What makes a movie objectively good?

memes

>>84103437

Reddit need not apply

when I like them

>>84103407
when the story anc actors make you feel for/with the characters

>>84103457

That's subjective

Does it have Clint Eastwood's involvement?
>Yes
Then it's good
>no
Well, does it have Michael Emerson?
>Yes
Then it's good
>No
Well, does it have John Cazale?
>yes
Then it's perfect
>No
then it has flaws

>>84103475

I felt bad for Tommy Wiseau's character in The Room, that doesn't mean it's good.

>>84103476
no

>>84103476
How the fuck do you objectify a movie? by what fucking standards? do you weight them on a fucking scale or measure with a fucking rule? fuck that fucking faggot you replied to and fuck you too you fucking retard. fuck.

Reddit doesn't like it.

>>84103566

Calm down reddit

>>84103566
Those dubs...

File: 1497846132.jpg (24KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 480x480px

>>84103566
objectively speaking, you can gauge the general population's reaction and then compare it to the critically reception and go from there.

>Is it critically acclaimed?
>Does it have a culturally impact?
>Does the average person like it?
if all the above are yes, then a movie is objectively good.

>ESB, TDK, Shawshank, 12 Angry Men, Godfather, Wonder Woman

>>84103663
Not subtle enough
8/10

>>84103676

go back to /r/movies

>>84103566
I agree that there are no set rules which a "objectively good" movie should follow, but you can most definitely objectively determine if a movie is badly executed (atleast technically) if the result is clearly not what the director intended.
For example, obvious night lighting shot that should look like a strong moonlight but you can clearly see that there is a bigass unnatural fucking light right outside of frame, breaking the 180 rule for no reason, cheap stock sound effects that take you out of the movie, an unnecessary "impressive" camera movement that is just there to call attention to itself without adding or supporting the narrative etc.

>>84103407
You need a philosophy first, and it needs to have a clear distinction betwen right and wrong. This then, decides whether the matter of the plot of the movie is good or bad. Not the quality of the dialogue or scenes, but what they entail.

Then next comes script quality, cinematography, and other things. These you can gauge by the first criterion, ie, your philosophical outlook. All these attributes are to be objectively compared with respect to your philosophy, which may or may not be objective, but is just used as a base here. If you're an existensialist, you might not like any clear movies, you might prefer Mallick's new films or maybe something "experimental". If you're a realist, you might like Snyder, If you're a commie you'll look down upon movies that portray capitalists as good, etcetra.

This is objective with respect to your philosophy. But the true requirement here is an objective philosophy. The good news is, morality is objective.

>>84103663
Nothing of the standards you given can be used to measure. Appreciation for form of art is always subjective. It's not like this apple is sweat because how many grams of sugar in it and our tongue can detect those, which you can FUCKING measure it. Saying objectify movies is just another way of circle jerking you fucking retard.

>>84103663
>wonder woman
gr8 b8 m8 r8 8/8

>>84103407
What is objective? is my definition of objective the same as yours? its kind of like the idea of "perfection" everyone has a general idea of whats perfect but no two people are gonna be 100% in agreement,
what makes me think of whats an objectively good movie is
>creativity
>visuals
>acting performance
>immersion
>continuity between scenes
>cohesive story
if you disagree thats fine our views are different, but these points are what i base my arguments on, i could be forgetting things

>Objective: (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

It's impossible to judge a film without having feelings or opinions, therefore a film cannae be objectively good.

>>84103929
>not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts
I've never seen Casablanca. I have no personal feelings or opinions towards it. The facts are that it is universally acclaimed by critics and audiences alike and the majority of people consider it a classic film. Objectively it's a good movie.

>>84104066
That just means a lot of people subjectively like it.

>>84103755
/thread

>>84104066
>Casablanca
>good
>I've never seen it
Oh it shows reddit. It shows

>>84103755
>>84104159
Nice samefagging.
You are just talking about subjective taste, not what makes an objectively good film.

