Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Enjoy the Best, Not the Latest, Media

kartick.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 136 posts

Re: Enjoy the Best, Not the Latest, Media

#31

Post by JoeAltmaier »

inetsee wrote: post #12

I have read that the best way to get started in finding good films is to use awards as a starting point: Academy Awards, Directors Guild Awards, Screen Actors Guild Awards. These organizations are made up of people who live and breathe film making, and they vote for what they think is the best, not the most popular. Note that their choices aren't perfect; I've watched some movies that won awards that I really didn't…

Maybe the wrong crowd to use as a litmus test for 'enjoyable'. Like a muscle car expert may not choose a good family sedan for my small family, the experts value features that may be irrelevant to the rest of us.

Re: Enjoy the Best, Not the Latest, Media

#32

Post by luckylion »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #21
luckylion wrote: post #8

> If people are still talking about it after so many years, it must be really good. I disagree. If something is long-term popular, that doesn't mean it's really good, it means it hit the average taste pretty well. The average taste is very bland, because it's, well, average. You can't really deviate too far from the lowest common denominator if you want to hit the average taste and be super popular.

Can you name a book or film that is popular 20+ years after it was first released that is bland? Even Disney films - the most idealistic in many ways - can hardly be considered bland. The typical Summer bland film or airport book which really is bland and overladen with tropes is rarely popular after a few years.

I'm not a movie person, but films like Home Alone, Back To The Future, Ghostbusters etc come to mind. My impression is that they are super hits that span generations because they are so predictable, middle of the road, easy to digest and unable to offend.

Re: Enjoy the Best, Not the Latest, Media

#33

Post by Fnoord »

tallies wrote: post #26

As someone who apparently frequents much more pretentious online film circles than OP, the idea that the highest rated films and shows on IMDB represent the "best" of the mediums is kinda silly. The article uses Star Trek (2009) as its example of a mediocre film. Its IMDB rating is 7.9/10 from over 500k votes over 11 years -- surely this would place the film squarely in the "tried and tested" category. If I look on s…

IMDB's DB is big, but owned by Amazon (possibly biased due to Prime), and not accurate (see below). I've been using that website for 20+ years tho. I go to there out of habit. But I also used to continue to go Slashdot out of habit.

I read a comparison (linked on HN) between IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, and Metacritic which used statistical analysis and concluded Metacritic was most accurate.

The movie you mentioned (I don't know about it) gets 82/100 on Metacritic [1], and a must see reward (whatever that means). 82 is high.

The director of the movie is JJ Abrams who seems to turn anything he touches into gold (with one recent exception, IIRC).

[1] https://www.metacritic.com/movie/star-trek

Re: Enjoy the Best, Not the Latest, Media

#34

Post by pembrook »

dannyeei wrote: post #3

It's a fair thesis but the reality is that films and most things are constantly getting a lot better because people are learning from the best

There is no Moore’s law in art. Things are not getting better, they are simply reflecting the current ideas and trends of our time, often using universal human themes.

This is also what makes films from the past so interesting. It’s literally time travel. There’s no better way to learn where we’re going than seeing where we’ve been. It’s like a backtest for the stock market of human culture.

I feel sorry for anyone who lacks the ability or curiosity to detach themselves from the zeitgeist.

Re: Enjoy the Best, Not the Latest, Media

#35

Post by Fnoord »

conception wrote: post #29
tallies wrote: post #26

As someone who apparently frequents much more pretentious online film circles than OP, the idea that the highest rated films and shows on IMDB represent the "best" of the mediums is kinda silly. The article uses Star Trek (2009) as its example of a mediocre film. Its IMDB rating is 7.9/10 from over 500k votes over 11 years -- surely this would place the film squarely in the "tried and tested" category. If I look on s…

Your mention of taste is interesting as https://www.criticker.com engine basically recommends movies based on other people who have liked and disliked the same movies as you liked other films and it’s really effective!

Good way to enhance your bubble. I like to be thought provoked at times.

