>>I guess that's true to some extent - except that it's ONE
>>opinion, vs. however many have been made about Pulp Fiction.
>
>
>So basically, because a lot of people share a viewpoint,
>it must be right and valid.
>
>Hmmm.

Never said that. I never ever fucking said that.

It's not right and valid BECAUSE a lot of people share the viewpoint. You're confusing reasons with evidence.

But if a lot of people share the viewpoint, that makes it a lot fucking more likely to be right and valid, especially if you've got BOTH critics (who are the closest thing we have to "art experts" for movies) and moviegoers who share the opinion.

{And we're talking about ART, and not politics, science, disease, women’s rights, or whatever other absurd and poorly thought-out analogies you throw out.}


Pulp Fiction is a good movie. It's not good BECAUSE people like it; people like it BECAUSE it's good.


>So, we know it was genuinely, really, good simply because
>it became popular?

Nope. You keep getting it backwards. It's understandable, but I shouldn't have to keep explaining it over and over. It became popular because it was genuinely really good. I know I'll never convince you, but this shit is just comical to me.

Not all popular things are good. Not all good things are popular.

Let me break it down into four categories:

1) Movies that are popular among moviegoers but that get shit upon by critics usually fit your "popular but not necessarily good" category. They may appeal to lots of people, but maybe aren't very "artful."

2) Then there's the pretentious, arty joints that are loved by critics but shit upon by real people. Those MIGHT be good movies, to some people. But it's not a consensus.

3) Then there's the movies that aren't loved by critics OR average viewers. These are "BAD" movies. Maybe some day they'll be appreciated as good movies, a la Van Gogh, but it's unlikely.
{For every Van Gogh, there's a million shitty artists whose works were regarded as crap and really were crap. He is an exception, not the rule.}

4) Finally, there's the movies that are loved by BOTH critics and moviegoers. Like Pulp Fiction. These are "GOOD" movies. Classics, even. Obviously, even these won't be unanimously enjoyed, but that's the nature of art.


In short, most people would agree that movies that receive both critical and general acclaim are really good movies.

Disagree on that point if you want, but you're only showing your ignorance.

It actually means something when a movie is BOTH critically and commercially successful.


I said you "can't manufacture the level of critical and fan acclaim that Pulp Fiction has attained. If you could, every studio would be doing it."

Your response was that you can, and you gave Britney Spears as an example. But she was only popular among tasteless teenyboppers, but has pretty much always been critically shit upon for her lack of talent.

So comparing Pulp Fiction, which is loved by BOTH critics (who are generally regarded as better judges of art than mere consumers, since that's their fucking job) and fans, is an incredibly poor comparison. Again, why do I bother with you at all?

Pulp Fiction is almost universally regarded as a high quality work of art.

And I get it - in your world, the more people that share an opinion, the more likely it is to be wrong. Popular but wrong. Brilliant! You are a rebel who goes against the grain. Kudos, congrats.

But in reality, when talking about art (which movies are), the ONLY possible way to measure and judge them is based on people OPINIONS, because art is subjective.

So when a shitload of people share the same opinion about a work of art, that means something.

YOUR opinion, which is the ONLY fucking thing you have with which to argue, is worth dogshit to me (okay, less than dogshit, but let's not be mean).

Meanwhile, the cumulative opinions of both critics and moviegoers alike is worth something to me.


If "consensus doesn't legitimize art" - even among both critics and the general population - what does?


>Actually, consensus says nothing about the validity
>of a point. All "consensus" tells us is that viewpoint
>is popular.
>
>"Popular" does not equal "correct."

How else do you judge art?

Each person judges art on its merits and forms an opinion.
Whatever opinion is the most common - amazing, favorable, mediocre, unfavorable, piece of shit - that's going to be how that work of art is generally regarded.

I don't make the rules, that's how it is.

You're free to live in your fantasy world, in which the overwhelming consensus about a work of art is worth significantly less than your own opinion, but most people understand how art works.


>Hence majority of Americans believing that Darwin
>was wrong.

That's not art. Regardless of what Americans believe, science holds the answer. It's not subjective, it's science.


>Hence the majority of Americans thinking W was
>fit for the job in 2004.

Again, not art. Are you really that dense to not see any difference?


>The majority of the world thinks Soccer is
>more exciting than American football or
>basketball.

Well, it kinda is. Not to us, but to them. The majority of the world gets more excited about soccer than most Americans get about football or basketball. Those fans are RABID. The NFL and NBA would LOVE to have that kind of support.

So while I agree that soccer is boring and not very exciting to me, it obviously excites the shit out of millions of people.

So, it IS more exciting. Pretty easy to grasp, and this makes it abundantly clear you are incapable of trying to see the world from someone's else's perspective or opinion.

If you don't like soccer, the whole world is wrong and you're right.

Since you don't like Pulp Fictio, the whole world is wrong and you're right.

Eureka. Of course it's fucking easy for you to dismiss an overwhelming consensus of opinion on anything.

Because you simply don't give the slightest fuck about anyone's opinion other than your own.



>You didn't actually name a single reason. You cut
>and pasted buzz phrases from reviews.

No, I didn’t. I wrote a list of things I liked about the movie. Then I pasted a bunch of reasons other people gave for liking the movie.

But you chose to ignore those reasons, as well as everyone else’s perfectly valid reasons for liking the movie. But I called it – you still can’t admit you’re wrong, you can’t admit that you’ve been given lots of reasons.


>You wanna know why there's so many reasons?
>
>Because no one can settle on one, because
>the film wasn't actually any good.

Fucking idiot. When people like something for a whole bunch of different reasons, that usually means there’s a lot to like.

It’s completely absurd to think everyone is going to “settle on one” reason to like a movie.

In fact, I don’t think there’s EVER been a single movie that I liked for only one reason. If I only liked one thing about a movie, I probably didn’t enjoy it very much, except for that one thing.

So I’d probably say, “Shitty movie, but great acting.” I think that’s more common than someone saying, “Great movie, solely because of the acting. Everything else was shit, but I loved it.”


>No, people write things, but none of them are reasons.

Asshole. That’s all I can say.

You obviously don't care about anyone else's opinions, so I'm not going to pay attention to any of yours.

And that's why it's a waste talking to you, period.