Although it should be noted that there are things which are not a matter of opinion and can be criticised in a fairly universal way: wooden acting, certain storytelling techniques (e.g. relying on an intro voiceover to dump a ton of exposition... especially if it's actually extraneous information), animation quality, amateurish music composition*, etc.

*While music is ultimately a matter of taste, there is a framework which one can use to anolyse it, and it's entirely possible to identify when someone's done a paint**-by-numbers job or must have been intoxicated or [censored] when they wrote it. For example, there are notes which tend to evoke particular feelings (they sound sad or happy or whatever), so inappropriate placement of them can result in a piece that would never work for a particular scene (if you're aiming for melancholy, but half the track sounds really bright, you're really going to struggle to make it work, to say the least)***.
**Origin typo: "pain-by-numbers". Rather appropriate for some cases .
***I just realised I'm put more characters into a footnote about music theory than I have into the actual reply, and I'm not even a musician or anything...

I disagree. All of the things you have listed *are* in fact a matter of opinion. I have heard many people debate furiously over whether certain actors are "wooden" or not "wooden." "Certain storytelling techniques" may appeal greatly to some, but not to others. "Amateurish music composition, again, is largely in the eye of the beholder. Rock music composition is "amateurish" to some classical music devotees. And what is "animation quality?" What defines "quality" in this instance? I have heard people criticize The Simpsons for bad animation quality. I have heard others praise The Simpsons for the unique style of its animation.

Yeah, Jessica Simpson is in it as Daisy Dukes.

Agreed. It is really hard to say what is actually objectively bad in media. For example, lots of people love Avatar (the James Cameron movie) while I absolutely despise it. There are some actors and others involved in the movie business that people think are great, whereas I don't.

There are performances where it is debatable, but also some where average pormstars would do a far better job. Hell, there are some where a tree would give more life to the lines .

So a twenty minute monologue of backstory is just as skillfull and good as weaving exposition into the script as characters do stuff, with a chunk of it being non-verbal?

So if I spend ten minutes using a piece of composition software (so far in my life I've never touched any), it's going to be just as good as the work of a trained composer played by a skilled orchestra?

People poo-pooing a genre is not the same as giving critical anolysis to a piece of music in the context of of its genre and a need to fit a certain scene; if you compare two symphonies you can pick one out as sounding worse than the other, then dig into music theory to explain why. Also, there can be beautifully written pieces of music which are absolutely horrible for a particular part of a film, due to a mismatch of mood/atmosphere/theme (music theory has this covered, too) leading to a completely disjointed experience that tears you out of it.

I'm not an animator myself and my internet connection is acting up, so I can't give you the technical terminology and my memory is imprecise, but there definitely are things that can be judged with objectivity -- if characters move in a jumpy or stuttery way, or very inconsistent, that simply isn't good (outside of very specific artistic choices). If someone is clearly trying to accurately draw a human, but the proportions and anatomy are bollocked, you can fairly say it's rubbish. Now, it may manage a certain charm, possibly even because of the poor skills of the artist (I mean, naive art is a thing), but that doesn't magically make it well-painted, it just means it's managed to stumble into having some sort of artistic merit.


If a monkey on a typewriter can't do as good a job as a human, there must be things that do and do not work -- well done and poorly done. People can like things in spite of there flaws, or due to having a particular taste for it, but that doesn't mean the work is equal to another.

There are plenty of people who like drinking Corona, but it is thin (this can be measured with a hydrometer) and has little taste. I can say that Saison Dupont is a much better beer, and the only real argument that could be mounted against the statement is "They're different styles, man"... which ain't so much a counterpoint as a dodge (and not a good one). Now, I'm quite happy for someone to say they don't like Saison Dupont, and even say that they prefer Cornona, but I draw the line at conflating "what they like" with "what is good".

I could use compound chocolate and Lindt to make a similar anology for the teetotallers in our audience.

EDIT: Oh, and it's entirely possible for someone to say, "This is very well made, but I struggled to get through it".

Some posts that were counter-productive to the topic have been removed.

Let's not criticize each other over semantics.

Well said! I always wonder what people who say "some opinions are fact" are really trying to say. Good, bad, better, best, worst, awful.. all opinions.

So Uwe Boll films are just as well written as Shakespeare plays?

No, I can't say I remember ever having ignored reviews or opinions and bought a low-rated game.

If anything, I just buy whatever I like and don't read reviews at all, so I wouldn't know whether the game I'm buying was highly rated or not.

I prefer to watch gameplay videos of games I'm unsure about, or just play demos (if available).

Gone are the days of giving a toss about each new sensation that turns up, I simply don't have the time to care.

sure if you enjoy his films then yes its "YOUR" opinion.

There is no "better" fact. I bet Uwe Boll (whoever that is) thinks their films rate right up there. NOT everyone thinks Shakespeare is the end-all of all tale telling. I certainly don't. They are certainly good, but not "factual masterpieces." An opinion that is widely shared does not make anything fact. A fact, by its very nature must be "provable."

Yep, and still do for the most part. I usually enjoy the very games that don't get the gleaming reviews. In fact, the one time I specifically bought a game from it's shining reviews I ended up not liking. So, reviews don't mean much to me. I will still read them to watch out for massive technical issues and things like that, but other than that I largely ignore them.

some things just "are"..


opinions are valid when its "is something good" or "is this a good idea" or "is this subject interesting", but some thing aren't a matter of opinion..




if a person went up to you and said "my opinion is water is not wet, trees are made of expired chocolate, that bacon is made out of spider webs, and that cats and butterflies are capable of mating and thats where pigeons come from", would you say that their "opinion" is not wrong?


there are many things that are a matter of opinion, but not everything as some things just "are".. "opinion armor" as a friend calls it is a pretty common thing on the internet, where a person is wrong on a subject and they then just say "well its my opinion" as a defense, even though the subject they are talking about is one thats not really a matter of opinion..

Of course "some things just are." That has nothing to do with what we are discussing. What is being debated here (and what AIBQuirky is referring to when he writes "Good, bad, better, worst...all opinions" is precisely the question: "Is something good?"

Good, bad, better, best, worst, awful

vs.

expired chocolate, spider webs, mating

We shouldn't be arguing funnybunny until you get your logic gates checked out.

PS. I say it:

Oblivion is a bad game.**

*not with mods

*not everything in it is bad as it has so many things going for it, as per se for any TES game.

PS. On topic, I ignore reviews all together.

Uwe Boll is infamous for doing video game adaptions that... do not live up to their potential. I do not consider Shakespeare some demigod of theatre (and I'll note that his plays were pub entertainment, more or less), but he is widely recognised as being able to do a decent job of things, even by people who don't like his works.

And I'm not talking about value judgements like "masterpiece", I'm talking about technical elements that can be more or less skilled/well chosen.

Let's say you have a scene in a film where you've got a young couple taking a walk in the evening. You're aiming to show that they're happy, carefree, and in love. You are not trying to do anything unusual in this film. Tell me which of these two pieces of music is suitable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxjGrEkyb1U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWJhTNOUskc

They are both by the same band (a notable and respected one), so the musicianship is not in question. If I were to add a third band, I'd probably go for something like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXqsokcFMA0; what I'm trying to illustrate is that there are choices that a film maker can make which are objectively worse than another, and such a conclusion can be supported by things like musicology.


EDIT: To be clear, whether one likes or enjoys a work is another matter; one can see a movie that ticks every box but is completely forgettable, or one that does a heap of things wrong but is still just plain fun.

I wasn't specifically comparing those, I was just commenting on the whole "an opinion can't be wrong" topic

But your example only works because you've introduced some objective criteria (in bold). It's vaguely worded and the way you've presented it misrepresents the question you're actually asking (and I'm not saying that's intentional), but that question could be put this way:


Which of these two pieces sounds most like the sort of music that is normally used in a scene like the one you described?


Yes, there is an objectively right answer to that, but it doesn't go any way to telling you which is the better piece of music for the scene, just which piece fits a certain set of criteria.



I guess maybe what you're saying is that a film-maker is "better" if they make choices which best fit their own pre-determined criteria, but that's just one way of measuring value amongst many and in choosing that over others you are already exercising your opinion.

So much this. Criteria is the key. Is a slasher film better than a sci-fi suspense film? Depends on the criteria. What are we comparing? Acting? Script? Music? Setting? Lighting? Sound? Overall production? CGI effects?

Or is it more of an arbitrary criteria, such as "A film-maker is 'better' (opinion) if they make choices which best fit their own pre-determined criteria."?

Maybe there is a reason why "opinions" are so misunderstood? It sure explains a lot

And this is getting a little bit off topic

No. Certain sounds will evoke different reactions (e.g. major/minor chords). When writing/choosing a soundtrack, you need to work with the scene or you risk messing with the viewer's experience (which is bad if it's note you're trying to achieve); you can reinforce what other elements are presenting ('happy' music going with smiling actors, bright lighting...), give the impression that there's more going on ('creepy' music in that same scene will put the viewer on edge a bit), create a disconnect between the protagonist and everyone else, or various other things. None of those options is bad, but choosing one that doesn't fit what you're trying achieve is bad*, because a different choice would have better served your ends (which sounds a bit circular, but what I'm trying communicate isn't).

If someone is creating a film (for example) they don't just mash buttons at random and whatever results; they have something in mind which guides all their choices, and you can judge their skill based on how closely the result matches the aim. There is a wide swathe of things which come down to opinion/taste (e.g. how much blood is too much in a horror flick), but there are also things that can be anolysed in a less subjective way (such as whether the music helped create an air of tension).

*Apologies for the sentence construction, but in my opinion grammar is a bourgeois plot to keep the rubber ducks from taking their rightful place as food of the polliwogs.

I don't know, it looked like you were equating those things with opinions. Can you give some real examples so I can see what you are trying to say. Obviously, good and bad is easy to detect at this point. But things like "wooden acting" and "animation quality" perhaps harder to detect as opinions? Or you agree those are opinions too?

Everything still falls in a spectrum of subjectivity, nothing wrong with that as that's what we do. We discuss art/fiction. One must obviously try building convincing opinions. Some opinions might not be convincing, for someone, or for a majority but we all should try to get these opinions there and I will defend it or criticize it personally while still recognizing them as opinions. I value opinions but I won't assume authority over it for myself and I won't take anyone seriously who consider themselves an authority over art/fiction matters.

I can only defend my opinion as best as I can but if someone goes "that's not a fact", I will laugh: "Oh, really?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_basic_principles_of_animation

So many qualifiers, must be pretty personal which one of those are more important(for you)?

LOL, last one is called "APPEAL".

So you read nothing but the Contents section?

No, I have read it all before but I studied every point separately(I think I skipped appeal). These are all "good ideas" for me. I don't consider it universal since they are not.

I don't know what's so weird about subjectivity, it is a simple enough concept.