movies

Tits.

The Bechdel test.

For a non joke answer, stories can objectively be written better than others. Like a story that actually uses Chekhov's Gun correctly. Stories that don't have massive actual plot holes (actual, not your dumb ass being confused or upset).

Similarly, the art in a movie can have amazing technical achievement and yet still kinda' be a shit movie qualitatively over all.

For a specific example of something objectively bad... The sequel trilogy. More specifically, the blue tittymilk in TLJ. What goal did that scene serve? If the point wasn't to jump the shark and make the audience squirm and/or laugh, it was an objectively bad decision to put that scene in, in the way they did.

My car can be an objectively fine, functional car, but if I drive it off a boat ramp expecting it to float, I've made an objectively bad decision with an otherwise fine object. Art is much of the same. Bad art can be comprised of objectively good pieces, yet still get ruined by a bunch of decisions that are dumb and wrong and objectively bad for any practical goal any sane person would've had. Similarly, a movie could be written and edited expertly, but a bunch of shitty low budget sets could ruin it. Or inversely, a movie could be beautiful visually but written by a moronic toddler.

When something has 100,000 better options out of 110,000 that are even possible, it was an objectively bad choice (unless nearly every possible choice was a good one, but let's be real).

Something can work and still be objectively worse than something else. Art does not only need to entertain to be quality. To think as much is to wholly and completely fail to understand art, expression, and criticism as concepts.