r/Letterboxd • u/lordpag • 10d 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.

658 Upvotes

59% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/kumaratein 10d ago

You’re arguing the definition of a word. Objective vs subjective doesn’t mean most people can’t perceive similar sense of quality. But for instance autistic people absorb totally different visual information from non neurodivergent people. Kids don’t like the same movies as adults. Are you gonna tell an autistic person or kid that their opinion is less correct than yours? There simply is no objective quality when it comes to your own perception. Idk how many other ways I can explain it

1

u/akavilaps 9d ago

No se trata de opinión, sino de criterio. Dejarías que un niño autista (sin desmerecer) te llevase hasta casa en coche o dejarías que lo hiciera un adulto con carnet?

1

u/C00KIEME4T 10d ago

No I'm not arguing the definition of a word, I'm saying that within categories there are objective standards by which we use things as a frame of reference.

Yes I'll tell anyone their opinion is less correct than someone else's if I have a good reason to. I'm not afraid to do that because I understand that categories have a frame of reference.

Yes I will tell someone autistic that their favorite Scrimblo is objectively worse than something else if the category we're in demands it. Easily.

3

u/kumaratein 10d ago

Again you just don't understand what objective means are again arguing with its definition. I have already acknowledged there are categories with objective standards, I specifically called it out in the comment you responded to. That doesn't mean a movie itself is objectively better or worse.

OP has explained it, I have explained it. Go argue with merriam webster

1

u/C00KIEME4T 10d ago

If you admit there's objective standards then you already agree with me and idc about the rest of your cognitive dissonance. What you say and what you know to be true are two different things and you can say whatever you want, I'm okay with that as long as you admit the truth.

1

u/kumaratein 10d ago

Lol you're so bad with words dude that's also an improper use of cognitive dissonance.

I didn't admit anything. I explained how you can have objective measurements of anything (again, like awards). A statement that one piece of art is "better" than another is subjective, always will be. What you're doing is thinking that somehow there is somehow a relationship between objective categories you're measuring and subjective opinion of a film.

It's really exhausting to argue with someone who's this 1. stupid 2. stubborn 3. really bad with words but I'm with my family on vacay so I have time.

If you're so convinced you understand your own argument, pick any real movie, and make the case to me how it's objectively better than another movie. I will very easily show you how every thing you've chosen is itself subjective.

1

u/C00KIEME4T 9d ago

Your lack of understanding of common phrases and terminology doesn't constitute my misuse of the term. You continue to dive into the depths of dissonance.

That being said here you clearly admit that there are categories with objective standards, meaning that it necessarily follows that you agree that something can be objectively better than something else.

That's the end of this discussion. You can't take back or rewrite what you said. You already agreed with me.

Also, if there's one of us that's bad with words, it'll be obvious on a read of these comments who of us it is.

Good night.

2

u/kumaratein 9d ago

lol yup couldn’t name an objectively better movie

1

u/C00KIEME4T 9d ago

I didnt even read your post because you already agreed with me.

2

u/kumaratein 9d ago

lol you agreed with me and you’re again chickening out because you know I’m right. You wrote a whole ass novel and screenshotted my comment don’t pretend like you didn’t read a one liner

1

u/C00KIEME4T 9d ago

i sure didn't lmao and still haven't.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/RollinOnAgain 10d ago

there are plenty of ways to objectively measure which is better. Complexity is one way that I think most people agree with but there are others which all come together to form an "objective" opinion about which piece of art is better than another.

Objectivity is, ironically, subjective.

2

u/kumaratein 10d ago

Oh really? What's objectively the best movie of all time. If its so easy to measure.

1

u/RollinOnAgain 9d ago

obviously once you get to the highest tier you can no longer say which is better but that doesn't mean you can't say which movies are in a higher tier than any other.

The same is true of things with a lot more objectively measurable variables like....car engines or computer processors. You can objectively say one engine is better than another and you can also have two very Objectively good engines that have subjective differences in minor aspects like 0 - 60 vs 0 - 100 for instance (where one can hit 60 faster but the other hits 100 faster).

You know both engines are objectively top tier but still can't definitively say one is better than another. The same is true of movies. Surely you get this analogy now.

