Are 'character development' and 'atmosphere' meaningless buzzwords?

Are 'character development' and 'atmosphere' meaningless buzzwords?

Attached: 1553674796263.png (434x521, 43K)

Everything you read on this board is a meaningless buzzword.

No

Character development is a buzzword
>DUDE if he doesn’t change throughout the movie/tv show he’s a shit character LMAO

since the 90s, yes

they're not meaningless but they are buzzwords

I don't know.

>character gets sad
Woah such a deep character study

Anything you don't like is a buzzword, meanwhile i don't have such a retarded mindset so i enjoy myself.

Attached: F0D1E74B-F3DE-44D1-9158-EA76FEDD05FD.gif (366x305, 3.38M)

No.
Character Development is the audience learning about a characters past, habits, mannerisms, actions, anything that adds more depth to this person as well as how new events effect them.
Atmosphere is a bit more subjective, but it's generally a combination of set, actors and soundtrack to create a particular feeling and tone.

Way of missing the point and projecting

no, but "objective" is

A movie can be objectively good or bad, though. Stop parroting what reddit says

Why do whites make this face?

Wrong, there will always be one who likes the film.

buzzword is a meaningless buzzword

lmao at this point saying anything is both a meme and a buzzword am i rite

And? Liking a film doesn't make it good. Retard

>cinematography
>atmosphere
>choreography
>aesthetics
>chemistry

Attached: mp,550x550,matte,ffffff,t.3u2.jpg (453x533, 48K)

>mp,550x550,matte,ffffff,t.3u2.jpg
peak reddit

>a homage

Define good.

Not bad.

You can absolutely rate merits/aspects of media objectively. Even the underlying basis of "subjectivity in art" is formed by an objective and mathematical reality of color theory, ratio, proportion, and to a lesser extent, composition and other elements that make up art. There's a truth, in metaphysics and philosophy, to art that's even vaguely noteworthy, and truth is an objective reality. Art is the wonky side of the truth. Without these metaphysics, we'd have blank canvases or nothing but still life drawings that do nothing for the senses. You lost before you even began, you mental midget.

What point dipshit? This entire thread missed the point

Absolute pea brain mental gymnastics.
The entire medium of paintings erases your elementary school tier argument at once. I mean every single movement in painting is diametrically different in color theory, ratio, proportion, and composition, yet there are masterpieces in every single one of them.

>You can't look at art objectively
Oh boy check out this badly painted cieling. This isn't art at all. Who designed this? For me, it's the stylings of Steven Universe. What's the philosophy of objectivity and metaphysics anyway? No need to know, I got me my good ol' Cartoon Network flash shows.

Attached: 1567861820398[1].jpg (1200x773, 365K)

Now tell me what do you think of the work of Van Gogh? Picasso? Salvador Dali? All hacks because no le golden ratio?