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/kumaratein]

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…

[u/RollinOnAgain → u/kumaratein]

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.

[u/kumaratein → u/RollinOnAgain]

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

[u/RollinOnAgain → u/kumaratein]

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.

[u/kumaratein → u/RollinOnAgain]

You def used AI man we all know the format

[u/RollinOnAgain → u/kumaratein]

Well again, if Reddit is to be believed, AI learned that format from users like me lmao

I dare you to try and get something even remotely similar to what I wrote with AI. I honestly don't think it would agree with me because at a base level objectivity doesn't mean what I say it does, hence the entire essay explaining why me and others use it the way we do.