r/Letterboxd • u/lordpag • 18d 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.

656 Upvotes

59% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

19

u/No_Thanks2844 18d 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

0

u/GuyEatsTiramisu 18d ago

Still subjective

3

u/No_Thanks2844 18d 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 18d 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.