Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If there is no objectivity....then you would have no basis to explain why a film is better or worse than another This is indeed the case. You can consult many film experts and get very different top ten lists. Some critics may hate The Godfather. Some won't get Citizen Kane. Some love a good popcorn fluff movie and find this year's Oscar contenders pretentious. It becomes a matter of general consensus. And that con…
You say there is no objectivity, but then you immediately appeal to consensus, Rotten Tomatoes scores, and whether the film achieved its goal :-)) Those are all attempts at objective measurement. You are using objective frameworks to argue objectivity does not exist. :-) The fact that critics disagree does not prove there is no objectivity. People disagree about scientific questions too, but that does not mean scienc…
Yes? Consensus is frequently how we handle things that don't have an objective answer. Which restaurant is the best in your city? Who knows? But you can say "a lot of people like restaurant X" just fine.
> The whole reason you cited that score is because you believe it points to something real about the film quality.
Opinions are real. They're just not objective. Objectively, most of the vetted reviewers RT tracks seem to hold positive opinions of the film, as do their (much less trustworthy) regular old users.
If it's a box office flop after a few weeks, that'll be good evidence for your theory. I'll be surprised, though.