Today I Learned
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
view the rest of the comments
IMD ratings are stupid. I almost never see a rating even as high as 9 for anything no matter how much people love a movie or consider it one of the greatest ever made:
Citizen Kane: 8.3
The Maltese Falcon: 7.9
Star Wars: 8.6
No Country for Old Men: 8.2
The Shining: 8.4
Lawrence of Arabia: 8.3
Psycho: 8.5
Here's a few 9s.
Schindler's List: 9.0
The Godfather: 9.2
The Shawshank Redemption: 9.3
That's how rare it is. Even The Shawshank Redemption couldn't get a 10.
Edit: Whooosh for me on the joke. And I love This is Spinal Tap too. I love it so much I sat through the terrible 4-hour rough cut on the Internet Archive.
Rotten Tomato ratings are stupid.
With every review being either a ๐ or ๐, the most simple meh movie that nobody hates (or loves), gets a 100% fresh.
IMDb and Metacritic are much better.
I honestly don't find any number rating especially useful.
What I have found useful is to follow 3 or 4 specific movie critics, get to know their opinions and contrast them with my own. We're never going to agree on every movie, but at least I'll know why they liked or didn't like it as a way to figure out if it's worth my time.
They're about general critic and public sentiment.
And for that, no movie should ever get a perfect 10. No movie could ever get a perfect 10.
They are useful for evaluating a movie's actual quality. But quality has nothing to do with any individuals enjoyment of a movie.
Sometimes. When they don't get brigaded. Movies that star women and minorities or, heaven forbid, queer people bizarrely tend to have much lower scores on the IMDB than movies that star heteronormative white men.
What movie critics do you follow?
Currently- Richard Roeper (Chicago Sun-Times), Justin Chang (L.A. Times) and J. Hoberman (Village Voice), although admittedly these days since I just sail the high seas most of the time, I often just go by the description and turn it off if I don't like what I'm watching.
I used to know older critics better though. I was usually able to figure out whether or not a movie was worth watching by paying attention to Roger Ebert, Leonard Maltin and Pauline Kael (if she liked it, I probably wouldn't).
Maybe instead of 1-dimensional number scales, we should move to something like 4 quadrants, where different movie qualities are represented?
Because rating a movie isn't just like shit - meh - ok - great, but should be much more detailed.
This could represent something like how well it was done in different scales in one view, and I can choose what matches my mood.
Really good rated movies are sometimes also hard to follow/process, and a movie with a light mood won't get those good ratings, but would still be exactly the thing I'm currently looking for.
So, I haven't really thought this through, but if we create a more dimensional rating system, it would be maybe easier to find, what I'm really looking for.
This is more or less a shower thought, but I really think, that the problem lies in the one dimensional rating system, which cannot represent the multitude of experiences I want from a movie
I find Rotten Tomatoes much more useful. Knowing that 90% of critics gave a favorable review is infinitely more helpful for my decision to watch a movie than its IMDB score.
As long as you know what it is, consensus as to okay-ness or better, then it's still a decent metric. Still, "universally okay" is not always what I'm after, nor is it quite the achievement the studios will proclaim.
If you're inclined to take reviews seriously (and it's a whole other discussion, but I very much believe criticism and analysis are worthwhile when done well in their own right) , still better to find a few sources whose takes tend to line up with your own.
That's the thing, I don't want to invest that time. If I'm looking at the rating of a movie, I'm already interested, I just need to know if I'm likely to enjoy it or not. Whether it's rated 5.8, 6.1 or 6.4 doesn't do anything for me at that point, whereas the RT score answers that question perfectly.
That's only because the FilthyCritic quit.