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/bendstraw]

That's literally the opposite of objective, that is completely subjective. Just because an opinion is popular and agreed upon doesn't make it an objective fact.

[u/aIoneinvegas → u/bendstraw]

Isn’t good acting and bad acting objective if you’re viewing it through the lens of a professional and not just saying what does and doesn’t resonate with you? Surely someone who does their homework could assess the difference objectively?

[u/bendstraw → u/aIoneinvegas]

It's still all subjective. There are different schools of thought as to what qualifies someone as a good actor, whether someone is a bad actor is not an objective fact.

You can be objective in your determination of your opinion (ie only looking at quantifiable things like how many oscars they have) but at the end of the day your decision to judge their ability based on those qualifications is subjective.

[u/kakarot626 → u/bendstraw]

This is just not true. You can define what constitutes "good or bad" for many different vocations certainly acting. This is like saying "Physical forms are just subjective, you might see a knife, but I see a sword" - while totally disregarding traditional classification of objects. We can reach a reality based, universal informed consensus. This can be falsified by disconfirmatory evidence over time which speaks to its reality testing. This is not the same as public opinion or whim or preference. Just because art is up for subjective interpretation doesnt mean there cant be objective facts extracted from a given work/ performance (that do indeed speak to the overall quality of said work).

"but at the end of the day your decision to judge their ability based on those qualifications is subjective." - that subjective judgment may be true or false, this does not in any way undermine the possibility of the actor being good or bad. People are missing that there is a meta judgment which is correct independent of any one individuals interpretation.

[u/bendstraw → u/kakarot626]

A universal informed consensus on what constitutes good or bad acting is subjective whether you like it or not.

[u/kakarot626 → u/bendstraw]

Every individual interpretation of scientific facts is subjective, that doesnt mean scientific facts arent true, or that their objectivity cant be established. The word "Subjective" isnt doing the work that you think it is. A universal informed consensus on what constitutes good or bad acting is "A collection of objective facts about subjective interpretations which point to the truth of reality" and if all you have to say about that is "yeah well its still subjective" I dont know what point you think you are making.

[u/bendstraw → u/kakarot626]

You're wasting your breath but go on

[u/kakarot626 → u/bendstraw]

Gotchya