Star Wars VIII: The Last Jedi

[Mister Six]

St Eddie is completely right on all counts. Films can be objectively bad. Scripts can objectively contain plot holes and inconsistent characterisation. Lighting can objectively fail to convey the mood it needs to.  Editing can be objectively incoherent.

Likewise, music can have bum notes. Paintings can have fucked perspective. Poems can be leaden and laughable.

Other aspects of the artwork can overcome those issues or at least diminish them to the extent that they jar less; enjoyment can be gleaned from how broken the work is. Sometimes a skilful artist can break the rules in such a way that has artistic and creative merit.

But the rules are there and they can be broken all the same, and the result is often something that is objectively bad.

The Last Jedi's script is objectively shit.

[St_Eddie]

St Eddie is completely right on all counts. Art can be objectively bad. Scripts can be objectively wrong. Lighting can be objectively bad. Editing can be objectively incoherent.

Music can have bum notes. Paintings can have fucked perspective.

Other aspects of the film can overcome those issues, or enjoyment can be gleaned from how broken it is, or a skilful artist can break the rules in such a way that it still somehow works. But the rules are there and they can be broken all the same, and the result is often something that is objectively bad.

Thank you.  I'm glad that I'm not the only one who gets it.  To clarify what you've so eloquently explained in so few words, where I have failed with so many words...

Art can be objectively bad. Scripts can be objectively wrong. Lighting can be objectively bad. Editing can be objectively incoherent.

Music can have bum notes. Paintings can have fucked perspective.

This is objective.

Other aspects of the film can overcome those issues, or enjoyment can be gleaned from how broken it is, or a skilful artist can break the rules in such a way that it still somehow works. But the rules are there and they can be broken all the same, and the result is often something that is objectively bad.

This is subjective.

[Kelvin]

St Eddie is completely right on all counts. Films can be objectively bad. Scripts can objectively contain plot holes and inconsistent characterisation. Lighting can objectively fail to convey the mood it needs to.  Editing can be objectively incoherent.

Likewise, music can have bum notes. Paintings can have fucked perspective. Poems can be leaden and laughable.

Other aspects of the artwork can overcome those issues or at least diminish them to the extent that they jar less; enjoyment can be gleaned from how broken the work is. Sometimes a skilful artist can break the rules in such a way that has artistic and creative merit.

But the rules are there and they can be broken all the same, and the result is often something that is objectively bad.

The Last Jedi's script is objectively shit.

I don't disagree with that, though. There are cultural standards for what does and doesn't make for good art, and in that sense, there is something approaching objectivity.

However, as you admit yourself, aspects being bad can be overcome or diminished by other, better aspects, and that balance, those priorities, are more subjective. My problem is not with saying that a very specific element is bad and failed to produce the intended effect, but rather with much more sweeping statements about the film or script being objectively bad, when both are made up of countless elements many of which work as intended.

The script itself is not 'objectively bad', even if certain specific failings might be. It's entirely possible that you and I would agree about every failing in the script, but I would still conclude it was an okay script, because of other positive qualities. To me, sloppy details in the script matter less than the general vision, which, on balance, I considered effective. Your analysis of the script does not trump mine, and it rubs people up the wrong way to be told they only enjoy something in spite of it being bad, when many of us find significant things to like about the film.

[colacentral]

St Eddie is completely right on all counts. Films can be objectively bad.

No, they can't.

Scripts can objectively contain plot holes and inconsistent characterisation. Lighting can objectively fail to convey the mood it needs to.  Editing can be objectively incoherent.

I'm surprised that this is coming from a frequent poster in the Twin Peaks thread.

All of these things are in the eye of the beholder - what if what you interpreted to be plot holes, were intentional by the writer, who wanted you to use your imagination to fill in the details? Is that ambiguity not a legitimate writing tool? Who is the arbiter of what mood the lighting needs to convey? What if the editing was meant to be incoherent?

The answer is, it doesn't matter if it was meant to or not - the writer, the cinematographer, and the editor aren't there for you to ask. You make a judgement in the moment based on how it makes you feel, and how it makes you feel is different from person to person. That is not science.

Likewise, music can have bum notes. Paintings can have fucked perspective. Poems can be leaden and laughable.

Technical aspects of a particular art, e.g. lighting, playing musical notes as written, etc, can be wrong*; this is completely distinct from "bad."

