Criticism of movies is, inherently, subjective; there is no objective means of criticism

>you are not nearly as smart as you think you are and when you get to high school you'll realize this

A prime example of a purely subjective assessment.

>hurr what are objective standards
Wow user you're so deep maaaaan, nothing is like, real maaaaan it's just subjective brooooo we're just space dust maaaaan

Checked, but I have to ask: Does that type of argument work out for you on your Twitter "discussions"? Because here you are making as ass out of yourself.

There are objective criticisms -- like plotholes or continuity errors.

Aside from those, it's subjective.

Except thinking movies are objective is a thing only underage high schoolers do, though.

So you do not have anything to counter OP on an argumentative basis?
>real maaaaan it's just subjective brooooo we're just space dust maaaaan
That shit makes me nostalgic. This is the way obese, poorly washed atheists, and quote, "pwned" each other on Youtube in 2008. Glad to see that there are still people doing this unironically.

It's true though. The only objective things you can say about a movie are the facts like who is in it, what colors there, sound, etc. Everything else is completely governed by subjective and individual perception. What is scary to one is silly to another. What is dea serious to one can be humerous to another. If this wasn't through there would never be any conflict.

Again
>what are objective standards

>There are objective criticisms -- like plotholes or continuity errors.
Pointing out a plothole per se is objective. Ascribing a negative factor to the existence of plot holes is subjective. Maybe there are people who love plotholes.
It's not rocket science, bro.

yet neither of those things inherently make a movie bad

There are no "objective standards" you underage retard. Those "objective standards" are still subjective and people can agree and disagree with them

Which is a superior piece of art, the Mona Lisa or some scribbles a 3 year old made?
And no, dont tell me it's subjective. This argument goes all the way back to Plato and Aristotle

>objective standards
I'm not sure what you are driving at, alluding to, referencing or implying. Please elaborate exhaustively.

wrong. every single person can agree that there are films which are objectively bad or that it is at least possible to make a film that is objectively bad.

Have you ever considered that a person can be wrong in their perception?

There are objective criticisms of movies but they get called "nitpicks"

>not only is criticism subjective, it is also more creative than the piece it criticizes

Attached: images (3).jpg (187x270, 9K)

True but there’s uneducated and educated opinions. You can hate, say, Star Wars for not being “scary enough” but that’s kind of a dumb reason when it never set out to be scary.

Ok, i don't know what terms are acceptable for you, but one can tell when an actor doesn't sound believable enough just by the tone of his voice or the way he reacts to things, going against what the film wants us to believe the character is.

People disagree about lots of objective things. Otherwise how could anyone ever be wrong? You're saying that objectively, there is only the subjective. See no irony?

>Which is a superior piece of art, the Mona Lisa or some scribbles a 3 year old made?
Depends on what you think, I personally think the Mona Lisa is better and many others do as well. But someone can say they like the latter better and neither of us would be wrong as what we like depends on what we think is good or bad.

>Which is a superior piece of art, the Mona Lisa or some scribbles a 3 year old made?
With respect to what metric, exactly? And I do mean EXACTLY.
>And no, dont tell me it's subjective.
Actually, I'm gonna tell you that, bro.
>This argument goes all the way back to Plato and Aristotle
Please reference the exact work where what you believe is the topic of this discussion, is treated by either Plato or Aristotle. The exact name of the publication. You can safely assume I have all of their works in my library. In ancient greek.

I am fucking waiting.

To everyone else: Observe how he fucking digs a hole from here on.

To answer that we would know absolutely everything that determines 'superior' and 'art'. Which is a whole subjective argument in itself. Then we would have to all agree on those terms. You can say that Mona Lisa have more details than the scribble, that's objective, but are those details 'better'? That's where it gets tricky.

>not everyone agrees on everything
If you think this is in anyway profound you are objectively retarded.

>Normies are dumb
No shit. Many people can agree that a movie is bad, but that does not make the movie objectively bad.

>Ok, i don't know what terms are acceptable for you
Weak-ass, punk-ass, childlike comeback.
>but one can tell when an actor doesn't sound believable
>believable
Subjective.

A movie being bad or good is dependent upon multiple factors. It having a plothole wouldn't make it bad, just that it would make it not as good.

Plotholes are inherently negative in nature as it shows error in connecting points. Liking/disliking them is subjective, but the plothole, itself, is negative.

Also, I fear we're steering into tautology if we say "All criticism of movies is subjective." There has to be objective criticism. If not, saying "subjective criticism" is meaningless.

