Follow TV Tropes
More people going to see something doesn't make it objectively better. There is not objectively better (or maybe there is, but don't expect me to agree with you on the definition).
I agree. That para is completely unnecessary to the page, too; and kinda comes of as Gushing about Revenge Of The Fallen. This isn't Quality by Popular Vote.
The offending parts of this page have been deleted, and replaced with a shorter, more concise and even-handed summary of the relation of the Summer Blockbuster to critical perception.
For future reference, that kind of inflammatory rhetoric is not welcome on the wiki, and can be deleted on sight, especially in a page description.
Firstly, "inflamatory rhetoric"? Really? How was what I said inflamitory? To who exactly? And pray, can I file a complaint if I feel I'm being singled out here for my opinions, because I don't like people casting aspersions when I said nothing "inflamitory". I would like to argue my case and see what the actual accusation here is, and what the objectable part was, if possible. Or at least tell me what rule I broke, IF in fact I broke any such rules.
Secondly, yes it does make it objectively better. You cannot quantify "art" or "symbolism" or "deep". You can however quantify and define what it means for the public to appreciate something more than something else. The fact of the matter is that, yes, Quality by Popular Vote is actually a way to discern something's worth on a real world level, not some abstract notion about what its merit as art may or may not be.
Thirdly even if you were right, I could just as easily say that artistic merit (which mind you is impossible to quantify and define and therefore subjective by definition) is no more of a reason to declare something better than something else either. If the actual people who make up the viewing public don't care about it, it hasn't resonated or struck any kind of chord with them, and therefore it is less entertaining to them and not as good. So even if, by some miracle, you find a definition for "art" that the world can agree on (you won't), it still wouldn't prove my assertion wrong.
Basically what I see here is some people being angsty for no good reason at what I said, and not having an actual argument to stand on. If you don't like what I said, fine, I have no problem nor do I care. Feel free to say whatever you like about my assessment. But don't lie about the content ("inflamitory rhetoric"), don't pretend like you're being "even handed" when you aren't, and don't pretend you have a leg to stand on when by definition your argument is that you disagree with me.
Oh and as an aside—IF I felt like gushing over a movie I like that critics hated, I would have gone with The Happening which I felt was actually better than Revenge of the Fallen by a considerable margin and yet stamped on by critics because the director "killed" one in his previous film, Lady in the Water.
If I wanted to gush over a movie for personal reaons, of course. But I wanted to make a case so I specifically chose Revenge of the Fallen due to the strong disconnect between the critical reception and the amount of fan and viewer enjoyment. Which I would have explained, had the editors not simply cut and run what they didn't like and then try to make the claim I was being biased.
(P.S.—Nevermind that "being biased" and "being incorrect" and "being inflammatory" are all three different things and one does not directly mean the other in any way. Someone can piss people off and still be perfectly unbiased and correct, and someone can be biased and wrong and still not piss people off...case in point.)
Like I said, Quality by Popular Vote is that way. Have fun.
That's not quality by popular vote, you smug little twit, that's dodging a question. But you know what, fine. Ok, so if we are going to use that as an argument then I'll just restore what was deleted since, realistically, more people would agree with that than with a more "even-handed" view. Have fun.
Or we could actually discuss this, and you all could make actual arguments instead of being smug and sarcastic and, most of all, butthurt. Would you like that? Please?
Edit: you know what, I'llmake this very easy for you. If anyone can actually explain how calling mainstream movie goers a "lowest common denomenator" is not insulting and stupid then I'd love to hear it. But I won't because all that will happen is you'll delete that and then you'll make some smug remark or more likely you'll ban me or try to ban me out of spite. Which mind you does't prove in any way weather or not you're correct only that you can exercise power over a wiki website.
So is anyone going to make a genuine effort to discuss this or are you just accepting how shallow and vain you are and admitting you have no actual counter-argument? Cause if it's the latter I'll just write this off like Misaimed Fandom and all the anti-Eragon/Twilight/Scientology/whatever memes that are chic now for some reason.
Heh. You're funny when you try to be smartass.
Maybe people would be interested in doing that, if you didn't come in here screaming pointless Walls Of Text and calling them names. Also, you actually went ahead and put the words "X work is better than Y work" in a main page. You really thought it was perfectly okay. Stupid doesn't even begin to cover this. And further, you're actually asking this to be explained to you like you're a baby whose hand needs to be held to learn to walk on this wiki. Awwww, so cute.
If you had taken the time to click on that link and read what's written there with an open mind, you'd know that your rant on blockbusters being - what was that? - "more of a 'pure' film than indies" is that trope. Go ahead and scream it there as much as you want; nobody'll care. Don't start an Edit War and go around asking for trouble.
Walls of Text? Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know that "TL;DR" was a valid counterargument. Hint: it's not, and even if it were, you've still failed to actually answer the questions I raised, leaving me to believe you either can't or choose not to. But I'll summarize my arguments with some cliff notes to make things quicker for both of us on any future read through.
You are wrong. You're argument is based purely on subjective opinion, and cannot be quantified. I can, however, demonstrably show which film the public did or did not enjoy, something that can actually be quantified on an objective level since there are numbers and statistics (you know, empirical evidence) that can be assessed, to say nothing of the logic that obviously people will endulge in something they enjoy more than something that they don't. You claim that I was being "a stupid-head", for all practical purposes, for allegedly insulting...someone, I guess, and yet the main page already is an extended Take That! against anyone who disagrees with the author's opinion (subjective and undefined) about what has more or less artistic merit. You act like you don't have to back up your claims, and more so you have shown little or no ability to do so. In short, you are not only wrong, but you are the one acting infantile and being inflammatory, and now you're threatening me and trying to "scare" me away.
