samus4ever said:
I understand and I enjoy Popcorn movies. Yes, There Will Be Blood will not be viewed as much from the general public as Cloverfield or Godzilla (not the 1998 version, I HOPE). I enjoyed Cloverfield. I admire that this movie was made for only 25 million dollars and still looked a shit load better than Spider Man 3. The fact that Spider Man 3 was made for over 250 million dollars is ridiculous.
I don't understand where some of these budgets come from.
250 million for Spiderman 3. 150 million for Miami Vice.
Meanwhile, this gets made for 25 million and Doomsday get made for 30 million.
Also, part of my theory is that there is such a thing as an "intelligent popcorn movie" that transcends the genre. It's pretty easy to prove this genre's existence.
Imagine a mediocre genre film and a mediocre drama. Let's use Stealth and Life as a House.
Now imagine a top-tier genre film and a top-tier drama. Let's use Terminator 2 and American Beauty.
Is the gap between Life as a House and American Beauty bigger than the gap between Stealth and Terminator 2?
Once you realize that the answer is "no," you begin to see how the best genre films don't have be judged completely differently from the "Oscar contending" dramas. They may not provide as many profound insights into the human condition, but they make up for it by doing a lot of other things that most dramas don't do.
I have a theory that I'm calling "art in the effect." That is, something like a great horror film that truly achieves its objectives has a certain intrinsic quality of "art" in the effect that it has on the viewer.
Anyway, to me, Cloverfield qualified as much more than a popcorn flick, it was an "intelligent popcorn flick" as I would describe it. However, I do understand that there are a good number of people who don't agree with my opinion on this matter.