A film with mass appeal is inherently less interesting than a niche -or cult film.
True or false?
>>69167561
True. The majority of people are fuckwits. Has history not taught you this?
>>69167561
of course it's true.
most people are sheep, so something with mass appeal just can't be good
>>69167922
>something with mass appeal just can't be good
I wouldn't agree with this, though.
>>69167971
there is almost no piece of art that had a mass appeal when it came out.
sure, in time, some things become universally loved and respected.
think about it, in hundred years time 99% of hollywood movies will be forgotten and absolutely irrelevant, cause they're irrelevant even now, they just want your money.
whereas smaller, more personal movies will surely be more interesting and appealing
FALSE
Even amongst us superior beings of 4chan runs common experiences, needs, and desires with that of the normie. Sometimes a film comes along that truly appeals to all of us as humans in one way or another.
TRUE
Mass appeal equates to entertaining.
Interesting means it's intellectually stimulating.
Most sheeple don't want their entertainment to be intellectually challenging.
>>69167561
Robocop has mass appeal and it is more interesting than most self-professed "art films".
>>69168036
>using the examples of the past to reconcile your fear of the future
Past and future are not comparable.
>>69168195
The exception proves the rule.
Name me 5 popular movies that are like this.
>>69167561
Define interesting. I was more interested by Midnight Special than 10 Cloverfield Lane, but I enjoyed both.
>>69168195
>>69168229
I can't be bothered to think of 5, but The Terminator is another one.
>>69168295
So you named 2. I can give you a whole list of mindless entertainment to drown out these examples.
You've just proven that they are exceptions. The rule is that mass appeal equates to mindless entertainment.
False. Stop parrotting reductionists assessments made by simple people for simpler people.
Everyone loved 'high-brow' niche cinema like Apocalypse Now or Drive. Everyone hated dumb mass-appeal films like Batman v Superman or Wolverine Origins. And then pieces in the middle like Wolf of Wall Street have divided opinions. There's no clear division.
>>69168218
>Past and future are not comparable.
but they are. if you think humanity will be any less barbaric or stupid in the future, you're the one who has it all wrong.
as I've said earlier, good relevant films will be, to a degree, good and relevant in the future.
crappy movies will be crap even if time passes, and we can mostly agree that hollywood movies are crap, even more so than they were before.
No, the opposite is objectively true or else they wouldn't have mass appeal.
Atleast half of these are no doubt more interesting than whatever indie flavour of the month you've convinced yourself wasn't boring for the sake of your own ego.
>>69168180
Pic related for example was hugely successful.
>>69168377
Forgot pic
>>69168324
stop it. terminator and fucking robocop are not relevant pieces of medium in any way.
>'high-brow' niche cinema like Apocalypse Now or Drive
kek
>>69167561
Films with mass appeal are in fact extremely interesting and an inseparable counterpart to the niche/cult films and both should be approached with the same care and respect.
>>69168339
>rule
>exceptions
Why is this such a hard concept for you morons?
Yes, there are some high brow films that have a mass appeal.
Most of the high brow films haven't.
Do you get this?
