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

The Story Behind the Worst Movie on IMDb

fivethirtyeight.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 141 posts

Re: The Story Behind the Worst Movie on IMDb

#81

Post by NAFV_P »

The archetypal 'bad' movie is "Plan 9 from Outer Space" [0], by Ed Wood. It holds that title mainly because of its production values.

This one has caused a stir on IMDB for reasons of moral integrity, or bending the truth. Rather odd, since this has been going on in films and similar media for a very long time.

"International Gorillay", a film from Pakistan depicting Salman Rushdie [1]. Coincidentally it was released a year or so after Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses" [2]. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini [3] wanted Rushdie dead because of this novel. BTW Iranian films can be very good, like "Where is the Friend's Home?" [3].

[0] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052077/ [1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0251144/ [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhollah_Khomeini [3] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093342/

Re: The Story Behind the Worst Movie on IMDb

#82

Post by NAFV_P »

gabemart wrote: post #69
brie22 wrote: post #43

538 is using the wrong metrics. For a movie to be truly, truly, sublimely bad, that badness needs to be recognized - people in some cases will want to watch it for its incredible badness. This means that there are going to be a disproportionate number of both 1 and 10 votes. And the winner based on this is - The Room. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368226/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt

A clear conversation is difficult in the absence of a clear, canonical definition of "bad". It would be very easy for me to get a few friends together and make a 90 minutes improvised movie filmed on my phone. That would be an absolutely terrible movie, but it wouldn't be a very satisfying answer to the question "What's the worst movie?" because it would be seen by very few people and it would be made with no ambitio…

> I could go further and make a movie that was 90 minutes of a black screen. That would be a worse movie but an even less satisfying answer.

What about a blue screen?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106438/

Re: The Story Behind the Worst Movie on IMDb

#84

Post by sharkweek »

brie22 wrote: post #43

538 is using the wrong metrics. For a movie to be truly, truly, sublimely bad, that badness needs to be recognized - people in some cases will want to watch it for its incredible badness. This means that there are going to be a disproportionate number of both 1 and 10 votes. And the winner based on this is - The Room. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368226/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt

Oh, hi Mark...

It's really quite fascinating to me how a movie like that, so incredibly terrible with seemingly no irony in it's production, has somehow become a fantastic work of art. It's that piece in the modern museum you think looks absolutely so terrible but something about it appeals to you.

I've probably seen The Room a half dozen times in various settings (movie theater showing it in jest to a huge audience, group of friends over a few beers, etc), and it's always overwhelmingly entertaining because it's just THAT bad. It almost impresses me more that they pulled this off (unintentionally, of course) when compared to some of my actual favorite films.

Re: The Story Behind the Worst Movie on IMDb

#85

Post by abruzzi »

nkozyra wrote: post #50

I feel like there's an assumption that this data is erroneous for this reason - I think that any reason in which a person gives a negative rating toward a film is valid, be it politically motivated or otherwise. FiveThirtyEight has had a rough start so far so I may be more inclined to seek more nuance than I normally would as they've tended to be extraordinarily simplistic (Silver himself notwithstanding) to date.

The problem not that the opinion of the members of Gonojagoron Moncho are invalid, but that they are not representative of general opinion on the film. The online activism has skewed the films ratings to a point that, unless you are a member of Gonojagoron Moncho, it becomes a less that useful metric. This is a case of a motivated minority overwhelming an apathetic majority. Think of the many times Steven Colbert had his fans write in his name on online polls such as naming a bridge in an eastern european country or a NASA space mission.

Re: The Story Behind the Worst Movie on IMDb

#86

Post by _delirium »

gphilip wrote: post #64

"There are currently more than 235,000 films on IMDb, and ... not a single qualified movie besides “Gunday” rates worse than 1.8." "The next lowest-rated movie on IMDb — 1.8 stars overall ..." I am not sure what the writer means by a "qualified" movie, but this one does rate less than 1.8: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2094870/ It has votes from only 195 users as of this writing, though.

To qualify for the "bottom 100" list, a film needs at least 1500 ratings: http://www.imdb.com/chart/bottom

Re: The Story Behind the Worst Movie on IMDb

#87

Post by drblast »

pilsetnieks wrote: post #51
brie22 wrote: post #43

538 is using the wrong metrics. For a movie to be truly, truly, sublimely bad, that badness needs to be recognized - people in some cases will want to watch it for its incredible badness. This means that there are going to be a disproportionate number of both 1 and 10 votes. And the winner based on this is - The Room. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368226/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt

That is nothing compared to "Manos: The Hands of Fate" ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060666/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt ) Unexpectedly, however, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" is rated much more evenly for a film that's been considered to be the worst of all time.

Manos is bad in the I-can't-even-watch-this-for-fun-without-MST3K kind of way. And even then it's a slog.

I'm a die-hard MST3K fan and I've only seen Manos two or three times.

Even so, I Heart Huckabees tops my list of movies that I just can't watch. That one's actively grating rather than just incompetent.

Re: The Story Behind the Worst Movie on IMDb

#88

Post by joosters »

brie22 wrote: post #43

538 is using the wrong metrics. For a movie to be truly, truly, sublimely bad, that badness needs to be recognized - people in some cases will want to watch it for its incredible badness. This means that there are going to be a disproportionate number of both 1 and 10 votes. And the winner based on this is - The Room. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368226/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt

As an aficionado of bad movies, I agree that there is more to a bad movie than just low review scores. Entertaining bad movies need a certain something to them. The worst kind of movie is a dull and boring one.

The 'best' bad movies are hard to quantify. I certainly can't think of any 'good' bad movies that planned or aimed to be regarded as bad. As another commenter said, you need the creators to believe that they were making something worthwhile...

Re: The Story Behind the Worst Movie on IMDb

#89

Post by bentcorner »

gabemart wrote: post #69
brie22 wrote: post #43

538 is using the wrong metrics. For a movie to be truly, truly, sublimely bad, that badness needs to be recognized - people in some cases will want to watch it for its incredible badness. This means that there are going to be a disproportionate number of both 1 and 10 votes. And the winner based on this is - The Room. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368226/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt

A clear conversation is difficult in the absence of a clear, canonical definition of "bad". It would be very easy for me to get a few friends together and make a 90 minutes improvised movie filmed on my phone. That would be an absolutely terrible movie, but it wouldn't be a very satisfying answer to the question "What's the worst movie?" because it would be seen by very few people and it would be made with no ambitio…

I tried watching Episode 1 last weekend, I really did. I lasted about 2 minutes into Jar Jar before turning it off.

Re: The Story Behind the Worst Movie on IMDb

#90

Post by _delirium »

tveita wrote: post #67
bowlofpetunias wrote: post #59

IMDB ratings are bull. Lots of great movies, often even classics, rate around 6 on IMDB because the general public considers them "boring". The only movies that escape from the IMDB average are a) decent movies that are loved by the masses, b) great movies the masses don't watch (being in black and white or not in English alone pretty much guarantees 2 bonus points) and c) movies everyone agrees on are total crap.

If the general public considers a movie boring, giving it a mediocre rating seems fair. Other members of the general public will then know to avoid it. They'll want to watch movies they like, not movies you like. What you may want is a personalized rating based on people with the same tastes as you.

> What you may want is a personalized rating based on people with the same tastes as you.

I haven't used it in a while, but I used to find MovieLens, from the University of Minnesota, useful for that: http://movielens.umn.edu

It even has a feature where you can get joint personalized recommendations for you and a friend (assuming the friend also has a MovieLens account, of course), which is useful for brainstorming movies to rent with someone that might be mutually enjoyed.

Post reply on HN