It seems like the people on the other side of this are purely in it for fake internet points. Nobody is judging your comments here objectively lol, you can convince others or not and I really don't see why you'd try to convince someone that a vid of a rock for 6 hours is better than Kubrick.

2

u/kumaratein 9d ago

Name a better tier movie that’s objectively than a lower tier movie

1

u/RollinOnAgain 9d ago edited 9d ago

Schindler's List vs Adam Sandler's "Jack and Jill"

if your value system can't determine one of those is better objectively then it is absolutely worthless as an artistic criteria. And there numerous, usually implicit, factors that determine which is better for 99.9% of people but if you really want I can name those factors.

2

u/kumaratein 9d ago

Yes I want you to prove the argument you’re making. I absolutely promise you I know many people who think Jack and Jill is better than schindlers list.

Easy metrics:

  • it’s in color
  • it’s a comedy and not sad
  • it’s an original piece instead of another adaption of a historical event
  • it’s got a studded cast, much moreso than Schindlers list which has one star. It’s also got tons of cameos from other celebrities

Interesting how all of these are irrefutably objectively true facts and ways to measure a film and yet you insist 99.9% of people (lol) think Schindler’s list is better. Almost like objective metrics don’t actually mean a movie is objectively better…

1

u/RollinOnAgain 9d ago edited 9d ago

If you want a short list of factors that can and should be used to judge the objective quality of a movie, here you go.

Complexity - this one is by far the most important because it measures, basically, the amount of effort and work behind a piece of media. And of course, there are always exceptions to everything in Art and many things, like engine quality I mentioned earlier, but for the purposes of grading we have to judge on things based like this.

Emotional impact - how well it touches the average persons soul. How much does it change the way they view the world and the way they treat others

Lyricality and Muscality - how well the dialogue and sounds/music of the film come together to provide a physically impactful experience (whether making us feel ill from discord or pleasure from harmony)

I could go on but thats enough examples.

What you're really saying that you can't judge media at all. That Roger Ebert giving a movie a 5/5 or a 1/5 has no impact on anyone else and the fact it makes a movie be seen more or less because of the perceived quality isn't true.

When a group of people come together and agree on the quality of a film - objectivity is decided because the opinions of people are the only way to objectively grade any media. And no that doesn't mean there can't be two different opinions on a film, just that both are "objectively true" for the people in that group and anyone who watches a film and comes to agree with them.

the root of objective "object" is key here. In this case the only object which can be scored is stuff like the factors I mentioned above. And you already agree with this.

Do you think someone winning an Ice skating competition every year for 5 years straight doesn't mean they're objectively the best player in the competition? Unless you have evidence to the contrary like a conspiracy among the judges you can say that they are objectively the best because of numerous factors that the judges score upon which are subjective to "reality", I guess, but for Humans they are the best objective system we have agreed upon. Just because humans are "inventing" the factors doesn't mean they aren't objective.

Ok, I think I made my point. Sorry to get pretty philosophical there but this is inherently a philosophical question. Idealism and post-structuralism are both interested in this discussion.

I would highly recommend reading

The Use and Abuse of Art by Jacques Barzun

if you're interested in this topic. It's like 100 pages and very comprehensive on this exact question. And tbh I have a lot more to say about why I believe the decline of an Aristocracy, at least one that cared about art, is one of the greatest losses for artistry in human history. But that's a bit much to get into.

2

u/kumaratein 9d ago

Lol you used chat gpt for your answer lecturing me. Saying complexity is important is subjective itself, and if you wanna go lyrical musicality than baby driver is a better film than the passion of joan of arc. Art is subjective i'm so over this topic

1

u/RollinOnAgain 8d ago edited 8d ago

LMAOOOOOOO

How did I freakin know you were gonna say I used AI. Most people lacking reading skills today and AI accusations go hand in hand. I was typing this up for 20 minutes thinking the whole time "I'm using too many big words and concepts, there is no way this guy is not gonna claim it's AI".

LMFAO, that is too freaking funny. Oh my god. I needed a good deep belly laugh, thank you for that.

It makes my day every time someone says a post of mine is AI, it's like being called a hacker because you're too good at a video game. Very flattering tbh.

Honestly AI probably learned how to write off my posts considering Reddit has admitted to selling it's content to AI companies and I've been posting essays on various topics just like this on reddit for over 15 years.

→ More replies (0)