This kinda just seems like a version of the same angle as your last post, just swapping out whether something can be considered bad for can something be considered a masterpiece. So, to reiterate, no I'm not saying that. You can think something is a masterpiece if you want or you can disagree that something is a masterpiece.
There can be a canon, works generally regarded as great, like The Mona Lisa, Hamlet, or, since this thread is about Coppola, The Godfather. There's definitely merit to the idea of classics that people should try to experience if they're into that medium. Looking at what the consensus is can be a useful guide. But it's also perfectly valid to think they're not good. Similarly, you can consider something a masterpiece, even if most people think it's terrible.
You can have a critical consensus, which reflects the commonly held view among experts or those knowledgeable about the medium. There's also a public consensus, representing the general opinion of the wider population. Rotten Tomatoes can illustrate how these perspectives may differ. But you can disagree with both of those about what is bad and good.
Van Gogh's work wasn't appreciated in his time but he's now widely considered one of the greatest artists in history. The consensus shifted. Was it objectively bad before and now it's objectively good? When is it appropriate for that definitive judgment to form?
