Typically speaking, the best stuff in pretty much any form of entertainment isn't the most popular stuff in any form of entertainment. Why?

Typically speaking, the best stuff in pretty much any form of entertainment isn't the most popular stuff in any form of entertainment. Why?

My running theory is that the intelligent people who enjoy the best television (for example) have better things to do than watch television.

Because its not what you'd expect to entertain, and when it does, it delivers in such a way that you are compelled to watching it.

 

Its like watching a train wreck of epic purportions and you know you should turn away, but you don't because its something of hte like you haven't seen and while its "fresh" and "new" it will stimulate you enough that you'll see it through.

I'm of the opinion that the most popular form of entertainment is exactly that, just popular. Usually I've noticed that there are certain things that the Lowest Common Denominator like, and there are more of them than us. Therefore it sells more or gets more exposure.

 

Those of us who have taste are apparently too few to make a difference. I could go on and on about this and why I think it makes the world sucks, but I think I'll stop my rant for now.

Typically speaking, the best stuff in pretty much any form of entertainment isn't the most popular stuff in any form of entertainment. Why?

I don't know if I'm thinking slightly differently than you are in regards to what's "best", but I think it's because most people (thus making it more popular) look for escapism in entertainment, and not realism. However, if you're able to capture that realism in a compelling way, in my opinion, it makes it the best entertainment. Like Sun said, there's also that Lowest Common Denominator factor too.

Ok, but let's look past television. Why is this true in ALL forms of entertainment? That's what I'm asking.

I think, if I'm understanding the question correctly, it's because the "most popular" stuff generally isn't as good but gets more word-of-mouth. With word-of-mouth comes more negativity and with negativity comes more controversy. That controversy leads to better conversation, for the most part. Then a lot of people "get in line," so to speak, so they know what's going on and can take part in the conversations and what not.

 

Take the TV show "Lost" for example. I'm sure a lot of people started watching it just because it got a lot of publicity (a lot of which, isn't good) and they wanted to understand what everyone at work was talking about at the water-cooler. If they went into work wanting to talk about Veronica Mars (as an example) they'd be talking to themselves.

Typically speaking, the best stuff in pretty much any form of entertainment isn't the most popular stuff in any form of entertainment. Why?

Because alleged "talent" is what corporate people who have no clue about art, say it is, and the truly talented are ignored because they don't fit certain pre-determined and idiotic criteria.

 

It's about the bucks'n'biz, not about the art.

Because the power is in the hands of the distributors and not the creators. There is always someone willing to play the game when others stand their ground creatively. Every artistic person thats wants their work to speak for itself is outnumbered by a dozen who are willing to alter/edit their vision if it means they'll get paid. People will like what they are told is good whether it is or isn't because they don't want to be the odd one out amongst their peers. There's dozens of reasons why the best doesn't always rise to the top these days and most of them have to do with marketing and business.

I've noticed the stuff that appeals to the LCD (OMG MATH TERMS!) also gets the most promotion. How many trailers for Big Mama's House did you see in the weeks leading up to its release?

 

Same goes for TV. I see an endless supply of commercials for reality shows, regardless of the network, but I rarely saw any real promotion for shows like Arrested Development or The Office.

 

These people know what the masses like, so obviously they're going to cater to them. The bulk of the products are made to appeal to them to begin with, so I guess it only makes sense that those get the most publicity.

Who are these people? And why don't these people like shows like Arrested Development or The Office?

Because shows like Desperate Housewives, American Idol & Lost make more money.

That's what I'm asking. Why do those shows make more money? Why is the average American more likely to follow Desperate Housewives than Arrested Development?

Nothing attracts a crowd like a crowd. That's the best way I can explain it. People see it's popular, so they check it out and stick with it to "fit in." Whereas shows like AD don't get a lot of publicity, so people don't care or don't remember about it.

I think this is really fascinating, that we have a culture where more people are concerned with watching something so they can have conversations about it at work and with friends than they are to be genuinely entertained. This is a psychiatric field day, I'd imagine. I guess the key to a successful TV show or CD or anything else really is making people feel like they're somehow out of a really big loop if they're not paying attention.

