Personally I think this is a psyop by Microsoft to devalue the word 'slop' by using it in the wrong context.
this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2026
164 points (95.6% liked)
Greentext
7648 readers
190 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Agreed I don't like this usage of the word, gonna end badly
Primer and Chronicle. Neither had famous actors, but both were undeniably wild rides that you just couldn't dismiss. Everyone loves them cuz they were good.
My head still hurts from Primer.
Hard agree on both. Primer is hands down one of the most unique time travel movies I've seen. My addition to your list is The Thing. When it was released it didn't do well and wasn't popular, but now is considered one of the greats.
Good question actually. What are some things that have competent production and writing but are otherwise just really generic movie slop?
My vote is for The Shawshank Redemption. Is it good? Yeah, but it's just a movie. It's not something special like Fantastic Planet, Fiddler on the Roof, or some of my other favorite movies. There's a good guy and a bad guy. They fight, and the good guy wins. It's the #1 highest rated thing on iMDB but like, it's just qualityslop. People only like it because it's good 👋🙄
I think the exact same is true of Sousou no Frieren, currently the #1 rated anime. Qualityslop is generic and unspecial enough to reach mass appeal, and people only like it because it's high quality. Slop.
Surely Kung Fury is qualityslop
You know, I don't think this is what OP meant, but yeah, King Fury is qualityslop.
It's definitely not what they meant
I actually dig that question. I mean it's impossible to be slop and quality, but the underlying idea of "movies that became popular because they simply were good" I like.
Movies that (at the time of the shooting) have no star actors, well-known directors and do not build on a world/lore that is already well established with a big fan base (like LOTR). Movies that are just good because the work is phenomenal and nobody who walked into the movie when it came out could have predicted this.
It's okay when people became stars because of that movie, but only if the movie was liked before they became stars. It's also okay if the genre was already popular, I don't think there's ways around that for many movies given the limited number of genres.
For me this is Rashomon, the movie that (later) catapulted Akira Kurosawa and Toshiro Mifune into stardom, It is now considered one of the greatest films ever made and among the most influential movies from the 20th century.
Eh, I don't know if Rashomon is quite a pure example as it popular kind of movie plot. It's a great movie but the the then unusual plot form gained it extra attention.
Maybe it's a way to say "good despite all the cheese"? Or something like that? But I like your interpretation!
Oh...Evil Dead 2
Edit: or do good bad movies not count?
I thought Anon meant movies that people say they liked because of their undeniable, objective quality, but not genuinely enjoyed watching. I guess they're saying There Will Be Blood is some kinda masturbatory "quality porn".
Literally, what? :D
Avatar
Text not green; downvoted.
tng;d if you will.....
Ok buddy