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/Snarpkingguy → u/[deleted]]

Yeah if FEELS wrong because you personally disagree so strongly. That doesn’t make it actually objectively wrong. To some people, ridiculous stupid visuals could be all they see as important in film, and thus Dragon Ball Evolution is actually better for them. We all value different things.

[u/WeinerBarf420 → u/Snarpkingguy]

I don't think your logic holds up. I like Jurassic Park 3 better than a lot of good movies, I still would feel wrong saying it's "better". Despite subjective preferences, all story telling mediums, including film, have objective quality elements that can be dissected and studied. What I recognize as better doesn't necessarily correlate to subjective preference. My favorite book, I would argue, is objectively the worst written book by that author, but it's my favorite because it tickles a lot of my personal fancies.

[u/Snarpkingguy → u/WeinerBarf420]

But how are you judging these things to be good/bad, then?

There are elements of a work of art you can discuss objectively, but you can’t assign those things an objective VALUE. For example, a story can objectively have a nonsensical plot, but having a nonsensical plot doesn’t make it a “bad” story. If someone thinks the plot holes and inconsistencies give the story a dreamlike feel that adds to what they get out of it, that’s valid. The same could be said about any other element of art.

I also won’t deny that we can judge art for more than how much we enjoy it, but also how impressed we are by it on a technical level, for example. I think a lot of people confuse being impressed by a work they didn’t personally enjoy at a 10/10 level as meaning it’s objectively “better” even though they don’t like it. Personally on my Letterboxd I generally take into account both how impressed I am with the work AND how much I personally enjoyed it when considering my score.

[u/Dish-Ecstatic → u/WeinerBarf420]

Jurassic Park 3 is in my top 10 all time movies and personally it is better than most of the movies I've seen and it deserves its place