>argument from disagreement.
The fact that people disagree about something doesn't mean nothing can be true.
Someone could tell me 5+5=11
They would be wrong. Why should arguments regarding aesthetic be a different standard?

It's not profound, it's just common sense. Common sense which you lack.

the things you're saying are the things that inexperienced people in a particular field of expertise say.
for example your take is that everything has equal technical merit and cannot be pulled apart because it was a design choice and therefore the person criticising that choice doesn't understand the concept. ergo the criticism is biased and should be dismissed as factual.

what you don't grasp is that people work on these skills and apply them to what they're doing, they can break the rules because they understand them and through experience can cast an eye over the results without emotion because they've spend years understanding the concepts.

you're green, and you sound green and you're aggressive approach to this entire conversation bores people because they've heard it a hundred times already. it's the universal youthful position of ignorance that can be applied to every and all forms of craft in human existence.
just go the fuck away.

>Someone could tell me 5+5=11
That's a dumb argument, a math equation can be wrong or right, opinions about art can't be wrong or right.

>can be wrong in their perception?
Depends on context.

seething

>There has to be objective criticism. If not, saying "subjective criticism" is meaningless.
Interesting. Let's see if we can find on everyone agrees with.

Not him but you are misunderstanding his point.

mauler is a disgusting furry faggot but he does god's work in shitting on the retarded youtube film school dropouts who spew bullshit like the op here
there are plenty of objective and meaningful ways to critique art, you might not subscribe to them but that just makes you a pedantic faggot with nothing of value for anyone else, like a person who still believes the sun might orbit around the earth

>in ancient Greek
Well I hope you read them. Aristotle discusses it in Rhetoric and Metaphysics
Obviously Plato's ideas of Forms lends to Beauty.

Here we go again. Round 16542.

"Good" is a linguistic construct that you can employ to describe something. Good is not an inherent property of that which you describe, nor is it a form or essence in the platonic sense, it is just a linguistic construct that you can superimpose.

Subjectively, you can describe anything as good or not-good, in the same sense as saying "yay" or "boo" when different things are presented to you.

You also have the option of inter-subjectivity, where a collection of other constructs are attached to a created definition of good: "A good film, in our model, will have focused photography, multiple themes, and a non-linear plot," for example, and you can label things as 'good' in relation to that.

On a societal level, people generally employ both.

>What makes something [attain the linguistic construct] good?
Possessing attributes that appeal to your subjective model, one of many inter-subjective models, or a combination of both.

>Plotholes are inherently negative in nature as it shows error in connecting points.
Ok then. Please define the word "negative" in the context of this sentence, such that the definition is founded on an objective basis. And I'm gonna go ahead and have to ask you for a precise, formal definition.
>Also, I fear we're steering into tautology if we say "All criticism of movies is subjective." There has to be objective criticism. If not, saying "subjective criticism" is meaningless.
An oft-witnessed mistake by the layman, confusing tautologies like X=X with taxonomic truths like X ⊆ Y. I'm sure that you won't argue that criticism (the abstract term) is not a precise synonym for "subjectivity" (the abstract term). So there can be no tautological nature to calling all criticism subjective, the triviality of this statement notwithstanding.

>Subjective
Let's see: The film has a character who is supposed to be confident and energic, the film tell us he's confident, but the actor continually stutters, looks away from people or he speaks very softly like he's whispering. One would say the stuttering is part of his character, but we don't know unless the film refers to it.
Another example would be when the film tells us a character is say autistic, but the actor didn't do his research so the way he acts doesn't correspond to people with actual autism, is that subjective?

>Criticism of movies is, inherently, subjective;
ignorant
>there is no objective means of criticism.
ignorant

there's nothing to misunderstand.

Do we have to agree on a term for a term to have meaning? Thats the argument from democracy which is false

>bro what if like, standards didn't exist

Attached: laughingwhore.png (894x639, 1.24M)

There is no way to objectively critisize art. Art is not facts or math, what kind of art moves you completely depends on the person you are

math is inherently subjective, it is only out of convenience that we pretend to establish consensus on mathematics but actually there is nothing underpinning our concept of arithmetic but a bunch of baseless assertions that we all agree to pretend are true

1. I am not the one whom you replied to.
2. You subjectively sound like an enraged twitter account who tries to employ Twitter type of "discussion" on an image board (and subjectively fails miserably doing so).

