Question about objectivity in movies...

All non-Nolan related film, tv, and streaming discussions.
Posts: 213
Joined: April 2010
In this cases, I make an A-list and a B-list. Then I make a C-list with an approx. average of the A and B list.
For example:

My personal opinion of Following; (8.5/10) -- A-list
My "objective" opinion of Followin; (7.5/10) -- B-list

Following in the C-list = (8/10) -- The average.

After all, you can't actually judge objectively a movie, since it's a form of art.

User avatar
Posts: 21411
Joined: June 2010
Location: All-Hail Master Virgo, Censor of NolanFans
Smile wrote:In this cases, I make an A-list and a B-list. Then I make a C-list with an approx. average of the A and B list.
For example:

My personal opinion of Following; (8.5/10) -- A-list
My "objective" opinion of Followin; (7.5/10) -- B-list

Following in the C-list = (8/10) -- The average.

After all, you can't actually judge objectively a movie, since it's a form of art.
Yeah, agreed with you on the first part but on the second I don't since you actually been half objective on your "C-list"...

Being objective is not really the issue, being only subjective or ignoring the facts or the "standards" means ignorance to me...

So being a C list doesn't mean you're ignorant, on the contrary it's a much better example of how would be fair to judge movies than those who are only subjective.

Posts: 213
Joined: April 2010
That's what I meant.
You can't judge entirely subjectively. But you can't judge entirely objectively either.
A C-list is what we need.
Last edited by Smile on November 29th, 2010, 9:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 444
Joined: June 2010
RIFA wrote:
Another way of being objective is when you compare let's say 2001: A space Odyssey with Avatar... Laughing at 2001's effects or not taking in consideration that the movie was finished 40 years ago imo is a LACK of objectivity...
No one is laughing at 2001. It's still got some of the most realistic and aesthetically compelling visual effects ever displayed on film.
RIFA wrote:
Like I said, nobody is talking about true objectivity but you could be mostly objective about something if you feel and want to be that way. Technical qualities of a film can be evaluated from a truly objective point of view especially when you're talking mathematics.
I'm sorry RIFA, art is not mathematics. I understand what you're saying but comparing film to maths is just outlandish. Any form of art expresses emotions, portrays human experience, and is itself subjective. Therefore, in order to truly understand a film, one must not just look at the surface, instead should be looking for meanings that lie behind it. No doubt that process is subjective and deeply personal.

We can argue this forever, just remember different people approach film in different ways. It is important not to lose any individual personality when you actually try to evaluate a film; film critics help you see things that are more "objective", make impersonal statements that are generally true.

My approach to film is mainly subjective, I bring my own personal narrative into the the world these artists create. If they resonate with me then great. If not, too bad I can do nothing about it.
Last edited by discoveringuy on November 29th, 2010, 9:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Posts: 13943
Joined: June 2009
Location: La La Land
Smile wrote:You can't be entirely subjective. But you can't be entirely objective either.
I tend to believe that the majority of people who watch any given film and form an opinion on it are doing so entirely subjectively. But for the vast majority of film critics and cinephiles your right.

Posts: 213
Joined: April 2010
CrazyEight wrote:
Smile wrote:You can't be entirely subjective. But you can't be entirely objective either.
I tend to believe that the majority of people who watch any given film and form an opinion on it are doing so entirely subjectively. But for the vast majority of film critics and cinephiles your right.
I don't know if it's entirely subjective.
The acting, for example, is rather objective, I think. Or technical aspects, like the special effects, costumes, the quality of the image and audio, the editing -in some cases-, etc.

User avatar
Posts: 21411
Joined: June 2010
Location: All-Hail Master Virgo, Censor of NolanFans
discoveringuy wrote:No one is laughing at 2001. It's still got some of the most realistic and aesthetically compelling visual effects ever displayed on film.
I've seen a lot of people bashing 2001 for it's graphics and slow-pacing...

The slow-pacing part I understand but the graphics? lmao...

As for the mathematical part... I still believe that the technical part of a movie is in someway "mathematical" because there are things that can't be interpretable only if you are some kind of a weirdo who thinks that worse clarity means a better photography or something like that ... which is ROFL... The technical part imo should be watched objectively... the story and "painting" of the movie and characters are different things... :)

Posts: 444
Joined: June 2010
RIFA wrote:
As for the mathematical part... I still believe that the technical part of a movie is in someway "mathematical" because there are things that can't be interpretable only if you are some kind of a weirdo who thinks that worse clarity means a better photography or something like that ... which is ROFL... The technical part imo should be watched objectively... the story and "painting" of the movie and characters are different things... :)
Film is in no way mathematical, unless the content involves maths. I understand you're saying that "film production" has rules, methods, and formulas - similar to math. But remember the final work is always the most (& only) important thing that matters when evaluating art.

Film craft and aesthetics matter to me, and my subjective opinion on a film lies largely on whether or not it is well-crafted, according to me. (As a person who've studied art for a long time.) However, I do think you are quite narrow-minded when you use the photographic clarity example. Artistry is much more than technology. It is how you use technology and how your final film looks and sounds. There are so many hacks out there that don't know how to effectively use technology even though they've got plenty of money to work with.

User avatar
Posts: 21411
Joined: June 2010
Location: All-Hail Master Virgo, Censor of NolanFans
discoveringuy wrote:However, I do think you are quite narrow-minded when you use the photographic clarity example. Artistry is much more than technology. It is how you use technology and how your final film looks and sounds.
I'm not narrow-minded about that... I actually agree with you on this. I think I used just a bad example... an exaggerated one just to show you what I was trying to invoke here...

What I also wanted to say but never actually said it (because I forgot) is that... I agree that I am subjective while I judge movies in my behalf... but in public, in certain circles and not to mention when you work requires it, it's better for you to be capable of being objective and forget about your own subjective viewings on a certain piece of art or any other issue...

User avatar
Posts: 15470
Joined: June 2010
Location: You're pretty good.
bump?

Post Reply