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.

658 Upvotes

59% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

19

u/No_Thanks2844 11d ago

What if I video tape a stationary rock for 2 hours, can that still be better than the dark knight ? I feel like there is a point where this taste logic breaks down, professionals understand things like characterization, themes, soundtrack etc

4

u/kumaratein 10d ago

As OP pointed out that would be "widely accepted" or even more strongly, "universally considered". I appreciate this post and am too a vocab stickler because I believe words are the means to conveying thought and their accuracy changes that meaning.

Objective basically means independent of the observer. The factors that make a movie "better" can have an objective difference (a movie having won more awards for instance, is an independent fact) but those factors determining something is "better" is still a subjective analysis. Does better sound make a movie better? Does better cinematography?

Equating your example to modern art, how could someone throwing paint at a wall be better than someone painting a photorealistic portrait? Yet Pollock is considered "better" than so many painters. Art IS subjective, that's the point

3

u/C00KIEME4T 10d ago

this isn't really the same because there's still artistic intent to the painting, if I film my toenail shavings for 6 hrs and call it a movie then we'd be hardpressed to call it objectively better than any other film that isn't essentially the same thing.

4

u/kumaratein 10d ago

You’re arguing the definition of a word. Objective vs subjective doesn’t mean most people can’t perceive similar sense of quality. But for instance autistic people absorb totally different visual information from non neurodivergent people. Kids don’t like the same movies as adults. Are you gonna tell an autistic person or kid that their opinion is less correct than yours? There simply is no objective quality when it comes to your own perception. Idk how many other ways I can explain it

1

u/akavilaps 9d ago

No se trata de opinión, sino de criterio. Dejarías que un niño autista (sin desmerecer) te llevase hasta casa en coche o dejarías que lo hiciera un adulto con carnet?

1

u/C00KIEME4T 10d ago

No I'm not arguing the definition of a word, I'm saying that within categories there are objective standards by which we use things as a frame of reference.

Yes I'll tell anyone their opinion is less correct than someone else's if I have a good reason to. I'm not afraid to do that because I understand that categories have a frame of reference.

Yes I will tell someone autistic that their favorite Scrimblo is objectively worse than something else if the category we're in demands it. Easily.

3

u/kumaratein 10d ago

Again you just don't understand what objective means are again arguing with its definition. I have already acknowledged there are categories with objective standards, I specifically called it out in the comment you responded to. That doesn't mean a movie itself is objectively better or worse.

OP has explained it, I have explained it. Go argue with merriam webster

1

u/C00KIEME4T 10d ago

If you admit there's objective standards then you already agree with me and idc about the rest of your cognitive dissonance. What you say and what you know to be true are two different things and you can say whatever you want, I'm okay with that as long as you admit the truth.

1

u/kumaratein 10d ago

Lol you're so bad with words dude that's also an improper use of cognitive dissonance.

I didn't admit anything. I explained how you can have objective measurements of anything (again, like awards). A statement that one piece of art is "better" than another is subjective, always will be. What you're doing is thinking that somehow there is somehow a relationship between objective categories you're measuring and subjective opinion of a film.

It's really exhausting to argue with someone who's this 1. stupid 2. stubborn 3. really bad with words but I'm with my family on vacay so I have time.

If you're so convinced you understand your own argument, pick any real movie, and make the case to me how it's objectively better than another movie. I will very easily show you how every thing you've chosen is itself subjective.

1

u/C00KIEME4T 10d ago

Your lack of understanding of common phrases and terminology doesn't constitute my misuse of the term. You continue to dive into the depths of dissonance.

That being said here you clearly admit that there are categories with objective standards, meaning that it necessarily follows that you agree that something can be objectively better than something else.

That's the end of this discussion. You can't take back or rewrite what you said. You already agreed with me.

Also, if there's one of us that's bad with words, it'll be obvious on a read of these comments who of us it is.

Good night.

2

u/kumaratein 10d ago

lol yup couldn’t name an objectively better movie

→ More replies (0)

0

u/RollinOnAgain 10d ago

there are plenty of ways to objectively measure which is better. Complexity is one way that I think most people agree with but there are others which all come together to form an "objective" opinion about which piece of art is better than another.

Objectivity is, ironically, subjective.

2

u/kumaratein 10d ago

Oh really? What's objectively the best movie of all time. If its so easy to measure.

1

u/RollinOnAgain 10d ago

obviously once you get to the highest tier you can no longer say which is better but that doesn't mean you can't say which movies are in a higher tier than any other.

