See you can't claim that what I'm saying is in line with your posts and then literally disagree with everything I said.

But whether or not something is objectively a reason for an opinion comes down to whether or not it informs the opinion. My finding Scarlett Johannson hot is objectively one of the reasons factoring into my opinion of The Avengers. It isn't objectively right or wrong, good or bad. Bruce Banner's last name being Banner is objectively not one of the reasons factoring into my opinion, at least not in any remotely calculable way. I really don't care what his last name is. If someone else cared about his last name, then that would be a reason for them. It doesn't have to make sense to anyone else to be their reason.

3) Don't pay attention to Brien. He can't help being Irish

Objectivity doesn't mean consensus. It doesn't mean industry standards. It doesn't mean something you read in a textbook. Objectivity refers to universal truth. For example, it's objectively true that the Empire State Building is taller than I am. If everyone were blind and couldn't see it, the Empire State Building would be taller than me. If no one knew it existed, the Empire State Building would be taller than me. If everyone in the world believed that I was taller than the Empire State Building, the Empire State Building would be taller than me. Objectivite truth exist outside of human (or any other) perspective. That's what it means. It's one of those words like pretentious that people like to bring up to make their points but don't usually use right.

So to say that a reason for liking a movie is objectively bad is to say that even if everyone in the world thought it was a good reason, it would still be a fact that it was a bad reason. Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Movies are made to be watched, enjoyed, taken in. What can it mean to say that a movie has objective quality if you get nothing out of it? I don't even know what quality divorced from human perspective would mean, so even if I agreed that there were such a thing, it wouldn't mean that your idea of objective quality would be the right one. It could just as easily be the case that movies with blankets are objectively good and movies without blankets are objectively bad. We have no innate sense by which to judge quality, like using our eyes to see that the Empire State Building is taller. We have no device to measure quality like we do with time or radiation. What we have are a series of wildly disparate opinions from people as to whether a given movie is good or bad. If there's a truth to be found, it might as well my point-of-view over yours.

Now there is, at least in certain circles, a consensus as to whether The Avengers is a good movie, but so what? Consensus is a perspective. So is my opinion, and so is yours. None are right and wrong, because there's no universal truth to weigh them against. So no, subjectivity is not crazy.

You are committed to the thought that "the bad guy has a cool sounding last name" or "the lead actress is hot" are equally legitimate reasons to think a film is good as an analysis of how a film uses subtle effects to create meaning (read a Dreww review some time). I really don't understand how anyone can say that with a straight face

First, the case where you watch a film and get nothing out of it, but, on rewatching it, think "oh, I missed that," where "that" is some feature of the film, there all along, that you now recognize as bearing (positively) on its quality. (Or the converse case where you greatly enjoy a film, but then notice something, present all along but unnoticed earlier, that reveals that it wasn't so good after all.)

Second, the case where you get nothing out of a film, but someone else (say, Dreww) posts a detailed and insightful review, and you, upon reading it, recognize that what he is saying is right, even if you perhaps cannot feel it even when you watch after reading the review.

Edit: I'll add that even if you weren't wrong about the proper use of the word 'objective', all that would gain for you is the right to say that my position isn't allowed to claim that there can be objective aesthetic reasons. But you can't determine what positions on an issue are possible by defining terms. Defining 'objective' in that way does not allow you to make your claim that the only other alternative is subjectivity. You still have to actually address the features of my position that lead me to call it one that recognizes objectivity even where subjective features matter (which, happily, happens to be a perfectly correct use of the word 'objective').

There's no such thing as a good or bad reason for liking/disliking a movie; there are only honest and dishonest opinions and honest and dishonest reasons (mine are honest). My review (if that's what you want to call it) contains no justifications because an opinion doesn't require justification. The only thing that can be accomplished by sharing reasons is a better understanding of why people have the different viewpoints they do.

What I was suggesting was that we agreed that giving reasons is better than basically saying, "You are wrong". I chose not to get into the objective vs. subjective issue because that's a whole other can of worms.

But whether or not something is objectively a reason for an opinion comes down to whether or not it informs the opinion. My finding Scarlett Johannson hot is objectively one of the reasons factoring into my opinion of The Avengers. It isn't objectively right or wrong, good or bad. Bruce Banner's last name being Banner is objectively not one of the reasons factoring into my opinion, at least not in any remotely calculable way. I really don't care what his last name is. If someone else cared about his last name, then that would be a reason for them. It doesn't have to make sense to anyone else to be their reason.

