In film criticism it's also about subjective opinion, but the (good) criticism always arrives at that opinion by examining the objective aspects the film presents.
Except film doesn't present any objective aspects, only subjective ones.
What? All films have objective aspects. If a film's aesthetic uses zooms, tracking shot, jump cuts, etc. These are objective, non-negotiable qualities.
Not when they are judged, and that's all that really matters as far as criticism is concerned. You can objectively say that a movie uses a tracking shot, but that says nothing about the quality of the film. That same tracking shot however can be viewed as a great looking shot by one person while another can look at it and see a badly composed shot. Film as criticism stands is completely subjective.
It's not as cut and dried as you're making it out to be. It's subjective to a point, but it throws out intention, and context. A tracking shot's worth isn't dictated by whether it's poorly composed or not(which would be, in most cases, objective. If a film looks like shit, it looks like shit) but in it's place in the context of the film. To sum it all up to gut feeling throws out all theory, all examination and all intention. Whether or not someone likes a film is completely subjective, and can't be proven right or wrong, and there's no such thing as a "right" or "wrong" when it comes to art anyway, but how much someone knows or gave the time of day to a given film can be suspect.
It's just my view, but I do believe that art is that cut and dry.
A films look can't be objective, because what you may think looks like shit, I way not. Just look at the movie Once for example, there are people, on these very boards I believe, who argued that it looked like shit. There are other people who argued that it looked amazing. Even in a films look you have both ends of the spectrum because whether or not a film looks good is like any piece of art, up to the eye of the beholder.
The placement you speak of is entirely subjective as well. There can be any number of reasons for having shot A take place at certain time and place, but if it doesn't work for the viewer then it doesn't work. Conversely if it does work for another viewer then it works for that viewer.
I think stating that subjectivity is a gut feeling is simplifying subjectivity too much. When person A looks at the sonar sequence in The Dark Knight and says they loved the texture, technique and implementation of that effect that aren't merely speaking from the gut. They are giving a subjective view through well thought out reasoning.
As for intent I'll keep it simple, I don't care about intent. Once a product is made available for others to see it becomes open to their interpretations and point of view, whatever the artist may have intended is superseded by what the audience sees and comes to think on their own.
Like I said, these are just my thoughts, I certainly don't expect you, or anyone else for that matter, to agree with me. I do view art as completely subjective, down to the tiniest of details, and it's just one art theory but it is the theory I have found to be most in line with me over the years.