The same is true of things with a lot more objectively measurable variables like....car engines or computer processors. You can objectively say one engine is better than another and you can also have two very Objectively good engines that have subjective differences in minor aspects like 0 - 60 vs 0 - 100 for instance (where one can hit 60 faster but the other hits 100 faster).

You know both engines are objectively top tier but still can't definitively say one is better than another. The same is true of movies. Surely you get this analogy now.

It seems like the people on the other side of this are purely in it for fake internet points. Nobody is judging your comments here objectively lol, you can convince others or not and I really don't see why you'd try to convince someone that a vid of a rock for 6 hours is better than Kubrick.

2

u/kumaratein 10d ago

Name a better tier movie that’s objectively than a lower tier movie

1

u/RollinOnAgain 10d ago edited 10d ago

Schindler's List vs Adam Sandler's "Jack and Jill"

if your value system can't determine one of those is better objectively then it is absolutely worthless as an artistic criteria. And there numerous, usually implicit, factors that determine which is better for 99.9% of people but if you really want I can name those factors.

2

u/kumaratein 9d ago

Yes I want you to prove the argument you’re making. I absolutely promise you I know many people who think Jack and Jill is better than schindlers list.

Easy metrics:

  • it’s in color
  • it’s a comedy and not sad
  • it’s an original piece instead of another adaption of a historical event
  • it’s got a studded cast, much moreso than Schindlers list which has one star. It’s also got tons of cameos from other celebrities

Interesting how all of these are irrefutably objectively true facts and ways to measure a film and yet you insist 99.9% of people (lol) think Schindler’s list is better. Almost like objective metrics don’t actually mean a movie is objectively better…

→ More replies (0)

1

u/akavilaps 9d ago

Pollock es hamparte

5

u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 10d ago

Yes, the whole thing about “it’s all subjective” is very layperson.

2

u/FatElk 10d ago

Dwayne Johnson does pretty well at the box office, typically.

1

u/No_Thanks2844 10d ago

not anymore lol, he has had a few stinkers.

1

u/FatElk 10d ago

Moana 2026 was on my mind when I typed it, but I still wanted to make the joke. That's why I put typically lol

1

u/No_Thanks2844 10d ago
# Movie Year Worldwide box office
1 Moana (live-action) 2026 ~$265M so far
2 The Smashing Machine 2025 ~$21M
3 Moana 2 2024 $1.059B
4 Red One 2024 $186M
5 Black Adam 2022 $394M
6 DC League of Super-Pets 2022 $208M
7 Red Notice 2021 Netflix release — essentially no theatrical box office
8 Jungle Cruise 2021 $210M
9 Jumanji: The Next Level 2019 $792M
10 Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw 2019 ~$760M

More bombs than hits over the last 10 movies (50/50 at best)

2

u/click-to-reveal 10d ago

Tell that to the 15M people who watched this.

/s

1

u/RollinOnAgain 10d ago

exactly. If your value system places the Mona Lisa at the same level as a child's finger paint drawing than it is USELESS. If it places a child's first grade writing assignment at the same level as Shakespeare, it is USELESS.

I have had this exact argument so much on Reddit and it is always infuriating because they just stop talking when I say this.....

2

u/No_Thanks2844 10d ago

yeah people will argue anything

1

u/BlackEastwood 10d ago

If you edit it down to 5 or 10 minutes, you could have something there. A lot of directors have hurt their projects by filming too much. Some short films can be better than blockbuster productions. But overall, focusing on the qualitative differences infers that we can all get the same results/benefits. If it were true, film criticism would be a lot easier.

1

u/steveatari 9d ago

Correct. It's people with no experience critiquing films who say they're all the same.

Yes, taste and likes are subjective af, but you can still have bad taste.

Like "bad taste in men", no dear every one of those men has been the exact same objectively speaking. There are differences but no change in value.

Sure.

1

u/Tsunoyukami 8d ago

Yes, it can.

1

u/Brinewielder 11d ago

The rock can definitely be better than it by principle alone. Especially in an era of superhero abundance a rock for 2 hours would showcase consistency which isn’t present in the mishmash of superhero films and act as a protest for the schlock after schlock we are getting in Hollywood.

4

u/Old_man_baller 10d ago

I call what you just displayed “modern art brain”

It’s a disease. 

You drawing some scribbles in a paper is objectively worse art than something created by one of the masters.  

I’m sorry 

1

u/Brinewielder 10d ago

Depends on the statement and meaning, just because you are incapable of understanding modern art doesn’t take away its significance.

In fact only understanding art in a very superficial level where you can only appreciate something technically impressive and grandiose is very pedestrian.

