I know of a few people who will use internet ratings of films to argue if a film is good or not. I hated Logan. Most disappointing film I've ever seen. But apparently it's just me because rotten tomatoes has it standing at 92%
But if you were to believe IMDBs rating system :
Fight Club is better than Alien
Gladiator is better than The Shining
The Departed is better than Taxi Driver
and Batman Begins is a better film than Raging Bull, Heat, Blade Runner, The Big Lebowski, The Deer Hunter, Fargo, No Country For Old Men, The Life Of Brian, Jurassic Park....
Regardless of if you use the scores these websites give to decide on what film to see, the fact is these numbers do impact film viewing for a lot of people. This is one of the reasons we have 8 (BLOODY EIGHT!) Fast And Furious films. I'm not sure where I'm going with this...but there is a point somewhere. I'll leave it to you to figure out.
Why do you care?
Like what you like, hate what you hate, discuss it with like minded dweebs, but don't get het up about ratings or percentages.
He cares because the ratings might influence whether people see a particular film or not.
He needn't worry though, because Dredd did very well on Ritten Tomatoes when it was in cinemas, but no fucker saw it.
Surely those ratings reflect the likes of a self-selecting group of people, rather than a judgement for all time? I think it's the people who refer to those ratings as such that are your problem.
It's notable that all those films you list are pretty good, and even if I personally prefer Alien, I can see why it would be at the same general level as Fight Club, which is a fine film in its own right. Even Gladiator has its moments. So as a general guide to watchable stuff, it's not bad: it's only when you get into the precise rankings...
I don't think the ratings are supposed to be read as a competition between different films but how a film is judged in terms of the goals it has set for itself or whether it satisfied its own audience – not whether Batman is better than The Godfather.
QuoteRegardless of if you use the scores these websites give to decide on what film to see, the fact is these numbers do impact film viewing for a lot of people. This is one of the reasons we have 8 (BLOODY EIGHT!) Fast And Furious films. I'm not sure where I'm going with this...but there is a point somewhere. I'll leave it to you to figure out.
Reviews rarely have that much of an effect on box-office – between 10-20% is the estimated range of possible financial impact depending on the film.
Much like brands such as
Star Wars, most audiences don't read the reviews of
Fast & Furious films before they go see them, or if they do, don't wholly deprive themselves of seeing a film they have set their mind on seeing. That series of films has well established itself with its audience so they know exactly what they're going to get before they see it – it's critic proof. Those films are successful because the audience wants them and continues to show support, not because they get good/bad reviews.
Transformers films get terrible reviews yet they constantly earn money.
My main gripe is that they changed their voting algorithm, increasing the number of votes cast required, so that loads of obscure (to me) foreign films have entered the top 250 meaning I have seen fewer and fewer of them - down to 240! Some Bollywood is OK but they do seem to have a imbalanced representation(from my perspective) with lots of three hour epics that I wouldn't watch even if I could track them down. They should maybe do an English language list or a US/Europe one so that we don't have to argue over whether a three hour film about a wrestler trying to get to the Commonwealth games is in the top 100 films ever made.
Not being a xenophobic little Britisher I just think the list needs more balance and relevance to its local audience.
Off to see if I can find a decent copy of 'The Passion of Joan of Arc' which has retaken a slot. Hope it includes her beating William the Conqueror on 'Deadliest Warrior'.
Quote from: Richard on 22 April, 2017, 11:04:12 PM
He cares because the ratings might influence whether people see a particular film or not.
Exactly. Lets say I'm a casual movie go-er looking at whats on at my local cinema.
https://www.cineworld.co.uk/cinemas/wolverhampton (https://www.cineworld.co.uk/cinemas/wolverhampton)
Rules Don't Apply has one star next to it. I don't need to read the synopsis. I can see from the single star it is going to be crap and not worth my time. Fate Of The Furious has four stars so it must be pretty good. So I'll go and see that.
My money then goes into the pockets of the makers of the Furious film which means a never ending stream of sequels is churned out while we wait an eternity for our Dredd sequel.
So the reason I hate film ratings is because it plays a part in films that should be made, not being made. And puts people off seeing films that might be brilliant, but because some hack writing for your newspaper of choice didn't like it means that a large number of people wont.
Quote from: Supreme Pizza Of The DPRK on 22 April, 2017, 11:39:56 PM
My money then goes into the pockets of the makers of the Furious film which means a never ending stream of sequels is churned out while we wait an eternity for our Dredd sequel.
As mentioned earlier, DREDD got good reviews yet few went to see it. It got better reviews than all the
Fast & Furious films but it doesn't stop those films
consistently making a billion dollars each because the franchise has a massive, built-in, global audience that prefer those films. In this case reviews are negligible and don't decide what films get sequels.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/search/?search=fast%20and%20furious
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dredd
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/passengers_2016 (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/passengers_2016) 31%?
It wasn't perfect but it was entertaining and enjoyable. I stand by my opening statement. Sites like those do more harm than good for films IMO.
