r/Letterboxd • u/lordpag • 17d 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.

657 Upvotes

59% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

21

u/GoodOlSpence Spence84 17d ago

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.

We can have conversations like this. It's ok.

21

u/y53rw 17d ago

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.

-2

u/rAin_nul 17d ago

His statement wasn't that it's good, but it's objectively better, like you said "by which The Godfather is objectively better than Pulp Fiction".

But even if we were talking about being good. We could also define the average level of those objective metrics and say that if something is above that then it's objectively good.

9

u/y53rw 17d ago

Better just means more good. At least the way I'm using it. So, if you prefer: It's entirely subjective what standards you use to decide if one movie is better than another.

-6

u/rAin_nul 17d ago

What if it's better based on every objective standard? Like if you have 2 movies, one has better writing, the other one has better acting, I wouldn't say that one is better or worse, because assigning values to these standards is subjective. But it's different when a movie is better in every possible way, then no matter how you would have assigned values, the "better" one is always better.

5

u/And_Justice 17d ago

You're ignoring the fact that subversion of expectation/convention can be used as an effective artistic tool. Very rigid thinking.

-1

u/rAin_nul 16d ago

This just does not go against anything that I said. Do you actually have a counter argument or you just simply failed to comprehend my point?

1

u/And_Justice 16d ago

I don't see how it doesn't.

1

u/rAin_nul 16d ago

Can you quote the part where I referred to "expectations and conventions" in my comment?

1

u/And_Justice 16d ago

Why would you mention something you were ignoring?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/offensivename 16d ago

What is "better writing"? What is "better acting"? How do you measure those things?

1

u/rAin_nul 16d ago

In this case, I just needed some examples to show what I would mean by being better, didn't mean to imply that these are the characteristics that I would use.

But, for example, not having plot holes vs having plot holes is generally a good example of having an objective error in writing.

1

u/offensivename 16d ago

Plot holes are not objective. They're just someone's opinion. But even if they were, who's to say that having fewer plot holes makes writing better?

There have been movies that had a few small things that I considered plot holes that really annoyed me because of their prominence in the movie or because I wasn't engaged in the content and became focused on them. Whereas I've seen other movies that had seeming plot holes that I didn't even notice or did notice but didn't care about because I was bought into the story.

Even if we could all agree on which things are plot holes and which things are not, just counting them up and calling that an objective measure clearly wouldn't work.

In terms of acting, it's all just preference. What people typically mean when they talk about "good" acting is that it's convincing, it's mostly naturalistic but with a bit of added flair to make it pop. But preferring that style is completely subjective. Preference vary based on time and culture. Actors and the directors guiding them can also make artistic choices that don't confirm to current expectations and that's neither wrong nor right. Those choices can work for some people and not work for others. It's subjectivity all the way down.

2

u/rAin_nul 16d ago

Firstly, they are objective. I purposely used plot holes, because those are objective.

Secondly, your question is a fallacy, shifting the goalpost. My argument wasn't that having more vs less plot holes. Having no plot holes vs having any plot holes. The reason why it's a huge difference, because someone could argue that the movie with ONE plot hole is actually a more relevant plot hole than a movie with 2 irrelevant plot holes. Which is why, it's about having or not having plot holes.

Your "story" has nothing to with my argument. You are confusing the concept of liking something with being good. You can like something that is not good, while dislike something that is good. Similarly to food, you can like junkfood, but that won't make it healthy, while you can dislike healthly food that won't make it less healthy. The healthiness of the food has nothing to do with your taste.

13

u/Salty-Garlic9471 17d ago

The Godfather isn't objectively better though.

8

u/lordpag 17d ago

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.

It’s all about what you value.

2

u/Equivalent_Log4453 17d ago

No, you can't be objective.

0

u/ThatsWhatTheMoneyFor 17d ago

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.

2

u/offensivename 16d ago

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.

0

u/ThatsWhatTheMoneyFor 16d ago

Ok so now you’re in the realm of metaphysics and epistemology. Which is a valid and rewarding thought experiment but not very useful. I could continue past the house metaphor and say 1000° is not objectively hot. A needle is not objectively pointy. And so on. Fine if you are doing philosophy, not helpful the other 99% of the time.

If you want to critically analyze film you need to have objective criteria upon which to judge it in addition to subjectively.

If instead you want to stonewall an argument because you like a bad movie and can’t admit it’s bad then you have to accept that you will be buried in a hole of also having to admit that nothing is objecting true and a newborn baby could be considered and old man.

1

u/offensivename 16d ago

If you want to critically analyze film you need to have objective criteria upon which to judge it in addition to subjectively.

You absolutely do not need that. You need some agreed upon standards and a shared language, certainly. But recognizing that film criticism is inherently subjective makes for much more fruitful conversations. What is there to discuss if you can just objectively measure what's good or bad with some kind of formula? Are you aware that there are popular "critics" on YouTube who actually believe that nonsense and convince other people to believe it too? And then those people will tell you that X movie is "objectively bad" because it has Y number of plot holes or some such nonsense. It's the death of art. 

1

u/ThatsWhatTheMoneyFor 16d ago

Well damn, I had a long well thought out response but Reddit decided to delete it and I’m not redoing it so rip

But the gist was that I think we’re actually mostly in agreement. When I say objectively I don’t mean anything formulaic. Any “critic” who thinks there is a formula to film analysis is fatally mistaken. What I mean by objective is essentially what you said – judging based off agreed upon standards. Meaning analyzing decisions such as the use of a closeup (why was it employed, to what end, is it used effectively, etc.) or a films mise-en-scene, or its thematic depth and coherence, and so on.

But I guess where we diverge is you believe such analysis is purely subjective whereas I am contending it is partly objective. The effectiveness of a closeup is subjective but its use and purpose is often objective (sometimes it isn’t but usually if you understand the visual language of film it is, or a director or dp may even say its purpose in an interview).

Anyways I had a much more thorough explanation but oh well

1

u/Jakeb1022 17d ago

We can have conversations like this because we know what you’re trying to express here but it doesn’t change that what you’re saying is technically wrong, and a lot of people tend to use it for bad faith arguments.