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.

>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.

Mistakes made during a movie's production are a part of the movie, and whether they have a positive or negative effect on the overall quality of the film depends entirely on one's personal opinion.

Also, distinguishing between an unskilled director making a poor movie and a skilled director making one would only be important if you held the opinion that an artist's intent matters, which is in itself subjective.

Because I can show that every judgement of a movie's quality is based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions, and is therefore, by definition, subjective.

The camera being out of focus can communicate a character being disorientated, or act as a shorthand for a quick motion, or direct the audience's eyes to something more important in the shot, or maybe a filmmaker wants to make a dreamlike film, where like in a dream, it feels impossible to focus. Leaving the camera out of focus is just yet another tool in a filmmaker's belt, and using that tool isn't "objectively bad." Similarly, having actors mumble their lines is a choice to try for a more realistic conversational style at the expense of clarity, it is neither an objectively good or bad thing, just a personal decision made by a creative.

The idea that every movie should be clear in its message and visual presentation to be "good" (an opinion I see repeated a lot) is much like believing that realism is the only valid style of painting. It's pretty silly to me, but then again, it's all subjective so it's perfectly fine if you have that opinion just don't pretend you are objectively right.

A person's opinion of a film is supported by things that they see, hear, or otherwise experience in that particular movie.

For example, the opinion "Character A's character development was good because of X, Y, Z" is supported by events X, Y, Z that objectively happened in the film. The impact and importance of those events is entirely subjective, but the foundation of a person's opinion on a particular piece of art is often built on facts. I think that is the reason for OP's qualifying statement.

>Bad taste does exist and it possible for a movie to be objectively bad or objectively good.

Ironically, this is objectively wrong. Like with all art, movie quality is determined almost entirely by one's perception and personal opinions, in other words, it's subjective.

Wonderfully said! I agree with every word. One of my biggest problems with modern movie discourse is the accepted use of false objectivity to bolster one's opinion, so I always appreciate when someone calls that behaviour out.

I really enjoyed reading Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep but was very disappointed in Blade Runner. The sequel was a different story. Try watching BR: 2049 before you write off the franchise.

That's straight out of one of the school related nightmares I used to have as a kid.

Writing 5-6 pages by hand during a single class period. My god... The only time a student is supposed to be doing that is if they procrastinated until the day the essay was due.

That sounds like absolute hell. How long were the essays?

If you want to emulate something from the Singapore criminal justice system, emulate their strong focus on the rehabilitation and reintegration of ex-offenders into society instead of their caning policy which has existed since the 19th century and has done nothing to reduce recidivism.

I think they are about equal. Glass Onion did the thing I've always wanted to see in a well done murder mystery: >!The murderer is the most obvious suspect. Most murder mysteries you can treat like a scooby doo episode where the suspicious gardener with an eye patch who is always sneaking around is never the culprit and that makes them very predictable. Glass Onion was a refreshing change from that tired formula.!<

I've been to the theater many times this year and I saw a trailer for Strange World exactly twice. Other than a poster in front of the theater, I didn't see any other marketing for the film online or in the real world.

Funny enough, after seeing Strange World on Disney plus I started getting advertisements on YouTube and other websites. It's only anecdotal evidence of course, but considering I was shown the trailers for Minions and Puss in Boots countless times and saw posters for those films on billboards and in outdoor shopping malls, the lack of marketing for Strange World in my area was a bit... strange...

For a moment I thought you were talking about the Star Trek show Strange New Worlds, and was I wondering "who the hell hates it?" lol

But yeah, I thought Strange World was fine. It was probably one of Disney's stronger sci-fi animated movies due to the fun characters. Some good moments, but much like Treasure Planet and Atlantis, I doubt I will talk or even think about it very much. It was the kind of film where after you leave the theater, you look at your family and say "that was fun," everyone nods, and that is the extent of its effect on your life.

It would be hilarious if you ended up watching and enjoying it due to significantly lowered expectations.

I think La La Land is an wonderful movie that wonderfully emulates the fun wild musicals of the 40's and 50's while doing its own thing. When I shared it with some of my close friends and family, the most positive response I got was total indifference.

My Dad and I now have a silly thing where if we disagree about a movie he says "Well you like La La Land, so what do you know." and I fire back "Yeah and you like Brigadoon." Any person who thinks watching Gene Kelly smile like a doofus while happily joining a cult is "cute" loses their right to criticize other people's opinions.

Cheeseburger