Why?
Hume pilled

Now I know that you do not understand the meaning of both "inherent" and "subjective". Maybe refrain from engaging in a discussion here altogether, bro.

People are wrong all the time and don’t believe things that are objectively true. Does 1+1 suddenly not equal 2 if someone on the planets say it equal 3 or 4?

1 i didn't call him 16
2 i don't care what you think about anything because you don't know what you're talking about.

The irony? People who say shit like this are faggots who make a loving telling people what is good storytelling and bad storytelling.

Whats subjectively good in the last jedi is objectively bad in transformers 3. There are no standards with these people, only the knowledge that you have standards.

Who are you quoting?

>Let's see: The film has a character who is supposed to be confident and energic, the film tell us he's confident, but the actor continually stutters, looks away from people or he speaks very softly like he's whispering. One would say the stuttering is part of his character, but we don't know unless the film refers to it.
It is subjective which traits people might ascribe to characters they deem confident and/or energetic.
>the way he acts doesn't correspond to people with actual autism, is that subjective?
Is there a formal enumeration of stringent and invariable, manifest observable, determinable algorithmically traits that people expose who are diagnosed with autism, as opposed to people who aren't? Yes: Objective. No: Subjective.
Hint: No.

Why are you assuming things like this about me because of a belief I have?
I personally think every Star Wars and transformers movie sucks, though I don't go out calling them "objectively bad" because that is wrong

It's "whom", bro. WHOM are you quoting. This is a philosophical discussion of extremely intelligent and educated people, at least get the grammar right.

>Because it was a design choice and therefore the person criticising that choice doesn't understand the concept.
Ok, what's the meaning or concept behind a 1990 scifi film recorded on betamax?

>I'm sure that you won't argue that criticism (the abstract term) is not a precise synonym for "subjectivity" (the abstract term). So there can be no tautological nature to calling all criticism subjective, the triviality of this statement notwithstanding.

If there is a subjective X, i.e. subjective "criticism", there must also be an objective X. What does "subjective criticism" mean if that's the only case? Compared to what other criticism?

We could just go a step further and say there are no valid criticisms of movies -- which is likely the intended reason for even invoking subjective/objective. What would that mean?

>It’s “whom”
That’s not objectively true. Many people use who in place of whom. It’s common usage and thus correct usage. Not him.

the fuck should I know

go back to rationalwiki you sperg, math is subjective at the same level that art is and I have a graduate degree in mathematics to back me up
what you're saying is technically true in some sense, but also completely fucking worthless and arbitrary in every meaningful way. "dude reality is unknowable because it's experienced through the filter of our fallible senses" is not a valuable addition to any discussion of physics and "dude film criticism is subjective because people like different things" is not a valuable addition to the discussion of film critique. people are calling you a teenager because you're acting like anyone should care about your emptyheaded rambling when in reality this """""insight""""" is already factored in to the discussion surrounding film at every level besides random shitflinging on Yea Forums, and the fact that you think parading this """""insight""""" around like it's an ermine coat makes you special only betrays how deeply mired you are in the lowest cesspools of artistic discourse

So what?

>It is subjective which traits people might ascribe to characters they deem confident and/or energetic.
You could say that, but it's the film's job to tell us what the traits of the character are, we don't know if he's supposed to stutter or talk like that unless he or any other character refers to it.
>Is there a formal enumeration of stringent and invariable, manifest observable, determinable algorithmically traits that people expose who are diagnosed with autism, as opposed to people who aren't?
Yes, because the people who study them have agreen in more than a few things based on what they observed.

The only “subjective” criticism is “it’s fun” because it’s literally your state of mind whilst watching it

There's an idom I really really like: show, don't tell.

this song and dance routine a thousand times before and I've seen the hypocrisy in you plebs all the time. If film.critics want to tell me that quality is subjective, then why the fuck do they even have a fucking job? Becaus then there will magically be an objective reason why I should listen to you, until someone explains why something you like is objectively bad.

Stop acting like you're smarter then everyone else. It gets tiring and it shows your hypocrisy.

>If there is a subjective X, i.e. subjective "criticism", there must also be an objective X. What does "subjective criticism" mean if that's the only case? Compared to what other criticism?
There not being an objective criticism does not imply that the statement "There is no objective criticism" is tautological in nature.
We know that there is no map we can't color with 4 colors or less, such that no adjacent countries share the same color (4 color theorem). This is objectively proven. Claiming the central statement of the theorem does not constitute a tautology.

