Originally posted by SundownInRetreat
View Post
However, I have no idea what you mean by popular vs non. There is little correlation between popularity and quality. This holds true in basically every art form. Almost all Oscar nominees in any year make far less at the box office than blockbusters. A mass market paperback fiction author is never going to win the Man Booker Prize. It seems like you have a you against the world opinion. Like the canon and overriding critical opinions of quality need to be reconsidered because it's not 'popular' enough for you.
Earlier in this thread you tried to draw a contrast between two loglines (listed below), obviously trying to illustrate what in your thinking is Nicholl worthy and not.
1) When an alien prison ship crashes on earth, unleashing six murderous creatures, a loner police detective must team up with an intergalactic bounty hunter to save the world
2) A young nun operating a sanctuary during the Nazi occupation of her homeland must confront her growing attraction to a benevolent farmhand whilst caring for her autistic sister
I think both of those concepts are awful. If I absolutely had to watch one of those movies I would choose the second one and I actively try to avoid any movie about WWII or is a kind of misery porn.
Finally, when you say 'the film-loving public' I'm not sure who you mean. In the US roughly 50% of people watch about 1 movie in a theater per year. And my guess is they'll choose the 'popular' titles. When you get down to the 15% who go more than once per month, what I'd call film lovers, you'll find an array of attitudes and tastes. That group is by no means comprised of people who will only go see 'popular' cinema. Before COVID I went to the cinema roughly once a week and I can count on one hand the 'blockbusters' I've seen in the last 5-10 years.
Leave a comment: