Isn't life disappointing?
Disappointment is the result of two distinct things: reality, and our expectations. We control one of those things.
Because people hate when others do not agree with them. And it's true for both herd mentality and individuals. That's how most people are conditioned to operate - in information bubbles that in no way challenge their views. Also, people usually mistake the tone with the content, often discarding value only because it's been brought to them in a coarse way.
Right, but all of this applies in both directions: you express your disdain because you "hate when others do not agree with [you]." Yes, even "outsiders" are in bubbles, they're just inverted.
None of this is germane to the point, though, which is ultimately about what your goal is. Is it to help people expand their horizons, or is it to express superiority and/or anger towards them? If it's the latter, then by all means, continue to express disdain towards popular films. But if it's actually the former, you can express the same idea as a positive, via advocacy for other things. If you don't, you can see how it would naturally lead someone to wonder whether the expression of disdain is, in fact, the actual goal.
For the most part, people are talking about why they like a film, not why it's personal to them.
I don't think this is actually accurate, and to the degree it is I think it'll require that "personal" be quite narrow, to the point where I'd have to question its value as a measure. But I can't really disagree without knowing a lot more about what you mean here.
I have nothing against popular cinema, as long as it is good.
Well, yeah, but the whole point is that I think "good" is being measured along an insufficient number of metrics. I think there's an unexamined assumption here that quality is based on the depth with which a work of art can touch someone, and not the number of people it can touch. There's a lot of "it's popular BUT it's not..." which implies that popularity is completely unrelated to value, and I don't think that's actually true. That's what I mean when I say quality is only being measured on one axis.
That's ludicrous. You can do better than that.
And I'm sure you can do better than just saying something is ludicrous without explaining yourself, but here we are.
But yeah, I don't think it's a coincidence that people who absorb a lot of any kind of art tend to value novelty and experimentation more. There's some degree to which that's good, but it's not
magic. It's not suddenly immune to all the same kinds of human failings as any other posture. Of course people become jaded and bored when they experience a lot of something. How could they not? How could they really think that their preference for extreme things over time is just their real/pure taste (as if there even is such a thing!), and not the result of that experience?
I'm quite sure we'd all like more mainstream things, with less known works having it even harder than now. Incidentally, to anyone whom this applies to, I love lots of mainstream things so implying I don't or that my approach is "elitist" is simply uninformed.
"Some of my best friends are Marvel movies!"