> Two, I'm not really trying to make any claims about objective truth.
> ...
> Everything else in the opening paragraphs of your post I agree with.

Man, I hate it when people masquerade as me and post under my name, such as I just did to myself.

Sorry for the confusion, Darien -- I'm too much of a jerk to apologize, so I'll apologize on myself's behalf.

Anyway, here's my REAL reply to your post:

-----------------------------------------------

> To be honest with you, it sounds to me like you guys are constructing elaborate systems of rules to justify declaring your opinions as objective truth.

Actually, no. Here's why: since this is a post about aesthetics and taste, all statements should be assumed subjective unless noted otherwise, or when reporting on historical merits rather than personal tastes, and assuming participants are voicing their own opinions instead of reporting on those of others. Unlike, for example, a discussion about the weather or RPG strategies, where obviously it would be the other way around.

> I do *not* think for even a second that it's possible to declare objective standards of film *enjoyability.*

Sure it is. Movies should be enjoyed correctly or not at all. If you like a bad movie or dislike a good one, you are wrong, and that's a problem. I mean, not necessarily a crippling one, granted, kind of like mispronouncing words. If you make a public speech and mispronounce a word, life goes on, and you may never even know. Ignorance is bliss, but everybody will laugh at you all the same. If someone *does* point it out to you, it's your prerogative to ignore that person, disparage the argument even, and go on mispronouncing the word. But you're still wrong.

> Yet, that is what critics ultimately are charged with doing - a critic's rating of a film is *not* an objective standard, or all critics would agree about all films.

It's because critics are arrogant. They want to define the objective standards themselves instead of adhering to them. They figure -- correctly, I suppose -- that if they can present a compelling enough argument that everybody concedes and agrees to it, then it won't matter that they're wrong, because no one will ever say otherwise. The thing is, no false argument is compelling enough that it lures *everybody* away from the truth. Try as you might to persuade somebody that "dork" is pronounced "gumshoe," there will always be *somebody* astute enough to say, "Wait, no, doofus. 'Dork' is pronounced 'dork.'" So critics who promote wrong opinions are kind of short-sighted for doing so, but the fact that they all disagree with each other is proof enough that it happens. Doesn't mean we shouldn't all strive to be correct about our movie opinions.

> > Stephen nailed it in his own reply. Rocky Horror is self-aware.
>
> See, this is way too broad to be sensible. I can think of several films that are bad, are *aware* of their badness, and are entertaining nonetheless.

Clearly all the examples you're thinking of are either not self-aware, or in fact good. The rule is unshakeable.

> Now, to tie back into the original subject. I'm not the only person who finds Rocky Horror entertaining. I'm not even *close.*

Hey, Ted Kennedy keeps getting elected to the Senate, and Britney Spears is still making millions on album sales. There's no shortage of precedents for masses of people being wrong about the same thing all at once.

> So we're all wrong to be entertained by it? If this is what you maintain, I think you need a better argument - specifically, you need to demonstrate that you have some authourity to judge what is and is not entertaining.

If you were to tell me that the sun is purple, I have to think that, even if you got ten thousand friends to concur, the burden of proof would still be on you, not me, to demonstrate why.

> ...am I simply inferior?

Hey, I'm way too tactful to have ever said that.