Saying that something is subjective is a cope. Either you have shit taste and the movie you like sucks, or you have good taste and recognize that it sucks and don't like it anymore.

>go back to rationalwiki you sperg, math is subjective at the same level that art is and I have a graduate degree in mathematics to back me up

The fact that you think a graduat degree in mathematics gives you authority to claim your above statement proves that you do not know what the hell you are talking about. This is a metamathematical question, and, as such, philosophical in nature.
>what you're saying is technically true in some sense, but
Just stop for a moment and look at the pathetic imprecise haze of your words.

Shut the fuck up, you fucking dumb kid.
You are out of your depth.

>”i like home alone because i like movies with a lot of bears in them and that movie had a lot of bears in it bears are my favorite animal”
>wtf there weren’t any bears in home alone
>”YOU CAN’T SAY MY OPINION IS WRONG FUCK YOU IT’S SUBJECTIVE”

Is there any objective reason why should i listed to Oscar Wilde?

>t. retard
under that logic, a piece of shit can be seen as art

>this entire post

Attached: 1567772848098.gif (355x266, 3.24M)

>There are bears in Home Alone
Objective (i.e. falsifiable) statement
>I like bears
Subjective (strictly speaking falsifiable, if brain pattern analysis is sufficently advanced) statement
>There are things in Home Alone that I honestly claim are bears
Subjective (strictly speaking falsifiable, if brain pattern analysis is sufficently advanced) statement
>There are no bears in Home Alone, neither in the released film, nor in any deleted scenes, nor in any thought anybody involved in the production ever had.
Objective (non-falsifiable) statement.

It's so tiring with you guys.

>a piece of shit can be seen as art
it is to some people.
people who think ideas and concepts deserve the same acclaim as something that has taken patience and skill to realize. these people are dumb.

keep coping you retard
>metamathematical
right, because I've never encountered metamathematics while pushing the boundaries of mathematics, my bad
>pathetic imprecise haze of your words
as opposed to your stonewall denial of all objective language? fucking epic dude, you really showed me. maybe if you had made some substantive statement I would be able to engage with it more concretely
it's so painfully obvious that you've never rigorously studied anything beyond the rote memorization required in high school. maybe you watched a youtube essay on subjectivity and dunning-kruger'd your way into some vague philosophical rambling or maybe you're just repeating quips from your discord tranny friends but either way your continued posts only continue to embarrass and discredit yourself

>You are out of your depth.
>Counters with meme gif
You think your strategy is working out for you huh

I'm not even the person you were responding to dumbass. You are actually a moron.

Attached: ben-stiller-tropic-thunder.jpg (2700x1800, 419K)

You can create a set of standards and compare various movies to those standards in an objective fashion, but the standards you've set are still subjective. Like one person's standards might put more weight on acting than cinematography, for example. And you're left with a lot of questions. Like does every movie get held to the same standards? Do different genres get different standards? Does artistic intent influence those standards? etc.

The bigbrain conclusion is that, while it's ultimately subjective whether a movie is good or not, you should still objectively deconstruct why you feel the way you do. I think music is the best example because it's had centuries of objective mathematical analysis. Imagine if all of the composers and musical scholars over the years just gave their opinions on the music without trying to figure out in objective terms why it made them feel the way it did. Major and minor scales, the circle of 5ths, harmony, etc would never be understand and music would never have advanced beyond it's infancy.

But it's important to keep perspective. Music theory is ultimately just a tool. It tells us if you want to write a sad song, you should use a minor scale. But it doesn't mean that music written in a minor scale is objectively sad.

>it is to some people.
And those people are wrong

>right, because I've never encountered metamathematics while pushing the boundaries of mathematics, my bad
Did not say that. What I claimed is that you were not able to correctly identify the scientific field a question belongs to, as indicated by your boisterous (and probably wrong) claim of having a formal mathematical education.
>as opposed to your stonewall denial of all objective language? fucking epic dude, you really showed me.
Yes, I do indeed claim that I made you my bitch.
>and dunning-kruger'd your way into some vague philosophical rambling
Homework assignment: Unpack that part of a sentence and write a 500 word essay on how much of an asshat you just made yourself with that part alone.
>quips from your discord tranny
The incel always reveals himself.

and dumb.

Call me retard all you want, doesn't change reality one iota. Lots of shitty things are considered art. Lots of great things are considered trash. But then again, that's just my subjective opinion while you have yours.

Prove there are no bears in Home Alone.

>You are actually a moron.
Not even denying this. Just claiming that there are people considerably dumber even.

