Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings • Hacker News Board

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#171

Post by moron4hire » Fri, Oct 16, 2015, 1:54 PM UTC

Jedd wrote: post #168

moron4hire wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blade Runner is one of my favorite movies, but it has some serious problems, almost all of which are due to it being based on a Philip K. Dick novel.

Is the problem that it was based (rather than accurately translated from the book), or that the novel was written by Philip K Dick?

PKD is the problem. Most of his stories are a few action sequences (where he ruins the pace with internal dialog and flashbacks) padded by the main protagonist sitting around in some altered state, complaining about the women in his life. His male villains are to be revered: they are cunning and intelligent. But even his "not evil" female characters are meant to be loathed: duplicitous, unfaithful, nagging.

It would be one thing if this were just one book, you might argue those are just those particular characters. But it's a theme across his books, one that thankfully often gets removed or toned down in the movie adaptations. PKD is a misogynist. He is the author who changed my mind about how misogyny works and just how pervasive it actually is.

In Blade Runner's case, "Do Android's Dream of Electric Sheep" is not a coherent book. Blade Runner went a long way towards improving the cohesiveness of the plot, even regarding the ambiguous components: they are intentionally ambiguous now. The action scenes that Deckard practically walks through in the book have real impact and danger in the movie. And Ridley Scott thankfully just killed Deckard's wife off completely, making her a symbol of nostalgia and mourning, rather than contempt. Oh, and they completely skipped the weird religious VR experience sub-plot that never amounted to anything in the book anyway.

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#172

Post by Retra » Fri, Oct 16, 2015, 2:08 PM UTC

thenomad wrote: post #127

eevilspock wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When a bunch of reviews can undo the effects of a massive, weeks or months long marketing push, I'd say it's time to rethink your product strategy. Whenever a debate about advertising pops up on HN, many people defend it as the necessary way for consumers to find out about good products. Healthy free markets depend on informed consumers, but to think that advertising results in informed consumers makes little sense…

That'd be nice, but it hasn't happened yet. I'm not going to make a grand sweeping statement here, but certainly, I've found out about multiple useful products via adverts. I actively don't want them to go away completely. I am very interested in hearing about new products in a number of spaces. If people can pay to let me know, briefly, about their thing that they think I might find useful, I'm cool with that.

Advertisements aren't completely devoid of value... You just don't need to be subjected to them continuously and without reservation.

Personally, I find a far greater percentage of useful products through word-of-mouth. If I hear about something new, it has to be good enough to survive the 'telephone game' of getting the information to me, which means I'll have a preference for very good or very local products.

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#173

Post by Retra » Fri, Oct 16, 2015, 2:13 PM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #73

bostik wrote: post #63

Oh wow, that's rich. Quoting from the article: Sites like Rotten Tomatoes that aggregate movie reviews into one overall rating are being blamed for poor opening weekends. The best part is that the quote above even provides a link to the reference they are using for the made statement.[0] In effect, the studios are complaining that news of the films' crappiness are spreading too fast . Let that sink in. The studios co…

The same arguments are made when "pre-release" copies appear online. The last thing the studios want is informed consumers. I say "pre-release" because more often than not the film has been released in one market but not another, for instance to set-top boxes in asia while it is still in theaters in north america. The games industry follows the same pattern. Reviewers with early access, actual early access, are routi…

If only films could be pre-ordered!

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#174

Post by gedrap » Fri, Oct 16, 2015, 2:19 PM UTC

intopieces wrote: post #7

I'm wary of any website that offers reviews for things they are also trying to sell, like those online systems for buying games (Playstation Network comes to mind). Why would a profit-driven enterprise allow anything to create a negative impression for the user? Amazon seems okay because they have such a wide variety of items: They're getting paid either way.

Fair point. But I found Steam reviews aggregation pretty good, or at least matching my taste. If the aggregate says 'Mixed reviews', it's usually pretty bad, and anything below is definitely bad. On the extreme end of the spectrum, I've never been disappointed by a game rated as 'Overwhelmingly positive'. I've made dozens of purchases based on the reviews there and haven't been disappointed yet.

I guess they are in a similar position as Amazon (well pointed). It's ok to indicate that the game is probably crap because there are loads of games anyway and chances are that you'll end up buying something else.

However, I gave more thought to it... They are actually incentivized to show honest reviews. If you buy a piece crap which was meant to be 'great', you will be disappointed and might not come back. However, if you (thanks to the honest reviews) buy something actually good than you might become a regular customer who will generate much more revenue then all the disappointed and tricked customers would have ever generated.

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#175

Post by nitelord » Fri, Oct 16, 2015, 2:32 PM UTC

Fandango can't be trusted to give an unbiased rating because they're trying to sell you tickets to the movie.

On the other hand, movie studios have a lot to gain by gaming sites such as IMDB and rotten tomatoes while these sites wouldn't exist if their users knew their ratings were paid for. As others have pointed out, I have noticed that movies tend to be very highly rated on IMDB during the first week or two of a movie being released to theaters. With the amount of money on the line I wouldn't be surprised if movie studios were creating fake accounts and reviews on a massive scale in an effort to generate positive ratings, especially if review sites aren't accepting the movie studio's money to fake the rating.

