I think you need to take a break from the Internet for today my friend. I have my opinions. There’s no need to come all rabid at me.
But regardless, having lots of viewers is still not a measure of how goo a film is. Specially when the marketing budget for these movies is bugger than whole film festivals.
It’s obviously very subjective but there are definitely concrete measures. Is the writing good, consistent, believable in-universe? Is the acting good, authentic, believable, impactful? If the movie is not all CGI, is filming good? Does it look good or are all scenes deep fried?
A mid movie that pleases the masses will always be more successful than a technically impressive but more niche movie that pushes the envelope.
For a non joke answer, stories can objectively be written better than others. Like a story that actually uses Chekhov’s Gun correctly. Stories that don’t have massive actual plot holes (actual, not your dumb ass being confused or upset).
Similarly, the art in a movie can have amazing technical achievement and yet still kinda’ be a shit movie qualitatively over all.
For a specific example of something objectively bad… The sequel trilogy. More specifically, the blue tittymilk in TLJ. What goal did that scene serve? If the point wasn’t to jump the shark and make the audience squirm and/or laugh, it was an objectively bad decision to put that scene in, in the way they did.
My car can be an objectively fine, functional car, but if I drive it off a boat ramp expecting it to float, I’ve made an objectively bad decision with an otherwise fine object. Art is much of the same. Bad art can be comprised of objectively good pieces, yet still get ruined by a bunch of decisions that are dumb and wrong and objectively bad for any practical goal any sane person would’ve had. Similarly, a movie could be written and edited expertly, but a bunch of shitty low budget sets could ruin it. Or inversely, a movie could be beautiful visually but written by a moronic toddler.
When something has 100,000 better options out of 110,000 that are even possible, it was an objectively bad choice (unless nearly every possible choice was a good one, but let’s be real).
Something can work and still be objectively worse than something else. Art does not only need to entertain to be quality. To think as much is to wholly and completely fail to understand art, expression, and criticism as concepts.
deleted by creator
I think you need to take a break from the Internet for today my friend. I have my opinions. There’s no need to come all rabid at me.
But regardless, having lots of viewers is still not a measure of how goo a film is. Specially when the marketing budget for these movies is bugger than whole film festivals.
What is the measure of a good movie? Your opinion?
It’s obviously very subjective but there are definitely concrete measures. Is the writing good, consistent, believable in-universe? Is the acting good, authentic, believable, impactful? If the movie is not all CGI, is filming good? Does it look good or are all scenes deep fried?
A mid movie that pleases the masses will always be more successful than a technically impressive but more niche movie that pushes the envelope.
Everything you said is subjective. You used a lot of words to say the same thing I did. Your opinion.
Well, that’s your opinion. It’s a bad opinion, but it’s valid.
Yeah …When you grow up you will realize everyone has terrible tastes. Everyone enjoys bad music. Movies and books.
There are many, many objective qualities to art.
There are also many subjective qualities to art.
The existence of one does not preclude the other.
Please identify an objective one.
Tits.
The Bechdel test.
For a non joke answer, stories can objectively be written better than others. Like a story that actually uses Chekhov’s Gun correctly. Stories that don’t have massive actual plot holes (actual, not your dumb ass being confused or upset).
Similarly, the art in a movie can have amazing technical achievement and yet still kinda’ be a shit movie qualitatively over all.
For a specific example of something objectively bad… The sequel trilogy. More specifically, the blue tittymilk in TLJ. What goal did that scene serve? If the point wasn’t to jump the shark and make the audience squirm and/or laugh, it was an objectively bad decision to put that scene in, in the way they did.
My car can be an objectively fine, functional car, but if I drive it off a boat ramp expecting it to float, I’ve made an objectively bad decision with an otherwise fine object. Art is much of the same. Bad art can be comprised of objectively good pieces, yet still get ruined by a bunch of decisions that are dumb and wrong and objectively bad for any practical goal any sane person would’ve had. Similarly, a movie could be written and edited expertly, but a bunch of shitty low budget sets could ruin it. Or inversely, a movie could be beautiful visually but written by a moronic toddler.
When something has 100,000 better options out of 110,000 that are even possible, it was an objectively bad choice (unless nearly every possible choice was a good one, but let’s be real).
Something can work and still be objectively worse than something else. Art does not only need to entertain to be quality. To think as much is to wholly and completely fail to understand art, expression, and criticism as concepts.
So you can compare Shawshank Redemption to Ernest Goes to Jail?
Yes… In many ways. Let me know if you would like to hear some.
I would!
Ernest goes to jail has 11% on RT
Shawshank has 89% on RT
EGTJ Was directed by John Cherry
SR Was directed by Frank Darabont
EGTJ is 88 minutes long
SR is 222 minutes long
Both movies were flops