Daniel Johnston can barely play any instruments; he can't sing; his albums are almost all recorded badly; and even on a lyrical front, many people would describe them as childish, naive, or simple. Boyzone, on the other hand, sing perfectly; have professional session musicians playing perfectly; and have their songs recorded on a massive budget in expensive studios with expensive producers. They have obviously vastly outsold Daniel Johnston for record sales. Yet for some reason, on rateyourmusic.com, not a single Boyzone album is rated higher than a single Daniel Johnston album:

https://rateyourmusic.com/artist/boyzone
https://rateyourmusic.com/artist/daniel_johnston

I agree with the users on RYM that Daniel Johnston is vastly better than Boyzone; but where is my objective evidence for this fact? On every single technical count, Daniel Johnston would be considered "bad" on St. Eddie's criteria.

Look at this cunt, can't even draw a face right:

I haven't seen all of those films but for the ones which I have; no, I don't think that they're objectively bad.

Why?

It's not truly possible to answer that question because it is a hypothetical one.  If Ed Wood had shot those films with that approach in mind, then the resulting films would be entirely different to the ones which already exist and would therefore have to be judged accordingly, on their own merits.

Having said that, if we're dealing within the realm of the hypothetical, then to answer your question; I doubt it.

There's no doubt about it - I was asking about the films staying exactly as they are.

If you knew nothing about Ed Wood the person, had no knowledge of say, Plan 9 from Outer Space, other than the film itself - how would you react to it? You might say that you laughed at certain points, felt uncomfortable at certain points, etc, and assume that the film maker failed. But then Ed Wood steps out from behind the curtain and says "so did you like the comedy I made? That Tor Johnson - he's such a great actor, it was hard to get him to act so wooden!" - would you still deem it to be a failure, despite it achieving the intended reaction in you while you were watching?

Again, my point isn't that it's good or bad based on what the artist intended - the artist doesn't even come into it - it either creates a feeling in you or it doesn't. But that is entirely subjective. Technical aspects being "wrong" - i.e. breaking pre-established rules - is the essence of creating new art. No experimental cinema could exist without it.

There are things which can be objectively qualified.  Try watching the terrible movie Aliens Vs Predator: Requiem sometime and I do mean "try" because the cinematography is so objectively terrible that you literally can't tell what's happening on screen for large portions of the movie.  The image is literally too dark to decipher what is happening at any given moment.  That is objectively poor filmmaking. 

The only thing that's objective is that it's darker than most films would be lit. You and 99.9% (if not all) of the population would come out of the cinema saying "that was shit - I couldn't see anything that was happening;" but there could hypothetically be somebody out there who found the film scarier because they were struggling to see it. The lighting might be technically wrong according to the formal rules of mainstream film making that people today generally agree on. That is distinct from being bad.

Again, I'll come back to the 18th century composer / punk rock example that you dismissed - almost every aspect of punk music is technically wrong. Let's say that melody to music is what the image is to cinema - the poorly played power chords and the out of tune singing make it difficult to discern what the melody is in the same way that poor lighting makes it difficult to discern what the image is. But rather than, as Kelvin suggests, other aspects of the music "balance" out the poor playing, the poor playing (something that would be considered technically bad) is actually part of the appeal - it enhances the music, does things that a well-played version of the song could not.

To take a few film examples off the top of my head - Nekromantic and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I love both of these films, neither of them in an ironic so-bad-it's-good-way. The former in particular is piss-poorly made - filmed on VHS, horrendous acting, lighting, a "bad" score (although this is enjoyable to me, it's technically simple, written and played by someone who clearly is not classically trained), etc - basically all the hallmarks of a bad low-budget film. But I find it quite moving and powerful. Same with TCM. In both cases, the technically poor aspects enhance the feeling of the film in the same way that the technically poor aspects enhance punk music - many people would refer to them as feeling like snuff films, for example, which enhances the horror aspect.

It is of no worth whatsoever to create a five hour youtube video telling me that Texas Chainsaw Massacre is objectively bad because the lighting, special effects, acting, and the script are "bad." Despite our hunch that the film makers didn't know what they were doing, the net result is that a good piece of art was made - in my subjective opinion.




* Even this is up for debate - Western classical musical follows a different set of scales to Middle Eastern music, for example, and the latter would be hitting notes that might be considered "wrong" to Western ears. It's therefore a matter of perspective based on whose rules you follow. You can't say the same for the laws of physics.