Look at the most popular movies of 2015:
1 Star Wars: The Force Awakens BV $936,234,288 4,134 $247,966,675 4,134 12/18 -
2 Jurassic World Uni. $652,270,625 4,291 $208,806,270 4,274 6/12 11/19
3 Avengers: Age of Ultron BV $459,005,868 4,276 $191,271,109 4,276 5/1 10/8
4 Inside Out BV $356,461,711 4,158 $90,440,272 3,946 6/19 12/10
5 Furious 7 Uni. $353,007,020 4,022 $147,187,040 4,004 4/3 7/24
6 Minions Uni. $336,045,770 4,311 $115,718,405 4,301 7/10 12/17
7 The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 LGF $281,723,902 4,175 $102,665,981 4,175 11/20 2/25
8 The Martian Fox $228,433,663 3,854 $54,308,575 3,831 10/2 3/17
9 Cinderella (2015) BV $201,151,353 3,848 $67,877,361 3,845 3/13 9/17
10 Spectre Sony $200,074,609 3,929 $70,403,148 3,929 11/6 4/7
11 Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation Par. $195,042,377 3,988 $55,520,089 3,956 7/31 10/29
12 Pitch Perfect 2 Uni. $184,296,230 3,660 $69,216,890 3,473 5/15 7/30
13 The Revenant Fox $183,558,360 3,711 $474,560 4 12/25 -
14 Ant-Man BV $180,202,163 3,868 $57,225,526 3,856 7/17 12/17
15 Home (2015) Fox $177,397,510 3,801 $52,107,731 3,708 3/27 9/10
16 Hotel Transylvania 2 Sony $169,700,110 3,768 $48,464,322 3,754 9/25 3/3
17 Fifty Shades of Grey Uni. $166,167,230 3,655 $85,171,450 3,646 2/13 5/7
18 The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water Par. $162,994,032 3,680 $55,365,012 3,641 2/6 5/28
19 Straight Outta Compton Uni. $161,197,785 3,142 $60,200,180 2,757 8/14 10/22
20 San Andreas WB $155,190,832 3,812 $54,588,173 3,777 5/29 10/15
Where is the high brow?
>>69168229
> your proof against my argument proves my argument
1. Terminator
2. Alien
3. RoboCop
4. Star Wars 1977
5. Fight Club
6. Leon the Professional
7. A Fistful of Dollars
8. Inception
9. Hitchcock's Psycho
10. Encounters of the Third Kind
Don't embarrass yourself and reply with a subjective "but I don't see their value", even if you don't share the opinion of these (and for some I don't myself) you can Google thousands of analyses on these films -- and almost all are blockbusters.
>>69168377
>>69168401
being a normie and having "meh to horrible" taste dosen't make you and expert in every field
go back to watching your RLM fags
>>69168339
What in the hell? Neither Apocalypse Now nor Drive are examples of "high-brow niche cinema". They're examples of films with mass appeal, and neither is very interesting--which is not to say that they're bad.
>>69168484
Nice rebuttal, bro.
>>69167561
Absolutely true. People are inherently ignorant and unrefined, thus a film that is popular among people in general tends toward the ignorant and unrefined.
Not exactly rocket science
>>69168229
District 9
The Matrix
Total Recall
The Shining
Kung Fu Hustle
>>69168503
I think you don't know what noir film is or why it was dead before Drive. Or haven't read Heart of Darkness.
OP here.
Uninteresting =/= bad. Get your heads out of your asses, all of you.
>>69168544
This, so much. Apparently a film that doesn't let you be accepted as a contrarian is bad.
>>69168106
>>69168195
>>69168295
>>69168339
>>69168401
>>69168433
>>69168451
>>69168480
REEEEEEE
all these fucking entitled plebs acting all smart
/film/when!!??
>>69168544
kek, this cognitive dissonance.
>>69167561
The working thesis should be that all films are terrible
>>69168480
Do you even understand the concept of "the exception proves the rule"?
You named 10 over a time period of 50 years.
I listed 20 just from last year.
Here's the full list of the most popular: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2015
If you find 3 movies out of the 100 that are "interesting", then you'd still be talking about 3%.
3% is not a compelling number to state that mass appeal makes movies less interesting.
97% is a compelling number to claim that mass appeal does make movies less interesting.
>>69168540
Are you joking?
Yeah, I've watched plenty of noir--mostly japanese, french and american--and liked plenty, but it's not terribly interesting stuff. It's also never been dead, so there's that. And yeah, I've read Heart of Darkness. Also not very interesting.
Are you sure you understand the word "niche", though?
>>69168512
>No, the opposite is objectively true or else they wouldn't have mass appeal.
this was your starting argument, bro
a sentience that makes no sense, gives no evidence, and proves nothing.
>>69168646
> "interesting" is the most valuable attribute in the world
just fucking kill yourself simpleton
>>69168638
You are the exception and the proof of your wrongness is that many more people enjoy and find superman vs batman more interesting than whatever the movies you're not listing for fear of being mocked are.
