Is film subjective or objective?

>>87606610
explain what "objectively" makes a film good

>>87606610
used to some filmmaker would go out and make the movie, and the audience would either like it or not like it.
that was fair for both sides
now you gotta make movies in certain way otherwise you gonna get labeled

>>87606610
If you ever get enrolled in an art curse in college in my country you will begin the courses about perspective, color, composition, form history, etc. And like in all this subjects you can be qualified and fail. So yes i think movies are objective in the way they are made but also they can be in their objective, if you want to made agrossing bad movie, it doesnt matter if it has shitty cgi and a dumb plot if at the end of the day you achieved it goal.

>>87606770
Quality actors, well written, smooth editing. The usual suspects

>>87606770
When people execute a film to the specified norms of what is considered good filmmaking
There's a reason these techniques are taught in schools, and it's because you can do them wrong.
When you do them wrong, you get movies like Double Down or the Room.

>>87607114
But you will have people that argue "those techniques are good to some people, but not others. It's all subjective! Some people love The Room much more than a film with those qualities you mentioned".

This is how many modern filmgoers think.

>>87607190
eh, there is not a Right way and a wrong way to do movies

>>87606610
>>87607190
And you can say the best food you ever had with at mcdonald's.
It doesn't mean mcdonald's is awesome, it means you have shit taste.

>>87607298
nice food analogy boyo

film isn't art

File: BarbossaGuidelines.png (559KB, 940x788px) Image search: [Google]

559KB, 940x788px

>>87607114
>>87607190
>>87607262

File: 1503780972675.png (160KB, 248x454px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 248x454px

There are two very different senses of the terms “objective” and “subjective". The first sense relates to how we know (i.e., epistemology), the second to what there is to know (i.e., ontology). When we say that we are reasoning or speaking “objectively,” we generally mean that we are free of obvious bias, open to counterarguments, cognizant of the relevant facts, and so on. This is to make a claim about how we are thinking. In this sense film can be objectively good or bad. But if you talking about "objective" good or bad as some sort of metapsysical thing as speed or mass, then this would be entities or qualities or relations of a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe. Correspondingly, if we were aware of them, it would have to be by some special faculty of perception or intuition, utterly different from our ordinary ways of knowing everything else "objective".

>>87607624
exactly, guidelines are useful to learn on how to make the movie more easily readable, but those same "rules" are bound to slightly change with time because the way we perceive movies keeps evolving (or devolving idk)

File: 1504397159790.jpg (99KB, 1024x839px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1024x839px

>value judgment
>objective

>>87607809
But this can go the other way when hack film makers throw a shitty, low quality product together and then it gets defended because it doesn't have to follow any rules.

>art for art's sake or art for society?

if you doing it for art sake(for yourself) you have no rules or limitations on your approach

if you doing it for society sake(for audience) you gotta be in some certain techniques to not alienate you audience

>>87607916
i'm not sure. As I said before I dont think a film can be considered good or bad just because it follows or break some temporary rules. It has to be consistent imo, every single piece is working together to show an idea. If we follow the rules we should classify Citizen Kane as a bad movie, since it broke a lot of "good rules" of his time

>>87608117
But what happens when something of low quality is created and loved by the masses, and when it is called out for being subpar the masses shout "We can like what we want, art is subjective"?

That hurts art as a medium as well as being bad for society in the long run. Some standards have to be maintained

>>87607114
>considered
By fat snobs who think they're better than me? Thanks no thanks.

>>87608211
show me an example of a movie that does this

>>87608254
By people who study it you mongoloid

>>87608333
What method they use?

>>87608299
The Transformer movies are the low-hanging fruit example, but they do show what I mean.

File: 1503465483530-sp.gif (469KB, 512x807px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 512x807px

>>87608333
Look I strongly believe that most things are subjective when it comes to art. Especially something like acting.

I've yet to hear one (1) argument ITT in favour of statement that there are OBJECTIVELY good ways to make a movie besides "Well film critics told me so lmao" because in this case you appeal to people who by nature are subjective and susceptible to take reputation over facts.

Even the term "good movie" ffs, it's as subjective as it gets in the first place. Can you make more _adequate_ movie and less adequate? Yeah, for sure. But it's up to individuals to decide whether shit's good nigga.

>>87608595
Film critics are not the only people who study film, filmmakers themselves study the art.

You only have to take one basic level film class to see there is more to this medium than just saying "well, I liked it!"

>>87608483
the transformer movies follows a different set of rules (commercial rules) and they follow those rules pretty strictly

Art itself can't be subjective you literal brainlets because subjectiveness implies a person.
Only someone's perspective on that artform is ofcourse subjective.

Some people unironically like music from David Guetta, that's their subjective opinion.
I can make a whole essay how fucking generic and repetitive his songs are but that doesn't change the fact that they genuinely like it.
Therefore all perspectives on any artform are completely subjective.

>>87608730
thats because saying you like or not a piece of art is not enough to value the piece itself

> how fucking generic and repetitive
And? If you don't like it it's just your subjective opinion.

File: dude.gif (592KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

592KB, 400x300px

>>87606610

>>87608695
>"well, I liked it!"
That's exactly what determines bad things and good things for people brah.
As I understand you probably into some kind of film stydying and take guideline filmmaking close to heart. But you one of the lessons you'll have to take is that all the camera angle rules, Kuleshov rules, they were invented so that so that people in the theatre said "I liked it" and ultimately it's up to him to like it or not.
Look: a AAA titles that bombed and were hated by critics, independant camcorder shitty short films that are adored.

>>87609009
I haven't really considered that before but I think you're right.

I just worry about where film will go from here if the bar is lowered too far, that's all.

>>87606610
I think it's mostly objective but even among people that recognize that most of them, myself included, don't have great criteria or knowledge of filmmaking to accurately judge the film. I'd wager almost nobody does, if anybody, so it appears subjective

>>87609009
they werent invented, they were found, also a lot of Tziag Vertov rules are seen as absurd and a lot of great movies are not liked by the mass

Objective quality refers to the level of competency in the execution of the vision.

Subjective quality is your individual preference for a vision that works for you.

Taste refers to ability to discern the vision and ability to connect to a wider range of visions.

>>87609126
its important that people learn why those rules exist and how they work. Lot of self-thought douches just learn all the rules and then watch movies just to spot mistakes like cheating shots or continuity errors

>>87609126
I wouldn't be too upset if I were you.
There're plenty of good movies. You just have to look at mainstream box office thing not as a pinnacle of filmmaking but as a niche for masses.

>>87609360
and then they think they can discern a good film from a bad one

>>87609402
niche for masses is a really cool oxymoron

>>87607048
>>87607114
oh so you're a brainlet and can't actually explain what you think?
cool