[madhair60]

Thank you.  I'm glad that I'm not the only one who gets it.

All this "x is objectively y" internet shit is a non-starter of an argument that exists to make whoever's parroting it feel superior with minimal effort put into critical thinking. It's all over the internet. People enjoy thing and someone's like "it's fine that you enjoy thing, as long as you understand that it is objectively bad"

Fuck off! Not you specifically, but that entire conversation.

[Replies From View]

You know when people mention a film they haven't seen yet and say "it's supposed to be good"?

Well that's annoying.  Supposed to be good, like probably all films that aren't made by sadists then.

[Ferris]

You know when people mention a film they haven't seen yet and say "it's supposed to be good"?

Well that's annoying.  Supposed to be good, like probably all films that aren't made by sadists then.

"Others who have watched it have supposed it to be good"

Rather than

"The intention of the filmmakers was to make it not-bad"

Unless I'm making stuff up.

[phantom_power]

The original trilogy had magic, that's why million of people love them more than anything else. Unike the dogshit they're now saying is Star Wars.

Roughly translated: You got old and don't appreciate that sort of film in the same way you did when you were young

[St_Eddie]

All this "x is objectively y" internet shit is a non-starter of an argument that exists to make whoever's parroting it feel superior with minimal effort put into critical thinking.

I've already clarified that I subjectively enjoy the latter Pirates of the Caribbean movies, in spite of declaring them to be objectively bad movies (in terms of their convoluted, narrative structure and piss-poor pacing.).  This demonstrates that I am not utilising a disingenuous fallacy, in order to dismiss the tastes of other people, whom I would care to disagree with.  Otherwise, I would be in opposition to myself.  Folks can project all they like but I'm not being elitist with my argument.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  I'm judging art in a manner which puts all personal baggage and pre-concieved notions to one side.  That is the definition of objective analysis.

Perchance, it might not be such a terrible thing to acknowledge that The Last Jedi is a movie which you and many others enjoy (and rightfully so because who's to say otherwise), whilst simultaneously acknowledging the inherent flaws within the writing.  You can enjoy something, whilst also recognising its objective flaws.  Objective/subjective; both are valid critiques and both can happily co-exist alongside each other.

I think that a lot of the people arguing against me here, are thinking along the lines of 'I like this movie and you don't.  You're telling me that I'm not allowed to like this movie.  Fuck you for telling me that I'm wrong for enjoying something which you don't'.  I can see how that could be, frankly unintended all the same, insulting to take onboard, even though it's not an opinion which I am purveying.

If you happen to enjoy The Last Jedi; that is 100% completely valid.  I don't know how many times I can reiterate that; I am not judging you for enjoying a movie.  It is not my place to do so and besides, God knows that I have terrible taste.  All I am asking, is to acknowledge the objective issues that exist.  You can still like the movie.  Nobody, least of all me, is arguing otherwise.  All I am stating is that there are objective issues within the script; much like there are objective issues within the script of Attack of the Clones.  Much like there are objective issues within the sickening thoughts, whirling around my silly little mind.

The script itself is not 'objectively bad', even if certain specific failings might be.

Well, of course.  It's not black or white.  There are degrees of failure and success.  There are objective problems with the story and dare I say, there are also elements of the script which are rather effective, objectively speaking.  To what extent those two objective halves either prevail or, indeed flail, is entirely subjective.  Ergo, you either like the movie or you don't.  That is subjective but that subjective opinion is based, in part, upon the objective qualities of the filmmaking itself.

[colacentral]

I haven't even seen the last jedi because I hated the force awakens that much, and I bet I'd agree with you about how bad it is. But this objective chat from you is absolute bollocks, and it's simply arrogance to assume that you or anybody else is the arbiter of objective quality.

You haven't replied to my post above again.

[greenman]

Roughly translated: You got old and don't appreciate that sort of film in the same way you did when you were young

The recent sequels to me though are very clearly not a close recreation of the style of the originals, Rogue One was closer in that respect but Force Awakens and Last Jedi have a lot more in common with something like Abrams Trek films just dressed up in Starwars clothing. There just far more rapid in pace and lighter in tone.