Re: Enjoy the Best, Not the Latest, Media

#36

Post by alexilliamson »

conception wrote: post #29
tallies wrote: post #26

As someone who apparently frequents much more pretentious online film circles than OP, the idea that the highest rated films and shows on IMDB represent the "best" of the mediums is kinda silly. The article uses Star Trek (2009) as its example of a mediocre film. Its IMDB rating is 7.9/10 from over 500k votes over 11 years -- surely this would place the film squarely in the "tried and tested" category. If I look on s…

Your mention of taste is interesting as https://www.criticker.com engine basically recommends movies based on other people who have liked and disliked the same movies as you liked other films and it’s really effective!

This is awesome will check out later. Is this site good for smaller/older/more obscure recommendations?

Re: Enjoy the Best, Not the Latest, Media

#37

Post by yowlingcat »

dannyeei wrote: post #3

It's a fair thesis but the reality is that films and most things are constantly getting a lot better because people are learning from the best

Oh, I dunno if I'd agree with that. I think the barriers to production are coming down but that means the market is flooded with crap. There is still good stuff that comes out. And yet, it seems just as hard to find as it was before. Maybe it's just as rare.

Re: Enjoy the Best, Not the Latest, Media

#38

Post by Fnoord »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #28
kinghtown wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not quite Goodreads is kind of a weird space which shows that the popular vote is kind of useless. It’s hard to find a good book based on ratings. Everything seems to be either 4+ stars or garbage. The Fault in our Stars probably has a better rating than print copies of Hamlet. Actually, all classics seem to hover around 3.68 stars. Never 2. In fact, I don’t think any books published in the history of the world hav…

Star ratings have been widely proven to be a total failure. Most people treat them as binary: either something is nice, and gets 5, or is crap, and gets 1. The neutral score for things that are OK tends to be 5, sometimes 4. This is particularly pronounced whenever there are any consequences attached to the ratings. If you give anything but 5 to your Uber driver, you're risking them losing their job. If you give anyt…

That reminds me about how in Germany a reference for a job must be positive. So it ends up with a spectrum of "he/she worked here" vs "he/she was REALLY good" (in German).

I've come to the (sad) conclusion that review systems are inaccurate, even when well intended. There was likely a moment during their existence where they were accurate. I would guesstimate this moment is generally before it gained momentum. E.g. early days of IMDB, early days of Amazon, and early days of tbat German law mentioned earlier (I don't know the name).

Since Metacritic is an aggregation of paid and amateur reviewers alike, it might very well be more accurate.

Re: Enjoy the Best, Not the Latest, Media

#39

Post by alexilliamson »

tallies wrote: post #26

As someone who apparently frequents much more pretentious online film circles than OP, the idea that the highest rated films and shows on IMDB represent the "best" of the mediums is kinda silly. The article uses Star Trek (2009) as its example of a mediocre film. Its IMDB rating is 7.9/10 from over 500k votes over 11 years -- surely this would place the film squarely in the "tried and tested" category. If I look on s…

This is why I used to love Rotten Tomatoes: between the audience score, the critic score, and the top critic score, you get three telling data points about what sort of person us likely to enjoy the movie.

I have read a lot less film criticism since Roger Ebert died though. It seems like recently anything remotely enjoyable on rotten tomatoes gets above 90.

Re: Enjoy the Best, Not the Latest, Media

#40

Post by alexilliamson »

kinghtown wrote: post #18
inetsee wrote: post #12

I have read that the best way to get started in finding good films is to use awards as a starting point: Academy Awards, Directors Guild Awards, Screen Actors Guild Awards. These organizations are made up of people who live and breathe film making, and they vote for what they think is the best, not the most popular. Note that their choices aren't perfect; I've watched some movies that won awards that I really didn't…

Sight and Sound put out two excellent lists every ten years. 100 best films of all time as voted by filmmakers and another list voted on by published critics. I prefer the filmmaker list overall but it’s interesting to see how the darlings wax and wane over the years. Citizen Kane dominated for decades but now it’s Vertigo. https://www2.bfi.org.uk/greatest-films-all-time

I love this list, last year I added like 20 movies to my watch list from it.
Post reply on HN