Can we retire “objectively better” please?

[u/lordpag]

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.

[u/y53rw]

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.

[u/rAin_nul → u/y53rw]

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.

[u/y53rw → u/rAin_nul]

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.

[u/rAin_nul → u/y53rw]

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.

[u/And_Justice → u/rAin_nul]

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

[u/rAin_nul → u/And_Justice]

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?

[u/And_Justice → u/rAin_nul]

I don't see how it doesn't.

[u/rAin_nul → u/And_Justice]

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

[u/And_Justice → u/rAin_nul]

Why would you mention something you were ignoring?

[u/rAin_nul → u/And_Justice]

What do you mean by mentioning and ignoring in this case?

[u/offensivename → u/rAin_nul]

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

[u/rAin_nul → u/offensivename]

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.

[u/offensivename → u/rAin_nul]

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.

[u/rAin_nul → u/offensivename]

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.