I really do care that there's no particular lead(s), because the movie could use more focus and because I tend to get bored with action when I'm not invested in the underlying story. Since the overarching plot is simplistic cartoon fare, investment in that story means wanting the goodguys to beat the badguys. When the badguys are mostly an undeveloped evil alien race (led by a guy with a dorky helmet) and the people of New York City are a bunch of extras, a good way to get me to care is to have a hero who stands out from the crowd, somebody I'm actually invested in because the movie pays special attention to them, somebody you might call...a lead character. Instead, there's a bunch of supporting players who I can't muster much enthusiasm for beyond not wanting the hot girl to die because no more hotness or not wanting Iron Man to stop saying snarky things.

Sure, I liked Stark and Rogers in their respective films, but this is not a good sequel to those movies. This is not something I want to acknowledge when watching those movies, so it gets none of the good will that might carry over from them. A lot of people will write off a sequel if they don't like it as a sequel, but I'm willing to give it a chance to work on its own terms. So it falls on The Avengers to convince me all over again to care about these characters. And when it comes time for The Avengers to do that, it basically says, "See Iron Man 1 and 2 and Captain America". Yes, I will see Iron Man 1 and 2 and Captain America, because those are much better movies than this.

So I don't give a shit about aliens attacking New York, but The Avengers still had another chance to win me over. It was funny at times, and something interesting would happen here and there, so maybe that could generate enough goodwill to keep me watching the action (even though I wasn't really invested in the outcome) and get the movie to eke out a passing grade. Except that the movie ran too long, bombarding me with shallow action, until it just wore out its welcome. I don't see any reason for a superficial popcorn movie to be two hours and twenty minutes long. It shouldn't feel like an endurance test. Three (broad) strikes, and it was out.

I can try to explain it in different ways, I can try to provide further insight into it, but no matter what I say or do, it's never going to make my opinion more or less correct. There is no correct answer. I could have just dropped in, given my score with no explanation whatsoever, and left the thread, and that score would still be completely "right" in the only way that matters: that it's what I feel the movie deserves. I just thought that actually digging into my opinion was a good thing and not something to attack and discourage. You would think that a forum of "deep listeners" of music would be more open-minded about differences of opinion, but instead DDD is filled with more intolerance and hostility than any other forum I've been on. I mean, I'm sure there's worse; I'm perfectly happy not knowing what goes on at 4chan. This is not the way to go about promoting discussion, though.

Objectivity doesn't mean consensus. It doesn't mean industry standards. It doesn't mean something you read in a textbook. Objectivity refers to universal truth. For example, it's objectively true that the Empire State Building is taller than I am. If everyone were blind and couldn't see it, the Empire State Building would be taller than me. If no one knew it existed, the Empire State Building would be taller than me. If everyone in the world believed that I was taller than the Empire State Building, the Empire State Building would be taller than me. Objectivite truth exist outside of human (or any other) perspective. That's what it means. It's one of those words like pretentious that people like to bring up to make their points but don't usually use right.

So to say that a reason for liking a movie is objectively bad is to say that even if everyone in the world thought it was a good reason, it would still be a fact that it was a bad reason. Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Movies are made to be watched, enjoyed, taken in. What can it mean to say that a movie has objective quality if you get nothing out of it? I don't even know what quality divorced from human perspective would mean, so even if I agreed that there were such a thing, it wouldn't mean that your idea of objective quality would be the right one. It could just as easily be the case that movies with blankets are objectively good and movies without blankets are objectively bad. We have no innate sense by which to judge quality, like using our eyes to see that the Empire State Building is taller. We have no device to measure quality like we do with time or radiation. What we have are a series of wildly disparate opinions from people as to whether a given movie is good or bad. If there's a truth to be found, it might as well my point-of-view over yours.

Now there is, at least in certain circles, a consensus as to whether The Avengers is a good movie, but so what? Consensus is a perspective. So is my opinion, and so is yours. None are right and wrong, because there's no universal truth to weigh them against. So no, subjectivity is not crazy.