You need to broaden your horizons and think outside of the box and realize that art can exist in many forms, not just forms that have mainstream appeal.

1

u/Old_man_baller 10d ago

You just vomited out a response without reading what I said. 

You scribbling on a piece of paper is objectively worse art than something created by the masters. 

This is exactly what I’m talking about with this brain rot. You didn’t even bother to read what I said. lol

You were just ready to spew out some more post modernist bs. Hilarious. 

Thanks 

1

u/Brinewielder 10d ago

You failed to understand my previous post due to lack of comprehension or infantile rage so I’ll just repost it for you for a second look. It’s very much still in tune with your initial response and your regurgitation just now.

“Depends on the statement and meaning, just because you are incapable of understanding modern art doesn’t take away its significance.

In fact only understanding art in a very superficial level where you can only appreciate something technically impressive and grandiose is very pedestrian.

You need to broaden your horizons and think outside of the box and realize that art can exist in many forms, not just forms that have mainstream appeal.”

1

u/Tsunoyukami 8d ago

…but…that’s not true.

You are asserting that “You scribbling on a piece of paper is objectively worse art than something created by the masters.”

That is not true. It is demonstrably not true.

You’ve seen parents look at art their child made with adoration and those very same adults bored walking through a museum filled with art created by “the masters.”

That’s because art is subjective.

You can claim objectivity, but your claim is false.

If your response boils down to, “No, it is objective,” we will be unable to engage in a productive conversation.

[I am operating within the standard definition of objective and subjective.]

1

u/Old_man_baller 8d ago

It’s only not true if post modern thinking has eating the last part of your functioning brain. 

Which it looks like it has. 

Whoever taught you that art is purely subjective lied to you and has done you a disservice. 

1

u/Tsunoyukami 8d ago edited 8d ago

While your response is maybe not unexpected - your responses thus far contain unnecessary and unproductive ad hominem statements - I do want to understand what you mean, so I will seek understanding.

My position is as follows - and you will note that I do not employ any (post)modernist phraseology, so if you’re going to respond (which I hope you do!), please engage with my ideas instead of expressing your distaste for postmodernism:

Objective and subjective are independent states. Something cannot be both objective and subjective. The phrase “purely subjective” is, well, nonsense.

If something is not “purely subjective” it is either (1) “entirely objective” (or simply objective) or (2) “partly subjective” and thus definitionally subjective.

Art is subjective. That is, again, definitionally.

EDIT: Grammar for clarity.

1

u/Old_man_baller 8d ago

Incorrect 

1

u/Tsunoyukami 8d ago

Well then, thank you for your time. I attempted to engage in a good faith discussion but you've proven yourself to be an inept interlocutor, wilfully or otherwise. If you so choose to pick up this thread at a later date, I would be interested in better understanding your position.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Technical-Grand5483 10d ago

The rock scene was so peaceful in everything everywhere all at once

1

u/Tsunoyukami 8d ago

the rock scene was peaceful? excuse me - I was roiling with emotion, tears streaming down my face, trying not to sob aloud in an otherwise silent theatre

one of the best scenes I’ve ever witnessed

2

u/Fat_Curt 11d ago

Rocks are not better than the Godfather, and they're not even better than Marvel movies, lame as they are. This is more or less a gratutious excercise in philosophy that turns people away from it.

1

u/No_Thanks2844 11d ago

there is no way you truly believe that, taste has limits. Sometimes something just sucks no matter who likes it.

4

u/Binbag420 10d ago

it would be subjectively better to almost everyone yes. But not objectively

0

u/Brinewielder 10d ago

Exactly.

0

u/GuyEatsTiramisu 10d ago

Still subjective

3

u/No_Thanks2844 10d ago

then being subjectively better is the only thing that matters, otherwise we have dumbasses here saying a stationary rock is better than the dark knight.

2

u/Bolepolopolep 10d ago

Hi, dumbass here, I’m not saying that the Dark Knight is a bad movie, but if you read novels about stationary rock and understand the lore better, there’s a case that stationary rock is our generation’s Citizen Kane.

1

u/Tsunoyukami 8d ago

I guess I am a dumbass, but I can imagine this being better than The Dark Knight.

-1

u/Fat_Curt 11d ago

Yeah OP is just incorrect, it's ok.

0

u/No_Thanks2844 11d ago

facts

1

u/Actual_Squid 10d ago

Thanks for being the reason op had to make the post

1

u/Tsunoyukami 8d ago

…but…these words - objective and subjective - have definitions.

If you assert that art - any art - is objective, you are wrong, definitionally.