How is something objectly the best fim ever made? It's all subjective, there is no objective ranking of these things.
There is taste in film, but no, there is absolutely a such thing as objectively good filmmaking. That's why people go to film school, and pretty much the only reason that Citizen Kane is often considered the best film of all time.
In academia "objectivity" is usually just a pretentious way to say "my opinion is better than yours!!!!!!111."
No, it really isn't. There is no opinion in objectivity. It's an unbiased critique of the technical aspects of the film. Things like direction, music, lighting, photography, acting, editing, sound, these are all things that are objective qualities of a film. How is it subjective to say that a scene is too dark to see? Have you seen Alien vs Predator: Requiem? Half the movie is unwatchable because it's too dark to see. That is an objectively bad movie.
I don't know why some people have a hard time understanding the concept of objectivity in films. We can generally all declare that Sonic '06 is a horribly designed, buggy game, but no, film is entirely a matter of taste. There's no such thing as bad movies.
I'll give that there are some things that can't be easily disputed, but ultimately they do not determine the quality of the movie (or game, TV show, etc.). They are simply the basic requirements to be a decent movie, and none should be judged soley on those merits. Most movies don't actually make it to the big screen unless they check all those boxes. There a hell of a lot more to movies than that, and that's where it becomes heavily subjective. There is ultimately no right or wrong with storytelling, only what someone likes or dislikes, and there are an innumerable amount of reasons why someone might like or dislike a story or aspects of it, many of which probably don't make any amount of logical sense, even to that person. Ultimately the things that academia tends to focus on are simply what a certain group of people all agreed they like, and to be quite honest, they don't always reflect the interests and opinions of the majority.
And "good" and "bad" are by their very definitions subjective terms.
General guidelines of what most people like are taught. A lot of thig a you listed are subjective, he quality of acting can be debated by different people, the directing can be debated, the lighting can be debated, the music quality can be debated, sound can be debated, and editing can be debated. I might have missed somethings, but pretty much everything you said isn't truely actually objective. It's subjective. To press the point, a movie like Sharknado is actually a good well made movie if you think about for a second. It's a comedy, it's all carefully engineered to be what we generally think is bad to an extreme, that it's hiliarious. It's actually good, because we laughing at it and enjoy it. It's what it's supposed to be, a different type of comedy. It takes talent to make a move like that. From your objective standpoint, it's bad, but when you think about and bring subjectivness, it's good.
I'll give that there are some things that can't be easily disputed, but ultimately they do not determine the quality of the movie (or game, TV show, etc.). They are simply the basic requirements to be a decent movie, and none should be judged soley on those merits. Most movies don't actually make it to the big screen unless they check all those boxes. There a hell of a lot more to movies than that, and that's where it becomes heavily subjective. There is ultimately no right or wrong with storytelling, only what someone likes or dislikes, and there are an innumerable amount of reasons why someone might like or dislike a story or aspects of it, many of which probably don't make any amount of logical sense, even to that person. Ultimately the things that academia tends to focus on are simply what a certain group of people all agreed they like, and to be quite honest, they don't always reflect the interests and opinions of the majority.
And "good" and "bad" are by their very definitions subjective terms.
Which is all fine, as long as you have no interest in film making or critique. Film isn't just an art, it's also a craft. There are skilled craftsman and unskilled ones. Every product is subject to opinion, but that doesn't stop them from being objectively good, bad, or somewhere in between.
And no, Sharknado is most definitely an objectively bad film. That's why it's famous as a comedy. It's so bad that you can't help but laugh at it. It is subjectively good because it is objectively bad.
You guys are on like subjective and objective are two mutually exclusive terms. Like if a film is objectively good, it couldn't possibly be subjectively bad or vice versa. It doesn't work that way. What you like has no effect on the actual quality of the film.
As much as I love her as a character and her backstory I wish Nintendo would stop shoving Rosalina down our throats and do more with Daisy, who in my opinion is way better than Peach as I believe her kingdom was only in jeopardy once and she was kidnapped once. They could show more respect for Luigi's 'girl'. Though I'll admit I can't stand that annoying 'Hi I'm Daisy" she seems to only and always say.
Capcom at E3: Guys we're sorry about how we've been treating Mega Man so we're gonna make it up to you by releasing the Mega Man Cancelled Collection with all the titles we cancelled in the condition they we're in just before we pulled the plug. Now who wants Street Fighter X Monster Hunter?
I'll give that there are some things that can't be easily disputed, but ultimately they do not determine the quality of the movie (or game, TV show, etc.). They are simply the basic requirements to be a decent movie, and none should be judged soley on those merits. Most movies don't actually make it to the big screen unless they check all those boxes. There a hell of a lot more to movies than that, and that's where it becomes heavily subjective. There is ultimately no right or wrong with storytelling, only what someone likes or dislikes, and there are an innumerable amount of reasons why someone might like or dislike a story or aspects of it, many of which probably don't make any amount of logical sense, even to that person. Ultimately the things that academia tends to focus on are simply what a certain group of people all agreed they like, and to be quite honest, they don't always reflect the interests and opinions of the majority.
And "good" and "bad" are by their very definitions subjective terms.
Which is all fine, as long as you have no interest in film making or critique. Film isn't just an art, it's also a craft. There are skilled craftsman and unskilled ones. Every product is subject to opinion, but that doesn't stop them from being objectively good, bad, or somewhere in between.
And no, Sharknado is most definitely an objectively bad film. That's why it's famous as a comedy. It's so bad that you can't help but laugh at it. It is subjectively good because it is objectively bad.
You guys are on like subjective and objective are two mutually exclusive terms. Like if a film is objectively good, it couldn't possibly be subjectively bad or vice versa. It doesn't work that way. What you like has no effect on the actual quality of the film.
This discussion is too good for the shameful lack of thought that brought this up in the first place.
One of them probably not stated here already in so many pages, that the classic/vintage video game market feels that the old games are not really your own but they are communal property that you're only allowed to do certain things and not others to them because there's the off chance it will affect the cash value of the game for other individuals into it for the monetary value. I still live in the world where you pay for an item, you can do what you wish with it.
My Personal Video Game / Accessory List
http://tanooki.byethost16.com/
One of them probably not stated here already in so many pages, that the classic/vintage video game market feels that the old games are not really your own but they are communal property that you're only allowed to do certain things and not others to them because there's the off chance it will affect the cash value of the game for other individuals into it for the monetary value. I still live in the world where you pay for an item, you can do what you wish with it.
Not unpopular at all, nor is the view that if games are not being sold for a certain amount of time then they are free to access by illegitimate means.
Also, I think that Zelda 2 (although it was good) should be the one and only side scrolling Zelda title. I have no idea why people would prefer it compared to a top down view or 3D game.
Nintendo ID Network: Nintendo_Ninja
Mario Maker ID: LR5-VQV-THG
It's really sad that this is the unpopular opinion.
I know, right?! It was hailed as the best Zelda that ever was like a year or 2 ago (which was pretty exaggerated), and now it's the black sheep of the franchise instead of Wind Waker. It wasn't the best, but it wasn't the worst either.
Nintendo ID Network: Nintendo_Ninja
Mario Maker ID: LR5-VQV-THG
Forums
Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions
Posts 861 to 880 of 12,088
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic