Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

tacoman333 t1_jeg8596 wrote

Reply to comment by WAdogfood in Film taste is largely subjective by 85Millennial

>It should've been obvious to you that i was talking about movies made unskillfully, not directors or actors choices.

You did make a distinction. If intent didn't matter to you then there would be no difference between a director choosing to film an entire movie out of focus and a filmmaker who doesn't know how to operate a camera doing the same thing if both movies were, in your opinion, total shit.

1

WAdogfood t1_jeg8j2z wrote

That's the opposite of a distinction. Both those directors would be making a bad movie.

1

tacoman333 t1_jegaqka wrote

The difference between the two would be intent. The experienced filmmaker tried to do something for a specific reason, while the amatuer filmmaker didn't have the skill necessary to produce the film they envisioned. You said it should be obvious to me that you were "talking about movies made unskillfully, not directors or actors choices" implying that you make a clear distinction between the two.

The bottom line is film quality like as with all art is subjective. For every element in a movie whether unintended or intended, made by an experienced filmmaker or an amatuer, the final decision of whether it contributes positively or negatively to the quality of the film is purely a subjective one.

1

WAdogfood t1_jegdl9g wrote

I said that because you purposefully misconstrued my question to make your own point. And now you've been arguing a movie where you can't see or hear anything would be "good" by some measure. I don't think you actually believe that so I'm not going to engage with this anymore.

1