HDTGM movie defenders

[muttnik 476]

4 hours ago, CaptainAmazing said:

Relevant:

MacGruber

[grudlian. 4725]

9 hours ago, CaptainAmazing said:

Relevant:

Are we talking critic or audience scores? I could say I liked The Last Jedi because the "popular" opinion is that it sucks but critics like it. I could say I liked A Dog's Purpose because critics hated it while audiences liked it.

The only one I can think of that isn't popular with either is forum favorite Monster Trucks (it has a 51% audience score though).

[Cameron H. 23786]

7 hours ago, grudlian. said:

Are we talking critic or audience scores? I could say I liked The Last Jedi because the "popular" opinion is that it sucks but critics like it. I could say I liked A Dog's Purpose because critics hated it while audiences liked it.

The only one I can think of that isn't popular with either is forum favorite Monster Trucks (it has a 51% audience score though).

I love Monster Trucks

[theworstbuddhist 572]

8 hours ago, grudlian. said:

Are we talking critic or audience scores? I could say I liked The Last Jedi because the "popular" opinion is that it sucks but critics like it. I could say I liked A Dog's Purpose because critics hated it while audiences liked it.

The only one I can think of that isn't popular with either is forum favorite Monster Trucks (it has a 51% audience score though).

Couldn't care less about popular opinion. Don't care about critical opinion most of the time either, because so many so-called critics are just entertainment reporters with a press pass. Real criticism in any art form is not about giving a grade or score, it's about examining work in the context of its time and whatever other lens the critic chooses to use.

I do use Pauline Kael's four-star system for rating movies as a way of very generally contextualizing a film - four stars is a classic, zero is a worthless forgettable film, two is average. I think it's a useful system because she was so consistent and thoughtful in her reviews, and that style was adopted by so many other critics who came after, most notably Roger Ebert. Of course Ebert also (to his chagrin) popularized the much less useful thumbs up/down system.

I find Rotten Tomatoes-style "ratings" to be particularly offensive, as they really just distill the current atmosphere of making films a popularity contest. People behave as if they are shareholders in a movie studio because studio marketing understands that everyone wants to be on the "winning side". People who are nowhere near working in the film industry track box office results. Actual news has been replaced with so much entertainment "news". It's madness.

I think that's one reason why I enjoy stuff like HDTGM and MST3K and on the flip side, Turner Classic Movies - they focus on the love of movies, many of which are excluded from the marketing machine because the stars weren't famous enough, the budget wasn't big enough, whatever.

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

15 hours ago, grudlian. said:

Are we talking critic or audience scores? I could say I liked The Last Jedi because the "popular" opinion is that it sucks but critics like it. I could say I liked A Dog's Purpose because critics hated it while audiences liked it.

The only one I can think of that isn't popular with either is forum favorite Monster Trucks (it has a 51% audience score though).

RT Audience Score is garbage anyway. People can literally submit votes before the movie has even been released. I say pay it no mind.

At least with the critic score you have a reasonable expectation that they have all seen the movie.

[sycasey 2.0 2301]

6 hours ago, theworstbuddhist said:

I do use Pauline Kael's four-star system for rating movies as a way of very generally contextualizing a film - four stars is a classic, zero is a worthless forgettable film, two is average. I think it's a useful system because she was so consistent and thoughtful in her reviews, and that style was adopted by so many other critics who came after, most notably Roger Ebert. Of course Ebert also (to his chagrin) popularized the much less useful thumbs up/down system.

For a more granular aggregator of critical opinion, you'd probably prefer Metacritic.

[ol' eddy wrecks 212]

22 hours ago, CaptainAmazing said:

I feel like the "Came out in your adult life post-2000" has the obvious flaw of "Assuming that you're a certain age, but not even making it clear what age that is." So until I hear an argument for a better age, let's just replace that one with "Came out in your adult life post age 20."

I'm picking 20 because I don't feel like my judgment was fully formed until at least that age.

I think it's more of a reflection on RT's sampling of data.  They don't have as complete of an archive of movie reviews from before 2000.

e.g. I genuinely enjoy Terrorvision (it's an intentional campy comedy from the 80's). Last I checked, it has a critic's score of 0%. If it came out today, the set of critics who would have reviewed it positively would have been picked up by RT and I suspect would have made it well to the 30-percent mark. The critics who liked it back then probably weren't the critics getting their Terrorvision reviews archived for something called the internet back then. 

[CaptainAmazing 127]

16 hours ago, grudlian. said:

Are we talking critic or audience scores? I could say I liked The Last Jedi because the "popular" opinion is that it sucks but critics like it. I could say I liked A Dog's Purpose because critics hated it while audiences liked it.

