Quote:
Originally Posted by Tamad
Bringing over what I said from the thread where this came from, it's all in the majority. If the majority of the people who watch/read something believe it is "great" that it will undoubetly be labeled "great", and the remainder of the people will be stuck calling it "overrated". Greatness exists in something only if you believe it does.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by relentlessflame
See the answers in the other thread where you asked the same question. It means that it has been recognized over time as a work of particular value and importance because a large amount of people (possibly experts) selected it as exemplary. In other words, because a lot of people liked it. It's not always due to simple enjoyment; sometimes a work might be educational, it may have been unique, or it have been particularly representative of its time. But a work is called a classic because it's reputation stands over time. When you're living "in the moment" experiencing a work, you can't know whether a work is "a classic" yet, because it's something for future generations to decide. So for us, the more important thing (I think) is finding works we enjoy, "great", "classic", or otherwise.
And yes, most everything is opinion. But recognizing the weight of that realization is the tough part. If most everything is opinion as a result of value judgements, and each person has their own opinions and values, then you have no reason to necessarily believe that your perspective is better than any one else's, no matter how good you perceive your reasoning to be. We live in a world of greys; very few things are actually "black" or "white". What matters about opinion is, ultimately, the consequence.
|
So when people in award ceremonies such as the Grammies (And I am not going to say they choose the best movies to win) give movies the title of the best film of year _____, is it really the greatest? Lets take 2008 for example... The movie
The Dark Knight obviously blew every other movie out of the park in terms of popularity and people liking it, yet the movie
Slumdog Millionaire won the award which received a smaller fraction of the same amount of people who went to watch it.
Your logic implies that Batman beats it in terms of greatness, but the elitists of the movie industry considered it not worthy of being considered the best movie of the year (Once again, I'm not saying that I agree with their opinion).
Now, I think I'm about to abuse Godwin's law, but I must...
Lets take a Democracy for comparison. The majority opinion rules. Is it always the best choice? Not necessarily. Can it not be the same for entertainment?
When I'm with a group of 10 friends, and 6 of them think it's fun to get drunk, while me and the other 3 do not, should I consider their opinion to be the better one?
I'm saying this because I do not think that popularity dictates whether or not something becomes great overtime.
My defintion of great means that it is something that is to be remembered and passed down generations for its overall quality as a product of entertainment. Alfred Hitchcock is considered a great director, but a lot of people have never seen his movies and even those who do see them have mixed feelings about them. However, among the elite, these movies are usually considered brilliant. And these elitists of movies keep passing these movies down to younger generations and telling them that these movies are great.
In the end, does it really make their opinion any better because these people managed to pass down these movies as known "greats" even if it really isn't all that popular? Maybe. Maybe not. That's for others to decide.
To be honest, this post has become so convoluted that I will probably have to clean it up considerably later.
