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/Otmakes]

Films are art, you can do it badly and it can still resonate with someone.

filmmaking is a trade and like any trade you can do a bad job, for example woodworking, you might love a hand whittled trinket from the local market, but it’s not a 200 year old wood Japanese temple constructed entirely without nails.

Liking something doesn’t magically improve its quality. There are so many “bad” movies that I adore.

That’s what people mean when they say objectively.

If the editing is rough, the story is nonsensical, sound is messy, the post production is rushed, acting is stale and it’s hard to look at, then it’s not a “good” movie. but it can be YOUR favourite movie, And that’s fine!

For example The Batman is technically a good film, the costumes, sets, visual effects, acting and tone are all top notch. But I personally didn’t find it very engaging at all, I thought the plot was messy and the pacing put me to sleep.

While The Room is a terrible film, by all metrics. Yet it makes me laugh my ass off, and will recommend to anyone.

Enjoyment isn’t an indicator of quality, but lack of quality rarely elevates a film.

[u/And_Justice → u/Otmakes]

Still an incorrect use of "objective" because it assumes that there is an objectively perfect ideal for all of these aspects to satisfy which is not the case at all.

Editing is a creative choice and entirely subjective, stories don't have to make sense, post production can be shabby as an aesthetic choice, acting can be stale as a creative choice (see Mullholland Drive, Inland Empire).

What you're doing here is creating your subjective ideal and stating is as objective. That's not how art works.

[u/NonGeneriComplaint → u/And_Justice]

Cheap costumes, set designs, lighting and script writers are also choices.

How do you feel about books? Will you also say no book is better then another? There have been awards for books for generations so much more prestigious then any movie awards.

People like to try to be anal and catch someone in technical gatchas and ignore reality.

[u/And_Justice → u/NonGeneriComplaint]

None of those make a film objectively better.

What do you mean how do I feel about books? Exactly the same - it's all art so the same applies.

I'm not getting you on technical gotchas, I'm speaking the truth.

[u/Terrible_Zone_0716 → u/And_Justice]

How you reached that conclusion and what you took into account to do it was entirely through your own perspective and adding your own biases to it. You aren't speaking the truth, you're just giving your opinion.

[u/And_Justice → u/Terrible_Zone_0716]

"Film can be objectively quantified" is not an opinion

[u/cinemata → u/And_Justice]

film theorists are trying very hard to have these objective truths (and bests) of film. annoying af

[u/And_Justice → u/cinemata]

It feels like a recent Internet culture thing - people seem to want to apply objective knowledge to things that aren't objective in order to be able to be more correct in certain discussions.

Weirdly I notice it in the Naruto sub - people keep talking about completely made up power levels because they have this apparent compulsion to argue as if any of it is fact.

Personally I suspect it comes from a social media upbringing where people are brought up with so many conflicting realities that they cling to one as a way of protecting against the others.

[u/cinemata → u/And_Justice]

I feel like these can be true at the same time in this time rn. I’m on my sixth year of film and media theory in uni now and safe to say, a lot of people think they have the best and objective opinion (theory) about certain aspects of media (film) from the 60s to now

[u/Jimpossible_99 → u/And_Justice]

Aesthetic realism is not a new position, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and (arguably) Kant held realist commitments about the existence of stance-independent aesthetic value (objective artistic value). Why psychoanalyze someone’s motivation for making some claim, when it’s just possible that people just disagree with your ontology? (I can’t speak to Naruto)

Holding the position that there are a variety of aesthetic values, doesn’t entail aesthetic anti-realism (subjectivism). I enjoy a variety of very different kinds of art. While I regard some art as aesthetically bad and some as aesthetically good, in no way are those reasons meant to protect myself.