Does popular = good?
 

At dinner the other night with the in-laws, we were talking movies, as we often do. In trying to convince us to see The Green Mile, CP's brother pointed out that it's directed by the same director as The Shawshank Redemption. I said, well, that doesn't help much because CP's not really a fan of Shawshank. To which he responded, "But it's the #2 rated movie on imdb."

First off, that surprises the heck outta me. I mean, I enjoy the movie, it's certainly entertaining. But the number 2 rated movie? Seriously? I can't even begin to express how wrong that is. With the number of truly excellent movies out there, for Shawshank to be rated #2? Yikes.

That got us into a short discussion as her brother basically said, "How can you say it's not a good movie if it's rated #2?" He flat out equated popularity with quality. That attitude baffles me. Popularity is such a transitory thing, just because a lot of people like something doesn't mean it's the best. It doesn't even mean it's good. It means it's popular. I just can't wrap my brain around the idea that because the masses like it, it must be good and that I'm just being a stubborn snob if I don't like it (whatever it is).

It's a pretty common argument - especially where movies are concerned. "Big Mamma's House was a hit at the box office. It's a good movie." But, it's a difficult argument to make without sounding like a snob.

couldnt agree more. bottom line, it starts with 'popular with who?' and how that was determined, who they asked, who didnt respond and why blah blah.

anymore popularity seems to reflect only the money and time put into the marketing plan. good product or no doesnt seem to matter. generate interest it becomes popular because so few want to say "I didnt see it"

btw, Shawshank.....I didnt see it. no real interest to even now.

Just because something is 'popular' certainly doesn't mean it's good- it could very well mean that a large group of people have horrible taste. Case in point: the Porky's movies. They were popular in their day, and they stunk. Same goes for the 'music' group the Human League. I seldom use somethings popularity as an indicator that I should read/watch/play, etc.

I'll admit that I see a difference between "Did well at the box office" and "Highly rated on imdb." At least with the latter, it's a less momentary thing, it's "How did you like it?" not, "Did you see it?" and it's generally people who see a lot of movies and have at least some perspective.

But it's still only an element of the quality of a movie. Sure it's an indicator that a movie might be good, but it's not the definition of good. And, to my mind, a lack of popularity can often be an equal indicator that a movie is good. Some of the best art challenges, offends, confuses, etc.

Hey now, them's fightin' words.

Short answer: No, not inherently.

Longer answer: Frequently, yes. With the caveat that "good" does not equal "great."

Even longer answer: "Good" is, of course, a subjective evaluation and so at best popular can not equal good but rather popular can be a strong correlate to what I find good.

Altered point of view answer: On the assumption that filmmakers feel at least some artistic pride in their productions, then from their point of view (and their money masters) popular does equal good.

Side Topic A answer: Particularly not when it comes to IMDb movie ratings where geek herd mentality reigns. For example, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly; Pulp Fiction; The Empire Strikes Back; and The Return of the King are also in IMDb's Top 10.

Side Topic B answer: If popular does equal good then the top ten films of all time are:

1. Gone with the Wind
2. Star Wars
3. The Sound of Music
4. E.T.
5. The Ten Commandmants
6. Titanic
7. Jaws
8. Doctor Zhivago
9. The Jungle Book
10. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs

Using the still flawed equation that inflation-adjusted gross = better measure of popularity. This list provides strong support for the idea that popular may not equal great but it is a strong indicator of good.


Side Topic C comment: Personally, The Shawshank Redemption is a top 10 film. It may not be the best in many individual categories but it combines to something that very few movies have for me: rewatchability. I have seen it more times than any other movie, I'm pretty sure.

That could just be a statistical anomaly seeing as it's shown on TV more than any other movie, I'm pretty sure.

If I sing "Don't You Want Me" for the rest of the day, I'm going to fly to Spokane and bring a rope. ;)

How about "(Keep Feeling) Fascination"

Beware. You're within easy driving distance.

Lol! Well, you were too young to know the ginormous amount of suckage they wreaked upon the pop world. Their videos were awful as well.



Most of the classic lit I love was at one time considered offensive, poorly written, etc. Innovation is seldom welcome by the masses, at least initially. So, the argument can certainly be made that lack of popularity is not a quality indicator.