[Dr Rock]

Here's a fundamental problem with The Last Jedi. The climax features Holdo ramming the big ship while jumping to hyperspace, which works, scything the ship and destroying it. So why haven't the rebels been using this method to destroy Star Destroyers and Death Stars for years? Nobody had thought if doing it before? You could put a ship on auto-pilot and escape so it needn't be a suicidal act. Any child watching the films will ask this question. Using a plot device that makes the other films in the series make no sense is a pretty major flaw in any movie that is part of an ongoing series.

[madhair60]

Here's a fundamental problem with The Last Jedi. The climax features Holdo ramming the big ship while jumping to hyperspace, which works, scything the ship and destroying it. So why haven't the rebels been using this method to destroy Star Destroyers and Death Stars for years? Nobody had thought if doing it before? You could put a ship on auto-pilot and escape so it needn't be a suicidal act. Any child watching the films will ask this question. Using a plot device that makes the other films in the series make no sense is a pretty major flaw in any movie that is part of an ongoing series.

Who gives a fuck!? Jesus! I mean that in a respectful and polite way.

[Kelvin]

Here's a fundamental problem with The Last Jedi. The climax features Holdo ramming the big ship while jumping to hyperspace, which works, scything the ship and destroying it. So why haven't the rebels been using this method to destroy Star Destroyers and Death Stars for years?

You see, for me that's a good example of something I just don't care about. The sequence is impressive, and makes for a stand out moment in the film. I don't care if it makes sense that they could have done this before. It's a cool sequence, and I'm willing to give them some leeway and suspend my disbelief in a big fun, fantasy film.

I do understand that some people won't be able to overlook leaps of logic like that, but for me, being entertaining trumps being 100% logical or consistent.

Edit: Or what Madhair60 said. 

[Kelvin]

Mileage does vary, though. I didn't like the opening sequence, because it did seem ridiculous that the First Order wouldn't have launched any fighters, or have any ship based defenses capable of taking on a single fighter. It just made them look incompetent, right at the outset.

[Dr Rock]

Who gives a fuck!? Jesus! I mean that in a respectful and polite way.

I do understand that some people won't be able to overlook leaps of logic like that, but for me, being entertaining trumps being 100% logical or consistent.

So if it makes a cool scene, let's have C-3PO capable of walking through walls and everyone can fly now.

[phantom_power]

Here's a fundamental problem with The Last Jedi. The climax features Holdo ramming the big ship while jumping to hyperspace, which works, scything the ship and destroying it. So why haven't the rebels been using this method to destroy Star Destroyers and Death Stars for years? Nobody had thought if doing it before? You could put a ship on auto-pilot and escape so it needn't be a suicidal act. Any child watching the films will ask this question. Using a plot device that makes the other films in the series make no sense is a pretty major flaw in any movie that is part of an ongoing series.

I imagine because ships are really expensive and the rebels don't have enough to waste on suicide missions. And suicide missions are by default a bit of a last ditch thing. Maybe it is a really difficult thing to do to hyperspace to an exact space and you need someone of the experience of Holdo to do it. I am surprised this has been a bone of contention. There are any number of plausible explanations

[Dr Rock]

They could build big husk ships cheaply - note that every X-Wing has hyperspace capabilities, so it can't be extortionately expensive to do. The big Star Destroyers are fucked if you hit them in just the right place, ie bridge, and they go down. Aim your husk ships at the massive Star Destroyers or even Death Stars and you'll fuck them up.

Why have he rebels never done this before? You can come up with plausible reasons why not, though the movie doesn't explain it, and many viewers, as I said many kids even, watching will think 'well why haven't they been doing that since forever?' And they will think 'oh there are no rules, anything can happen, I'm not investing in this, it just pulls any shit out of its ass when it wants.' And that's how you lose your fanbase.

[Mister Six]

The script itself is not 'objectively bad', even if certain specific failings might be. It's entirely possible that you and I would agree about every failing in the script, but I would still conclude it was an okay script, because of other positive qualities. To me, sloppy details in the script matter less than the general vision, which, on balance, I considered effective. Your analysis of the script does not trump mine, and it rubs people up the wrong way to be told they only enjoy something in spite of it being bad, when many of us find significant things to like about the film.

Yeah, but (sorry) it is bad, and you do like it in spite of that.

