I want to know how many of you are really objective since I'm doing a study for my journalism class...

I have in mind two kinds of people...

A) people that after they see a bad movie... they admit that the movie is bad but they also admit that they liked it...

There are a large amount of people who do that and many of these people usually, just because they liked the movie, they give that specific movie a 80% or even 90%... some of them give a 70% but nothing less... which is not objectively correct...

B) people that after they see a good movie.... they admit that the movie is good but they also admit that they disliked it... or that they didn't liked it at all.

These are the rare ones... and I could name on the fingers on one hand the people I know that said something like "No Country for Old Men is a very good movie but I don't like it... I can't stand it"... Usually those who don't like NCFOM they just go out and say that the movie is boring, it's trash, it's stupid etc. and they give it a 30% or 40% or 50%.... which isn't objectively correct....

=======================

Now when I'm doing a Best Films Ever list... I'm doing it from my point of view... Yes?... But what point is that? Will I make this list based on my personal likes or dislikes or will I make this list objectively no matter my personal feelings for one movie or another.. ?

In my case... I usually tend to have my favorite films where I'll have Blade Runner as the best Sci-Fi movie ever or American Beauty better than Citizen Kane... and so on... but when I do a list of Best Films Ever objectively I don't have a problem putting 2001: A Space Odyssey or Star Wars Episode V or Citizen Kane over American Beauty because I realize that a list like that needs me to separate my feelings for a movie from the real structure of the movie... And these are close movies as value... but what I don't understand is when people see... Predators better than Predator .... how can you find that movie OBJECTIVELY better than Predator?... It's beyond my understanding because we all have the same eyes... we all see/hear the same things and I don't want everyone to see/hear everything the same way but there must be some sort of general objectivity for people to compare these movies objectively... and objectively Predator is better than Predators... no matter if you liked Predators more... you can't deny that imo ....

The one thing I want to know is which category you think applies to your views... you're a A-type or a B-type or... do you really can put on hold your own feelings or viewings on a movie and judge it objectively ?

Objectively, I don't think Predator is really that good of a film. The dialogue is laughably corny, and the structure of the story is really predictable. All the characters are walking cliches. Subjectively, I still like the movie (somewhat).

So, yes, I can objectively say a movie isn't very good, but still like it. Likewise, I can say a movie is objectively good (No Country for Old Men). The cinematography is excellent, the performances are great, and almost every scene effectively accomplishes what it wants to. But it's not a movie I'm gonna sit down and watch for fun, because to me, it just wasn't all that enjoyable. I don't watch a psychopath walk around slaughtering people with an air gun for entertainment. Just my opinion though.

And when doing a best films ever list, it depends on what you are doing it for. If you were making a professional list for a publication, definitely be more objective. If you're doing a list based on your personal favorite movies, than you should be completely subjective. Do I think Jurassic Park is one of the best films ever? Definitely not. It's still one of my personal favorites though.

I judge movies under both categories A and B. But at the end of the day, I'm not interested in being objective with movies. It's completely subjective to me. I watch movies because of how much I enjoy them.

I try to be objective, but at the end of the day my opinions along with anyone else's are entirely subjective. If I'm "grading" a movie, which I do for at least every movie that is released in the present year (to formulate a best and worst list) I'll look at the quality of the writing, acting, directing, audio, effects, story, cinematography, etc... and come up with a grade based on those aspects. Then I'll finish the grade with the "enjoyment factor". It's all subjective, but I try to be as objective as possible when grading the technical aspects of a movie.

I know most people don't care about this kind of stuff, but admittedly, I'm a film geek.

Explain what you mean by saying a movie is objectively better than another. Otherwise, opinion remains subjective, as always.

discoveringuy wrote:Explain what you mean by saying a movie is objectively better than another. Otherwise, opinion remains subjective, as always.

I think he means in terms of academic standards. Proper shot composition, lighting the correct subject in a composition, audio quality, VFX quality, narrative structure, character development, story quality, etc...