Hey, I didn't know you were into rodeo!



If it helps, I will offer up a song to chase that one out of your head: The Safety Dance.
:evil:

I agree

Now I'm thinking about Zihuatanejo

Not really. Until about two weeks ago (when we were "forced" to upgrade our cable and ended up with TCM) it had been about a decade since I last watched a movie on TV (broadcast or cable) rather than DVD since while I can just barely tolerate fullscreen, I can no longer tolerate commercial breaks).

I'd love to see an analysis of what type of customers IMDB's niche market is composed of. I've never really thought about it being a "geek herd mentality".

Top 10 lists are incredibly subjective and, it seems, the broader the audience the dull the list.

When I look at the All Time USA Box Office list, I don't see much on there that I would put on my "top" list.

AFI's top 100 list is more to my own taste.

I disagree with this. While YOU may not have have liked the Porky's movies, some people DID like them. Those people's opinions may differ than yours, but that does not make them lesser opinions.

Using the Porky's example, one needs to remember that movies are, in their essence, meant to entertain. Sometimes people like simplistic, mindless entertainment - whether due to a simplistic mind incapable of processing complex plot lines and subtleties or because they feel that life is complicated enough and enjoy escapism that doesn't require deep thought. I confess to liking simplistic, and often shallow, movies. I also like deeper, thought provoking movies as well, but tend to gravitate towards the former.

Why? Because my work like is very fast paced, requires a lot of thought and is filled with constant conflict and constant arguments. I am usually exhausted by the close of each week. Mindless entertainment is the perfect escape for me.

Further, being a bad movie, does not render a movie void of entertainment. Susan has a fondness for enjoying "bad" movies (Pirate Movie, Grease 2, and Xanadu come to mind). And if a movie entertains one, is it really "bad" since it accomplished the core goal of entertaining?

No, most of them aren't on my top list either, but would you agree that they are generally good?

If the question is changed to "does popular = best" then the answer is emphatically no.

By Mennen

Problem solved.

I knew you'd come to Porky's defense, KB.;)

Of course, it goes without saying that these things are entirely subjective. I mean, look at the Oscars- how many times have we watched and thought that the winning Best Picture was the wrong choice? Still, I would argue that Porky's, while it may have been good (gag), was most certainly not great. Not Citizen Cane great, or Casablanca great. Again, my criteria for greatness is my own.

I'm in the same boat with the Oscars. Per my subjective views, winning Best Picture does not correlate strongly with the actual best picture of a year. But winning Best Picture (popularity among a select subgroup) does correlate strongly with picking a good movie. Clunkers, yes; sometimes they actually pick a great one. But almost always a good one.

If we're talking short-term box office numbers, no. Long term revenue seems to be a better indicator of quality (the only one on that top 10 list that I don't consider 'good' to some degree is Titanic).

As for the IMDB "geek herd", I think that's what surprises me most about Shawshank being up there. While I certainly agree that it's got all the elements of a good commercially successful movie, it doesn't strike me as the kind of movie the "geek herd" (of which I'll admit to being a pat of) generally goes for. While I'd shuffle the order and add some that aren't there, I'm more or less on board with the top 20 imdb list. Discounting the ones I haven't seen, Shawshank's the only one that really sticks out. To me it's like seeing a Chilli's at the top of a restaurant ranking list. Sure, it's pretty good, better than most standard chain fair, but THAT good?

Agreed. What struck me about CP's brother was that his argument was, "How can you possibly not like that movie, it's #2?!"

I caught sight of this place on a recent Discovery Channel show on the 1000 places you should see before you die. I hated the show, the couple doing the traveling suck, but I liked seeing Zihuatanejo, the beaches are left unspoiled, it's still a fishing village.

And, count me as one who loved Shawshank, I even bought it on DVD and watch it annually.

popular=good? Eh, everyone filters through their own criteria, especially when it comes to film. I just polled for a future podcast what the top ten, essential silent films would be, the list was amazingly diverse.

I seriously do not understand how anyone can think that Porky's was not a great movie. The sequels less so.

As for Shawshank, while I love Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman, and while I'm reasonably open to sentiment and magic, I thought the movie had the kind of Maya Angelou self-satisfaction you want to hit in the face with a large cartoon skillet.