 The only one I can think of that isn't popular with either is forum favorite Monster Trucks (it has a 51% audience score though).

I think they definitely mean critic scores. That's what I say it should be as well. Audience scores are garbage, and are especially susceptible to toxic fandoms and even the occasional round of vote-brigading.

 

1 hour ago, sycasey 2.0 said:

RT Audience Score is garbage anyway. People can literally submit votes before the movie has even been released. I say pay it no mind.

 

AFAIK, they finally fixed that "early-voting" problem after the Captain Marvel snafu. Looking at their main page right now, there doesn't seem to be an audience score for anything that isn't already in sneak previews. Agree that the audience score is garbage in general though. There's a reason why "Second Opinions" is one of the best segments on the show.

[CaptainAmazing 127]

1 hour ago, ol' eddy wrecks said:

I think it's more of a reflection on RT's sampling of data.  They don't have as complete of an archive of movie reviews from before 2000.

e.g. I genuinely enjoy Terrorvision (it's an intentional campy comedy from the 80's). Last I checked, it has a critic's score of 0%. If it came out today, the set of critics who would have reviewed it positively would have been picked up by RT and I suspect would have made it well to the 30-percent mark. The critics who liked it back then probably weren't the critics getting their Terrorvision reviews archived for something called the internet back then. 

Yeah, that also makes sense. Maybe it's both?

But yeah, RT launched in 1998, and the reviews from before they launched and right when they first launched are two totally different animals. Basically:

Post-2000: Literally any review that they can find, from sources as lauded as major publications, right down to bloggers that are just a tiny tick above using a free WordPress site.

 

Pre-2000 (Becomes more true the farther back you go):

30% critics giving orgasmic reviews to the kind of classic movies they do on Unspooled, just because they want to.

50% reviews from when something was first re-released on DVD or Blu-Ray.

5% modern reviews from critics of lesser-known or cult movies that they just wanted to do

15% archived reviews from top-level critics and/or major publications from when a movie first came out

[ol' eddy wrecks 212]

7 hours ago, CaptainAmazing said:

Yeah, that also makes sense. Maybe it's both?

It says "came out in your adult-life post-2000".

I feel like there should be a comma there, but I read that as two criteria (even though each bullet point is supposed to be one criteria - nearly as bad as not labelling your axis on a graph).

[grudlian. 4725]

On 8/14/2019 at 4:04 PM, CaptainAmazing said:

I think they definitely mean critic scores. That's what I say it should be as well. Audience scores are garbage, and are especially susceptible to toxic fandoms and even the occasional round of vote-brigading.

Audience scores are trash but the reason I question it is because critic scores don't really represent "popular" opinion. Lots of popular movies get bad critic scores and loads of people don't pay any attention to critics. I know people are more and more reliant on Rotten Tomatoes scores but I wouldn't consider it a measure of "popular" opinion on movies. 

On 8/14/2019 at 7:04 AM, Cameron H. said:

I love Monster Trucks

You're the only reason I watched it back when you said it was your favorite movie of the year. I wouldn't say I loved it but it's fine family entertainment. 

[Cam Bert 8145]

On 8/14/2019 at 2:44 AM, CaptainAmazing said:

Relevant:

I just started looking through a list of films that fall into this criteria and I think the hardest thing is more so defining "genuinely like." For example, Warcraft falls into this. Now I didn't like a lot of the movie but I genuinely enjoyed the stuff with the Orcs. I thought that half of the film was enjoyable and well done while the rest was a bit of a slog. Would I watch the movie again? Probably not. Would I say I genuinely like it though? I don't know. I wouldn't say I hated it but I wouldn't defend it if somebody was talking shit about it. It's a firm "fine" does that relate to genuinely like though? Cowboys & Aliens also falls into this. They were movie that were fine but I care nothing about. I guess that's genuinely liking it then is it?

So based on that here are the movies I would say I enjoyed (not it a so bad it's good way which eliminates a lot) that match this criteria:

Redline, Super, MacGruber, Pandorum, Open Windows, Cooties, Deadgirl, Friday the 13th, Hot Rod, Reno 911: Maimi Beach, Saw, Eight Legged Freaks, Jackass The Movie, Wet Hot American Summer, and I'm sure some others I just missed.

So that's a lot of things I was a fan of, comedies which are highly subjective and horror movies which generally don't get reviewed as well and are more niche. Can't say I'm all too surprised.

