Originally Posted by Willowfang
I can see that you're trying to interject a certain integrity into your scoring, giving more merit or less merit to a brain wracked pick vs a pick that can be made looking at any top 250 list let's say.
But you're also over and under valuing a movie by doing that. It's great that lesser known movies are getting to see the light of day, but that doesn't make them better than some movie that's made it into the mainstream and thereby labeled vanilla.
For some movies, they pay very little in the way of dues, some fancy pants director with 5 big stars gets love from day one while others only find their cult status and nitch years after it's release.
Many think it's wrong to under score a movie by pissing on it's true value. Should the movie you give a top score to this year get the lowest score possible ten years later cause it's now vanilla and loved by everyone and played every halloween?
I can only speak for myself, but I'd rather be introduced to a movie I've never heard of and not like it, than hear about Psycho or Halloween for the millionth time. At least it's something new.
Maybe in time, that movie will become just as vanilla as Psycho or Halloween. But I don't have a time machine, so I don't see how that counts.