>>69168581
>cognitive dissonance
Yeah, right. Well made entertainment is comparable to well made comfort food. You're not going to glance twice upon the bun of a good burger, or be left pondering the acidity of the pickle. That doesn't mean you can't appreciate it for what it is.
I'd grant you that well made pieces of entertainment are few and far between, but that's neither here nor there.
>>69168691
Way to miss the point, Mr. Drive-is-really-high-brow-niche-cinema.
>>69168712
Yes, and cats find little balls of rope interesting.
>>69168730
>food analogy
Stop doing this. Brains don't consume movies.
>>69167561
False. Both tend to suck. The niche movies are just "liked" by hipsters and are shit too.
>>69168653
>this was your starting argument, bro
Yes, directly addressing the op and the content within(nothing but an opinion itself).
>gives no evidence, and proves nothing.
If the vast majority of people finding something more interesting it's proof that it is more interesting by any measure that isn't "my subjective opinion trumps all others".
>>69168751
>Mr. Drive-is-really-high-brow-niche-cinema.
never said that you idiot, I wasn't the one you were arguing with.
but "interesting" is the bottom of the barrel trait in every medium
>>69167561
Well, since you used the word "interesting", I'd say yes, mass appeal films generally don't present you with much you aren't expecting. They deliver what you're already familiar with and want. This doesn't mean they can't be enjoyable and well-crafted, it's just that it's not very common to be intellectually stimulated by them. "Niche" films meanwhile try to address topics or methods of storytelling that are outside the mainstream and present viewers with subject matter they might not otherwise be familiar with and that, by definition, is "interesting".
>>69168829
>but "interesting" is the bottom of the barrel trait in every medium
Who are you to decide this? Whatever you value is up to you, but don't go making broad statements like this.
The unusual and off-kilter is what tends to stick with me, personally.
>>69168820
>If the vast majority of people finding something more interesting it's proof that it is more interesting by any measure that isn't "my subjective opinion trumps all others".
>>69168036
opinion of the majority was never ever relevant.
if I asked you who was the most popular composer in the hapsburg monarchy, or who was the most praised painter among the bourgeoisie of the louis XIV france, would you know the answer?
doubt it, the same way no one 50 years from now will know who fucking joss whedon or what star wars is.
>>69168339
>>69168503
>>69168751
>>69168829
What constitutes "high-brow niche cinema" anyway?
>>69168914
>Whatever you value is up to you,
no it's not up to me you fag. art criticism has clear and valid merits and has been around for quit a while. So no, not everything is just "personal preference". some things are objectively shit that only ponders to the masses so it can make money, it has no value other than that.
fuck your education mate
>>69168976
>opinion of the majority was never ever relevant.
It is relevant when you make such statements, by whose authority is something deemed to be interesting or not? We go back to the "my opinion trumps all others" bit, your opinion on something is far less relevant than the opinion of the majority.
>the same way no one 50 years from now will know who fucking joss whedon or what star wars is.
Star Wars will almost certainly still be relevant, more than the movies you find interesting anyway.
>>69169021
Art criticism is of real value only to art critics and artists. Having spent a decent chunk of time reading critics of art, film and literature, I'd argue that the only thing there is to gain for a layman is the perspectives of other people, which are useful only up to a point. Forming your own opinions is always going to be more valuable to you and your appreciation of any given medium, whatever your flavour
>>69169160
>Forming your own opinions is always going to be more valuable to you and your appreciation of any given medium, whatever your flavour
with this I agree, but you have to start from somewhere, meaning, you have to have some knowledge of the arts to criticize or to validate something.
>>69169141
you're just a dumb person, no sense in replying to (you)
>>69169294
>with this I agree, but you have to start from somewhere, meaning, you have to have some knowledge of the arts to criticize or to validate something.
If only there were online platforms where people could compare and discuss their takes on various films and learn something in the process.
It's obviously false as stated above.
>>69169327
>If only there were online platforms where people could compare and discuss their takes on various films and learn something in the process.
>>>>/film/
:^)
>>69168195
Starship Troopers is better.
>>69169294
I was in the process of writing something similar to >>69169327. I think exchange of opinions and ideas is infinitely more valuable than consumption of opinions and ideas.