[Cameron H. 23786]

6 minutes ago, Cam Bert said:

I just started looking through a list of films that fall into this criteria and I think the hardest thing is more so defining "genuinely like." For example, Warcraft falls into this. Now I didn't like a lot of the movie but I genuinely enjoyed the stuff with the Orcs. I thought that half of the film was enjoyable and well done while the rest was a bit of a slog. Would I watch the movie again? Probably not. Would I say I genuinely like it though? I don't know. I wouldn't say I hated it but I wouldn't defend it if somebody was talking shit about it. It's a firm "fine" does that relate to genuinely like though? Cowboys & Aliens also falls into this. They were movie that were fine but I care nothing about. I guess that's genuinely liking it then is it?

So based on that here are the movies I would say I enjoyed (not it a so bad it's good way which eliminates a lot) that match this criteria:

Redline, Super, MacGruber, Pandorum, Open Windows, Cooties, Deadgirl, Friday the 13th, Hot Rod, Reno 911: Maimi Beach, Saw, Eight Legged Freaks, Jackass The Movie, Wet Hot American Summer, and I'm sure some others I just missed.

So that's a lot of things I was a fan of, comedies which are highly subjective and horror movies which generally don't get reviewed as well and are more niche. Can't say I'm all too surprised.

I genuinely like so many of the movies you listed

[Cam Bert 8145]

11 minutes ago, Cameron H. said:

I genuinely like so many of the movies you listed

Cameron and Cowboys & Aliens sitting in a tree....

[Cameron H. 23786]

17 minutes ago, Cam Bert said:

Cameron and Cowboys & Aliens sitting in a tree....

Cause I can't fight this feeling anymore
I've forgotten what I started fighting for
And if I have to crawl upon the floor
Come crushing through your door
Baby, I can't fight this feeling anymore...

[ol' eddy wrecks 212]

On 8/13/2019 at 1:44 PM, CaptainAmazing said:

Relevant:

Skimming through my letterboxd diary, checking one I liked that might be candidates, I found two:

The Limits of Control

Super

 

Three that were in the 50's (so close)

Beyond the Black Rainbow (funny comparing its critical reception to Mandy)

The Neon Demon

The Zero Theorem (actually right at 50%)

(My opinion of the last two were mixed though, so it's not surprising to see they were close to the 50% mark.)

[GrahamS. 803]

I think  that RT scores inflate critics’ scores  to be higher than the reviews themselves reflect if you read them (a 2 1/2 star review is shown as a “positive” review when it really just means that the film is ok). I think Metacritic often lowers the scores the critics give (for a three-star review from a paper, for example, Metacritic lists the film as getting 75%). While that’s mathematically correct, once again it doesn’t truly reflect the opinion given. If I’m on the fence about seeing a film, I check both, but they’re both flawed In different ways.

I kinda miss the days when I’d just check the local paper—maybe Rolling Stone or EW for fun—and see the movie based on (or despite of) their opinions. If I’d listened to them, I never would have seen Point Break (1991). I’m cheating a little because I was only 16 at the time (not 20) but I remember every review I saw back then said it was dumb and gave it the equivalent of two stars. It was/is absolutely ludicrous, but that’s what makes it great!

other films that I like that critics/the public seem to hate:

Hot Rod

Wet Hot American Summer

Observe and Report. People REALLY seem to hate this one, and I admit it goes too far sometimes, but I thought it was ballsy , dark, unique and funny.

[CaptainAmazing 127]

On 8/23/2019 at 5:50 AM, GrahamS. said:

I think  that RT scores inflate critics’ scores  to be higher than the reviews themselves reflect if you read them (a 2 1/2 star review is shown as a “positive” review when it really just means that the film is ok). I think Metacritic often lowers the scores the critics give (for a three-star review from a paper, for example, Metacritic lists the film as getting 75%). While that’s mathematically correct, once again it doesn’t truly reflect the opinion given. If I’m on the fence about seeing a film, I check both, but they’re both flawed In different ways.

I kinda miss the days when I’d just check the local paper—maybe Rolling Stone or EW for fun—and see the movie based on (or despite of) their opinions. If I’d listened to them, I never would have seen Point Break (1991). I’m cheating a little because I was only 16 at the time (not 20) but I remember every review I saw back then said it was dumb and gave it the equivalent of two stars. It was/is absolutely ludicrous, but that’s what makes it great!

other films that I like that critics/the public seem to hate:

Hot Rod

Wet Hot American Summer

Observe and Report. People REALLY seem to hate this one, and I admit it goes too far sometimes, but I thought it was ballsy , dark, unique and funny.

In your example, is the 3-star rating out of five? 3 stars out of 4 getting 75% sounds dead on to me.

From what I understand (read: vaguely remember from a 538 article about three years ago), the main difference between Metacritic and RT is that RT sorts everything into "fresh" (positive) and "rotten" (negative) scores, while Metacritic is a tiny bit more nuanced with a third category that basically "mixed review."While there are of course more than three scores a movie can get, it's still a better system than RT. Or am I missing a point?

