LOL

You in here carrying a dead carcass of an argument with
you everywhere hoping that it'll solve itself in
the end. Problem is, it won't.

Your argument is based on a logical fallacy, based
on phantom mathematics, that somehow tries to argue
that the popularity of a film amongst critics is
actual evidence that it is good. That doesn't make a
grain of sense, at all.

But again, let's carry things thing out as long as
we need to.

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

?????

You're off to an awful start, chief.


>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.

LMAO!!!

Based on what?


On what basis does the mere popularity of a viewpoint
have anything to do with the likelihood of it being
true?

Give me ONE REASON why that is true.



>{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.}

LOL. Plea copping

Validity is validity

Your non-sensical bullshit argument sucks just
as much in art as it does in politics

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

Or, people like it because they don't think for
themselves, or because bad, lousy things are popular.

Popular has absolutely, nothing to do with
essential goodness, at all.

I mean, wow.


>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.

Because you're not making a grain of motherfucking sense.
The fact that a lot of people like it has nothing
to do with the validity, rightness, or goodness. It only
speaks to its popularity. Popularity is a characteristic
that stands on its own.

Some good things are popular.

Other good things are not.

Critics like some good things.

They dislike others.



>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."

Critics aren't a legion of Jedi Knights. They're moviegoers
just like everyone else, so I don't really make the distinction.

I was once asked to be a movie critic for a fairly prominent
university newspaper.

That doesn't automatically make my opinion any more valid.


>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.

This doesn't make any sense, at all.


>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.}

And for every Coen Brothers, there are dozens of filmmakers
who make film that had no business being made.

For example,

The latest Indiana Jones?

Huge waste of time, space, energy, and money.

Spielberg would have been better off taking a long
vacation while some young, more relevant, talented
filmmaker got the chance.

Odd thing is that Rotten Tomatoes still have it
pretty good reviews, even though it was complete
shit.

The regular public liked it too, which is why
it made so much money.



>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.

You don't define a "classic" by whether it was loved by
both critics and moviegoers. You define a classic as being
great, for concrete reasons that you can describe.

I know that critics didn't like 'American Gangster'
nearly as much as I did. I think that the movie is
easily quality enough to be a "classic."

It classic, of course, because of details that I can
articulate.

Not because of its popularity in circle X or Y.

And that is why you are proving my point: You are using
Pulp Fictions POPULARITY as EVIDENCE that it is good.
That has nothing to do with it why a film is good,
and that evidence cannot be used transitively


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

These are phantom statistics: What does "general
acclaim" mean? What percentage? Whom are you polling?
Who is the general public? Do we mean internationally?
Or only the US? What demographic in the US?


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

Yes - it means its both critically and commercially
successful.

It doesn't mean it was good.

I'll keep repeating it because you keep making the
same bad point over and over again


>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."

Films actually don't give a shit about critical acclaim.
They care about box office draw. The only care about the
former insofar as it informs the latter.



>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.

Uh. No.

Lots of people love Star Wars. I love Star Wars.

The difference between me and you is this:
When someone asks: "Orbit, why is Star Wars so good?"

I'll point out scenes, and sequences, and specific
dialogue, and action, and the storyline.

I won't say "its good because critics and the general
public like it."

Just because the latter might be true doesn't mean
that its a reason why its good, because again,
the popularity phenomenon is not a proper assay for
goodness.


>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.

LOL

But here's the thing:

There's no rule in art where phantom statistics define
what is good versus what is not.



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

Right, that means that a shitload of people share
an opinion.

>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).

No, let's be mean.

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

Why?

What if they are all idiots?




----------------------------


O_E: Your Super-Ego's Favorite Poster.



"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop"