Does popular = good?

[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.

[JWBear]

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

George Bush

End of argument.

[Alex]

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.

[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.

[Prudence]

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.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex

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.

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.

[Gemini Cricket]

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.