I guess the only way to make a perfect system would be to take something that can make a separate category for every possible rating (0 stars, 0.5 stars, 1 star, etc.) in every commonly used rating system (0-4 stars, 0-5 stars, 0.5-5 stars, A+-F, A+F-, etc.) and that sounds hard. Plus you'd have a hard time finding out if their system bottoms out at zero or something like 0.5 instead. And you'd run into problems like an automated system not knowing the difference between a zero-star rating and a review without a rating.

[GrahamS. 803]

Yes, it is a 4-star system, so technically Metacritic is correct to give it 75%.  

BUT (and this is a flaw in a number-based grading system as a whole), whenever critics give three out of four stars, their written reviews are essentially giving the movies a B, 3 1/2 stars give the movie a B+ to A-, and four stars mean A to A +.

When Metacritic uses this intrinsically flawed number system as a guideline, it is forced  to give a review based on a grading system—where the reviewer gives a movie a B—75%.  This makes  it appear that the movie got a C, when it didn’t.  In fact, it is a whole grade worse than the reviewer intended.

I see the predicament on how to assign a percentage, but it could keep people who use the system from not seeing films because they appear to have gotten mediocre marks. And don’t even get me started on written reviews that don’t use stars OR grades (RT actually does a much better job with these—somehow— because they look at the overall tone of the review. Metacritic just sticks a hard number on it, which if the critic had wanted, they would have done themselves).

I work as an Instructional Assistant in the Seattle School district. Think of it this way—if teachers downgraded students’ papers that should be Bs down to Cs because that’s how the average worked and what the computer said, do you think the students and their parents would be happy? I can tell you, they WOULD NOT.:)

I wouldn’t be happy either if I were a critic and my review was this categorized this poorly. RT definitely has its flaws, but the argument that Metacritic is somehow more “accurate” is simply not true (I was going to say something more profane, but decided to tone it down because honestly, I don’t care THAT much about Metacritic, or its flaws, and wouldn’t want to imply that I do).

[KellStarr 39]

Godzilla (1998) was one of my favorite movies as a kid

It is not above teasing because it is so very dumb... but I have a soft spot for it.

[ol' eddy wrecks 212]

On 8/23/2019 at 5:50 AM, GrahamS. said:

I kinda miss the days when I’d just check the local paper—maybe Rolling Stone or EW for fun—and see the movie based on (or despite of) their opinions.

Rottentomatoes links out to the reviews they're aggregating. Nothing's stopping you from still reading the reviews. Admittedly for consistency I think you need to know the critics you're looking for, as opposed to deferring to your local paper's choice of people reviewing films. IDK if RT has a "filter by publication". Though, at that point, I imagine you'd just go the publication's website.

 

1 hour ago, GrahamS. said:

When Metacritic uses this intrinsically flawed number system as a guideline, it is forced  to give a review based on a grading system—where the reviewer gives a movie a B—75%.  This makes  it appear that the movie got a C, when it didn’t.  In fact, it is a whole grade worse than the reviewer intended.

Well, I mean, there's no hard fast rule that 75% has to mean a 'C'. Granted, I don't think there's a single number that will accurately differentiate between "divisive" and "meh" on aggregate, so I don't know if I get the whole, just look at the score mentality. (I guess of they did two numbers, average and STD Dev..., but even then, without reading, you're not going to have a sense on which side of a divide you'd fall).

[GrahamS. 803]

Re: my Rotten Tomatoes comment, perhaps I didn’t explain myself very well.  I’m fully aware that RT links to reviews. The comment was more of an attempted nostalgia-tinged throwback to when i’d Just get my  info on films from a couple magazines/papers instead of sites that linked to dozens and dozens of more sites. Perhaps that didn’t come across and that’s OK. 

Honestly, re:Metacritic, if you like it and it works for you, great!  I’m not trying to say how I view the flaws in its rating system is how everyone has to view it (not at all), but it is how I view it. Basically, in all of my comments, I was trying to make the point that both Metacritic and RT have different flaws in different ways and also have different strengths. That’s how I view them and also why I use them both.

And if you feel like sites like RT (and possibly Metacritic, although he didn’t mention it) inherently suck on principle, like theworstbuddhist appeared to in a previous post, I can also see the value  in that argument, too. Not trying to force my views on anyone except myself.:)

 

 

 

[GrahamS. 803]

P.S. I’ve also had this RT vs. Metacritic debate with a friend before and all I can say is that at the end of it, neither one of us had changed each other’s mind. So, since I have no skin in this game other than my opinion, I’ll just say I honestly respect differing opinions and leave it at that.