But it will be highly, highly correlated to any reasonable objective metric agreed to by the general public, so it's close enough for government work. I wouldn't use Metacritic to declare an 81 is better than an 80, but a 85 being better than a 44 is pretty solid.
Of course, there's a multiplicity of possible objective metrics, but then, that's why I phrased my sentence the way I did. You're free to define your own, but then, nobody else will care, either.
Any true objective metric would rank films would likely be uncorrelated with reviews - stuff like frames per second, duration, resolution, etc.
I'm of the opinion that talking about "objective metrics" in a discussion of the quality of films makes zero sense. I don't think there is any meaningful way to say any film is objectively worse than another.
Perhaps it seems I'm being too narrow in my definition of "objective," but i don't think so. I'm using it to mean what the word actually means, instead of using "objectively" to mean "in my opinion, which is better than yours," which is how 'whywhywhywhy used it, as far as I can tel.
Which is why I said "will be highly, highly correlated to any reasonable objective metric", rather than "is an objective metric".
This is a technique used all the time in science and engineering, when the underlying hypothetical metric is either impossible to obtain or may not strictly speaking exist.
To be honest, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Metacritic score is "highly, highly correlated" with film duration?
This isn't science or engineering, it's art. You can't objectively determine whether any film is "better" than any other, because the only thing that matters is how an individual viewer likes the film.
We seem to be talking past one another. Have a nice day.