All of these are still subjective of course, every piece of art is. But there are standards to which society has agreed upon. Such as if a composition cuts off the majority of the character that is speakings head, it would be recognized as a bad composition. Same as if the speaker in a composition doesn't have enough light cast upon his face, but has excess light in the background where it's not needed. Or sound is muffled and it's difficult to hear the speakers voice. One could argue that they were artistic liberties, but by standards they are still incorrect. Noting there incorrectness would be objectively accessing the film. But that's just one small part of reviewing a movie, a full review can never be entirely objective.

CrazyEight wrote:I think he means in terms of academic standards. Proper shot composition, lighting the correct subject in a composition, audio quality, VFX quality, narrative structure, character development, story quality, etc...

All of these are still subjective of course, every piece of art is. But there are standards to which society has agreed upon.

What he said. There are some standards. Based on them you could be objective. I don't believe in 100% objectivity but I do believe and admire people who could be 80-90% objective.

Thanks for your insights... looking for more... if some others want to share their views ...

Since you're studying journalism, you should know that true objectivity doesn't exist in any form of media or art. Your perspective changes everything.

Yes there are accepted aesthetic standards and artistry can be evaluated as long as there are standards and comparisons to be made between similar pieces of work. However, even the technical qualities of a film cannot be evaluated from a truly objective point of view.

Although it is clear that most people don't care about those things (aesthetics), and are simply movie buffs, not cinephiles or scholars who have studied film and art. You should not pretend to be objective if you cannot be objective.

At the end of the day, it's all your choice, all depends on how you look at movies, and what they mean to you.

I'm pretty objective. I have a habit of picking out the little things wrong with movies (which might not entirely mean I'm objective). But when there's two movies that I'm trying to decide which one it better, I pick the one that better objectively.

CrazyEight wrote:I try to be objective, but at the end of the day my opinions along with anyone else's are entirely subjective. If I'm "grading" a movie, which I do for at least every movie that is released in the present year (to formulate a best and worst list) I'll look at the quality of the writing, acting, directing, audio, effects, story, cinematography, etc... and come up with a grade based on those aspects. Then I'll finish the grade with the "enjoyment factor". It's all subjective, but I try to be as objective as possible when grading the technical aspects of a movie.

I know most people don't care about this kind of stuff, but admittedly, I'm a film geek.

This is almost exactly how I do it.

To use an example from this year, the A-Team was just plain entertaining. I loved the action, I loved the characters, and I loved the tone of the movie. But even still, I know the story was all but non-existent and the production values were average at best. And because of this it gets a much lower score then things like Inception, The Social Network, and Animal Kingdom.

It is impossible to be completely objective, but I do my best.

discoveringuy wrote:Since you're studying journalism, you should know that true objectivity doesn't exist in any form of media or art. Your perspective changes everything.

I don't think you read or understand what I'm saying. I said that 100% objectivity does not exist but you could be a 90% objective guy easily if you want to.

discoveringuy wrote:Yes there are accepted aesthetic standards and artistry can be evaluated as long as there are standards and comparisons to be made between similar pieces of work. However, even the technical qualities of a film cannot be evaluated from a truly objective point of view.

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. Example: the clarity and resolution for a movie shot on 64b are far better than one shot on 32. Just because you like movies shot in 32b because it gives some sort of strange art feeling for you doesn't mean nothing when it comes to objectively analyze quality. So when you're talking about mathematics there needs to be objectivity. Now of course someone could find the cinematography in Braveheart to be lame and the one in Centurion to be one of the best. Or that the visual effects in Avatar are worse than in Resident Evil 5... But how could he demonstrate that objectively based on the standards and technical and if you want mathematical facts? I bet 100$ he can't and each argument I bring in discussion he will end up saying "Okay, forget it. I didn't liked it. That movie was boring." ... You understand where I'm going?...

discoveringuy wrote:Although it is clear that most people don't care about those things (aesthetics), and are simply movie buffs, not cinephiles or scholars who have studied film and art. You should not pretend to be objective if you cannot be objective.

That's the problem. Too many people front like they are objective but when you're down on arguments they fall back and change the subject. That is not objectivity and that's what my work for the class is about. It's proving that objectivity it's one of the rarest things and one of the best qualities in a human being. The more objective you are imo the smarter and wiser you are and "vice-versa".

discoveringuy wrote:At the end of the day, it's all your choice, all depends on how you look at movies, and what they mean to you.

That really doesn't solve anything ... I mean that I knew...

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...