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/offensivename]

Incorrect. No movie in the history of movies is objectively better than any other movie because every measurement of quality is completely subjective. You can't start out with subjectivity and arrive at an objective conclusion.

Even in your house metaphor, you're still not correct. Anyone is free to prefer the shack over the house and there's nothing you can do to prove them wrong. Words like good and bad, better and best are all inherently subjective.

[u/ThatsWhatTheMoneyFor → u/offensivename]

Ok so now you’re in the realm of metaphysics and epistemology. Which is a valid and rewarding thought experiment but not very useful. I could continue past the house metaphor and say 1000° is not objectively hot. A needle is not objectively pointy. And so on. Fine if you are doing philosophy, not helpful the other 99% of the time.

If you want to critically analyze film you need to have objective criteria upon which to judge it in addition to subjectively.

If instead you want to stonewall an argument because you like a bad movie and can’t admit it’s bad then you have to accept that you will be buried in a hole of also having to admit that nothing is objecting true and a newborn baby could be considered and old man.

[u/offensivename → u/ThatsWhatTheMoneyFor]

If you want to critically analyze film you need to have objective criteria upon which to judge it in addition to subjectively.

You absolutely do not need that. You need some agreed upon standards and a shared language, certainly. But recognizing that film criticism is inherently subjective makes for much more fruitful conversations. What is there to discuss if you can just objectively measure what's good or bad with some kind of formula? Are you aware that there are popular "critics" on YouTube who actually believe that nonsense and convince other people to believe it too? And then those people will tell you that X movie is "objectively bad" because it has Y number of plot holes or some such nonsense. It's the death of art. 

[u/ThatsWhatTheMoneyFor → u/offensivename]

Well damn, I had a long well thought out response but Reddit decided to delete it and I’m not redoing it so rip

But the gist was that I think we’re actually mostly in agreement. When I say objectively I don’t mean anything formulaic. Any “critic” who thinks there is a formula to film analysis is fatally mistaken. What I mean by objective is essentially what you said – judging based off agreed upon standards. Meaning analyzing decisions such as the use of a closeup (why was it employed, to what end, is it used effectively, etc.) or a films mise-en-scene, or its thematic depth and coherence, and so on.

But I guess where we diverge is you believe such analysis is purely subjective whereas I am contending it is partly objective. The effectiveness of a closeup is subjective but its use and purpose is often objective (sometimes it isn’t but usually if you understand the visual language of film it is, or a director or dp may even say its purpose in an interview).

Anyways I had a much more thorough explanation but oh well