It's an interesting question, I hope interesting enough to gain your interest and maintain it through this brief foray into the mind of the movie buff. Of course, first we have to define what is meant by "movie buff". Naturally, movie buffs vary massively in their tastes, predilictions and how "human" they are. By "human", I mean their ability to be arseholes. I have never met anyone who didn't have their own particular opinions on everything, and as much as I think that would be pretty awesome to meet someone who thought exactly as I did, I never will. I therefore refer to the ability for forming one's own opinions as "arseholiness". The most even minded person who sees things entirely in context, without predetermined notions, and with an open and clear view would get a zero on the scale - most people seem to get a good solid six. Me? I'm an eight.
So, a movie buff, in this instance, is someone who understands the movie making process (to an extent, but is not necessarily a film maker). A movie buff is someone who has a genuine interest in global film making, visits the odd film festival and is generally aware of the range of films available to watch in Cinemas (including the small cinemas that look like they only show French porn) at any one time. He/She will almost certainly have watched any film you care to casually mention, or at the very least will be able to tell you the director and provide you with a synopsis. I am not a movie buff. I love films but I just don't devote enough time to the pursuit to be ranked with the "movie buff" badge.
You're aware of what a blockbuster film is, right? It's Armagedoon, it's Independence Day, it's Harry Potter; it's a film that makes a lot of money, costs a lot of money to make, features massive amounts of CGI effects, gets a ridiculous amount of press, and generally comes out in the summer to satisfy a crowd who is not interested in thinking. Does that sound fair? A blockbuster tends to incorporate at least 2 or more elements of the previous list. Naturally there are blockbuster films that can be thought provoking, as there are blockbusters that are there to wow us with the new generation of computerised muppets. There are some which aren't very expensive, and lots that don't make enough money. Most movie-going people are perfectly well aware of what a blockbuster is, even if it evades a locked-down dictionary definition. To a number of people who call themselves "movie buffs", a blockbuster is also defined as: "a movie which is undeserving of every merit available to it".
Not all movie buffs agree (naturally) that there is no redeeming feature to a blockbuster movie. Indeed, many will accept that blockbusters are a necessary evil in some respects: they earn a great deal of money to some movie studios which can help bankroll more "independent" type movies. They help improve technology which, Lucas hates listen to this, can actually help tell a story. Hell, some movie buffs even <em>enjoy</em> blockbuster films as much as the next average guy, seeing them as explosive fun, witless wonders, the fluffy cream on a Sundae.
My opinion is that movie buffs should enjoy blockbusters. Or, well, let's be honest about this, they're not going to enjoy them because they're not going to watch them. Perhaps what they should appreciate then, is that those who do enjoy blockbusters do so in the knowledge that they're not watching high-art. That being the case, movie buffs should recognise that plebian entertainment is not something that ought to be scorned or derided, that those who do take pleasure in watching such material also do not require snide remarks, nor that they should be seen as, in any way, second class because of their inklings.
It's the same in every walk of art, as far as I can tell: mention that you like a certain musical group and some people who believe themselves "well informed" will feel no guilt in labelling you as "dumb". "You *like* Britney Spears?! Oh, OK. [mental note: this person has no clue]".
Y'see people are really good at being arseholes - I believe it's a default position. What they should, obviously, take into account is taste. Someone who calls something "bad taste" is really just offering an opinion and has no right to take any position on what is and what is not good or bad taste. Naturally we all do take a position on these scales and we do it every day. You like cucumber?! You're WRONG! You enjoy opera?! You're AN IDIOT!
It's a funny thing, to me this line of reasoning is totally correct and logical. But there are plenty who would argue that the hoi polloi do not have the final say in what is or is not worthwhile, good, appetising, clever, funny and so on. There are enough people who would say that it is solely the literati who, with learning on their side, are able to make actual qualitative judgements on the arts and that they are quintessentially correct in their pronouncements. The biggest flaw in this argument is that the literati certainly never agree on any one thing and in the end every pronouncement is contradicted as many times as it is proposed.
I guess that, realistically, the only thing I can say is that people should keep their opinions on other people's opinions, to themselves. The only thing that is guaranteed to happen is that you will either come across as a bigot, or hurt the feelings of the original opinion giver.
NotTheOnion is not responsible for the content of external web sites. If you are offended by any of the comedy material you see on these websites, please inform them directly.
