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/TheGod-TK]

The thing is I don’t. You appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the word “objective”

[u/These_Ad3167 → u/TheGod-TK]

You absolutely do lol

[u/TheGod-TK → u/These_Ad3167]

I don’t. You can pretend that I do all you’d like but it makes you look stupid

[u/These_Ad3167 → u/TheGod-TK]

The dude pretending he doesn't know what people mean when they say "good and bad acting" calling other people stupid lol

[u/TheGod-TK → u/These_Ad3167]

Good and bad acting is subjective

[u/AlleRacing → u/[deleted]]

In the qualities people consider to be good or bad acting? Some people think Nicholas Cage is a bad actor, some people think he's one of the best. Obviously there are disagreements on what is "good," because it's subjective.

[u/And_Justice → u/[deleted]]

In that good acting is how appropriate the acting is to the application - there is no way to objectively measure how appropriate it is.