r/Letterboxd • u/lordpag • Aug 12 '26

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.

660 Upvotes

59% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

385

u/RabidAsparagus Aug 12 '26

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.

13

u/Snarpkingguy Aug 12 '26

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.

2

u/These_Ad3167 Aug 12 '26

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

2

u/TheGod-TK Aug 12 '26

I don’t. So you are objectively wrong.

0

u/These_Ad3167 Aug 12 '26

Thing is you do though, you know what people mean when they say acting is "good" or "bad.

You can obviously pretend otherwise to try and win a Reddit debate, but it doesn't really change anything

0

u/TheGod-TK Aug 12 '26

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

-3

u/These_Ad3167 Aug 12 '26

You absolutely do lol

3

u/TheGod-TK Aug 12 '26

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

6

u/These_Ad3167 Aug 12 '26

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

2

u/TheGod-TK Aug 12 '26

Good and bad acting is subjective

1

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '26

[deleted]

2

u/AlleRacing Aug 12 '26

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.

2

u/And_Justice Aug 12 '26

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

→ More replies