I think this point I saw somewhere else sums up my thoughts on the situation: "Thing is, you don't actually have to have anything to back up an opinion.
An opinion is valid even if it's just an emotional reaction.
Now, acting like an emotional based opinion is some kind of objective truth is definitely a problem.
But just saying 'I don't like this because I don't like it' is fine. Even if it makes for very uninteresting discussion..."
So to give you my basic stance before the rest, as I said in the post, anyone is allowed to call any movie good for bad on their own merit without being wrong.
But saying “people perceive things differently” is like saying “maybe we see the color red differently!” Like yeah we could all potentially be miscommunicating about everything but that’s no way to live and we have to assume common understanding to have a conversation. If I said “grab me the blue cup”, you would grab me the blue cup instead of bringing over all the cups and asking “so which one is blue to you?” Like I said that’s no way to live…
You're confusing objectivity with subjectivity. The cup being blue is objective, no one can deny that. Whether or not you like the colour blue is what the discussion would be based on and I would never hate on someone for hating blue. Same thing applies to movies, no one can deny the existence of a movie but the discussion of the quality of the movie is what the focus is truly on as not everyone will like it just like how not everyone will like blue.
Like tell me why you think it’s “good”? What criteria are you using? Do you have a better/worse example? How much better/worse? Why is it better/worse? These words lead to objective analysis anyways.
No, that's not objective analysis. Critiquing art is an art form itself as you are literally interpreting it your own way. What you've described to me is a basic example of subjectivity. It doesn't matter how deep you dive into a movie, as long as there's emotion, it's subjective.
True objective analysis would be pointing things out on the screen and moving on. Whether or not those things affect the quality of the movie would then be a subjective conversation.
You also kinda made my point for me, using quality words is wrong, like saying something is the “best” when you mean it’s your “favorite” is a problem because that’s literally objectivity vs subjectivity.
Yes, other comments have pointed it out as well. Words lose meaning on the Internet and it's getting annoying. One can say "I consider this movie the best in the series" and argue why, I wouldn't have a problem with that. But if someone says "this is the best piece of media this series has gotten", then we'd have an issue there.
Something is not “good” because you “liked” it. (I like a ton of “bad” movies, Transformers, Ready Player One, etc).
Not this point again. I'm talking about ironic enjoyment, I'm talking about unironic enjoyment. Both are subjective but I'd much rather listen to someone's argument on why they consider Ready Player One to be a great movie and what they took from it because they're interpreting it differently rather than the next "it's bad but fun bad" guy for the millionth time.
And in the same way, something is not “bad” because it’s not your genre. (I don’t like horror movies so I don’t objectively analyze them myself for example since I’m biased)
There are certain people I'd show this section to but that's a discussion for another day.
And wouldn’t some of the fault be on the person for not broadening their scope and failing to recognizing the quality?
And I'm telling you that quality is subjective. A person may have seen 1000 films and be exposed to all qualities but still consider a "bad" one genuinely good. What then? Is he objectively wrong? Quality isn't a tangible thing cause different qualities mean different things to different people.
You said it yourself, your hypothetical self changed his tastes after being introduced to new stuff. The mere fact that your perception can change on a movie means that it's quality is subjective. If it were objective, there would be no argument to raise against it and your thoughts and feelings on it would just be.
If I thought that something that was really bad was good and someone pointed out to me that it was really bad and showed me something better…. I would be like holy crap why did I even praise that first thing?! This is way better?! I can still like or hold nostalgia for the first thing but I wouldn’t be able to say it’s “good”, just that “I like it”.
No, that person introduced you to their tastes and you just happen to like their tastes. Someone else may have gone through the same thing you did and absolutely hate the new film/ genre. Does that mean that that genre is bad? No, you and they just have a preference.
But opinions can be wrong and you can have a civil conversation about that and about objective quality. You should be able to explain why you like or don’t like something and use examples and evidence to bolster your points.
And I disagree with you on this point. Every opinion is valid and as I pointed out with that old comment, they don't need to explain their opinion to you to justify themselves. And even if they are able to explain their opinion with points and evidence, are they still objectively wrong cause they don't align with your points? There is no "objective quality" conversation to be had cause both parties will enter into it with preconceived ideas and goals so it's not objective in the slightest. Anyone should be allowed to think and argue what they want about art without treating it as fact because surprise, no opinion is fact.