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#176

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Oct 16, 2015, 2:33 PM UTC

bcgraham wrote: post #164

Udik wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with Rotten Tomatoes is that - I suspect- the studios are perfectly able to influence the professional reviewers. Or, more probably, professional reviewers adjust their expectations and judgments on the type of movie they're reviewing. The end result is that every recent shiny pile-of-crap produced by Hollywood gets enthusiastic reviews and therefore excellent scores on RT. Gravity: RT score 97% 2001 A Sp…

RT's Tomatometer or Metacritic's Metascore are not measures of film worth as a kind of "atomic weight." Tomatometer, in particular, is a statement about how many reviewers gave a positive review, without regard to each reviewer's depth of feeling. Imagine three movies: First: 90% of reviewers gave 5/5, 10% of reviewers gave 1/5. Second: 90% of reviewers gave 3/5, 10% of reviewers gave 2/5. Third: 80% of reviewers gav…

[deleted]

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#177

Post by a8da6b0c91d » Fri, Oct 16, 2015, 2:34 PM UTC

cooper12 wrote: post #34

a8da6b0c91d wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ebert was an idiot and an idiot's reviewer.

It's interesting that you bring up Ebert because I would apply your original comment to him. Ebert is spot on about the redeeming qualities of many films, but in retrospect he focuses a lot on the positives. I don't think this is due to him appealing to the "idiot masses", but rather it's a product of how he views film. No matter which review I've read, the only impression of Ebert I've had is of someone who loves fi…

What Ebert did for the most part was accurately say whether or not the masses would find a film enjoyable. He was very good at his job.

A film critic should aspire to do more. He should be critical and hopeful educate the audience on some level. Ebert's reviews were more like restaurant reviews.

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#178

Post by snowwrestler » Fri, Oct 16, 2015, 2:41 PM UTC

eevilspock wrote: post #113

bostik wrote: post #63

Oh wow, that's rich. Quoting from the article: Sites like Rotten Tomatoes that aggregate movie reviews into one overall rating are being blamed for poor opening weekends. The best part is that the quote above even provides a link to the reference they are using for the made statement.[0] In effect, the studios are complaining that news of the films' crappiness are spreading too fast . Let that sink in. The studios co…

> When a bunch of reviews can undo the effects of a massive, weeks or months long marketing push, I'd say it's time to rethink your product strategy. Whenever a debate about advertising pops up on HN, many people defend it as the necessary way for consumers to find out about good products. Healthy free markets depend on informed consumers, but to think that advertising results in informed consumers makes little sense…

As you note, the idea of good/bad is often highly subjective.

If one baker is actually bad across the board, they will eventually go out of business.

But often what happens is segmentation: one restaurant meets the demand for authentic Thai, and one satisfies the demand for Americanized Thai. Which is "better"? It's in the eye of the beholder. Broad rating tools like Yelp end up illustrating the mix of opinions in the population, rather than an objective "good/bad" scale. If half of customers like authentic Thai, and half like Americanized, then both restaurants will have middling ratings given a random mix of customers.

This highlights the real purpose of advertising: to enable market segmentation. An action movie with a terrible plot and characters will emphasize the action in their marketing, to attract people who like action. Critics, who tend to prefer original stories and complex characters, might pan it--who cares? The people who read movie reviews are themselves only a segment of the market.

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#179

Post by abruzzi » Fri, Oct 16, 2015, 2:44 PM UTC

Demiurge wrote: post #50

abruzzi wrote: post #32

I never trust any online reviews, especially aggregate reviews, because I have never found any to hew remotely closely to my taste (the best example is on RT, the worst movie I've seen in the last two decades is rated 95% fresh). The only approach I've found that works is to pick a professional reviewer that is marginally close to my taste, read a lot of their reviews, so I know where I tend to agree and where I disa…

This very reasonable. Movies, music, art, can't be reduced to a single numerical score. In this sense no rating 'should' be trusted, but instead we need to make choices based on entirety of context. Seems trivial, yet we always want an easy answer.

This is basically my answer as well. I'm the first to admit that my tastes are not very well in line with conventional wisdom (I also cant stand Pixar films..) The closer your tastes are to that sort of normative, middle of the road taste the more useful aggregated reviews will likely be.

Using a single reviewer (or several) only works when someone's tastes are predictable. Using aggregate reviews, can remove the kind of predictability that I can use to predict wether I'd like the movie.

Re: Be Suspicious of Online Movie Ratings

#180

Post by abruzzi » Fri, Oct 16, 2015, 2:57 PM UTC

msie wrote: post #55

abruzzi wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snowpiercer. I'm sure some people love it, but I could not think of a single redeeming thing after I got done. I honestly preferred "The Room", (though that ones 'quality' was unintentional.)

Wow, you could not think of a single redeeming thing about Snowpiercer? And you preferred "The Room"? Now, I think you're trolling! ;-)

Of course "the Room" was worse, by a long mile, but it was enjoyable. I have long been a connoisseur of "bad movies". Look for movies like "Hillbillies in a Haunted House" or "Rock and Roll Wrestling Women vs. the Aztec Ape" or one of my all time favorites "Poor White Trash II" (originally titled "Scum of the Earth"). "The Room" had many (unintentionally) funny scenes. "Snowpiercer" was not bad enough to be entertaining, so instead I found it turgid, overwrought, melodramatic, and extremely implausible.

The point is though that this is a question of taste. Maybe my tastes simply aren't aligned with what a lot of other people like. But it is for that reason that I simply don't trust RT. For many things I used to use Ebert, since I could usually predict from his review wether I'd like it.

(I havent looked closely but I do wonder if selection bias impacts review sites. If a limited appeal movie comes out, and the mainstream reviewers ignore it, and all the reviewers that RT aggregates are from the world that the move does appeal to, does it end up scoring much better than if all the mainstream usual suspects had reviewed it.)