Best and Worst : Great movies objectively that you don't like?

I just wanna know where she got the sweater from 😂.

---

"You had me at Elk Tartare"
-Erin Wotherspoon

Which lips we talking about? 😂

---

Gone

The sweater is cute AF. Something I would wear and the weather is getting colder.

---

"You had me at Elk Tartare"
-Erin Wotherspoon

Considering DMing her to find out how to get that sweater lmao.

---

"You had me at Elk Tartare"
-Erin Wotherspoon

“Hey! Your sweater is cute just wanted to know what place sells it or how to get it?“

I feel creeped out just reading my own message . She’s gonna be like who is this bitch.

---

"You had me at Elk Tartare"
-Erin Wotherspoon

Monicah🦋 said... Nah that sounds fine I bet you weren’t the only person to ask her that 😂
Let me know if she responds so I can get one too lmao ;)

expand

By any means necessary we WILL get that sweater!

---

"You had me at Elk Tartare"
-Erin Wotherspoon

Monicah🦋 said... Nah that sounds fine I bet you weren’t the only person to ask her that 😂
Let me know if she responds so I can get one too lmao ;)

expand

Google image search the photo. Several similar sweaters show up that you can purchase.

Monicah🦋 said... Sweet :))

expand

I'm here to help! :)

Monicah🦋 said... Sweet :))

expand

That didn’t work , Lol. We are at her mercy 😂.

---

"You had me at Elk Tartare"
-Erin Wotherspoon

…they don't even fight with CLUBS in fight club.

Gimme my money back

Star Wars (all of them)

Gone With the Wind

Titanic

The Godfather (any of them)

Ben-Hur

---

"Do you love my insides? The parts you can't see? Eyeballs to entrails, my sweet?" ~~ Drusilla

The Godfather (any of them)

We can't be friends.

---

Monster, how should I feel? Creatures lie here, looking through the window.

Star Wars.
ET.
Gone With the Wind.
Casablanca.
Sound of Music.

---

Hark! Harold the angel sings.

Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings movies.

---

Monster, how should I feel? Creatures lie here, looking through the window.

Phantom of the Opera

Phantom of the Paradise

Hunchback of Notre Dame

---

Monster, how should I feel? Creatures lie here, looking through the window.

Phantom of the Opera? Seriously?

---

"You had me at Elk Tartare"
-Erin Wotherspoon

Hunchback of Notre Dame

which version?

---

suck it.

He mentioned those three because he knows that Jacky is a big fan.

oh.

ok then. nvm

---

suck it.

Yeah, ok well…bye bye. I'm leaving for good now. Maria Kleinschmidt and the others will miss you.

i'm just leaving this conversation with PE, i'm not going anywhere. but why u leaving?

---

suck it.

Interstellar did nothing for me.

---

Gone

^ this
ditto Inception and Memento

👍👍

---

Gone

Lost in Translation - nothing happened.
Avatar - boring and derivative.

Tarkovsky's Stalker.

It's probably as great as everyone says, and Tarkovsky is a genius, but it's like he's making a painting rather than a movie, and what's the point of that?

yeah, Forrest Gump & Million Dollar Baby for me too.

also,
Fight Club
Baby Driver
Get Out
The Shape of Water
Last Tango in Paris

---

suck it.

The Shape of Water

Me, too.

it basically comes down to me being disappointed with the final product, given the premise. i actually wrote a review on this one:

Finally, I came around to watching this film, and I kind of regret now that I waited for it so long to hit our national theatres. This was one of those long awaited first-time-on-the-big-screen experiences I could have easily done without, frankly. It's not a bad film, per se, but still a huge disappointment, and I'm already sorry for the following half-assed review, but the film kinda felt just like that.

