Live data from Hacker News

A better way to rate films

blog.goodfil.ms

11–20 of 42 posts

Re: A better way to rate films

#11
This seems useful, yet awfully much like another step on the slow path to legitimizing 'poor taste'.

That's a bit harsh, so let me qualify it. I actually rather agree with the division inherent in this and think it will resound with people, but I honestly believe that this is yet another step towards turning our society into idiocracy. It's the slow legitimization of appreciation for content that we acknowledge as garbage but consume anyway. I firmly believe that there is inherent social value in this garbage content remaining quasi-taboo - a social pressure not to like such things. Sure, most people will watch some anyway, or play the latest mindless shooter, or what-have-you, but so long as it's understood that most people will mock you for publicly liking this, the norm does not drift towards mindlessness - you still need to consume some legitimately good content, even if only to have something to talk about.

I don't mean to attack the site; I think it's a great way to slice into the recommendations game, and I do think a lot of people will get value out of it, and it seems like it may well succeed. I simply am afraid it's a net negative for our society in the long run (then again, of course, not launching is hardly going to reverse such a trend.)

Edit: Make that symptomatic of a net negative. I've thought some more and this is only giving an online portal to express the shift I talk about above, which has already been happening aplenty.

Re: A better way to rate films

#12
I really disagree with the premise of this post. Emotional impact (United 93), psychological impact (Black Swan), intellectual demands (Primer) all equate to a lower rewatchability score, since watching the movie takes a lot out of me. However, the more of an impact a movie makes, the higher my opinion of a movie. Because something is light and fluffy doesn't make that movie "better", it just means it's easier to watch.

Rating films this way may do a good job of the "so bad it's good" camp (Snakes on a Plane), but will do an incredible disservice to movies like Black Swan.

Re: A better way to rate films

#13

This seems useful, yet awfully much like another step on the slow path to legitimizing 'poor taste'. That's a bit harsh, so let me qualify it. I actually rather agree with the division inherent in this and think it will resound with people, but I honestly believe that this is yet another step towards turning our society into idiocracy. It's the slow legitimization of appreciation for content that we acknowledge as ga…

I think the alternative is people pretending to like things they do not. You can't force people to appreciate your brand of high culture by mocking them for not doing so. At best, the people you're trying to win over will publicly pay lip service. At worst, it will become more difficult for people like you to find things that you think are worthwhile, because the space will become polluted by people who don't get it. Let people like what they like.

I, for one, am not ashamed to say that I like stupid things.

Re: A better way to rate films

#14
post #12

I really disagree with the premise of this post. Emotional impact (United 93), psychological impact (Black Swan), intellectual demands (Primer) all equate to a lower rewatchability score, since watching the movie takes a lot out of me. However, the more of an impact a movie makes, the higher my opinion of a movie. Because something is light and fluffy doesn't make that movie "better", it just means it's easier to wat…

This is a really important point, and it'll probably justify its own blog post soon, but a quick response would be this:

I'd class United 93 and Black Swan as being, sort of, emotionally exhausting. And yes, I'm not going to rush out see them again. But that's very different to saying they're a bad film. I would suggest that, at high levels of quality, low levels of rewatchability makes it actually a better film, in a way.

Or, at least, it differentiates them from another terrific film like The King's Speech. If you're the kind of person who likes watching beautifully constructed but largely enjoyable films, your tastes will tend toward the top-right of the graph. But, if you enjoy more difficult or harrowing films, your favourite films might be lower on the rewatchability score, on average.

My point is, while quality is quality, a measure of skill and talent, rewatchability is personal, and groups similar films together in interesting ways. Where your favourite films come out on the graph is really not important to anyone but you, when you're looking for more stuff you like.

You may still disagree, but thanks for taking the time to comment :)

-glen.

Re: A better way to rate films

#15
post #12

I really disagree with the premise of this post. Emotional impact (United 93), psychological impact (Black Swan), intellectual demands (Primer) all equate to a lower rewatchability score, since watching the movie takes a lot out of me. However, the more of an impact a movie makes, the higher my opinion of a movie. Because something is light and fluffy doesn't make that movie "better", it just means it's easier to wat…

I think this is why they have both ratings. A quality rating and a rewatchability. As the site appears to be in private beta I can't play with it directly, but I would assume both ratings are exposed when you look at a movie, which will help you decide if you want to watch it. For example, if I come home on a friday night and I want something light and enjoyable to watch, I definitely don't want to watch Primer no matter how good it is. I'd instead go for something with a high rewatchability score. But if I'm in a mood for a "truly good" film then I can go for the quality rating score and ignore rewatchability.

