Objectively bad

Post Reply New Topic

Why is it so hard to explain to someone when something is objectively bad? Why do people assume that opinions override facts, and that everything is subject to opinion? I can write an essay about why a book or a movie is bad based on actual facts, and people will still just say "That's just your opinion."

I mean, The Last Jedi. Rose and Finn's trip to the casino was a completely pointless sideplot that added absolutely nothing to the story as a whole, and just bloated the total runtime for more than 30 minutes. Nobody learns anything, nobody goes through any character development, there aren't even any real memorable moments during it. If you cut the whole thing from the movie you wouldn't even know it was gone. Ergo, it's bad... right? Apparently not, that's just an opinion. Despite thousands of years of people developing the art of storytelling, and that subplot breaking all the rules (and not in a good way) people still won't listen when you tell them it's badly written. In fact, they will tell you it's amazingly written and you must not be smart enough to understand if you don't like it.

I mean, I get it. Some people will like stuff even if it's bad. But why can't they admit that it's bad? I like McDonald's, but I don't try to justify that by telling people it's nutritious, five star cuisine.

I just... I don't get people.

It is just your opinion. You could claim factually that Super Mario Bros is a horrible movie and I would disagree. If someone thinks something is good then it is to that person. Something can't be factually bad unless it can kill you.

That statement is factually bad. You can't just assume that everyone's opinion is equal and that facts and objectivity don't exist. Once you start throwing around "everything's an opinion and all opinions are good", then where does the line get drawn and who gets to draw it? What if my opinion is that I should go at red lights and stop at green ones? It's my opinion, so obviously it can't be wrong. What if draw a stick picture and demand it be hung up in the Louvre because, in my opinion, it's the greatest piece of art ever created and who are you to disagree with my opinion? What if I decide your car would be better off being my car? That's my opinion, and you're not dead, so just shut up and give me the keys, right? You might decide that stealing a rich person's bank information and using it to buy yourself a house is good, but what if his opinion is that that's bad?

If you drew a stick figure and I liked it then I would say it's good and that would be a true statement. The other points, stop.

Hmm. So I guess the answers to my questions of who gets to draw the line and where it gets drawn are "you" and "wherever suits you at the moment." Good to know.

Considering it is Star Wars that I believe you are talking about, expect a lot of fanboys/girls to like anything related to it no matter what they do, bad or not. If a similar situation happens a couple times then whatever, but if it continues to happen and you feel that passionately about it maybe re-consider who you associate with. I could care less what someone likes until they start annoying me with it, at which point I'm done. It is just a movie though, I could think of a few dozen things I'd rather get mad at someone over for having a horrible opinion. I definitely do not believe that everyones opinion matters, in this social media era everyone wants to share theirs, even if they shouldn't be speaking on it. They can have an opinion, but they are not entitled to have me respect them for it. If you don't want to end up arguing with them, don't bother taking part in their activities. If you feel the need to share what you are thinking, share it and just let it be, replying to everyone that disagrees with you will just give you a headache in the end.

You're hitting something that's a deep cultural trope - ie. no standards, just 'that's your opinion'.

As someone whose watched and studied culture I've heard some different opinions on how things got to be like this. At least with respect to Europe I remember Douglas Murray in an interview saying that there's a deep fear and distrust of philosophy or any idea of a core ethos - ie. reflecting in hindsight that such things brought about WWII. The connection seems to be that if a big enough number of people start believing in a cause people start dying as a result. There may be a similar sentiment to this - ie. that when there are standards people start spilling blood, or at least mass tribalism and inequality, therefor better to ignore or sideline any public discussion let alone proposed conception of standards.

People's tastes have unfortunately been dumbed down by several generations of mediocrity. It's a result of the commercialisation of art.

There is a big difference between, say, establishing a scientific theory versus judging the merits of art, music, and literature. To take the original example; yes, many people might find an irrelevant sub-plot distracting and unnecessary, certainly I would. But we all have different reasons for engaging with fiction; if another person prefers to disregard bad plotting because they find the eye-candy of a movie, or word-play for it's own sake in a book, entertains them, then why should I judge them for that? Sheer entertainment, or even just mindlessly passing the time, are just as valid reasons for consuming fiction as enlightenment or mental immersion. If the creator of a work chooses to aim for that audience, then that is their choice, as you are free to pitch your writing as you wish. That doesn't mean that we have to agree with anyone if we're discussing our critiques, but accepting that as an unresolvable difference of opinion doesn't imply also having to accept it when discussing something that we believe is universal and can be established by empirical testing (e.g. jumping red lights can be dangerous and is illegal).

I only half agree. If the writer is using their own ideas, then that's fine. Ash Vs Evil Dead is a fun, but stupid, tv show, but it comes from a line of fun but stupid movies so it stays true to its source material. But if they're working with a huge franchise that defined, and still defines, an entire genre, like Star Wars, then they need to respect the source material and give the audience more than flashy, silly fun.

I also agree with Prometheus18 that stuff like this is only acceptable now because people are lowering their standards too much. A fun, mindless adventure is fine now and again, but these days that's what dominates the market. It's like eating a diet strictly of candy, we're not feeding our brains "healthy" stuff that challenges us and makes us think. All we want anymore is distraction, as if something can't be entertaining and thought provoking at the same time. It doesn't even have the be arthouse-style thought provoking, it just needs characters we can sympathize with who act and react to things realistically, going on an adventure that resonates with the viewers/readers in some way.

There are two films I absolutely hate and I say they are badly made horrible movies and to me I am right. To others I am wrong. I understand that both are correct.

I have been saying for some time that the last year a decent, thought-provoking film was released was 1999 (The Matrix) and the last decade when more than ten or twenty percent of the music in the charts was worth listening to was the 70s.

Today it's nothing but tedious, attention seeking shock tactics like blatant Satanic symbolism in pop music and vampires, dystopias, extraterrestrials, apocalypses and banal psychopathic "anti-heroes" in films and TV series. That sort of stuff may have had a serious point to make in the more frigid 60s and seventies, when it was still a novelty but today it doesn't entertain - or even shock or offend anyone, because it's so banal and predictable.

Last edited by Prometheus18 on 10 Nov 2018, 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Incorrect. If someone told me that Tommy Wiseau's The Room was a good movie, they would be objectively wrong. That movie was made to be a tragic romantic drama, but it's so horribly acted and the story is so hilariously incompetently written that it can only be called bad. If someone says otherwise, they are wrong. Stop lowering your standards to make everyone equal. If someone has bad taste, they have bad taste, and they deserve to be told that they have bad taste.

You and many other fans would prefer them to, for sure, but they don't "need" to. Films get made so that the financial backers of those films can make a return on their investments; the only thing they "need" is to sell as many tickets as possible. Unless the fans of a franchise can come together to collectively own the rights to the canon, the only thing they can do is to not watch the films and encourage others not to. To what extent the creative people in the venture compromise so that they have any influence at all is a matter for their consciences and whether or not they'd like to put food on the table.

True, but the fans are the ones buying the tickets and watching the movie. The Last Jedi has it's fair share of defenders but look at what happened to Solo. It was a decent enough movie, but the fans were so mad about how TLJ had treated the source material (and the backlash the my got from the director) that they refused to go see Solo, and it was considered a complete box office failure. So even if we're looking at things from a purely marketing standpoint, it makes sense to do your best to please the fans, not just placate them.

If a person likes a movie I won't tell them their wrong. If I did that I would be seen as an jerk. Glad I don't say those things.