Counter Cinema

I was also confused about the ultimate goal of counter-cinema. It seems that the only motivation for counter-filmmakers is just to go against the mainstream. In this way they are bound by the conventions of Hollywood cinema just as everyone else is, because they deliberately do the opposite of mainstream filmmakers. They basically take all the conventions of Hollywood cinema, including narrative transitivity and identification and does the opposite of them. However, there is no indication that the conventions of mainstream cinema are inherently bad while the opposite are inherently good. Furthermore, while mainstream cinema at least has the goal of entertainment, counter-cinema does not attempt to be entertaining, and in some cases deliberately tries to deny the audience pleasure. Under these circumstances, who are counter-filmmakers making their films for. Are they for other counter-filmmakers? Are they for the mainstream audience in an attempt to disillusion them from mainstream cinema? Is there no audience in mind, and the only point of making it is to be revolutionary and against the mainstream? If the goal is to ultimately destroy mainstream cinema, then counter cinema would just become the mainstream, but with the opposite conventions? Would this be any better than the current mainstream? Would conventions that were once mainstream become the conventions of the new counter-cinema?