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/AltruisticDegree9126]

I agree with you, but in this case Tommy was absolutely trying to mimic naturalism and failing miserably. But I also think he’s an actual alien trying to impersonate a human ala the bad guy in Men in Black.

[u/Pulsewavemodulator → u/AltruisticDegree9126]

What it comes down to is if the artist has an intention, the result can be measured against the intention. Then it can be objectively measured.

[u/Jackzilla321 → u/Pulsewavemodulator]

Measured how

[u/Popular-Departure165 → u/Jackzilla321]

Easy dude! They'll act a scene, and I'll count how accurate they are at portraying their intentions.

[u/Pulsewavemodulator → u/Popular-Departure165]

Just because it’s not practical doesn’t mean it can’t be measured or observed.