None of the movies are great. They are just beloved. how is the first one not "great"? what does that mean, gt? i counter you. the first one is beloved because it's great. hence, the beloving. (and no. not saying beloving = great)
Hah, my post was to point out that B.C. Long offered nothing more than a disagreement so I could say what I said and it would still be valid. I would have liked to argue him but there was nothing to say.
But yes, you are associating beloved with greatness. You don't say one creates the other, but you do offer a different premise in that because you believe the films are great (I disagree) they are also beloved. I don't think they are great so I can not agree with your argument of what beloved is (at least in this case).
I put the question to you and everyone else though. What are the most over used words to describe to a film? I talked to a girl about this a few days ago and gave her the argument it was to always to call a film "great" or a "masterpiece" or something similar. Saying masterpiece all the times is ridiculous because it forces the person to say one film by that artist is their
best even though they've likely also said it about another film of theirs. Great is the generic description of an excellence, but its too become null and void because it has been used so often by different people for different reasons.
I'd love to hear someone give an aesthetic argument of why Indiana Jones is great. I've never heard a good one. Film critics like Roger Ebert have put Raiders of the Lost Ark in their top films of the 1980s, but Ebert committed a considerable sin when he admitted in a documentary he was totally subjective about the films he reviewed. Why not a combination of subjective and objective like an appropriate critic? Indiana Jones can be great to individual people but I think the reasons are mainly subjective. People like to recount fond memories when talking about the films so it goes hand in hand with subjective.