There is no such thing as an objectively bad or good movie

>>83922509
yes, but that's not very helpful

Yeah but you still have shit taste

>>83922509
Why did you half copy and paste this from the thread where this was originally said?

>>83921701

>>83922509
yeah, but the holy mountain is still a trash film for goobers

>>83922509
who killed Hannibal?

>>83922509
If someone made a movie with horrible sound, or horrible camera angles, then couldn't someone say it's an objectively bad film?

>>83922920
Nope

>>83922920

They could say those aspects of it are objectively bad, but if a movie with shitty sound entertains you more than a movie with crystal clear sound its still the better movie to you

>>83922949
Why not?

>>83922920
What makes the sound or camera angles horrible? Isn't it just your opinion that they're bad?

>>83923006
>its still the better movie to you
That's a personal opinion. I'm still going to acknowledge the aspects of the film that make it objectively bad.
>>83923044
Wouldn't you agree that if a film used cheap, low quality microphones, the sound would be objectively bad?

>>83923016
At the end of the day its someones opinion, no matter what critics, general public, your friends say. If you try to argue against that you just look like an asshole. You just gotta deal with the fact that some people have shit taste and dont be a dick to the unless they bash good shit

>>83923100
If a film has bad sound or bad/awkward camera angles, you wouldn't be "a dick" for pointing it out.
Someone's personal opinion could be that they liked the film, but in objectivity, the film has aspects that make it bad.

>>83923203
I'm not saying you're a dick for pointing out the bad aspects of it, you'd be a dick by saying its a bad film

>>83923080
>That's a personal opinion.
Tell me the difference between personal opinion and professional film critique.

Better yet, find me an objective film critic.

>>83923080
>Wouldn't you agree that if a film used cheap, low quality microphones, the sound would be objectively bad?

Low quality microphones might be objectively worse at capturing sound in a given context. Whether or not the sound they captured was better or worse as a result is a subjective judgement though. Some performances might sound better (to someone) if they used poorer microphones. Same with higher resolution images - in some situations it's not necessarily desirable.

>>83923304
>Better yet, find me an objective film critic.

I don't think such a thing exists. But better film critics at least try to give views beyond just their personal opinion - e.g. "I don't like this movie but if you enjoyed x you might well like this."

>>83923415
I hate that this is a true statement, retards cant comprehend a "good" movie but can defend themselves so precisely they have to be retarded

>>83922509
maybe if it doesn't move?

>>83923519
>e.g. "I don't like this movie but if you enjoyed x you might well like this."
That's not criticism beyond personal opinion. It's hardly a recommendation.

That's like saying "I didn't like it but I guess some people might enjoy it" is the pinnacle of objective critique. Give me a break.

>>83923292
You're implying I'd care about being a dick.
>>83923304
I'm not going to go and try to find an "objective film critic", but I'll answer your first request. The opinion of a professional film critique, or just a film critique in general, looks at the film's errors of any kind, without putting too much of their personal taste into the equation.
>>83923415
>Some performances might sound better (to someone) if they used poorer microphones.
And that's subjective. I'm talking about objectivity. Some microphones are objectively better than others.

>>83923670
>And that's subjective. I'm talking about objectivity. Some microphones are objectively better than others.

Yes, agreed. But the original question was whether a movie made with cheap quality microphones would have "objectively bad" sound, which I don't agree with.

Objectively better equipment doesn't necessarily mean objectively better looking/sounding films.

>>83923519
>>83923636
I've heard Roger Ebert was more likely to consider the target audience in reviews in giving ratings. For example, if a particular children's movie he was reviewing was highly derivative of other movies, he would be less likely to fault it, because the fact that it's derivative doesn't really matter to kids who haven't seen many movies. What matters for those movies is whether it is entertaining and suitable for children. I haven't actually read many of his reviews and don't remember where I heard this.

>>83923006
>objectively bad
>opinions
>objective
>wew

that's what an untalented or recently-admonished artist tells himself. subjectivity fiends always come off as really sore and desperate.

>>83923752
So let me see if what I think you're saying is what you're saying.
You're saying that, for example, if a movie took place in 2005, it would be better to use a microphone from 2005?

>>83922509
I find that this is true for everything except videogames. Even fantastic ideas in videogames can be ruined by shitty implementation. Films, literature, and even music can fuck up in implementation but can be salvaged by their ideas. That's why people will argue that there was secretly a great movie in the mess that was Southland Tales, but you'll never see someone say that The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct was a great game, contrarian replies to this post notwithstanding.

>>83922509

True. But it is also true that general socio historical consensus exist around art work that determine what is acceptable. Furthermore categorizations exist that constrain creation to different sets of rules and expectations.

There certainly is room for breaking the rules provided that one fully understand them and is proficient on the application.

So there are measure tools, they are not objective and they do change with time to adapt to each society but they do exist and can be used to judge relative quality.