On the surface, The Shape of Water is a visual treat, alright, with great looking cinematography and art direction, but there's something very mechanical and calculated about it which left me feeling empty and disengaged. It's an E.T.-for-adults, so to speak, where every plot point, every story development seems so carefully fine-tuned and polished that the movie never really comes alive; a hybrid of many genres -horror, romance, fantasy, cold war thriller- it's thrilling and then not really, scary, but in an infantile way, as are most of the comedic lines and the characters who utter them. It's romantic in all the right places, but its romance never really moved me to the core. It's well thought-out and wonderfully acted -except for Shannon- and most of all by Sally Hawkins who made it work at least for her character, damnit, but.. as a whole, the film is lacking that "something" which makes it feel incomplete. E.T. had that "something". Dare i say it? ..heart.

That was essentially my problem with The Shape of Water: it's a fine, well-made and entertaining movie, but crucially, it lacks the magic that this story's premise promised me before I finally sat down to watch it. In order for it to work, you have to accept the love story at its core and, personally, it never moved me. I couldn't buy it. At all. Was it my fault?

---

suck it.

Just because a bunch of people like them that doesn't even suggest for a second they are excellent, there's a bunch of highly regarded movies that are not objectively excellent or great movies, if it's even possible for art to be objective.

Well, I partially agree. Indeed, this is a very complicated and hardly accurate debate.

On one hand, I think that there is such a thing as objectively better movies, music, paintings or any form of art. I think that there can be a case made about why a movie can be considered as great by the mass for good reasons.

However, this is indeed more of a subjective situation. What looks great to someone can mean absolutely nothing to another. I would still be careful with how I judge and call some things despite my personal tastes.

And thhheeennnn… There's this kind of dumbass: 尺ロㄈにモイ-ら凡几. Even though I was very careful with how I phrased my OP to make it clear that I don't consider the movies in my list as "bad" movies, just not my cup of tea. He, anyway, is the kind of unpleasant individual who will simply insult people because they don't share their opinion. People like that annoys me big time.

---

"You're a disease, and I'm the cure!" - Marion "Cobra" Cobretti

Hey, simp cuck, fagboy, fucktard bitch face cunt, I was messin' with ya, Bobby Jo.

---

I live. I die. I live again.

I've only find one way for the term 'objectivity' to make sense to me: many people have an opinion on the nature of something. And objective truth, then, is how many of those people actually agree on the nature of that thing. If a million people agree that a ton of lead is heavy, then it's objectively heavy, right?

Complex things like movies are trickier, though. It's rare that the "elitist critics" and the "broad masses" agree whether a movie is good or not, but when they do, I guess you could call that movie objectively good to some degree.

That probably means that objectivity and what's considered good taste are seldom compatible. And perhaps 'good taste' is what many people mean when they talk about objectivity.

To me Objective means something that would be true/false regardless of whether anyone thought it or not, if a thousand million people all agreed lead was heavy it still wouldn't be *objectively* heavy, heaviness is the amount of strain something puts on the muscles to lift. It requires a subject to even be experienced so whether it's heavy or not depends on the strength of the individual so it's subjective it's heaviness will defer from person to person.


If a million people saying it was heavy made it so then if King Kong came along and tried to lift it he should have a tough time but we know he wouldn't because it'd still be subjective and thus subject to relevant variables like strength of the individual. What if a million people say a feather is heavy, does that make it so? what if we increase the number of people saying it to a billion? no? a trillion then? increasing the number of people does nothing to change something objective that's what objective means. Here's some examples of things that wouldn't change no matter how many people disagree with them -


The distance between earth and the moon is 384,400 km.
The Spanish National Anthem has no words.
Humans breath in oxygen.
Honey does not spoil you could eat it after a thousand years.
2+2 does NOT equal 76.


If enough people disagree with these statement's then they are all wrong, an objective fact is one that remains a fact even if every last person disagrees with it. Your idea of a movie having universal acclaim meaning it's objectively good has other holes you can pick in it like here's a thought experiment, what if you killed all the people who liked The Shawshank Redemption after their deaths would the movie now be a bad movie because everyone in the world hated it so the movie went from good to bad without a single frame of it changing? only thing that changed is totally external to the film, it's still be the exact same movie but yet now it'd be objectively bad because everyone in the world thinks so? it doesn't work that way.