>the standards you've set are still subjective

Attached: 1567572798846.gif (300x186, 446K)

He had an interesting take on aestheticism, though many of his arguments can be refuted. He also attempted to make his own life a tragic piece of art, to a possible failure or success.

a person percieving a piece of shit as art, doesn't make it art, I agree with you

So you DO know what non-falsifiable means.

you're like an object lesson in self parody. At this point you're making my argument for me, I only need to encourage you to keep posting and your retardation exposes itself

>If film.critics want to tell me that quality is subjective, then why the fuck do they even have a fucking job? Becaus then there will magically be an objective reason why I should listen to you, until someone explains why something you like is objectively bad.
Yes, critics are shit and should never be listened to. Took you long enough

That’s my whole point: you can like what you like, but if you give bullshit reasons that are wrong, people are going to call you wrong on those reasons. Except when you do, morons retreat to “it’s my subjective opinion” even when it really isn’t.

Good. Good. I hope that I could help you win sympathy for the clearly superior intellect that you have.

>You can create a set of standards and compare various movies to those standards in an objective fashion, but the standards you've set are still subjective.
Let's say we get a bunch of people and tell them to make rank movies based on their standards (objective ones not things like entertainment, which is subjective). While people have their opinion on what's the greatest one according to their standards, there will be the ones that will score low in most of them. So what do you call it?

Prove it.

God I fucking hate Mauler for making his retarded bullshit spread

you reek of insecurity, keep posting

But i can say he was a faggot, and i don't like faggots, therefore i shouldn't listen to him, after all it's my opinion.

Kek

Bears not appearing in Home Alone is an objective statement, you can just watch the movie and not spot a bear in any of the frames, or hear one. It's the same if you said that Daniel Day Lewis appeared on Citizen Kane.

Prove the bear isnt invisible

A consensus doesn't transcend subjectivity, so I'd still call it subjective. Given the context, I might call it inter-subjective.

I saw a bear at 43:42 in Home Alone though. Did you not?
Maybe I experienced the movie differently than you did

>Maybe I experienced the movie differently than you did
You didn't, one can forget things about movies. Can you spot DDL in Citizen Kane?

If it is an objective statement, then you can prove it is wrong. So prove it. This is the third time you have been asked. Do not fail again.

you mean when he's sitting next to steven seagal?

>You didn’t
So now you’re telling him what he sees and thinks? Whom do you think you are? God?

Home Alone has zero bears. That's my criticism of the film.

But it's purely a subjective criticism.

Forgetting details about movies is an entirely different thing, it doesn't affect the way i experienced it back when i saw it. One could forget it because of external factors not related to it.

In my subjective opinion, Home Alone has more bears in it than any other movie. This is my subjective opinion and thus not wrong.

Oh, and now you’re dictating what he remembers and what he forgets.
He didn’t forget a detail. He just has a different subjective opinion. You need to stop being an asshole and accept that some people feel like Home Alone has a lot of bears in it.

There are no bears in Home Alone,
>falsifiable objectively statement about home alone
therefore it is bad because by my standards a movie is only good if it has bears in it.
>subjective conclusion based on the objective observation that there are no bears in Home Alone

If you were to prove there a bears in Home Alone by linking to a scene in Home Alone that had bears in it, you would prove the subjective conclusion wrong.

There are bears in Home Alone,
>unfalsifiable objectively statement about home alone
therefore it is bad because by my standards a movie is only good if it has no bears in it.
>subjective conclusion based on the objective observation that there are no bears in Home Alone

Nothing you can do to prove his opinion wrong because you can't prove there are no bears in Home Alone.

But there are bears in Home Alone, so your first point is falsified

>There are no bears in Home Alone.
If this is a falsfiable statement, then falsify it. Prove it wrong.

Subjectively falsified. Objective falsification doesn't exist.

This. Home Alone has bears in it. Pretty good bear movie imo, I give it a B (for bears).

That's what I said. The first example is falsifiable.

Although I see a mistake in the second example, fourth line should say there are bears in Home Alone.

Guys, I don’t think Home Alone has that many bears in it at all but this is just my opinion.

There’s barely any bears in Home Alone (from my point of view).

Films can be objectively good or bad and they can be subjectively good.
End of
You’re all welcome

This is to say that beauty is not an objective reality. But there exists a perfect counter argument against this obviously false claim. If beauty is not real, then how is that your mom is so ugly lmao i'm not a robot post

Falsifiable doesn't mean it can be proven false, because to be proven false presumes that it is false. Falsifiable means that it can be tested to determine if it is false or not.

