I like King Kong versus Godzilla, but I do not mistake it for Amadeus or Gone with the Wind. I like it because it entertains me.
But I recently read a review that, if you really boiled it down, said "This _____ sucked." And when you read further into the review, it was quite clear that the review didn't LIKE the genre the work was made to exist in. Therefore, the reviewer, though they wouldn't admit so I expect, was essentially saying this particular thing was devoid of quality due to it being _______ * * being horror, comedy, war, western, romance, action...
I am really content that people don't like the same things. It is who we are. My good friend Michael May often likes things that drive me crazy. But I don't think he has bad taste. I think he has different taste than my own.
I am writing this not to say you should like King Kong versus Godzilla. I am saying that saying you like it is neither a comment about its quality, nor does it impart quality by liking it. Like what you like. It neither proves the item good that you like it, nor says anything about quality to like it.
There are standards of quality within every genre, within all media. I am reluctant to use porn as an example, but, there is good and bad porn. The good porn works, the bad porn might still work, but one works better. (I hope that was vague enough but still expressed what I mean.)
Beyond taste there is quality. But arguing something that comes in a genre you hate is bad, because you hate the genre doesn't mean the thing in question is bad. It simply means you can't appreciate it for what it might be because of what it is.
Louis CK, who doesn't actually make me laugh a lot, does make a good point in his routine about "sucking a bag of dicks". It isn't that he opposes the act of his sucking a dick, he just has never seen a dick he wants to suck. A person who hate horror and is reviewing it has not yet found a dick he wants to suck. So why does he keep trying?
Good point to ponder.
Reviewers who review what they hate?