You're not wrong, or a lesser person, or lacking in taste for liking the script, and it does contain good ideas and good scenes (the first time I watched the film I came out feeling a bit flat but not actively hating the thing), but it is fundamentally broken in terms of basic storytelling and worldbuilding on its most basic levels, and your enjoyment does come despite that. That doesn't reflect badly on you at all. It's just a glass half full/empty thing.

All of these things are in the eye of the beholder - what if what you interpreted to be plot holes, were intentional by the writer, who wanted you to use your imagination to fill in the details? Is that ambiguity not a legitimate writing tool?

Mate, that's just bollocks. The Last Jedi is not an auteur indie movie that thrives on ambiguity. It's a big-budget blockbuster with wacky robots. Not explaining the relationship between the Republic, the Resistance and the New Order, or how we get from RotJ (Empire destroyed, Leia in charge) to TFA (Republic in charge, Leia running a rag-tag band of rebels that somehow represent the ruling government but don't appear to be well-funded, New Order sprung up from nowhere, funded by nobody, run by Who The Fuck Is Snoke?) to TLJ (Republic gone, New Order running galaxy but nobody seems to be bothered, Resistance now all fit on one ship, Snoke dies without any backstory because apparently he wasn't that important all along) isn't Lynchian opaqueness, it's either laziness, incompetence or negligence.

Maybe that doesn't bother you personally. Great! I'm glad you enjoyed the film in spite of its flaws.

But that's bad writing.

Look at this cunt, can't even draw a face right:

As I said:

Sometimes a skilful artist can break the rules in such a way that has artistic and creative merit.

But back to you...

If you knew nothing about Ed Wood the person, had no knowledge of say, Plan 9 from Outer Space, other than the film itself - how would you react to it? You might say that you laughed at certain points, felt uncomfortable at certain points, etc, and assume that the film maker failed. But then Ed Wood steps out from behind the curtain and says "so did you like the comedy I made? That Tor Johnson - he's such a great actor, it was hard to get him to act so wooden!" - would you still deem it to be a failure, despite it achieving the intended reaction in you while you were watching?

Has Rian Johnson come forward to say that the incoherent backstory for this new trilogy is intentional? If so, what did he intend it to achieve?

If not: bad writing.

Here's a fundamental problem with The Last Jedi. The climax features Holdo ramming the big ship while jumping to hyperspace, which works, scything the ship and destroying it. So why haven't the rebels been using this method to destroy Star Destroyers and Death Stars for years? Nobody had thought if doing it before? You could put a ship on auto-pilot and escape so it needn't be a suicidal act. Any child watching the films will ask this question. Using a plot device that makes the other films in the series make no sense is a pretty major flaw in any movie that is part of an ongoing series.

They could have gotten around this by showing Holdo ripping open panels and fucking around with wires and circuitry to overcome all of the built-in safety measures. Which would also give her a good excuse for not doing this immediately, instead of waiting until the goodies had lost almost all of their ships, even though she had basically already decided to go down with her own space ship.

(As for why this wasn't done before, I can see the rebels - under-equipped and largely broke - not wanting to waste their larger ships on suicide runs... but of course, you need dialogue to explain that.)

Was there any explanation for why Hux, Kylo AND Snoke were all right there in the battle, putting the leaders of the New Order in such a precarious position? Is it just that the New Order is actually a handful of ships rather than a galaxy-spanning empire? Which makes this 'war' the galactic equivalent of a punch-up in a pub car park?

[blue reel]

There were, what, five different suicide missions in this movie?  Not really inspiring or admirable in any way.  Was the recruiting arm of the Rebel Alliance being run by space ISIS?

That bomber that did manage to get through to the dreadnaught did not appear to have any means of survival.  Dropped bombs, immediately blown apart by the explosion.  Everyone except Leia was downright jubilant.

Kamikaze Holdo did manage to inspire Rose to find her own divine wind as she later tried to murder Finn (for the second time), whilst he was on his own mission of glory-seeking splat.  And how was Rose's shuttle-buggy all of a sudden able to move fast enough to run down Finn like that?

After all that, who can blame Luke for offing himself? He must have been quite despondent by that point. Chewie tried to kill him with a door, Rey put him on the ground and almost cut him up with his own laser sword, Yoda throwing lightning at him.

Kylo and Rey seemed to be the only ones interested in making it to the next episode. 

And Rey is a clone anyway, so she does not really count.

