>>9004804Criticism is object, scoring systems are based on objectivity. I explained what subjective means; it's one of two ways to view something. Objective is looking at it and subjective is looking at yourself through it. Objective is "he did a suplex". Subjective is "I like how he did that suplex". Why are you now tripling down? You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
If the wrestling makes sense then the entire audience should be able to understand the story it is there to tell. That's the point of pro wrestling. A subjective take is when you segue to saying how it reminds you of something else. That is talking about something else.
Film criticism is entirely objective. How is it produced, what equipment, what techniques, how was it casted, what methods have the actors used, how did they perform, how was the audio recorded, how was it lot, how was it edited, how was it shot, why was it shot that way. It requires the person to know how all of that works. If you don't understand something this simple then why are you grandstanding about it? You do realise that one of the biggest criticisms of aew is the bad production, right?
You are insulting me because you can't read or understanding the words that you are using. I actually know what I'm talking about. You could read and learn or you can keep being a complete retard. Up to you
