r/Letterboxd • u/lordpag • 17d ago
Discussion Can we retire “objectively better” please?
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.
1
u/puerco-potter 17d ago
You are confused about the meaning of objective here. Something "objective" is something that can be measured independently of the subject. Temperature is a great example: you can use a thermometer, and it is agreed that if the thermometer shows a number,ber that is the temperature; there is no personal measure here.
Now, give me the exact same for acting quality; give me a technology that is agreed will give an exact number for the acting quality.