I’m pulling most of this post from a paper I did a while ago on personal taste. I should start off by saying I have both a chart and a triple axis graph I use to determine how I feel about a movie, tv show, play, or musical. I refer to them both constantly, consciously or not.
The graph began with two axes, rating movies by their technical value and entertainment value. Technical value comes from the skills and technique put into making a show. Entertainment value comes simply from how fun it is to watch. For example, Oppenheimer was technically well executed. Entertainment wise, I thought it was incredibly slow and boring. On the other end of the spectrum, Sharknado is a great time to watch, but is far from a technical masterpiece. While a show may have excellent entertainment or technical value, it doesn’t necessarily have both.
Later, I added the third axis, where shows are rated by how well they accomplish what they set out to do. Occasionally, a work will be both entertaining and technically well executed, but fail to meet the expectation set by the story and/or marketing. Likewise, it can be technically brilliant and accomplish exactly what it aimed to, but be completely boring to watch.
This is all to say, my taste does not require a work to be perfect in every way for me to like it. If it does well in two categories but not the third, I’ll probably like it. If it does poorly in two categories but is utterly exceptional in the third, I’d probably still appreciate it.

Comments
Post a Comment