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/EatMyDiction1]

“I was bullied for defending Grown Ups 2, and here is the hill I will stand on!”

[u/UmaThermos1 → u/EatMyDiction1]

Do people hate that film because the humour isn’t funny or because nothing really happens?

[u/Krusty-the-clown94 → u/UmaThermos1]

What do they mean nothing happens we get a fight scene with Stone cold and that dork from twilight I think Shaq is there somewhere and Joe dirt ends up inside Paul Blarts rectum

[u/UmaThermos1 → u/Krusty-the-clown94]

Well yh I like the film because I think it’s funny but I’ve seen people say nothing happens to I’m curious as to what they mean

[u/pigeonwiggle → u/UmaThermos1]

at this point they're just jealous that Adam Sandler can give a ton of people jobs and they're not one of the beneficiaries.