People with average intelligence are by definition, not smart

>people with average intelligence are by definition, not smart
>popular movies have to appeal to the average person to be popular
>therefore popular movies/shows can never be good
find a flaw in this logic

ugh fuck off pol

>find a flaw
>implying "smart" automatically means good
there you go

>smarter=better

you went to public school.
because popular does not prevent the possibility of also smart
kys amerikuk. 10 year old chinks have a better grasp of semiotics and logic. TEN YEAR OLD CHINKS.

The last word in the last line should be >smart there are plenty of "good" movies/shows that are not smart in the way that they have good writing, pacing, acting, tone etc. without being smart.

If you're smarter than the average person, you should be better at manipulating them

It was intelligently written in the first few seasons, now it's coalesced into generic good guys beat evil tripe. I hope the new season breathes new life into the plot by killing someone like Dany or Sansa (hell, kill Snow again, permanently this time), but I'm not holding my breath. D&D are cuck hacks and George bit off more than he could chew so now they get to finish telling his story.

the fact that smarter people like something does not make it better, the fact that a show appeals to average people does not preclude it from appealing to smart people, and it is arguable that the definition of smart is to be *above average* intelligence rather than just above a certain threshold of intellectual ability.

that said, why am i responding to this 15 year old

The logic is fine, but the premises are iffy.

> popular movies/shows have to appeal to the average person to be popular
No, they don't. Even the most popular shows appeal to less than 15% of the viewer base, and an average show needs less than 5% audience to continue to be renewed.

> therefore popular movies/shows can never be good
This assertion is based on the assumption that only shows that appeal to higher echelons of intelligence can be good, which is unsubstantiated nor given proper evidence for.

>The logic is fine

no it isn't

if the premises are iffy it's unsound, but even then it's a non-sequitur

...

>tries to syllogistically prove that people's preferences are wrong
>talks chauvinistically about reddit

oh yeah you're 15 alright

>good is subjective
>by your own logic they're more likely to be good

>being stupid

Truly great television/movies appeal to the smartest and the stupid alike.

Classic simpsons is the best example of this, a truly outrageously popular show the world over, on which the writing and jokes were actually quite clever. It's the reason why you probably still watch episodes and pick up on things you didn't as a kid.

I know this is a bait thread, but please try harder in the future

>tips fedora

>the fact that smarter people like something does not make it better,
Yes it does.
>the fact that a show appeals to average people does not preclude it from appealing to smart people,
Yes it does.
>and it is arguable that the definition of smart is to be *above average* intelligence rather than just above a certain threshold of intellectual ability.
You sound like someone with a low IQ, rationalizing.

>Yes it does.

show your work

>Yes it does.

show your work

>You sound like someone with a low IQ, rationalizing.

i could be, or i could be making an argument that if you want to define the quality of TV in an objective way, tying it to the statistical variance of IQ in a developing species is probably not a good idea.

Your logic is sound. Listen to classical music and read literature. Redeem yourself from cultural marxism.

Flaw in the logic:
>I and the majority of Sup Forums loves seinfeld
>but seinfeld was huge when it was on
>therefore it was for people of average intellect
>tv only likes it because it's unpopular now
tv only likes stuff so they can tell normies to "stop watching trash like GoT and pick up X tv show that you've never heard of"

A movie/show can have aspects that appeal to the average person without sacrificing the qualities that appeal to the smart person.

See: The Sopranos

Your logic is shit.

Read the books?

The Sopranos is well written, but its not for everyone. Americans love mafia shit, Europeans dont.

You changed variables.

You replaced "smart" with "good" on the 3rd line.

If you had concluded that "popular shows can never be smart", your logical path may have held up better. Then people would be motivated to present evidence of popular shows that are also smart.

The use of the word "never" is also a problem. If you concluded that "most popular shows tend to not be smart", that conclusion is safer to make.

Now, suppose Bill Gates is smart. Does that mean Bill Gates would write the best movie/show ever?

Do you think the best shows are simultaneously a) written by the smartest people and b) unpopular?

Only if you're lacking in empathy, only if you have a moral code that sees manipulating others as allowable or good.

That's the problem with the saying "if you're so smart, why aren't you rich?"

If you ignore morality, maybe it would be easy for a smart person to become rich. But becoming rich without breaking any moral codes is much harder. If you believe that profit is inherently parasitic and morally wrong, then becoming rich is much much harder.

>ugh

>Yes it does.

Smarter people like Gentoo Linux. Does that make it better? No.

>Yes it does.

You're arguing that a show that appeals to average people can not also appeal to smart people. That there is no overlap between what "average" people like and what "smart" people like. That can trivially be disproved with a single example of overlap.

People with above average intelligence don't stake that claim in their choice of tv and movies.