Quote: Matthew Stott @ November 27 2008, 11:18 AM GMT
So, if you agree with that, Frasier itself was mediocre? Because that was a bloody popular show!
One thing I always found interesting was the fact that the Simpsons was so popular despite being intelligent. Sure, sometimes good things become amazingly huge in popularity, but it seems incredibly rare these days. That's what I like about the Simpsons though; it unites so many regardless of intelligence, sub-cultural affiliations, age, background, etc. I found it rather interesting to see in effect what I call "the Simpsons filter" when the movie was released. Watching it with an audience explained so much.
100% of the Audience laughed at 40% of the jokes
60% at about 60%
Then just a handful of people at quite a few, and there were two joke that only I and some guy sitting a row back a few seats down laughed at.
It is possible to merge popular silliness with intelligent and abstract observations to provide something that almost everyone will like, and I really enjoyed seeing it at work in the cinema.
I think Frasier worked for two reasons:
1. Because of the Father: down to earth, regular Joe who rolls his eyes at every esoteric pun and allusion his sons make. Someone the majority of the home audience can relate to some degree.
2. On a far less charitable note, I think it made idiots feel vindicated seeing two intelligent people constantly screwing up. (or it at least made up for all the things that went over everyone's heads)
"Popularity is the hallmark of mediocrity" doesn't mean that EVERYTHING popular is crap, just that popularity is a rather adequate warning sign given that a majority of the world is a tad on the simple side.
Quote: David Chapman @ November 27 2008, 7:48 PM GMT
PS - blimey this is getting heavy!
Sorry, I didn't want it to, but I refuse to stand by and be told I'm wrong because I disagree with the majority.
If the majority were always right we would never have bad leaders.
