Can you put objective qualities to Television/Film? Can a TVShow/Film be objectively good/bad? If so, how? If not, why?
Some movies are objectively good and some are objectively bad but thanks to the bitch that is subjectivity we get to argue forever instead of just agree on shit.
cute dog btw
Taste is subjective. Quality/craftsmanship are not.
By which I mean an objectively "good" movie might still be divisive. There might be people who dislike it because they strongly disagree with the director's message, or just dislike his aesthetic, things like that.
But when a movie is objectively bad, the director doesn't even communicate his vision clearly enough to be agreed or disagreed with. When a movie is objectively bad, everyone's just laughing at the fundamental failures in writing, performance, craftsmanship
>>71186666
When I talk about this with people, it always boils down to "Well nothing can be objective if some people like it."
But can't acting and writing be objective?
>>71186623
We see everything through the subjective lens, therefore we can never truly see nor speak of the objective if there even is one without resorting to arbitrariness.
>>71186804
How can you "objectively" determine if writing is "good" or "bad", specifically?
"good" and "bad" are inherently subjective terms.
>>71186799
>Quality/craftsmanship are not.
Yes, they are. How do you "objectively" measure quality and craftsmanship in film, specifically?
>>71186908
I really don't know, that's why I'm asking. I'd like to learn if there is any actual truth to objectivity in film/television.
The fact that the majority of critics tend to agree on the quality of a work is evidence that there is some large area of objective ground whereupon we can recognize quality.
A lot of it is subjective, but even more is objective.
>>71186975
There isn't.
It's basically agreement by consensus. If the critics and audiences agree that it's "good" then it's considered "good".
There are social standards that are imposed upon art, but they change over time.
>>71187007
No it's not. It's evidence that people can agree with each other on many things and that critics are often taught the same standards in school. It's not evidence of "objectivity", at all, anymore than the fact that people agree on political issues is evidence of "objectivity".
>>71187007
this
most challenging film oft is viewed through that lens. I think people are taking this too literally and the OP simply meant your notion that if enough of us like [thing] we may attempt to call it objectively good though it wouldn't be the case obviously.
>>71187007
>>71187056
name a single "objective" metric for determining the quality of a film.
>>71187056
No I actually meant what I typed in the OP. I'd like to learn if you can really put objective qualities to film/television.
>>71187083
Could acting be objective?
>>71187083
Set design, sound design, acting, editing
>>71187122
How do you "objectively" measure the quality of any of those things? You're just naming aspects of filmmaking, you're not explaining how you can "objectively" measure any of them.
>>71187118
>Could acting be objective?
How do you determine if a performance is "good" or not? It's entirely subjective.
>>71187122
The only objective thing we, as ontological entities, can surmise from any of those things is that they simple 'Are' and nothing more.
>>71186933
Whether or not it clearly communicates the information the audience needs to follow the film. You can be subtle or ambiguous ON PURPOSE, but when 80% of the audience is missing crucial plot information because you aren't shooting/editing it clearly enough, that's an objective failure. If the director THINKS the audience will get the information they need from his scene, and most of them don't, that's objectively poor craftsmanship.
Go to a less-hyped film festival, watch some of the indie films that don't get good reviews, and you'll see what I mean. There's a difference between a film that doesn't suit my tastes, and a film that's a total fucking mess where I can't follow the plot, I have no idea what kind of tone the director was going for, and the actors all seem to be in different movies.
>>71187258
>but when 80% of the audience is missing crucial plot information because you aren't shooting/editing it clearly enough
So 2001: A Space Odyssey and pretty much every David Lynch film are bad?
>>71187258
Your entire post is about your own subjective standards. Literally none of those things are "objective".
>>71187186
Not really. A good performance generally speaking is effective based on how well the actor is emoting, credibly creating a character inside a fictional universe. Conversely a bad performance is one that fails at doing so.
It's the same with all aspects of a film, like some of the ones mentioned above, you just have to be familiar with the process and craft of filmmaking in order to truly judge whether something is effective or not. For example, a shot that is underexposed and out of focus is OBJECTIVELY a shit shot. There is no arguing about it. Likewise, a script with multiple scenes that do nothing to advance the plot or reveal characterization are unnecessary and ineffective, in other words poorly written.
Anyway, do your own homework though and fuck off.
>>71186623
a show is objectively good if the ppls making it pit wffort and heart into it. It shows they wany to create something that will survive the test of time and makes the audience feel/think a certain way even yeaars later. Making profit is only a secondary goal( or it feels like)
a primr example of this is Entourage. Regardless how you feel about the material of the show. Or Warcraft if you want a movie. lotr as well
Something is objectively bad when the ppl involved only care about making a buck and put everything else in second place. Thos way the final product just feels lazy and it shows that the createra wanted to put as little effort into the show as possible, just the bare minimum so it feels high quality from afar. A good example is the walking dead or marvel films after Iron Man 1, the hobbit or THe Walking Dead
I don't have the energy for this kind of debate lads
>>71187317
Neither of those have plot points obscured due to bad editing or cinematography. Kubrick absolutely intended to obscure the ending of 2001. That's quite obvious. He intended it to be experiential. The same applies to most of Lynch's films. In Mulholland Drive, the plot is not really the focus of the film. It's an exercise in tone and atmosphere. The film succeeds with flying colors in this regard.
Stuff like acting, set design, etc. are hard to define objectively because the quality is so heavily determined by the quality of all the movies before and after. All you can say is that a person who has seen much of a certain kind of canon (such as the western canon) will have developed a sense of quality within those boundaries, and that quality will be largely objective, meaning other people can argue against it because they have developed the same set of filmic values.
So, it's not objectivity qua reality, but it's objectivity qua culture, which is all we really need unless you're some sort of philosophically nitpicky bastard.
>>71187317
No, because Kubrick and Lynch are giving the audience exactly as much information as they want to. They might leave questions unanswered, but it's not a mistake. It's designed to make you feel a certain way.
Come on, don't act like none of you know what I'm talking about. You've never seen a movie that just completely fails at its own goals? Take a film class and watch your classmate's work. Once you've seen a real amateur's work, you'll understand that there ARE objective rules. You can choose to disregard them for creative reasons, but you have to understand HOW to show your audience everything you need them to see.
>>71187482
>You've never seen a movie that just completely fails at its own goals?
How do you know what its goals are? Are you the creator? Only they hold some semblance of 'objectivity'.
>>71187371
All of those standards are subjective you fucking retard.
>>71187482
I've taken film classes idiot. No decent scholar of film will tell you that you can "objectively" measure of these things because quality is subjective, that's why film critics and audiences disagree with each other.
All art is subjective, you have to be fucking retarded not to recognize this.
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 or Aristotelian sense, it is just a linguistic construct that you can superimpose.
Subjectively, you can describe anything as good or not-good, and in the Wittgensteinian sense this is the same 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 book, in out model, will have metaphor play, 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.
>>71188025
As pretentious as this post is, it's completely correct.
>>71188072
this whole thread is pretension incarnate because were humans trying to define something we never will through which means we can but I'm thoroughly amused and as a hedonist thats what important
The only outcome of this debate is a headache
