>even something like Knocked Up - which is hardly a Pasolini
>flick - lost them.

I think this lost them because they didn't think it looked funny. I don't think it necessarily fits the argument.

>why are they attracted only to the lowest common denominator
>in THIS case? why do they seem to have almost NO
>discrimination at all in this area? why do they feel the need
>to see an LCD movie that they *know* will probably suck when
>they would not eat in a restaurant with a mediocre Zagat
>score?

And I've explained this. Those people appreciate food. They don't want something quick to eat, they want quality. They want to savor the food. I personally could give two shits about that so all of the fine dining is lost on me. Steak is steak. The more you add to a steak, the less likely I am to order it. I'll look at the menu and think, what's all this extra shit? I just want a steak. People can try to sell me on it and tell me what I'm missing but I want steak and potatoes and all that other stuff is pointless to me.

This is similar to film viewing. If you give the people the basics, they'll go. It might look silly but they know what they are getting and will enjoy it. Start deviating from that and they will be less likely to go to it and possibly won't invest enough to enjoy it. NYPD Blue took the soap opera police show and made it grittier. Homicide took a step further away from that and less people followed. The Wire took a step away from that and the audience dropped.

I use extreme to make the point easier to understand. The Wire vs. Law and Order is easier to get than Homicide vs. NYPD Blue.

I guess I don't see what people are so upset about since I think that we basically agree. Rather than saying, intelligent people aren't intelligent in all subjects, I took a step further and said for some people it isn't a lack of intelligence but a psychological reason behind why they cling to the lowest common denominator as opposed to seeing films that deviate from that.