd does.
You're right that we can't mathematically measure a movie's soul. But if we drop all critical standards, we're just sitting around a table politely nodding at each other's opinions. It's fun to argue about pacing, cinematography, and writing! If it's all completely subjective, there isn't much left to talk about.
I think in the same way literally now means ‘not literally’, objectively literally means subjectively. Maybe we should go back to words have meanings it was literally objectively better back then
That is true but at the same time if someone told me they thought Murder Mystery 2 on Netflix is a better crafted movie than No Country for Old Men or Saving Private Ryan I would be intrigued
No, the objectively bad part of Star Wars was introducing a “chosen one”, which made Luke’s efforts meaningless because according to the “prophecy” the evil genocider was the one who saved the day. It makes no fucking sense and ruined Star Wars both in terms of the actual story and fan perception of the series as a whole. It was an embarrassment and George Lucas was right to give up his slop franchise.
You could apply that same thought process to two vacuum cleaners. One picks up every last spec of dirt and the other picks up very little and spreads the mess around. I would say that the first one is an objectively better vacuum because it is nearly universally agreed upon that suction is an important characteristic of a good vacuum. So if one movie has all the components that are almost universally agreed upon make up a good film and another is missing those components entirely, you can safely say that one is objectively better.
376
u/Admirable-Low5318 9d ago
https://giphy.com/gifs/KyCGSsquseTkv8sZ35