Thank you for the reminder about the OP (duh! to me).

Yeah, the argument is lacking in merit. It is right up there with the thought that because someone else liked a movie that I would like it too. I know there are many movies that I enjoy that (for example) I know NA wouldn't. It is just a difference in opinion - nothing more.

A few years ago, we took off and spent about 2 months down there on our boat. It was a nice quiet place, warm clear water. Great little hole in the wall restaurants. Not a place to go if you like fast-paced excitement, more of a slow paced relaxing place.

It is very interesting to see what people think about different movies, this is such a diverse group, I haven't heard about 99% of the movies discussed in the movie thread, but they are fun to read about.

And, Kevy, you bring up a good point about why you choose to watch movies in the first place. Escapism, enlightment, stimulation etc are all valid reasons to watch a film. It's 2 hours of your life, you should have a decent reason. ;)

Or occasionally 15 minutes and an indecent reason ;)

I don't mean to say that every movie at the top of the list is there because of geek herd, but that there is a strong distorting influence on the overall list.

All the Lord of the Rings movies rated at least as well as (and two better than) Citizen Kane? And any list that saves All About Eve for 80 is way out of whack (in my subjective view, of course). That said, I do agree that most of the movies in the top 20 are good.

But while I won't say you're wrong to not be impressed with Shawshank I also don't think the fact that you don't like it (or CP doesn't) doesn't make it a bad movie any more than the fact that millions do makes it a good movie. On this one the popularity indicator fails for CP. But you are probably missing a larger societal feeling. Notice that among the 250 moves in IMDb's list, Shawshank has, by far, the most ratings. So it does have strong cross-demographic response.

Now to the other frequenters of imdb, that ranking is made from our votes and ranking of those of us who log in right?
Combined with how often its looked up?

imo, a great deal of the time popular = there's something interesting here.

Not necassarily good, just interesting.

I would personally never take the rank of a movie on imdb to be a reason to see it. But thats me.

And for the record... I really like Shawshank. (really really like, wierdly so for me for a guy movie)
I think it is totally worth the time at least once.

yeah. I'm told that a lot for numerous movies, events, places, bands etc. while I do love a good movie, they just arent the super draw for me they are for many folks I know. the list of films a vast majority of the viewing public see as 'geez, everyone has seen that, havent they?' that I've not is substantial. hell, I never saw "Wizard of Oz" until I was in my 30's and Aerosmith, one of my all time favorite bands, I saw in concert for the first time this year.

I just put them on the "yeah, I'll get to it eventually" list.

The Top 250 list is generated completely on user rankings. The frequency of look up doesn't play into it.

If you go to an individual movie, down towards the bottom is a MOVIEmeter rating that is a measure of how frequently people are looking into that title relative to previous activity.

If Shawshank is a guy movie because it takes place in a men's prison, then "Ilsa, Wicked Warden" is a chick flick.

Both, not so.

To me, Shawshank plays like a 'guy' movie, because it has no major female characters to relate to.
To understand the story, or the minds at work in the story, I had to just stop and watch, because they were not thinking about the situation the way that I would.

I had a very hard time relating to, and understanding that film, and had to watch it over and over again to understand why the men handled it they way they did.

You want proof that popular does not equal good? I have two words:

George Bush

End of argument.

I think the value of "popular" = "good" as an indicator varies from realm to realm.

But Bush may not be a counter argument. Electing a president is a predictive popularity contest, which is a different thing from popularity of something already experienced (Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip was the most "popular" show before anybody experienced it but extremely unpopular afterwards). Currently, however, after we've experienced him as president he is not popular.


In the area of literature, however, I think broad population popularity is a very bad indicator (at least for me) of quality. In fact, the more people who have read a book (in the population at large) the more certain I am in predicting it is awful.

Do actors need to be of the same gender for you to associate with? This to me seems quite limiting.

There are stories being told that apply to me and affect me when I differ greatly from the character. For example, I am not Jewish but I could easily relate to the characters (regardless of gender) in Schindler's List. While I have never been, and Goddess forbid, never shall be in a situation like what they endured, I could none-the-less be engrossed in their story and empathize with them.

