>>927
>more catered to our tastes in film
For me, or for what i saw in the old place, is not so much taste but technique or perception.
The board i feel focuses on the visual concept, acting consistency and script/storyboard rigidity-integrity above pretty much else, not so much a particular style of films or genres. For example i can bet good money nobody here would be disgruntled on a low-budget exploitation flick panned by the mainstream if the camera work and sets were flashy, the actors were all consistently below-average or even campy/overblown and if the story had a beginning, development and proper ending like it was supposed to be without any producer/distributor interference.
It would be up for them to say if they liked it or not but it wouldn't produce any bad taste unlike the big machinery behind modern cinema bait for the proletariat which is inconsistent as hell, filming can take up a year or more with reshoots and actors have their routine all over the place, the music doesn't fit the themes, the camera work doesn't fulfill at all the detailed sets that can be perceived quickly (or the other way, detailed camera work in otherwise flat and sterile environments) and a storyline that feels choppy or had too many things going that feel like somebody pasted it for pandering purposes.
The Integrity-Dignity behind a project i think is the universal aspect most of us here respect mostly, not so much the fact a movie is not well discussed or comes from an obscure place, but it certainly adds a bit of flavor to the discussion because we are basically promoting something that would otherwise be ignored from existence.