I think it's equally fascinating with how celebrity obsessed the United States is. It's amazing how people can put others on such a pedestal that if they ever do see them, they become hysterical and start shaking and crying. It's like, Jesus Christ, it's just another person. Just because they're on TV or in movies doesn't mean that they're the Messiah.

I think it's because it's just easier.

 

I mean, it's (relatively speaking) easy to make a hit music album, because what works is pretty well known at this point. Same goes for TV.

 

Why does this only happen with the LCD stuff? Because they *know* that stuff is gonna sell. They *know* people will buy tickets to some movie regardless of the plot if it has the right actors in it/is marketed properly. Thus, they don't try to do complicated, in-depth stuff, because there's always the chance it WON'T sell, and then they lose a lot of money.

 

To put it in wrestling terms: If the crowd pops when you do an elbow drop, why do a moonsault?

How about..Because the general human population isn't all that intelligent. Not to say they're idiots, but they're certainly not great thinkers. Thus, people take everything at face value, and few are able to actually look beneath the surface to see something on a deeper level. And that's where style over substance comes from. Some might be able to understand media on a higher level, and just prefer to be entertained with their brains turned off, but I'd say the majority just aren't capable.

 

Oh yes, and I'd argue that in many cases, even if something really is "the best", if it's popular, that makes it "not the best" to many "critics". That's really a limited group of people though, and it's probably the opposite among the mainstream.

Right. Lost is a great TV show and is overwhelmingly popular.

The masses aren't drawn to shows like AD and The Office not only because they don't have large followings, but because they take some intelligence to fully appreciate.

 

I always use Friends as an example. I hate the show, but I can see why it's so popular. Anything that was ever designed to be funny on the show was banged over your head. There weren't jokes that you'd miss because they were so subtle and not telegraphed. People like that.

 

You take a show like AD, which is so quick-paced that it's almost impossible to catch every joke in there. I'm watching the first season for the third time and am catching jokes that I missed before. Shows like that require the audience to be alert and thinking on their feet. As unfortunate as it is, a lot of people watch TV specifically so they don't HAVE to think.

 

The absence of a laugh track for shows like this probably scares off some. Without that comforting cue on when to laugh, some people may not even be sure they're watching a comedy, let alone know when they're supposed to be laughing.

Now we're getting to the good stuff.

 

Why do people hate thinking? Is it because as a society, we teach people that learning and paying attention is a chore? Is it because we're spoiled? Both? Some other reason? Is this necessarily a bad thing?

This is something I kind of figured out when I heard of a poll done for the world's funniest joke.

 

Now, the joke in itself is not one that will likely be any one person's funniest joke, but, chances are, anyone from New York to Nairobi will get a chuckle out of it. By contrast, a joke that will have most New Yorkans rolling on the floor laughing, will have most Kenyans going "Huh?" The above joke as the researcher says in the article "has great appeal."

 

The same is true is for popular entertainment. The goal is not to create "the best popular movie/song/whatever" but to create the most appealing thing as possible. Sure it probably won't be considered the greatest thing to ever come out of that genre, it may not even be even be in the Top 100, but, chances are, if the "appeal" goal is achieved, a lot of people will like it enough to be willing to see the movie/tv show/buy the CD/whatever. It is certainly not the way I would like to things to be, but that seems to be the way they are.

I'm going to jump in here some time soon, I just know it, but already I'm sorta chuckling to myself at Coffey's responses because he is the definition of the LCD. His answers are gonna bust my stitches...AND I DON'T HAVE STITCHES!

Why would you post that? Are you trying to get under my skin by flame-baiting me? I can leave.

Why would you post that?

Because it's what I believe and what you've proven to me in the time I've "known" you.

 

Are you trying to get under my skin by flame-baiting me?

Not at all. I'm not baiting you. I'm saying what I believe to be true.

 

I can leave.

Threat or promise?