GatewayRedbirds.com

EastonBlues22 wrote:

cpebbles wrote: Except that about 99% of those loads of people belong to one demographic that is considered less than discerning by the rest of cinema-goers.

What makes the opinion of a person in one demographic any more important than the opinion of a person in another? Does my vote count more in the coming election simply because I'm more educated and mature than many other voters? Of course not. In fact, you can make a good argument that as a collective the midteen-early twenties demographic is the single most important demographic out there based on total number of movies watched, money spent on movies, etc. If your movie fails in that demographic, it's going to have a hard time doing well in popularity polls or at the box office.

There is a very clear consensus among devoted followers of cinema (Specifically, movie critics) when it comes to Boondock Saints, and that is as close as we can get to an objective measure.

How often do the critiques and tastes of the "devoted followers" of any particular medium reflect the critiques and tastes of the masses? We have a music contest on this very board with a large collection of music lovers participating...how many top ten songs (from any decade, by any measure of popularity) do you are going to be entered in that tournament? Probably only a handful...if that. Yet these are the songs that the majority of Americans (and sometimes even the majority of the Western World) have agreed to be the "best" songs of their respective generations.

In the same vein, are the general wine tastes of America reflected by the serious wine conniosseur? Are the general food tastes reflected by the serious food critics? Book preferences reflected by literary critics?

I think it's safe to say that they probably aren't. If you're an average person (read: not a self-proclaimed "lover" of the media), then you probably care much more about what your friends think about some form of entertainment than what "the experts" think.

lukethedrifter wrote:

EastonBlues22 wrote:

cpebbles wrote: Except that about 99% of those loads of people belong to one demographic that is considered less than discerning by the rest of cinema-goers.

What makes the opinion of a person in one demographic any more important than the opinion of a person in another? Does my vote count more in the coming election simply because I'm more educated and mature than many other voters? Of course not. In fact, you can make a good argument that as a collective the midteen-early twenties demographic is the single most important demographic out there based on total number of movies watched, money spent on movies, etc. If your movie fails in that demographic, it's going to have a hard time doing well in popularity polls or at the box office.

There is a very clear consensus among devoted followers of cinema (Specifically, movie critics) when it comes to Boondock Saints, and that is as close as we can get to an objective measure.

How often do the critiques and tastes of the "devoted followers" of any particular medium reflect the critiques and tastes of the masses? We have a music contest on this very board with a large collection of music lovers participating...how many top ten songs (from any decade, by any measure of popularity) do you are going to be entered in that tournament? Probably only a handful...if that. Yet these are the songs that the majority of Americans (and sometimes even the majority of the Western World) have agreed to be the "best" songs of their respective generations.

In the same vein, are the general wine tastes of America reflected by the serious wine conniosseur? Are the general food tastes reflected by the serious food critics? Book preferences reflected by literary critics?

I think it's safe to say that they probably aren't. If you're an average person (read: not a self-proclaimed "lover" of the media), then you probably care much more about what your friends think about some form of entertainment than what "the experts" think.

There is no such thing as good or bad so will you please rephrase piece of crap.

lukethedrifter wrote: There is no such thing as good or bad so will you please rephrase piece of crap.

EastonBlues22 wrote:

lukethedrifter wrote: There is no such thing as good or bad so will you please rephrase piece of crap.

Okay, okay...I take back everything I said. But only because you felt so strongly about it that you contaminated this thread too.