Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

WAdogfood t1_jefx3x1 wrote

Reply to comment by tacoman333 in Film taste is largely subjective by 85Millennial

You're contradicting yourself. How can my opinion be objectively wrong but a movie cant be objectively bad? What if the camera is out of focus or the actors mumble their lines?

−2

tacoman333 t1_jeg1es1 wrote

Because I can show that every judgement of a movie's quality is based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions, and is therefore, by definition, subjective.

The camera being out of focus can communicate a character being disorientated, or act as a shorthand for a quick motion, or direct the audience's eyes to something more important in the shot, or maybe a filmmaker wants to make a dreamlike film, where like in a dream, it feels impossible to focus. Leaving the camera out of focus is just yet another tool in a filmmaker's belt, and using that tool isn't "objectively bad." Similarly, having actors mumble their lines is a choice to try for a more realistic conversational style at the expense of clarity, it is neither an objectively good or bad thing, just a personal decision made by a creative.

The idea that every movie should be clear in its message and visual presentation to be "good" (an opinion I see repeated a lot) is much like believing that realism is the only valid style of painting. It's pretty silly to me, but then again, it's all subjective so it's perfectly fine if you have that opinion just don't pretend you are objectively right.

2

WAdogfood t1_jeg2orw wrote

It should've been obvious to you that i was talking about movies made unskillfully, not directors or actors choices.

−2

tacoman333 t1_jeg67pq wrote

Mistakes made during a movie's production are a part of the movie, and whether they have a positive or negative effect on the overall quality of the film depends entirely on one's personal opinion.

Also, distinguishing between an unskilled director making a poor movie and a skilled director making one would only be important if you held the opinion that an artist's intent matters, which is in itself subjective.

1

WAdogfood t1_jeg770j wrote

I did not make that distinction. Talented people and untalented people can do good or bad work regardless of intent and i never asserted otherwise.

1

tacoman333 t1_jeg8596 wrote

>It should've been obvious to you that i was talking about movies made unskillfully, not directors or actors choices.

You did make a distinction. If intent didn't matter to you then there would be no difference between a director choosing to film an entire movie out of focus and a filmmaker who doesn't know how to operate a camera doing the same thing if both movies were, in your opinion, total shit.

1

WAdogfood t1_jeg8j2z wrote

That's the opposite of a distinction. Both those directors would be making a bad movie.

1

tacoman333 t1_jegaqka wrote

The difference between the two would be intent. The experienced filmmaker tried to do something for a specific reason, while the amatuer filmmaker didn't have the skill necessary to produce the film they envisioned. You said it should be obvious to me that you were "talking about movies made unskillfully, not directors or actors choices" implying that you make a clear distinction between the two.

The bottom line is film quality like as with all art is subjective. For every element in a movie whether unintended or intended, made by an experienced filmmaker or an amatuer, the final decision of whether it contributes positively or negatively to the quality of the film is purely a subjective one.

1

WAdogfood t1_jegdl9g wrote

I said that because you purposefully misconstrued my question to make your own point. And now you've been arguing a movie where you can't see or hear anything would be "good" by some measure. I don't think you actually believe that so I'm not going to engage with this anymore.

1