TL;DR: Quality by Popular Vote is something that can be used, in the context of defined arguments and empirical evidence, to objectively quantify the entertainment value of something. Hipster faux-intellectual posturing is not. And threating someone is just being a meany.
And more so (sorry for the "walls of text" but some thoughts require more than a paragraph to express, I'll keep it simple)...more so, you still have not actually said what rule I'm supposedly breaking nor have you directly shown how it or why it was broken. You still have yet to quantify what makes a movie "art" or "deep" despite your argument (and the page's extended Take That!) being based on it, and you still fail utterly to adress any issue I raised or explain how the insult already in the page is less inflammatory than anything I said. You continued to dodge the question and the argument by casting aspersions, again, and have done so in a way that requires even less thought than before.
TL;DR: I'm still waiting for that reasoned response and all that evidence to back up your claims you surely have.
I'm not asking for trouble, I'm asking for an actual counterargument from you. I've yet to get one. And yet for all your bluffing and chest-thumping you accuse me of "screaming" and insulting people, and yet you are the one who responded with a smug little insult. If you want to wallow in faux-intellectual BS then fine, have at it. But be aware that you're still demonstrably wrong no matter what "miss manners" rules lawyering you can conjure up to shield you from actually backing up your statements. But then again, what was I expecting from someone who equates "mainstream" with "lowest common denominator" without batting an eye, thereby insulting and dismissing millions of people based on no evidence whatsoever.
TL;DR: you want me gone, fine, I'm outy, but don't threaten me and don't pretend like this means you "won". All it means is that I don't care enough to dick around about a page written by someone whose only defense is "Nuh-uh! You talk too much!"
And lowest common denominator is an inflammatory, and to be frank intellectually dishonest, term used by the faux-intellectual to try and dismiss what they don't like without proving it's "bad" or "wrong". However you doll it up or dress it up, the term is a pejorative, plain and simple, and never has been implied to be or used as anything but, at least not in recent history. The fact that the term is used as a blanket to describe millions and millions of people with wildly different lives and viewpoints, and mainly used in lieu of actual debating or empirical evidence, is a whole 'nother can of worms. It means, for those who don't know, "the lowest possible sophistication of taste, sensibility or opinion among a group of people". In other words, it's nothing but a blatant insult, and you know it. And I know you know it because every adult human being of normal or above intelligence does, and since you're clearly neither retarded nor a child you must be aware of the obvious and strongly negative implications. And you know it, too.
TL;DR: it's an insult, in the main page, insulting millions of people, and yet my content was removed for some undefined alleged inflammatory statements. Yeah...thats "even-handed" and not clearly dishonest at all.
Frankly, I'm over this page and your shallow little attempts at intellectual "superiority" but if you do actually respond try to actually adress something I said this time in a coherent manner instead of rules lawyering me or threatening me as if that's a replacement for actual genuine discussion and evidence to back up your claims.
Again, sorry for the "Walls of Text"...or as I call it, "explaining your position".
Apology accepted :P
(I am going to miss our talks, though.)
I know you're just being smug, but I'm not appologizing to you. Nor am I conceding defeat. I just am willing to take the hint, much like with other pages here, that there is little I can do to change the status quo. I'm still waiting for an answer, and I'm still going to complain about accusations made against me without merit. I know it will accomplish little but frankly, I don't care.
In other words, you're smug bullshit is nice for posturing but irrelevent to the point at hand. You fail at insults too, since nowhere in there did I "appologize". If you wanted to be properly insulting...well I shouldn't give you any tips, but it would have been funnier and less immature to say something more sarcastic like "So does this mean I won?" or "CONCESSION ACCEPTED!!!" or perhaps "So in conclusion, TL;DR: I win." or something of that sort. But that requires you to read that whole thing and I know that's a stretch.
Oh and PS:
If you actually have the balls to ever make a valid argument, try to please explain why, as I pointed out, some "blockbusters" tank while others succeed if the "unwashed masses" are supposed to be so stupid and shallow that they'll go see anything with explosions and CGI, which is the crux of the whole page.
You won't, because you can't, because it would torpedo your whole argument and openly admit to the whole page being an extended Take That! against anything that isn't an Indie movie. But then again maybe I've misjudged you and you're less intellectually dishonest than it appears, and you'll just admit how this whole thing is just some extended Take That! complete with spurious arguments and childish insults by the bushel as per standard Take That! structure.
Like how when I got in an argument about Misaimed Fandom once and someone finally just admitted it was to prop up the author's claims even when the fandom, and all logic, disagrees. Refreshingly honest, if self-defeating, but at least it was a real answer.
Protip: if you want to be a smartass again, the proper insult here is to accuse me of being a nerd and a basment dweller then liberal use of "LO Ls".
People, please calm down. All of this is Take It To The Forums material, whether you want to argue about the appropriateness of my edit (Trope Repair Shop) or your more abstract arguments about Quality by Popular Vote (some other forum). If you keep it up here both of you are going to be subject to IP bans. This is your only warning.
Uh, wow. I don't think that paragraph was necessarily inflammatory, just biased. Yes popularity is easier to measure than "beauty" or "quality", but it is not the same thing. I think the current page is better, but I would never suggest that the person who added the original paragraph was flaming or anything.
Community Showcase More