system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: It is not objectification to choose to watch a movie because the actress in it is pretty

A movie is a visual art form. The actor's looks and mannerisms are part of the aesthetic choices that a movie makes. Choosing to watch a movie because of the artistic choices that were made in its production is not wrong whether those are casting or setting choices. It may not be a morally praiseworthy action but it is not morally required to never choose a movie based on attraction to the people in it. Additionally, an actor in a movie is not a person they are a character. How can you objectify someone that doesn't exist. That question I think gives us a pass via de minimus because objectification is about human beings, not characters.
gpt
If you’re just watching it because they are pretty, then you aren’t watching it for the character.  You are watching it because they are a pretty object.   You’re totally right that their visual appearance is the same as other aesthetic choices, which is to say that it’s the same as purely inanimate aspects like setting, lighting, composition, etc.   Treating a person the same way you treat a well lit prop is literally objectification.

I think the crux of your view is really that it’s not inherently morally wrong to occasionally objectify someone based purely on their looks.  That is pretty naturally human.   The problem is when that is the dominant way of treating someone, either when that’s the main way an individual views them or the main way society views them.   

If you’re regularly consuming media with a variety of well rounded portrayals of people, then sometimes enjoying one purely because the people are pretty to look at isn’t that big a deal.  But it’s still objectifying them.