Greg Cox wrote:
I've always thought that there was vocabulary problem at work here, in that we tend to use the same words--bomb, flop, disaster--to describe both commercial and artistic failures, which are very different concepts. With the result that we often end up talking past each other.
Granted, there are plenty of shows that fail on both levels, and there may even be a causal link sometimes, but they aren't the same thing --and it can get confusing when we throw the terms around interchangeably.
Just because something bombed doesn't mean it sucked, and vise versa.
I completely agree with both points. Ambiguous terms obfuscate rather than illuminate. And, more often than not, both the producers and the audience confuse success with quality-- in visual media, at least, the reverse is more likely to be true.