Hacker News Reader

Comment by inaros | Hacker News Reader

>>When it comes to the concept of entertainment? No.

You are confusing taste and quality....

If there is no objectivity....then you would have no basis to explain why a film is better or worse than another, A student first iPhone short would be equal to The Godfather. A child banging pots would be indistinguishable from a Symphony.

The moment you say something is good or bad, we can talk about craft, skill, storytelling structure and emotional impact, all of which can be measured and compared and where this movie fails on all parameters...

You can personally dislike something excellent...for example few people can appreciate the genius of Miles Davis, and enjoy something mediocre... Too many to quote here...but Project Hail Mary is one :-)

View on HN

> If there is no objectivity....then you would have no basis to explain why a film is better or worse than another, A student first iPhone short would be equal to The Godfather. A child banging pots would be indistinguishable from a Symphony.

What is the purpose of "art": in general and/or particular works of it? What makes (a work of) 'art' 'good'?

Is PHM 'good' in its purpose? Is The Room? Was 2023's Barbie? When a child is banging on pots, is he accomplishing his purpose in his 'creative act'? Is Schoenberg's atonal music objectively 'good'?

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJg4XbzSV9Q

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonality

> I think Michael Bay sometimes sucks (“Pearl Harbor,” “Armageddon,” “Bad Boys II“) but I find it possible to love him for a movie like “Transformers.” It’s goofy fun with a lot of stuff that blows up real good, and it has the grace not only to realize how preposterous it is, but to make that into an asset.

* https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/transformers-2007

>> What is the purpose of "art": in general and/or particular works of it? What makes (a work of) 'art' 'good'?

So many things...But anybody at The Juilliard School or Berklee College of Music can tell you if you are good or bad on your musicianship...Anybody at the California School of Cinematic Arts or American Film Institute Conservatory can advise you on your future as a future Director...and anybody at the Pratt Institute can comment on your quality as an Artist.

Why do you dismiss the concept of Quality?

> So many things...But anybody at The Juilliard School or Berklee College of Music can tell you if you are good or bad on your musicianship...Anybody at the California School of Cinematic Arts or American Film Institute Conservatory can advise you on your future as a future Director...and anybody at the Pratt Institute can comment on your quality as an Artist.

Can anyone else tell us that, or only certain 'gatekeepers'? Who gets to judge the amount of Quality in a thing, or whether something is Good for its Purpose?

> Why do you dismiss the concept of Quality?

"Quality" as in the amount of 'Goodness' something has?

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_(philosophy)

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_the_Good

An Axe is a bad Chair because it does not have the Qualities for (e.g.) sitting, but that is not its Purpose.

Were the folks that made PHM trying to make Art or Entertainment (or a mix of the two)? If PHM was made to be Entertainment, and people were entertained, was it not Good at its desired Purpose? Did 2007's Transformers have the Quality of Entertainment that it set out to have? Roger Ebert seems to have thought so.

> If there is no objectivity....then you would have no basis to explain why a film is better or worse than another

This is indeed the case. You can consult many film experts and get very different top ten lists. Some critics may hate The Godfather. Some won't get Citizen Kane. Some love a good popcorn fluff movie and find this year's Oscar contenders pretentious.

It becomes a matter of general consensus. And that consensus appears to be that it's a pretty satisfying movie; https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/project_hail_mary. (High art? No. But that wasn't its goal.)

You say there is no objectivity, but then you immediately appeal to consensus, Rotten Tomatoes scores, and whether the film achieved its goal :-))

Those are all attempts at objective measurement. You are using objective frameworks to argue objectivity does not exist. :-)

The fact that critics disagree does not prove there is no objectivity. People disagree about scientific questions too, but that does not mean science is purely subjective. Disagreement just means the question is hard, not that there is no answer...

The whole reason you cited that score is because you believe it points to something real about the film quality. That is an appeal to objectivity whether you realize it or not. :-)

I argue those manipulated reviews [1] are not...

[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47520761

> You say there is no objectivity, but then you immediately appeal to consensus…

Yes? Consensus is frequently how we handle things that don't have an objective answer. Which restaurant is the best in your city? Who knows? But you can say "a lot of people like restaurant X" just fine.

> The whole reason you cited that score is because you believe it points to something real about the film quality.

Opinions are real. They're just not objective. Objectively, most of the vetted reviewers RT tracks seem to hold positive opinions of the film, as do their (much less trustworthy) regular old users.

If it's a box office flop after a few weeks, that'll be good evidence for your theory. I'll be surprised, though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com