What is "good", though? There isn't, that I'm aware of, some objective master list of the qualities that make up "good". If "good" to you means "as judged by the average Netflix user who rates movies", then that #2 Netflix ranking is indeed all the proof you need. Some people think "good" and popular are mutually exclusive. Some people think good movies are judged more by their visuals than their story. Some people think good movies are the ones that provide the most complete escape from reality.

But, for some people, popular does equal good.

See, that's my point. There my be a strong correlation for movies between "highly rated" (which I probably should have used in my thread title rather than "popular") and "good", but it does not serve as "proof" of good, particularly since there is no such thing as truly "proving" something so subjective.

I liked Shawshank Redemption it's definitely up there for me moviewise. But #2? I don't think so. It's a tight film and the screenplay was phenomenal but I wouldn't rank it up there with All About Eve, Casablanca and Kane.

Popular does not always equal good. I mean American Idol is really popular but watching it is like watching a bunch of kids sing karaoke.

And I don't know how much merit I put in the imdb voting system. I have a couple of imdb logins (forgot username) and don't know how many times I voted for the same flick with both.

Also, I love "(Keep Feeling) Fascination"... passion burning love so strong.
:D

Well - I thought Shawshank was a darn good flick. All time favorite - no. But really good. I loved the naration by Morgan Freeman.

And as for you two with your By Mennon and Safety dance - ACK! Make it stop. "Do the Safety Dance, by Mennon."

My short answer applies. "Popular" is an objective* concept. "Good" is a subjective concept (at the level of the individual). Of course one does not equal the other.

That said, on the question "How good does the collective rating population of IMDb think The Shawshank Redemption is?" would have the answer of "The second best of all movies." So within in that collective population "popular" does equal "good." But it still breaks down at the individual level.

And just as you probably should have said "highly rated" instead of popular what CP's brother probably meant was "Considering how highly regarded this movie is by the population as a whole, you are quite the statistical outlyer by not liking it." Just as I am surprised she doesn't like it (because I think it is a great movie and so does the general population) I do not think she is wrong in not liking it. However, even though I like Find Me Guilty quite a lot it would not surprise me if she doesn't since in general the population agrees with her.

*You can argue about what constitutes popularity but generally it is in terms that are objectively measurable.

It is, but none the less, sometimes the case.
I analyze too much and spent a great deal of that film thinking... I dont get it.
Why is this an issue?

Just as I spent time realizing that I couldnt understand (since you mentioned it) Ralph Fiennes character in Schindlers.
I could totally understand the woman he was beating, but not him.
Hence, I spent more time being confused than trying to actually watch the film as a whole.

Which is also why I said I watched Shawshank more than once.
I'm an idiot. I accept it. :P

Actors do not need to be the same gender as me to relate to them. However, when Hollywood throws me a bone (no pun intended) and portrays a gay male couple going through love's dance, I relate to them even more.

Is the inverse true? Does unpopular=bad? Shawshank was considered a flop during its theatrical release, but on home video it developed a spectacular life of its own...all on the power of WOM of renters of every stripe. It has since been on several popvote lists as #1 or #2.

It's done consistently well on various formats since its initial distribution -- enough to warrant a massive 10-year anniversary party/viewing which I was lucky enough to attend. Hubby is best friends with the director.

I like the movie a lot, but it's not on my personal top-10 list.

What makes a movie good? Is it even quantifiable? Sometimes the sheer popularity of a film has so turned me off that I've deprived myself overlong before finally submitting, only to discover that some gems ARE popular. Some movies that I think are real stinkers get great reviews and accolades. Actually the more I think about it -- I've hated more movies that got raves than rotten tomaters. Must be the heightened expectations thing.

Still, good CAN = popular. But obviously popularity is no solid predictor of good, OR bad, OR what each of us might like. Popularity is just what it is. As Alex noted it's something that is quantifiable, and perhaps that is why it is so frequently used to represent "good."

Did I mention how much I loved that movie?

Ha! Shhhh: It's the only movie he's done that I like. I have high hopes for The Mist, though...

I am not a big fan of Shawshank....not saying it was bad, just not my cup of tea.

As for the Human League....I loved them back in the 80's.

Watch:)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=koGywVUJ9hE

I refuse to click on the evil link.