[Kelvin]

Yeah, but (sorry) it is bad, and you do like it in spite of that.

Well, I'm not just liking it in spite of the problems. I'm liking it because of it's strengths, in spite of it's problems. There's a difference, and unless you believe that any script is perfect, you will always like a script in spite of it's problems. Even your best film, you like in spite of it's problems. But more importantly you like them because of their strengths, and you're downplaying that here.   

You're not wrong, or a lesser person, or lacking in taste for liking the script, and it does contain good ideas and good scenes (the first time I watched the film I came out feeling a bit flat but not actively hating the thing), but it is fundamentally broken in terms of basic storytelling and worldbuilding on its most basic levels, and your enjoyment does come despite that. That doesn't reflect badly on you at all. It's just a glass half full/empty thing.

So it could just as easily be argued that you don't like the script in spite of it being quite good (ie. in spite of all the positive aspects of the film). Why are your problems with the script objectively damning, but the things I like about it entirely subjective. By saying it's objectively a bad script, you basically mean: the things I consider objectively bad about the script are more important, on balance, than the things you consider objectively good about the script. That's what I object to; this idea that the script is bad, but I like it in a vacuum. No, I like the film because of it's strengths, and you're trying to invalidate those positive opinions by suggesting they matter less (ie. are less objective) than your criticisms.

[Dr Rock]

How about that none of the characters were likable or interesting, and none had an 'arc'? That's poor writing isn't it? Or did you like the characters?

[Kelvin]

How about that none of the characters were likable or interesting, and none had an 'arc'? That's poor writing isn't it? Or did you like the characters?

I liked most of the characters. Not all of them. Not all the time. I don't think the film is a masterpiece. I just think it's an interesting, entertaining mess and, on balance, pretty good. The pros outweighed the cons. 

I don't tend to care about plotholes too much, in fairness. I do give credit for trying something interesting, even if it doesn't entirely work. Poe's arc isn't a total success, but I did actually like it, and him, as a semi-succesful subverison of the typical hero arc. I got what they were aiming for, and I appreciated that, despite it's wobbles. The same is true of many other aspects of the film. I felt the ideas, scenes, plotlines and characters worked, but weren't wholly consistent.

[Mister Six]

I'll say that I did like most of the characters too - Finn, Rose (though I think they should have done more with her), Kylo, Luke, Leia, even comedy Hux (although I think making him a buffoon was a bad idea in dramatic terms).

Well, I'm not just liking it in spite of the problems. I'm liking it because of it's strengths, in spite of it's problems.

Aye, that's fair.

There's a difference, and unless you believe that any script is perfect

Die Hard. But I get your point.

Why are your problems with the script objectively damning, but the things I like about it entirely subjective.

I never said that. The things you like (I have no idea what they are; sorry if you mentioned this above - I'm very sleepy) may be the parts of the script that were objectively well-written (ie. internally consistent, well-established, etc etc).

But the foundation for TLJ's entire plot - the set-up for everything that follows - is really shoddily constructed.

As you yourself said, you like the film because of it's strengths AND in spite of its problems.

[madhair60]

Yeah, but (sorry) it is bad, and you do like it in spite of that.

no its good and im smart

[colacentral]

Mate, that's just bollocks. The Last Jedi is not an auteur indie movie that thrives on ambiguity. It's a big-budget blockbuster with wacky robots. Not explaining the relationship between the Republic, the Resistance and the New Order, or how we get from RotJ (Empire destroyed, Leia in charge) to TFA (Republic in charge, Leia running a rag-tag band of rebels that somehow represent the ruling government but don't appear to be well-funded, New Order sprung up from nowhere, funded by nobody, run by Who The Fuck Is Snoke?) to TLJ (Republic gone, New Order running galaxy but nobody seems to be bothered, Resistance now all fit on one ship, Snoke dies without any backstory because apparently he wasn't that important all along) isn't Lynchian opaqueness, it's either laziness, incompetence or negligence.

Whether it's an indie movie or not, it doesn't matter. Films, writing, any kind of art, cannot be objectively good or bad. Why are you making a distinction between a Hollywood film and an indie film? Should a distinction be made between Dickens and Kafka? When do you cross the line to when your art gets to be judged by a different set of rules to somebody else? Who is the arbiter of this?

Maybe that doesn't bother you personally. Great! I'm glad you enjoyed the film in spite of its flaws.