So perform the test. Do the bear test on Home Alone.

If it's all subjective then maybe you should put more effort into defending your crappy opinions.

>There are bears in Home Alone,
>>unfalsifiable objectively statement about home alone
How's this unfalsifiable? You can go and watch it, not watch or hear a bear and be wrong.

Ok. I did it and I have found that there is in fact a bear in Home Alone. Here is my objective supporting evidence.

youtube.com/watch?v=NUt6MzGiDE8

Because you can't rule out the possibility that you just missed the bear.

What if i analyzed the movie frame by frame, studying all of them, and not see a bear?

I have no clue how you’d test for bears in Home Alone, dummy. I’m not the one claiming you can. YOU said you can, so YOU know how to do it. So show me your test. You keep stalling, and I’m pretty sure you’re just full of shit, but go ahead and prove you can test Home Alone for bears.

There is still the possibility that you just didn't see it.

Attached: olyl.png (288x410, 151K)

I could analyze a movie frame by frame, and not see any good in the movie. Does that prove it’s bad?

Criticism: Home Alone has bears.

This being falsifiable or unfalsifiable isn't important because, in my subjective opinion, objectivity is worthless.

Get dabbed on.

What's the point of criticism that fails to convince anyone?

Are you implying good is an object?

> that fails to convince anyone
In an idealistic context maybe. There will always be people who will be convinced.

I just use "objectively" when shitposting, especially on twitter when it comes to politics. "My opinions are objectively and irrefutably correct"

Whether criticism is or isn’t convincing is entirely subjective. It’s also a matter of opinion that the point of criticism is to convince others. That might be the case, but other times, people,are merely sharing opinions and being sociable, or giving a review to let others know whether or not they should watch a movie, or just venting frustrations, or so on.

Good is objective because I can go through a movie frame by frame and see if there is or isn’t any good in the movie. I can test for good.

Convincing others is subjective valuation of criticism, which I reject.

However, all criticism is valid as it is subjective. Anything said about a movie cannot be wrong or right -- unless you subjectively value objectivity. Then, in that case, things said about a movie can be wrong or right, but only in your subjectivity.

*flosses*

Subjectively, there are bears in Home Alone.

As long as logic exists then films can c on brain logic and deviation/adherence to logic is descriptive of its positive or negative qualities.
>but logic is subjective/the absence or prescience of logic is subjective
That's a subjective philosophical argument and can thus be dismissed outright

Maybe true, maybe false; it doesn't matter unless you value objectivity.

Any perception is by definition "wrong". In order for it to be "right" you would have to be able to view everything in its entirety, which is impossible, because everything would include the viewer itself.

How do you disprove perception? This is why you fail at every level.

lol, tone it down.
>a linguistic construct that you can employ to describe something.
that's called a word.

I saw the bears. What the fuck are you talking about?

It’s neither true nor false. It is just an opinion, man.

But if I didn't value objectivity I would be dead because I would have walked in front of a car because the car's existence is subjective. So in conclusion
1. The argument from subjectivity is self refuting
2. The arguement ultimately boils down to specific flavor of post modernist nihilism
3. Everyone values objectivity at some level because they are reacted to objective reality in such a way as to remain alive.

Cars existing is entirely subjective, not objective. From my point of view, maybe it isn’t a car, but just a hunk of metal. That’s my opinion and people can’t say I’m wrong because it’ll hurt my feelings.

>there is no such thing as an objectively bad film
you really think that is possible? you can have objectively observations of literally anything in life I think you need to prove that even the worst film has merits before you can begin to make that argument

what about a movie that falls apart during production and is never made? are you saying that's a good movie?

Up is down. Subjective fact.

you what

Attached: 4342.png (1920x1086, 2.54M)

But he's still right.

Oh, I see the bear!

Nope.

You subjectively value objectivity. I subjectively value subjectivity over objectivity.

All values are subjective; all criticisms are subjective; all subjectivities are subjective. Everything is subjective.

Get it?

>Everything is subjective.
Eh. That’s subjective.

>sister tells me that she believes the specific message the film states is what determines whether a film is good

Attached: 1566900850909.jpg (800x451, 220K)

i like that opinion

So are all subjective opinions true?

it's an interesting opinion but i feel like it pigeonholes what the form can achieve

Whether they're true or not is subjective.

You can look at subjective elements of art objectively