>he thinks film can be criticized objectively
arguing opinions will always be a waste of time
>I'm too young and insufficiently versed to have seen (or recognized) objectively bad movies
>therefore objectively bad movies don't exist
You're basically claiming oceans aren't real because you've never left the desert.
Consensus is its own form of objectivity. The only reason gravity is an objective fact is because scientists agree it is.
>>69856833
name 5 'objectively' bad movies
>>69856838
so Boyhood is objectively the best film of 2014?
>>69856725
>>69856838
>Consensus is its own form of objectivity
This. That's why Rotten Tomato is always right. Everybody who disagree with RT consensus is pleb and should not post on /tv/ anymore.
>>69856871
>so Boyhood is objectively the best film of 2014?
Yes
>>69856921
>>69856871
I can do better than that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mystery_Science_Theater_3000_episodes
>>69856943
what if someone said they (unironically) loved every single movie on that list? could they be considered objectively wrong?
>b.. b.. but MUH OPINION!!
Sorry to break it to you narcissistic special snowflake, but objective facts exist.
>>69857019
name 5 objectively good movies
>>69856979
You start looking for other signs of mental retardation and/or insanity.
>>69856725
A good way to critically evaluate films is to focus on their ability to express the abstract in a clear and eloquent manner, particularly through methods that are specific to the medium of film.
You don't have to agree with that approach but it is one way to create a context that generates agreeable 'measures for good filmmaking'.
>>69857053
Here ya go.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Thomas_Anderson
>>69857223
>babby's first director after realizing Tarantino isn't that special
heh
Art can be judged objectively.
There's a reason why your macaroni art from the 1st grade is in the trash while the Mona Lisa is sitting in the Lourve being praised by all, you goobers.
>>69857316
man, you didn't even try
>>69857316
>implying tpa isn't good
>implying entry-level directors aren't good
>>69857223
Can you explain why you think these are objectively good?
>>69860714
>can you subjectively define objectivity?
:^)
>>69860750
That's not really what I'm asking. I was asking if someone could explain to me why these movies are "objectively" good, cause I really don't understand.
There can be objective criticism of film, but it's basically just pointing out plot inconsistencies.
Aside from that, it's subjective.