But that's bad writing.

As I said, I haven't seen The Last Jedi because I despised The Force Awakens. In all likelihood I'll despite The Last Jedi. That doesn't make it objectively bad - because it can't be.

As I said:

Sometimes a skilful artist can break the rules in such a way that has artistic and creative merit.

Again: who decides whether it has artistic and creative merit or not? Are you the one with the ultimate objective knowledge who knows when something has broken the rules in the right way and the wrong way? Or does it go to a vote? Because literally 100% of the population could decide that a piece of art is good and it still wouldn't objectively be good.

Has Rian Johnson come forward to say that the incoherent backstory for this new trilogy is intentional? If so, what did he intend it to achieve?

If not: bad writing.

If you'd bothered reading the following paragraph when I wrote about Ed Wood, you would've seen that I'd said the following:

Again, my point isn't that it's good or bad based on what the artist intended - the artist doesn't even come into it - it either creates a feeling in you or it doesn't. But that is entirely subjective. Technical aspects being "wrong" - i.e. breaking pre-established rules - is the essence of creating new art. No experimental cinema could exist without it.

And this:

The answer is, it doesn't matter if it was meant to or not - the writer, the cinematographer, and the editor aren't there for you to ask. You make a judgement in the moment based on how it makes you feel, and how it makes you feel is different from person to person. That is not science.

What Rian Johnson says about it is irrelevant. Your reaction as an audience is all that matters. If you watch Ed Wood films as comedies, and you like them as comedies, then they are good to you as comedies. If you watch it assuming it's a comedy, and decide it's objectively good, then Ed Wood comes out and says it was meant as a sci-fi, do you then decide "actually, that was objectively bad"? Notice how dumb that sounds?

Why does Lynch refrain from ever explaining anything in interviews? He has himself spoken about not being able to ask a dead author questions about the text. If he came out tomorrow and explained everything about Twin Peaks, and it didn't align at all with what you had decided, and in fact ruined the experience for you, does that make it objectively bad? What if his explanation was contradictory and revealed that him and Frost were making it up as they went along with no regard for back story? You thought those things were intentional before (e.g. an alternate timeline perhaps) but actually they just fucked up. Is it objectively bad now? What about the sweeping scene - is that objectively good or bad? Nothing happened in it, it contributed nothing to the story - did the people who like it like it subjectively despite it being objectively bad?

You didn't directly address these examples:

Technical aspects of a particular art, e.g. lighting, playing musical notes as written, etc, can be wrong*; this is completely distinct from "bad."

Daniel Johnston can barely play any instruments; he can't sing; his albums are almost all recorded badly; and even on a lyrical front, many people would describe them as childish, naive, or simple. Boyzone, on the other hand, sing perfectly; have professional session musicians playing perfectly; and have their songs recorded on a massive budget in expensive studios with expensive producers. They have obviously vastly outsold Daniel Johnston for record sales. Yet for some reason, on rateyourmusic.com, not a single Boyzone album is rated higher than a single Daniel Johnston album:

https://rateyourmusic.com/artist/boyzone
https://rateyourmusic.com/artist/daniel_johnston

I agree with the users on RYM that Daniel Johnston is vastly better than Boyzone; but where is my objective evidence for this fact? On every single technical count, Daniel Johnston would be considered "bad" on St. Eddie's criteria.

Or this:

To take a few film examples off the top of my head - Nekromantic and the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I love both of these films, neither of them in an ironic so-bad-it's-good-way. The former in particular is piss-poorly made - filmed on VHS, horrendous acting, lighting, a "bad" score (although this is enjoyable to me, it's technically simple, written and played by someone who clearly is not classically trained), etc - basically all the hallmarks of a bad low-budget film. But I find it quite moving and powerful. Same with TCM. In both cases, the technically poor aspects enhance the feeling of the film in the same way that the technically poor aspects enhance punk music - many people would refer to them as feeling like snuff films, for example, which enhances the horror aspect.

To take the lighting example - "bad" lighting can enhance a horror film. Do you have to wait for the cinematographer to tell you it was intentional before you deem that it was good lighting or bad lighting, considering that it worked for the film?

The good and bad qualities of art are not facts. And again, I would bet everything I own on me hating The Last Jedi - I haven't seen it yet so I can't comment. It has nothing to do with that. This is just the most outrageous bollocks I've read on here in a long time.