I LOVE that video!
That song is one of my happy songs.
:)

While I find the gender issue interesting, you are far from an idiot.

While we know that gay men and women (both in or out) have portrayed straight characters throughout the years, how do you as a gay man feel about straight actors playing gay men?

The first one that always comes to mind is Eric whatshisname who played Will on Will and Grace. But of course there have been more: Heath and Jake in Brokeback, Kevin Kline and Tom Selleck in In & Out, etc.

I can't answer for GC, but it doesn't matter a whit for me if a gay man plays straight or a straight man plays gay, or if Linda Hunt plays a man. Who gives a fig? These are actors. The whole point is to portray something you are not, and do it convincingly.

And I don't need to have similar personal experiences to empathize with any particular character or situation ... but when that co-incidence happens, it can make for a stronger effect on me.



or not. All depends on execution.



And popular usually is some indicator of good. Except for when it's not.

It doesn't matter to me, either. Just as long as the representation is more than just a stereotype. Then again, some stereotyping of gay men I have enjoyed. I loved Nathan Lane's Albert in The Birdcage. Then again again, I know men like him so was he a stereotype?

As for Heath and Jake, I'm holding out that they're both gay and will have a snog fest with me.

One of the portrayals I did have a problem with was Felicity Huffman in Transamerica. I wanted to see a man play that part.

I just want the characters to be interesting, fascinating even. I don't care much if I relate to them or not. Actually, sometimes it is more interesting for me if they are completely different. I can live a life in someone else's shoes for a couple hours.

I figured that most would not have a problem with straight for gay.

It is a sometimes made argument that "minorities" (for lack of a better term) should be portrayed by that minority. In other words, there are (gay) folks who would have no problem with a gay man portraying a straight man on film, but would be genuinely pissed at a straight man portraying a gay man. And yes, I believe that they would be the fringe minority.

Is there a gay equivalent of the "feminazi" - a hard-core militant gay right individual?

I have problems with gay for pay ... but that's sort of a tangent, no?

LOL

I've already made too many OT posts in this thread.

But if gay for pay were popular, would that make it good?

Hmmm... "Gay for pay..." I'll have to put that little phrase in my pocket and think about it.

You know you want to:D

Aren't there SAG rules making it near mandatory now that except in exceptional circumstances characters be played by the same racial type? I believe the stunt person union has something (I seem to recall a settlement over some movie that used a white stunt man in makeup to double a black actor).

I don't think it is necessarily a big deal, though it can be distracting. I was always annoyed that most of the Koreans on MASH were actually Japanese (and in many 1940s war movies Japanese characters were frequently Chinese). Considering how Koreans view the Japanese (on average, not well) I had a Korean friend in college who found it very insulting.

I like Shawshank, not my top ten fav or anything though. I also like Green Mile, but of course I love anything with Tom Hanks. They are also both Stephen King movies if I recall correctly, which gives them more Jill kudos!

While I completely understand where your friend is coming from, Alex, and with my heritage as such I also understand the long-held resentments between various Asian culture, I have to question whether any SAG rules mandating that roles be played by a certain race. Would such a rule from SAG be just another form of racism, preventing one actor from portraying a role because of his or her race? After all, it is "acting" not "being," even if it's coming from an actor of the portrayed race or sexual orientation.

I detest the word race.

Really, that's among the most absurd things I've ever heard ... even for SAG.

I think those Koreans need to get a freaking grip. It's probably more insulting to their nationality and culture to have such nimrods among them.

Miss Gorightry!

There is no Good

There is only Zuul?

So, the guys from that 'White Chicks' movie- are they not in SAG?

I could be wrong about SAG rules, but thought I had read about it some time. But I can't find anything to indicate my memory is correct.

But since the characters in White Girls are black men pretending to be white women I don't see where that would be a problem since they were played by black men dressed as white women.

Boycott "Watermelon Man." Only white actors should play white bigots.

As a white woman, I am totally offended.



Not really. I suppose if I actually saw the movie I might be offended, but it would depend on how they portrayed white women.

