Obviously, folks can have different, personal, subjective opinions. That’s perfectly fine. However, this only tells you the “what” - not the “why” (“I like vanilla, you like chocolate." End of conversation.) But opinions and reviews that come with arguments and analyses are usually more interesting because they tend to be less subjective. E.g., “the movie was bad (or good) because of x, y and z.” Thus, x, y and z are specific
claims. And specific claims can be debated.
More explicitly, I might say that I didn’t like a movie because of a big “plot hole” in the second act. But it’s fair game for someone else to point out that I missed a crucial bit of dialogue, which resolves the alleged plot hole. So at this stage, we’re no longer debating subjective opinion (a somewhat fruitless exercise), we’re talking about facts
within the text - does that dialogue actually exist, does it fix the plot hole?
Of course, I’m still allowed to dislike the movie. But at least one of my stated reasons for disliking it has been called into question. I either need to come up with a better explanation or I must be satisfied with being unable to articulate my general, negative impressions (which probably means that I wouldn’t show up on too many message boards because I don’t have much to say beyond a
So back to the fellow in the video… I think he was attempting to rebut some of those “objective” criticisms of SR
- the ones that he thinks are misrepresentations of the text. I appreciate his effort. When I’ve discussed the movie, I’ve come across critics who either deliberately misreport a scene/detail or (more innocently) misremember it. In any case, it’s certainly fair to contest these errors in the give-and-take fashion of internet discussion.
For that matter, check out the current state of the various TDKR
threads. The different camps are offering different opinions, they do their best to present sound arguments in support of those opinions - and they spend a good deal of time and effort
in the process. I don’t think this means they are particularly insecure in their positions; they’re just passionate about the movie (one way or another) and they enjoy the discussion. (Or check out a politics or religion thread; the debates there are endless
That said… a more formal video presentation has a different tone than an interactive conversation. And I think the SR
video author would have been better off delivering a straightforward positive review rather than a “reactionary” defense. He seemed more interested in having a debate; and a video is (obviously) not the ideal medium for that.