>>84104239
>samefagging.
wut

And no, it's not about subjective taste.

>>84104265
Samefagging means that you made both of those posts, just pretending to be someone else, lurk more.

>"your philosophy, which may or may not be objective"
>your philosophy
>objective
And there is no such thing as an "objective philosophy", that's just a plain retarded statement.

>>84104152
>everyone agrees that ghost peppers are spicy
>one indian faggot comes in and says "no eets not"
>well I guess it's only subjectively spicy

>guy rapes and murders little kids
>an edgelord on 4chinz thinks its cool
>well I guess he's only subjectively evil

>it's 104 degrees outside
>thats a walk in the park from some sub Saharan nigger
>well I guess it's only subjectively hot

>Everyone agrees on something
>One faggot wants to be a contrarian
>Well I guess its really all subjective

Take your (You) faggot.

>>84104293
>there is no such thing as an "objective philosophy"
wut

>>84104321
Well yes, relativity is a thing my friend.
Maybe an alien civilization comes in soon and show us what true kino is and suddenly the entirety of our cinema history is considered as complete and utter surface-level dogshit compared to the supreme alien kinos.

>>84103663
>basing your objectivity on other people's subjective opinions
interesting theory`

>>84104376
>dude there is no objectivity. nothing matters. there is no metric or universal standard of good/evil, hot/cold, truth/lies, real/fake
subjectively speaking here, you are a mental midget

When it gets called "kino" on teevee

>>84104439
You can do mental gymnastic all day if you want, but in art there is no objectivity.
Most people hate the unmixed flat screaming punk braindead songs, but on the other hand there are people who absolutely love that distorted raw aestetic delivered through them.
Sure. most people like and enjoy pop music, but that alone doesn't mean David Guetta or Justin Bieber are objectively best current musicians out there.

>>84104321
You can objectively measure the spiciness of a pepper you moron.

>>84104571
.t. retard who refuses to think

>>84103407
>What makes a movie objectively good?
When there's a thread of it in /tv/ accompanied with the word kino

It needs 10 shitposts a day on /tv/ to be even up for consideration

>>84106327

Bane meme lol kino meme very funny braap

OBJECTIVELY, it has to be consistent, i.e. lacking plotholes or continuity errors.

That's about the line for how a movie can be OBJECTIVELY good.

Other than that, it's subjective and idiots don't know the meaning of the words and constantly misuse them.

>>84106403

But it made me FEEL something. It's KINO

>>84103407
female nudity and lots of it

>>84106403
>plotholes

someone here needs to go back to r*ddit. Pure cinema doesn't have time to care about meaningless stuff like that

>>84103407

Pacing

>>84106403
Words have more than one meaning. Crack a dictionary, you autist.

>>84103407
>How can something intrinsically subjective be judged objectively?

Maybe you should try to put your weaponized autism to use on t_d or just eat a gun?

>>84103407
Nothing it's all subjective, just look at this thread. But the more films under your belt the more your opinion matters.

>>84103755
You type like a fucking faggot, couldn't get past the first paragraph

>>84107065
>You type like a fucking faggot
What makes you think that?

>>84103722
/thread

>>84103407
Me deciding that it is good.
When I die, there will no longer be any objectively good movies. I'm sorry.

>>84103755
/thread

lathers

>>84106403
I objectively disagree.

>>84103755
This isn't true for all people, therefore you're objectively wrong.

>>84109042
How is it not true for all people?

File: 1495607261751.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

when it's made by christopher nolan

>>84103407
Anything that has some moral/philosophical meaning behind it that you can extract, I guess

>>84109081
Not everyone has a closed mind, only enjoying movies that align with their philosophical outlook on life.

>>84109288
So I suppose you'd enjoy watching Ghostbusters or that netflix shit about how white people should be sorry.

>>84109716
U mad wite boi?

File: 1493517339755.jpg (413KB, 1278x717px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 1278x717px

The aesthetics of it.

>>84109976
not an argument