And that assuming “enjoyment” is a single metric, because in the matter of fact, it’s an overall score with the combination of everything the critics use. If i like it i like it, figuring it out why and justify it is part of the critics job.
If you wanna translate that into food, then the good food will taste good and bad food will taste horrible.
That assumes that enjoyment is the only metric, which is common, but not universal.
Some people can think the movie is of high quality, but the subject matter isn’t for them, as an example.
Think of it like food:
Good food: the food you enjoy
Bad food: the food you don’t
Unless you’re basing good and bad on how “healthy” the food is (for whatever given metric of health you want to use)
What you’re saying makes sense except that’s not what OOP was talking about. They weren’t asking what definition of “quality” to use.
Indeed, but my comment was a reply to another poster who was implying a specific metric.
I was just trying to point out that metric isn’t the same for everyone, even a composite metric will differ person to person
And that assuming “enjoyment” is a single metric, because in the matter of fact, it’s an overall score with the combination of everything the critics use. If i like it i like it, figuring it out why and justify it is part of the critics job.
If you wanna translate that into food, then the good food will taste good and bad food will taste horrible.
Yeah. Nobody enjoys watching Requiem for a Dream or Schindler’s List, they’re still top films.
And somebody who includes health in their metric of enjoyment will have a different threshold
Those aren’t “enjoyable”, but they are entertaining.
And imagine that, judging entertainment on how much they entertained you.