The crowd discussing what's good, what's gay, and what SAG is up to looks up.
*grand entrance*

Hello, all you wonderful people! A thread all about me, and it's not even my birthday, how generous! *bats eyelashes*

Anyway. Shawshank. Here's why I'm a statistical anomaly:

I read Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption ages before the movie came out, when I was enthralled with all things King. Like all of his novellas, it was pretty incredible, and moved me quite a bit. I read it at least 4 times before seeing the film - and Tim Robbins was NOT what I envisioned AT ALL. It was also WAY TOO DAMN SAPPY (thank you Strangler Lewis) and when you're talking Stephen King, it's hard to add sap, but they achieved it in freaking spades.

I never like adaptations of King. The movie Misery was awful for me. I understand why others would like these films but having absorbed every word of these books, over and over, it's impossible to be satisfied with the choices they make for the motion pictures.

As for popular = good....hah. Popular = popular and nothing more.

Hmm, brings on a side topic for myself - favorite King adaptation.. I'll save that one for another day.

I suppose that in this thread I have yet to say whether popular = good.

Of course not; at least not on the individual level. But for more individuals than not, or at least those who took the time to respond (and that needs to be taken seriously into consideration when considering what imdb or any movie-related site has to say on a "rating" of a movie based on "popularity") the movie is "good."

"Good" is such a non-descriptor to me these days that they may have just as well said it was "okay." After all, don't most people say their day was "good" if it wasn't totally crap - by comparison, unless a movie was egregiously bad, don't they say "it was good" and if you're lucky enough for a discriminating opinion they might say, "but..."

Anyway... I don't buy much into what people say, aside from a few people I know very well.

Another way my hubby and I differ is that I could care less for King, except for his excellent "On Writing." We had dinner with him (they work together every so often), and I know he has such fervent fans that the whole time I felt like I was wasting a seat. He's very nice though. Still, his writing bores the *&^% out of me. Any movie seems an improvement. I even liked "Cujo."

Normally, I'd side with the written version of most stuff over the filmed, but I'm just not fan enough to think the written versions of King are so very great.

Cormac McCarthy though...I've got his back! I'm really hopeful that the new flick will do him justice!

God, I just read Cormac's 'The Road'. Good book, but depressed the **** out of me.

Cormac McCarthy has to be one of my favorite writers of all time. Such gripping realism in his storytelling. So brutal. My introduction to him was Blood Meridian for a literature class I took last year.

And Lizziebith... You're just making me jealous. Stop. Please. Seriously.

OMG to have dinner with King!! Yes, many would have gladly taken your place at the table, me, me, pick me;)

I have collected his works for years, although I have been slacking the last few. I even searched high and low for a copy of my pretty pony and paid a pretty little fortune for that thing!

I envy you more than I can express right now:(

You make me giggle. :)

I'm so often out of step with "popular" i don't even worry about it anymore. I see equivalating "good" with "popular" to be a symptom of the degradation of opinions and taste in the culture. We used to be more demanding- stories had to actually have a story. Now we just need pretty people and good effects and call it a hit!

I've been very disgusted with movies and tv lately- I pick and choose what I watch, and hang the rest. It's a lot. So much of it looks to be a waste of my precious time. There are so many *other* things I could be doing.

I wouldn't want to have dinner with him just because I'd be a giggling idiot the whole time.

"Hey, you remember when you wrote that book The Stand, and there was that guy who was deaf and that guy who was mentally disabled, and they were like biking together and stuff? You remember that? That was awesome."

If I'd known I would have sold you Lani's copy and seen if she noticed. Pretty much up to about 2000 she was collecting him and has most things in first edition (meaning Grant Hill edition for many) and many still shrink wrapped. I, however, hate Pretty Pony since it is so out of size with everything. Requires a taller shelf for just one inch thick book. Very inefficient.

Good does not equal popular any more than talented equals successful.

Satchmo had a horrible, gravely voice and yet was a successful and popular singer. His incredible talent lied not in his vocal quality but in his ability to entertain.

I love listening to Mrs. Miller not because she is a good singer, but because her singing was so bad it's amusing.

Musical Theater aficionados generally agree that Stephen Sondheim is a brilliantly talented composer/lyricist and yet most of his shows (the ones he wrote both the music and lyrics, not his earlier collaborations like West Side Story and Gypsy) have not been particularly successful at the box office.