SparkySywer said:
How would you measure whether or not any of these things were good or bad? You’d need some set of standard, but those set of standards can’t be objective. You can’t prove what blocking should have been used, or how long a take should have been.

It’s the is-ought distinction (Hume’s guillotine), you can’t prove what ought to be solely based on what is. You can only make claims about what should and shouldn’t be based on some set of standards, which are subjective.

Every attempt to define an objective set of standards, or prove whether some art is objectively good or bad, falls short. A movie can be objectively artistically complex, or objectively popular, or objectively influential, or objectively a box office hit, or objectively thrilling, but none of these are inherently, objectively good.

Especially because a lot of the time, people want different things out of movies. Sometimes the same person wants different things at different times.

Sometimes people want schlock BS popcorn movies with cringe dialog. Sometimes people want pretentious arthouse kino from 1729. You really can’t prove either of them wrong.

You nailed it! Conversations [sic: arguments] about whether or not a movie is “good” are so incredibly boring too.

It’s hilarious and sad to me how people on the internet, like in this thread, only ever become friendly and civil when another party agrees with them, and then they can pat each other on the back for being so “objectively right” together. Imagine if discourse was actually about sharing our different interpretations and engagements on the same film with one another.