I feel cinematic quality can be a mix of both subjective and objective perspectives since technical and creative qualities like writing, staging, and editing have applicable standards to them. However, beauty does lie in the eye of the beholder so there's hardly a right or wrong answer.
"Film quality" as far as I can tell is purely a social construct and doesn't have any ingrained, objective qualities (unless you're refering to RT and IMDB scores) so purely subjective. Quite frankly the only people that would argue otherwise are probably just intellecutally lazy people that don't wanna make an argument of how some boring arthouse film is better than Killer Clowns from Outer Space (an amazing piece of cinema)
Last Edit: May 23, 2020 20:16:56 GMT by lowtacks86
Subjective ; I don't think this is really debatable either. because what's enjoyable varies from person to person and a persons emotional response in some form or another is what makes movies work or not since it comes back to how interesting a movie is for the viewer.
but... I do feel there is a bit of objectiveness to a degree though. because you can generally tell there is some difference between a bunch of A-list range movies and some generic crap on some random no-name channels. still, movies, like other art forms, comes back to personal opinion. but I think if someone is going to use a measuring stick whether something is good or not, it pretty much boils down to majority opinion. but I do think a random movie might have a lot of people who like it, but might not like it to a higher degree. then I think you got those movies where a lot of people like to a higher degree etc.
Know God, Know Peace. No God, No Peace. | "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." - St. Thomas Aquinas (1224/1225-1274) | "If you don’t behave as you believe, you will end by believing as you behave." - Fulton J Sheen (1895-1979) | "He who prays is saved. He who prays not is damned!" - St. Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787) | pray The Holy Rosary daily!
Subjective. Some films just have higher degrees of mutual admiration, but I don't think there exists a film that hasn't been criticized for something. Even the very best of the very best aren't the very best for all people if the story means nothing to them. People like what's central to their character or their moral code, or just like what they like. Which means, for example, if you're just not into mafia movies, or war films, or superhero movies, the best of the best isn't that likely to change your mind.
If someone says a highly regarded film is shit to them, what can you really do? It's their perspective through which they filter the experience. Not all people are alike so it's impossible any one film or type of film can speak to all people.
Always an annoying question (no offense to you, I'm not calling you annoying for asking). It's along the lines of "What makes something art?"
The problem is that when it comes to personal tastes, anything can be subjectively valued as being "good". For example, let's say you have a scene in a film that is meant to be dramatic. It's a confrontation between an undercover cop and his gangster friend and the cop is about to be revealed as a spy. The boom mic is too far away so you can't hear them clearly, the camera has a moth sitting on the lens, and to top it off, one of the grips trips and falls into the scene and overturns a table in the background-- but they put it into the film anyway.
Objectively, you can say it's a bad scene. The sound is done poorly, the shot is done poorly, the staging is botched, and the dramatic intent is shattered. None of this was the intent of the people making it.
Subjectively, you can still get enjoyment out of it because of how poorly done it was or because none of these things detract from the scene for you. Anything can be subjectively good. It just depends on the person.
When talking objective vs. subjective, you need to keep in mind that something can be objectively poorly done but subjectively still appreciated.