I agree that we will have to assume that things are a certain way even independently of any subject experiencing it; I have to take for granted that something is going on beyond what I experience right now. But what exactly that is I won't know until I personally experience it or someone tells me about it, right? And all the examples you gave (about the Spanish national anthem etc.) seem to be the result of human experience (e.g. someone had to look up that anthem to make sure he saw no words in it), and an experience is not a part of an object itself. So it seems impossible to me that anything could be true or false about things before we experience them and form an opinion about them. That leads me to believe that we can agree that something is true (because our collective experience tells us so), but not that any truth is an inherent quality of an object, even if that object does have certain properties outside of our ideas about it.

As for the million dead Shawshank lovers: going by my outline above, if they all died and all traces of their opinions on that movie died with them, then yes, our collective "knowledge" of that movie as a good movie would (temporarily) die as well. Similarly, if all people with knowledge about the Spanish national anthem would die, including their writings about it, it would no longer be an objective truth among human beings that the Spanish national anthem has no words. Until we discover it anew. (One could liken it to all the lost knowledge after the fall of the Roman Empire and how many truths had to be rediscovered.)

The anthem still wouldn't have words in it just because human's don't know it sure it wouldn't be a truth they know in their brains, it'd still be one outside of them though.


"it seems impossible to me that anything could be true or false about things before we experience them and form an opinion about them."


Would this statement above be true or false if no one was too observe it and form an opinion?


If 10+10=20 then it still would if no one realises it or not, it'd still be true. There is such a thing as unknown truths something doesn't neglect being true or false until someone notices it is. There was still no words in the anthem before anyone looked it up.

The anthem still wouldn't have words in it just because human's don't know it sure it wouldn't be a truth they know in their brains, it'd still be one outside of them though.

Then at least we agree that there is a distinction between what something is like according to our brains and what something is like without the brain's involvement. :)

The problem, as I see it, is that we can never get a picture of the object without our brains first encoding the object into something we can experience. Everything is necessarily colored by our brains' interpretation. Even the things that we no longer experience at the moment (e.g. we don't have the anthem at hand right now) are memories of past brain-interpreted experiences. We can have no idea what the things are in themselves, so talking about something outside of experience as true or false would be pointless.

Although an individual can access truths without being there to experience them, he can do so only via other people's experiences (which are, strictly speaking, your own brain interpreting those experiences). I think that's as far as subject-independent truths go, and is exactly what opens up for objectivity loosely defined as one subject's dependency on other subjects.

"it seems impossible to me that anything could be true or false about things before we experience them and form an opinion about them."

Would this statement above be true or false if no one was too observe it and form an opinion?

It would be true (or false) to me, the speaker, but it would be neither true nor false to anyone else, since truth is dependent on experience.

Compare this to: If a tree falls in a forest and no-one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Well, the falling tree will make vibrations in the air, but if there is no ear to translate the vibrations into perceived sound, then no, the falling does not produce a sound, because the recipe for 'sound' needs both air vibrations and a human organ that interprets them. (The definition of 'sound' can of course be debated, I just wanted to clarify what I meant.)

Without experience, it seems we can at most guess what is out there and/or how it behaves, but since we cannot prove or falsify anything without experience, and truth depends on proof, I think it makes no sense to define truth as something that can exist outside of experience.

I agree with you on your conclusion on the question "if a tree falls in the woods will it make a sound", I have come to that same conclusion myself before for the same reasons However you are really taking a debate on whether film is objective or not way into something else entirely and you sound like someone who outta thing it can't be objective but earlier on you were talking as if if enough people think it about a film it's true and the only statement I am debating against is that one also you talk like someone who should agree with me if you really have the thoughts you are sharing.