Does popular = good?

[Ghoulish Delight]

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).

[Not Afraid]

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.

[Capt Jack]

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.

[Ponine]

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.

Originally Posted by Capt Jack

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

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.

[Capt Jack]

Originally Posted by Ponine

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.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Ponine

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?

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.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Ponine

And for the record... I really like Shawshank. (really really like, wierdly so for me for a guy movie)

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.

[Ponine]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

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.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Ponine

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.

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.

[wendybeth]

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.