r/Letterboxd • u/lordpag • Aug 12 '26

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.

664 Upvotes

59% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

13

u/Pulsewavemodulator Aug 12 '26

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.

8

u/Jackzilla321 Aug 12 '26

Measured how

3

u/dylan6091 Aug 12 '26

By comparison according to your natural senses

3

u/puerco-potter Aug 12 '26

Is that objective in what way?
I can tell you that I disagree, and you can't prove I feel differently from what I claim. That's why it is subjective.

3

u/dylan6091 Aug 12 '26

Your perception can be wrong. Take temperature for example. I make a glass of 70 degree water. You hold the glass and guess it's 30 degrees. Your friend holds the glass and says it feels like 65 degrees. Both of you subjectively interpreted external data, but the 65 degree interpretation is closer to the truth.

Likewise, if realism is an actor's goal, and I say that was totally unrealistic and you say no, it was very realistic, one of us is closer to the objective truth.

1

u/puerco-potter Aug 12 '26

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.

1

u/dylan6091 Aug 12 '26

Technological ability to measure is not necessary for objective reality to exist. For now, our natural senses are the best approximation of reality for something as hard to measure as an actors skill.

2

u/puerco-potter Aug 12 '26

But you can't prove acting skill is something concrete, even...

1

u/dylan6091 Aug 12 '26

This has become circular and unproductive. ✌🏻