I really enjoyed passengers. I think the ratings sites can be useful when I'm deciding to watch one of the 50 films I have to watch at any given time. In general it gives a reasonable guide as to whether a film is worth watching or not ( usually a 6 or more on imdb = worth a punt). We don't always agree, but usually the average Mark is a fair indicator. I watched ultraviolet tonight (I'm a sucker for Mila).....it was very poor. Imdb average rating agreed.
As always it's entirely subjective and even when a majority of critics actually agree with a proportional number of the audience, 'good' films still bomb.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/scott_pilgrims_vs_the_world
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446029/?ref_=nv_sr_1
Just to be clear here, are we objecting to the entire notion of published criticism, or just the practice of numerical ranking?
I note that campsites, books, pubs, eBay sellers, Michelin-star restaurants and school children all suffer within the same basic system that potentially leads one to be chosen over another on the basis of an applied rating. Why should movies escape unburdened by a readily accessible non-binding judgement?
I always try and make up my own mind rather than let someone who I don't know do it for me.
Absolutely, but when you have a seeming abundance of things to watch and only limited time, it is useful to get a steer.
I'm yet to find anything that has been universally panned on imdb turned out to be good. On balance, the score is a reasonable indicator.
It's always wiser to use these things as a guideline rather than doctrine - I participate hugely in Rate Your Music - a website entirely dedicated to rankings or charts - seeing that an album I don't like "charts" higher than one I do like doesn't piss me off though because
A) Everyone's entitled to their opinion innit - it's just art, nobody died
B) These things are transient - in four decades your favourite film or your least favourite film could sink into obscurity or become a beloved classic. Or not. Ultimately we've got very little to do with that in the long run
I think folk don't like listicles and charts and "best ofs" because inevitably at some point they'll go against your own personal view. When compiled artificially they represent consensus not individual taste and that bugs folk out because it makes them feel like they're being dictated to. I mean - what if I thought Fight Club WAS better than Alien? (I don't) I think it's damaging to see set in stone in that way. Alien HAS to be better than Fight Club because I liked it and Fight Club didn't particularly grab me. However Fight Club could mean the world to someone and Alien very little. Are they wrong? Maybe.
The thing is - on IMDB if something is Popular it'll shoot up the list so you end up seeing like... flash in the pan films in the "ULTIMATE TOP 100" that disappear off it (case in point - in 2009 Avatar was in the top 50). Taking a quick glance it seems that Nolan has a lot of fans on the IMDB because all of his recent films are in the Top 100 which seems insane to me. Doesn't mean they'll still be on there in 2027 - or maybe they will be and he'll be regarded like Kubrick. Who fucking knows. Why have I typed so much on this.
Short answer - use lists tailored by algorithms as a guide not as a damning indictment of your own taste or an actual reflection of the world's opinion at large.
If find it difficult to compare Alien and Fight Club really being such different films
I do happen to really like them both.
After giving it some thought I have decided that I am against the start rating. I think that instead ratings should come in just 2 flavors, would recommend or would not recommend. And with that I'm off to bed. Goodnight.
Gladiator IS better than The Shining.
Steven King didn't like it, either
How does one calculate the rating of a review site as "Scum"?
Quote from: Bad City Blue on 27 April, 2017, 05:25:16 PM
Gladiator IS better than The Shining.
Is it fuck. And Steven King is wrong too.
EDIT - and that was culture hour on BBC Radio 2.
While I understand Stephen King's criticism of The Shining, in that the main character goes through less of a journey into degradation ([spoiler]i.e. Jack Nicholson's version comes across as a bit of a psycho, even at the start, while the novel version comes across as an ordinary mostly decent guy, with a dark side (linked to alcoholism) who degrades throughout the novel due to the Overlook's influence,[/spoiler]) as a piece of horror I think the original film is still rather good. The horror works in a different way to the novel and the more faithful mini-series adaptation, but... well it scared me, so job done.
I could say more, but I won't as this isn't a Shining comparison thread. :lol:
As for The Shining > Gladiator?
Again, I'd say, different films, and genres, so I find it tough to compare as they're both good films. It would come down to 'what genre do I prefer', and since I like both horror and historical dramas (if you can blend the two that would be REALLY good) I would still find it a bit difficult to compare.
I guess I'd lean towards The Shining by personal preference, but I wouldn't say the film is objectively better. Unless 'preference' means 'better'.
Kubrick is a much better director the Scott.
For context, King thought the 1990s Shining tv miniseries was better than Kubrick's film.
Quote from: Mardroid on 30 April, 2017, 03:50:34 PM
While I understand Stephen King's criticism of The Shining, in that the main character goes through less of a journey into degradation
This was deliberate, though for what reason depends on which of the many interpretations of the film you chose to take as correct. My favorite is probably the "Jack isn't the caretaker" theory which posits that (in the film) he was mental before he got to the Overlook.
Quote from: Mister Pops on 30 April, 2017, 06:16:46 PM
Kubrick is a much better director the Scott.
Then again I think Kubrick missed the mark with The Shining whereas Gladiator was one of the few times Scott managed to tick all the popcorn boxes and regenerated his career.