Unpopular Entertainment Opinions • Page 394

I feel that with the way people talk about music on here sometimes. “It sucks but I love it”, super corny

 

So much of hurt feelings in arts discourse is people not understanding the difference between objectivity and subjectivity.

If you love a film that everyone thinks it is terrible, say so and say why. The same goes for when you hate a film that everyone else loves. If I hate a movie that you love, it doesn't mean you are wrong or I am right or one of us misread the film or something like that.

That is why I am always puzzled when someone say they have a favorite movie but then a separate list for "best" movies. They think they are being objective but all it really means is that you are bowing down to someone else and their standards for what makes a movie work.

At the same time, if you are interested in discussion, expect more reactions when you go against the grain. If you say that Goodfellas is Scorsese's worst film, people are going to argue with you. If you say that Cars 2 is better than There Will Be Blood, be ready to make your case.

 

I think the use of that language comes from how people read journalism where there is objective truth thinking subjective means the same as bias so when you consider someone else's opinion that would make it more "objective"
When people say things like "objectively it's bad but I love it" I read it as hedging their review against valid criticism other people will have about the movie they don't want to argue against or they've used against movies they've reviewed sighting it as a reason it was bad. They are trying to assure their audience they have consistent (objective) opinions but this movie is an exception

when you write a review using objective language is stronger, good writing will mix in objective language to describe subjective things all the time and assume the audience will interpret it properly. It would suck to preface every adjective in that sentence with "I think".

They other use of it I see is when the authors intention doesn't align with how the film was enjoyed.

 

It also doesn’t help when comments on people’s’ taste devolves into grade school insults

 

Using objective language to describe film is good writing
Using it to describe someone's taste is bullying

 

A lot of movies are bad but a lot of fun

 

Its just funny to argue that theres no objective way to judge a movie but then say there is incorrect language to describe it. Especially when you understand what they mean and it conveys useful information that sets expectations about the kind of movie it is.

 

Compared to something like sports, there are not agreed upon rules, so how do you even judge and compare "objectively"? No one even agrees upon the best defined intentions. That's why a top ten list is fine because everyone understands it is the taste of the person or organization, but something more authoritarian like an awards body causes more arguments and pushback.

Steven Spielberg released two films in 1993, Schindler's List and Jurassic Park, and both are widely considered among the bests in their genres. That means they are viewed through a different lens; you wouldn't be taken very seriously if you said Schindler's List didn't have realistic looking dinosaurs or that Jurassic Park failed to capture the fear caused by concentration camps. That seems obvious, but it goes deeper than that; not all dinosaur movies want to be thrilling like Jurassic Park, and not all Holocaust films take the same approach as Schindler's List.

What is the rubric? One of the things you learn early on as a teacher is the importance of a rubric for any project or essay-based assignment. If it is a multiple choice test you don't need one, but when you are open-ended you need one in order to give a "genuine" grade; would it be fair if Long Century did not meet the expectations in my head but OhTheWater did? Film A was made to keep a multi-billion dollar franchise going and Film B wanted to make you laugh and Film C wanted to make you think so you can't try fitting those pegs in the wrong holes. That is what is frustrating often about arguing about the intent of the director or producers. Some people will defend something on the basis that it was doing what the filmmaker intended; that might be true, but I did not like their decision-making or approach, so the criticism is as relevant as the person who liked or agreed with the intention they took. If we graded films based on whether they achieved what a director was trying to do, the only criticism would come from truly amateur, compromised stuff like Jaws 4 or Birdemic.

Sports are a good comparison because, while the goal is the same for every team (minus stuff like tanking or resting players), the methods used to get there are different and you can learn a lot about what works or doesn't work because you know what they are trying to do. The conversation about Megalopolis has been such a mess because the way people have approached that film are wildly different. The people who criticize it on conventional grounds of character development and plot are using an entirely different rubric as people who are looking at it as an artistic statement from a legendary director. Neither side is even looking at the same things, so it is almost pointless to even try to debate it.

 

I want you to know I read that whole post.

 

Nah, Mega is a bad movie, just very interesting

 

The most apt part of the sports comparision is the fun tribalism. I'll dissmiss the barbaric behaviour of football fans all day and then come here to post down on sitcom lovers.

 

I always think of sports championships versus what the art championship is. The Oscars might seem like the right answer, but it depends on who you ask. A director might want an Oscar to be a renowned filmmaker, but the people who own the rights to the film would much rather win the box office. Compare that to sports, where winning based on agreed upon rules will inevitably give you the award everyone is working for. You can't really lose a game and argue it was an artistic choice, minus business moves like tanking.

 

At the end of Megalopolis a man groaned loudly at Fancis' dedication to his wife. Ive been doing portraits for my friends and part of joy is that I set such a narrow scope for success. Do they like their portrait? Its becomes more valuable because they know Its just for them.

 

I think I don’t believe in guilty pleasures anymore. You like what you like and you shouldn’t be ashamed of that. Unless it’s like literal nazi propaganda or something

 

Absolutely! This exactly.

 

I dont think we need to give up the langauge, guilty pleasure tells me about the type of movie and mood the person was in. We just need to recognise that guilty in this context doesnt literally mean bad or worse. It tells me this move was very enjoyable maybe a bit silly but didnt challenge/teach them anything about the world theres also probably some nostalghia in it for the person.

 

All I have to say is gone in 60 seconds is a great movie.

 

Yeah one of them is.

 

The term guilty pleasure does have its place. A lot of people get mad at the suggestion of this, but certain media is for certain times of your life.

The Fast and the Furious franchise would be a "guilty pleasure" for me. They are many negative things, but there is a sincerity that exists in those movies that is so lacking in an otherwise cynical environment. The reason it is a guilty pleasure is that I know it is bad for my brain and I know I "should" be watching something else. It is useful to think of it like food; soda is one of my guilty pleasures, and it is useful to identify it as such because if I stopped drinking water and only drank soda it would be bad for me. Similarly, if you are in your mid-thirties and your favorite book is something they made you read in high school and your favorite movie is Deadpool, it is not going to be good for your mental development. It isn't as urgent as the things you put in your body, but it definitely inhibits how interesting your outlook can be.

 

It irks me a bit when it feels like someone is hiding behind calling something “fun” to avoid reckoning with, or outright dismiss, criticisms other folks may bring up. Always feels like it’s just shutting down conversation. But yeah like what you like, objectivity in art is a silly concept

 

The term guilty pleasure needs to be tossed out

 

…but, why should you be watching something else? That doesn’t really make sense to me. If what you take in is well balanced, then some of it being silly nonsense isn’t a problem.

Probably a good argument to be made that it’s definitively good for your brain (and soul, etc.) to include some of those kinda things in your media diet.

 

Feel like this is the reason he put quotes around the word "should". Not because he actually should, but because it's what would be expected of him. Probably by wankers.

I could be wrong.

 

Wankers