> Whenever I argue this point, somebody always comes back with "But you can objectively measure certain things in a movie!" Then they'll try to get me to say that there's any sane person on the planet who would argue that the special effects in Plan 9 From Outer Space were better than those in E.T. or something like that. Hey, yeah, that's great. Next let's argue who had the neater handwriting, Mark Twain or Charles Dickens, because it's exactly as relevant to discussing the relative merits of Huckleberry Finn and Oliver Twist. In the final form, art can be more or less than the sum of its parts.

I completely agree, and I think that was basically my entire point. Note how I mentioned that critics, after discussing the "objectively mesurable" elements of a film (is it in focus?) can end up with wildly divergent final verdicts.

> Anyway, I'm not entirely certain I agree with Darien that Sam and Stephen were trying to argue that there are objective standards of "enjoyability" either. I think instead they were just trying to point out what an incredible nub he is for liking Rocky Horror.

Which I was fine with - you'll recall I conceded it's a bad movie. What I took issue with was the statement from both of them that it's not likeable as a bad movie because it fails to meet a particular standard - namely, it's self-aware. I don't see any justification for declaring this a universal requirement for a bad movie to be enjoyable.