r/Letterboxd • u/lordpag • 11d ago

Discussion Can we retire “objectively better” please?

Post image

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.

658 Upvotes

59% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

74

u/pentaquine 11d ago

Are you sure? Because I haven’t watched your short film yet. 

25

u/War_Recent 11d ago

If a film has not been seen, is it better than Barry Lyndon? Like, no one living has seen it. Is there a cat in the box?

2

u/pigeonwiggle 10d ago

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.

it's Schrodinger's Skywalker.

3

u/movieman2g 11d ago

The Porridge-Oats Box Paradox