You just want to contradict - perhaps because you're annoyed that I called you on your - let's euphemistically call it self-contradiction?
Read my previous posts and learn, as you claim to want.
Seriously, I can't find much.
You said this:
As for - there are no objective criteria by which to judge a work of art - well, this is absurd. What I find surprising is that such an obviously erroneous argument was even invoked by some in order to save their pet movie. Anything, just to avoid admitting the movie is sub-standard
Objective criteria is what differentiates the artistic masterpieces from mediocre works - not how you happen to think about them.
For example, Rembrand's work is FAR better than the work of some untalented nobody, despite the fact that someone would like Rembrand's paintings less.
'Contact' is FAR better than 'Lost in space' even if someone would like 'Lost in space' more.
You said the idea that there are no objective criteria is absurd, yet you never gave an example of what such an objective criteria might be.
You never said WHY Rembrandt's work is FAR better. You also never said WHY Contact is FAR better.
You also said that the VFX are objectively garbage because of the wires. Then I answered that the evaluation "wires = garbage" is purely subjective. A statement you didn't reply to.
So I ask you, please clarify.