Anonymous #1 2w

i’ve never seen a fast and furious movie, but i still don’t really like the idea of writing movies off as “objectively bad,” unless it’s like racist/nazi propaganda and that kinda shit. i’m sure it’s a pretty hollow and corporate movie, but some people are still going to be moved by it. if you wanna call it objectively bad, i guess i can’t stop you, but people are allowed to call it a great movie.

1

Anonymous OP 2w

But they would be wrong. That is the whole point. If a movie is genuinely bad and terrible, then it isn’t good, and by definition they would be wrong. HOWEVER, they are perfectly ok to enjoy and like the movie. That’s amazing. But it doesn’t mean it’s good.

1

Anonymous OP 2w

i also just really don’t like the idea that there should be rules and boundaries to creating art, or that making art that doesn’t follow certain guidelines should be considered “bad art.” it reminds me of the way fascists call abstract/experimental art not real art or degenerate art. i think that’s an attitude we should stay as far away from as possible.

1

Anonymous OP 2w

I’m so sorry, but what do fascists have to do with what we are discussing? You have brought them up twice and I for one just don’t think we should take fascists into consideration when talking about opinions because they obviously are not worth considering.

1

Anonymous #1 2w

the thing is, it’s your opinion that the movie is objectively bad. art doesn’t exist in a vacuum. i would like to go to bed now, but i hope you think about what i’m saying, even if you don’t agree with it. we may just have to agree to disagree; at the very least, i appreciate that you’re okay with people liking movies, even if you don’t think they’re objectively good.

1

Anonymous #1 2w

i just explained what it has to do with fascism lol. jacob geller has a really great video called “who’s afraid of modern art” all about the analogy i’m making here if you’d like to check it out. as for me, i’m calling it a night.

1

Anonymous OP 2w

I mean it depends on what we’re referring to here. Objectively morally bad, or technically bad. I don’t think it’s controversial to say that Birth of a Nation or Triumph of the Will are morally bad, but technically speaking they were pretty big milestones in film history.

1

Anonymous #2 2w

true. for obvious reasons, it’s hard for me to talk about them like they aren’t objectively bad, but like i said, objectivity in art is an inherently broken concept— and i agree it’s important to understand their significance, just with the ginormous asterisk that they are absolutely vile movies politically.

1