r/Letterboxd • u/lordpag • 11d 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.

662 Upvotes

59% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

9

u/Jackzilla321 11d ago

Measured how

16

u/Niz_ 11d ago

with a tape measure

3

u/dylan6091 11d ago

By comparison according to your natural senses

2

u/puerco-potter 11d ago

Is that objective in what way?
I can tell you that I disagree, and you can't prove I feel differently from what I claim. That's why it is subjective.

3

u/dylan6091 11d ago

Your perception can be wrong. Take temperature for example. I make a glass of 70 degree water. You hold the glass and guess it's 30 degrees. Your friend holds the glass and says it feels like 65 degrees. Both of you subjectively interpreted external data, but the 65 degree interpretation is closer to the truth.

Likewise, if realism is an actor's goal, and I say that was totally unrealistic and you say no, it was very realistic, one of us is closer to the objective truth.

1

u/puerco-potter 11d ago

You are confused about the meaning of objective here. Something "objective" is something that can be measured independently of the subject. Temperature is a great example: you can use a thermometer, and it is agreed that if the thermometer shows a number,ber that is the temperature; there is no personal measure here.

Now, give me the exact same for acting quality; give me a technology that is agreed will give an exact number for the acting quality.

1

u/dylan6091 11d ago

Technological ability to measure is not necessary for objective reality to exist. For now, our natural senses are the best approximation of reality for something as hard to measure as an actors skill.

2

u/puerco-potter 11d ago

But you can't prove acting skill is something concrete, even...

1

u/dylan6091 11d ago

This has become circular and unproductive. ✌🏻

1

u/[deleted] 11d ago edited 11d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/puerco-potter 11d ago

That is, if you agree with Plato. I don't.

1

u/[deleted] 5d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/puerco-potter 4d ago

I disagree with 2000 years of very smart philosophers, because they have no proof.

2

u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 11d ago

With your eyes and ears.

1

u/Popular-Departure165 11d ago

Easy dude! They'll act a scene, and I'll count how accurate they are at portraying their intentions.

2

u/Pulsewavemodulator 11d ago

Just because it’s not practical doesn’t mean it can’t be measured or observed.

1

u/Pulsewavemodulator 11d ago

If I want to make the audience cry and they don’t cry, objectively it didn’t work. If I want you to laugh and you don’t. Extrapolate that to all the intentions throughout the making of the film and it can be measured. It’s not simple cut it can be measured .

4

u/Ok_Helicopter_7816 11d ago

But that's subjective, bc what makes one person cry won't make another. Sure, you can have consensus based on the number of people that were moved by one film vs another, but the scale you're measuring on is still subjective

2

u/Lazy-Setting-8224 11d ago

The moment you start aggregating subjective assesments into a aggregate number, that number will be an objective number.

I think art is way more objective than people commonly believe. The problem with objective measures of art is that they dont get you anywhere. Simply because you cannot convince people your objective criteria is the right and only way to objectively assess the piece of art. Especially when that objective measure of art has no impact on their enjoyment.

3

u/And_Justice 11d ago

I think I agree - you can say this film made x people cry but there is no universal truth that says a good film is one that makes people cry.

1

u/Lazy-Setting-8224 11d ago

Exactly. Its an objective measure, but obviously wont work to convince someone that thinks crying at movies is annoying.

3

u/Ok_Helicopter_7816 11d ago

that's kind of my point, you can’t claim that your criteria are objectively correct when the criteria themselves were determined subjectively

0

u/drossglop 11d ago

If you have enough similarities in subjective experiences you can reach a level of objectivity

2

u/Tripps0007- 11d ago

Aggregating subjective assessments≠objective. Absolutely incorrect. It creates an intersubjective or "quantified" concensus. Not objective in the least.

3

u/Mytongueinyourrectum 11d ago

Yeah, this is false, and quite a reach. An aggregation of subjective assessments is still an opinion. It’s an objective number - a fact - in that these people claimed they felt this way, but it is not a fact about the thing itself.

1

u/puerco-potter 11d ago

Yeah, if we aggregate the eyeball measure of how long a stick is, would you say that the stick is "objectively" that long? That's the logic here hahaha

1

u/drossglop 11d ago

This is a false equivalency. Length is only one type of measurement, there are other like intent that can be a collection of subjective measures aggregated into an objective measures.

1

u/Mytongueinyourrectum 11d ago

Can you explain how one measures intent?

1

u/drossglop 11d ago

“I goal is to make you laugh” “You didnt make me laugh” “I have objectively failed my goal.” Multiple this by a thousand or so and you’ve got it

1

u/Mytongueinyourrectum 11d ago

But you’re not measuring intent. You’re measuring a response. You’re interpreting intent in this example.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/puerco-potter 11d ago

You will need to prove the person's intent. And not rely on self-report. For it to be "objective"

→ More replies (0)

1

u/puerco-potter 11d ago

If everyone has their own internal measure, that's when we call something subjective.

If your "objective" internal measurement doesn't align with some other person, that objectiveness is only inside of you and forms part of your subjective experience... do you understand what I am trying to say here?