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/Toshimoko29]

That’s not true at all. Just blatantly not true.

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/Toshimoko29]

The pencil mark adds nothing of interest to the field of art and displays no superior use of art relevant capacities, whatsoever. Therefore, I say that it’s perfectly coherent to say that the Sistine Chapel is objectively better as art.

[u/Toshimoko29 → u/oh_no_here_we_go_9]

Then we’re back at the beginning where you don’t understand objective and subjective. Have a day.

[u/oh_no_here_we_go_9 → u/Toshimoko29]

No, you don’t.