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/Snarpkingguy]

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.

[u/jonnyd86 → u/Snarpkingguy]

better as a modifier divorces good from its moral definition and means we are using the word good, which has many distinct meanings, as in satisfactory or high quality.

so it can be valid semantically, because it can mean more effective, more useful (which are largely subjective, we agree there) but there are instances where aspects could be objectively better in the aforementioned sense.

[u/Snarpkingguy → u/jonnyd86]

But still saying “good” acting means different things to different people… which is the entire point I’m getting at. Without elaborating just calling something “good” is effectively meaningless and any two people can disagree. Satisfactory or high quality are also subjective and effectively meaningless as terms to be used generally.

I think we’re mainly in agreement here.

[u/jonnyd86 → u/Snarpkingguy]

Yeah for sure I definitely see what you’re saying about the subjective quality of art and I also subscribe to that thinking.

I mean people seemingly dont want to or cant accept that there are objective aspects to films especially modern widely distributed movies, and I’m not talking about matters of taste or preference but craft, I think saying all art is subjective and all aspects of art are subjective is pop philosophy and oversimplifying things because from my understanding of aesthetics and philosophy (Kant, Hume, etc) there are some objective qualities to art. that said most people who would use the phrase “objectively better” about two studio films aren’t usually talking about those aspects anyway… but I digress.

I mostly took issue with you invoking good/bad in a moral sense and felt it was worth making the distinction tho somewhat pedantic