[St_Eddie]

Personally, I can't stand the films of Wes Anderson.  Subjectively, I hate them.  I don't like either his visual or tonal style.  However, I acknowledge that objectively, he is a talented filmmaker.  The man knows his craft.

You see, the door swings both ways.  Again (and I tire of saying this now); objectivity is not used as a means of invalidating the opinions of those who enjoy something, when it is in opposition to your own tastes.  The definition of objective critism is...

Constructive feedback based on unbiased thoughts and facts rather than emotion and personal preference.

Without the ability to be objectively critical of art, what am I left with; saying that I hate the films of Wes Anderson and therefore, it should follow suit that he's a bad filmmaker.  Saying that would be an injustice to his obvious talents.  Objectivity is every bit as vital as subjectivity, when criticising art and without it, people would be unable to acknowledge the objective talents of artists they personally don't care for.  Equally, I would be unable to acknowledge the objective flaws within works of art, which I do personally enjoy.

To use videogames as an example of objective criticism; look at a game such as Big Rigs.  That is an objectively bad game because there are inherent flaws within the coding.  Equally, when it comes to film, there can be objective flaws within the filmmaking.

I don't see why this is an 'outrageous' thing to say, much less 'bollocks'.

[Dr Rock]

I'm sure there could be an objectively bad movie, just as there could be an objectively bad comedian, or indeed, and objectively bad joke. I think there are deep flaws in The Last Jedi, it's a very bad movie especially considering what I want from a SW movie. Clearly others like it, and must have a different criteria.

[St_Eddie]

Clearly others like it, and must have a different criteria.

That's what subjective opinion is all about.  No-one is arguing otherwise.  I'm beyond talking about The Last Jedi specifically at this point, which overall is a mixed bag, in my opinion.  I'm now making the argument that it is possible to be both subjectively and objectively critical of art, in general.

[colacentral]

Personally, I can't stand the films of Wes Anderson.  Subjectively, I hate them.  I don't like either his visual or tonal style.  However, I acknowledge that objectively, he is a talented filmmaker.  The man knows his craft.

You see, the door swings both ways.  Again (and I tire of saying this now); objectivity is not used as a means of invalidating the opinions of those who enjoy something, when it is in opposition to your own tastes.  The definition of objective critism is...

Without the ability to be objectively critical of art, what am I left with; saying that I hate the films of Wes Anderson and therefore, it should follow suit that he's a bad filmmaker.  Saying that would be an injustice to his obvious talents.  Objectivity is every bit as vital as subjectivity, when criticising art and without it, I would be unable to acknowledge the objective talents of someone like Wes Anderson.

To use videogames as an example of objective criticism; look at a game such as Big Rigs.  That is an objectively bad game because there are inherent flaws within the coding.  Equally, when it comes to film, there can be objective flaws within the filmmaking.

I don't see why this is an 'outrageous' thing to say, much less 'bollocks'.

Address my points above directly. I've asked you several questions, do you not have answers to them?

You are not doing injustice to Wes Anderson to say that you think he's a bad director - he has never made a film you like. It is implicit that it's your subjective opinion, there's no need to clarify that. What you recognise is not that he is "objectively good"; it's that A) many other people like him, and B) there are aspects to his films that you do like. He is not objectively good, it's not a fact.

You see, the door swings both ways.  Again (and I tire of saying this now); objectivity is not used as a means of invalidating the opinions of those who enjoy something, when it is in opposition to your own tastes.

For the third time, I haven't seen TLJ so have no opinion on it, and most likely agree that it's terrible. Don't think that I object to what you're saying because my feelings have been hurt over something I haven't seen. It's just a fact - there is no such thing as objectively good or bad art. There are generally agreed formulas for attaining certain effects that can be broken ie technically wrong. Those flaws can either be good or bad, something which is decided by the individual audience member, but they are not undisputable facts.

A plot hole is neither objectively bad nor good - the only fact is that X or Y wasn't explained. One audience member might express dissatisfaction that X wasn't explained; another might think it enhanced the experience to not know everything, or simply not find it to be a notable issue. It is not a fact, it can't ever be a fact, that it inherently contains such a nebulous quality as "good" or "bad" (again: decided by whom? It's implied in your posts that you recognise this, which again is sheer arrogance).