Re: A better way to rate films

#16
post #6

One thing that movie ratings don't take into account, including this one, is: what am I in the mood for? I'd like to type into netflix, "I'm in the mood for James Bond meets Spirited Away", have it perhaps give me a few yes/no choices, and make recommendations based on that.

Well I think in this case, all you would need are some categories or tagging in goodfilms. Tagging would be kind of cool going past genres to things like mood, like a "easy watching" tag or something.

Re: A better way to rate films

#17

This seems useful, yet awfully much like another step on the slow path to legitimizing 'poor taste'. That's a bit harsh, so let me qualify it. I actually rather agree with the division inherent in this and think it will resound with people, but I honestly believe that this is yet another step towards turning our society into idiocracy. It's the slow legitimization of appreciation for content that we acknowledge as ga…

I disagree, I think there are plenty of social groups where this type of media isn't looked down upon at all. Same with shooters... ect.

If your goal is to chase immediate gratification (as many a person seems to do), you'll be better served by metrics that reflect this aspect of things, instead of deciding to spend time doing something you think will be immediately gratifying, and getting something else in return.

Good for society? Decidedly no.

Unavoidable because it better serves demand, I think probably.

At the same time... I think if these sorts of metrics become ubiquitous, people will become more acutely aware of the distinctions between quality and gratification value... so I don't think these things are only a symptom.

Re: A better way to rate films

#18
post #6

One thing that movie ratings don't take into account, including this one, is: what am I in the mood for? I'd like to type into netflix, "I'm in the mood for James Bond meets Spirited Away", have it perhaps give me a few yes/no choices, and make recommendations based on that.

This is the main thing Jinni claims to do. Have you tried it? http://www.jinni.com/

Thanks for this - never had heard of jinni and after playing around for a few minutes I already found some awesome new movies that I wanna check out

Re: A better way to rate films

#19
post #12

I really disagree with the premise of this post. Emotional impact (United 93), psychological impact (Black Swan), intellectual demands (Primer) all equate to a lower rewatchability score, since watching the movie takes a lot out of me. However, the more of an impact a movie makes, the higher my opinion of a movie. Because something is light and fluffy doesn't make that movie "better", it just means it's easier to wat…

This is a really important point, and it'll probably justify its own blog post soon, but a quick response would be this: I'd class United 93 and Black Swan as being, sort of, emotionally exhausting. And yes, I'm not going to rush out see them again. But that's very different to saying they're a bad film. I would suggest that, at high levels of quality, low levels of rewatchability makes it actually a better film, in…

I guess then, it depends on execution. If you're combining both of these numbers into one single metric of "goodness", then you'll just be accomplishing Pahalial's point of "legitimizing 'poor taste'". If, however, you can expose this information separately and well, then perhaps it will add value.

Personally, I'd like to break down the "rewatchability" metric into more components, to really get at the heart of the matter, like others here have commented. Pace, quality, fun, emotional impact, length, genre -- these are the things that really matter. But now we're getting into movie geek territory.

Speaking of movie geek -- I can't believe you left out the most interesting thing in that blog post. Where can we see a breakdown of what movies are where in that scatter plot? I want to know what those outliers on the high quality / low rewatchability scale are!

Re: A better way to rate films

#20
post #12

I really disagree with the premise of this post. Emotional impact (United 93), psychological impact (Black Swan), intellectual demands (Primer) all equate to a lower rewatchability score, since watching the movie takes a lot out of me. However, the more of an impact a movie makes, the higher my opinion of a movie. Because something is light and fluffy doesn't make that movie "better", it just means it's easier to wat…

This is a really important point, and it'll probably justify its own blog post soon, but a quick response would be this: I'd class United 93 and Black Swan as being, sort of, emotionally exhausting. And yes, I'm not going to rush out see them again. But that's very different to saying they're a bad film. I would suggest that, at high levels of quality, low levels of rewatchability makes it actually a better film, in…

Glen it basically comes down to a genre by genre breakdown I think. If you're looking for a comedy which should inherently have high rewatchability, if any are rated as low then I can assume I should avoid them. For example, in college my buddies and I alternated watching 40 Year Old Virgin and Grandma's Boy for an entire semester. Neither would have the best quality ratings, but they were fun and sure had high rewatchability.

Now take the other end of the spectrum of film like Black Swan or even some slower paced films. I love 2001 A Space Odyssey but am not rushing to rewatch soon (though it has top quality) because it is way too slooow for me. Or take some dramas that while interesting on first glance don't really merit another watch.

Basically I think you should start with a top down approach by genre, and if something like comedy then the dominant factor is rewatchability but then for others it may be "quality" (which itself could be subdivided further into cinematographic elements for an auteur film, the musical score for a certain type, etc). But I feel like maybe you end up going down a rabbit's hole, so perhaps I'm asking more questions than I'm answering.

Post reply on HN