I can't speak to the validity of the ratings as I've not watched all of GoT (the missus has only recently convinced me to give it yet another shot, and we're only at the beginning of Season 2),...
I can't speak to the validity of the ratings as I've not watched all of GoT (the missus has only recently convinced me to give it yet another shot, and we're only at the beginning of Season 2), but being incredibly familiar with IMDB and its rating system I can say that it's a terrible metric to use.
This isn't to say there's one "perfect" review aggregator or equivalent; there isn't, because art inherently has pieces to it that aren't quantifiable. This is to say there are far better choices to use than IMDB's user rating system.
Then again, as I grow older I grow less inclined to trust review aggregators in any capacity, simply because I'm noticing my tastes don't match up well with most of the people who use those sites (critics and users alike), or at bare minimum their concerns are focused in areas of production I'm uninterested in or have no effect on my enjoyment of the piece as a whole. "The Cloverfield Paradox" is an excellent, recent example.
Have you performed any sort of analysis? Anecdotally, I've found three factors to be fairly good predictors in terms of if I will like a movie. Is it highly rated by IMDB (number of votes and...
being incredibly familiar with IMDB and its rating system I can say that it's a terrible metric to use.
Have you performed any sort of analysis?
Anecdotally, I've found three factors to be fairly good predictors in terms of if I will like a movie.
Is it highly rated by IMDB (number of votes and average score of votes?)
Is it highly rated on Rotten Tomatoes (average rating of all critics?)
Is it in my wheel house?
Incidentally, John Wick 3 is currently sitting at 7.48/10 average rating of all critics on RT - so I am very excited.
IMDB's ratings work well for me. If it rates below 5.7, as the bottom third of all titles do, chances are I will truly dislike it (55%). If it rates 7 or above, as the top third of all titles do,...
IMDB's ratings work well for me.
If it rates below 5.7, as the bottom third of all titles do, chances are I will truly dislike it (55%).
If it rates 7 or above, as the top third of all titles do, there is a significant chance I will like it (65%).
It certainly works well to gauge quality relative to an existing franchise. How good is a sequel compared to the original? Which Star Trek movies are the best? Or branching out a bit - how does...
It certainly works well to gauge quality relative to an existing franchise. How good is a sequel compared to the original? Which Star Trek movies are the best? Or branching out a bit - how does Galaxy Quest compare to Trek films? The further you go the less certainty there is.
Its also worth looking at the breakdown of the voting on IMDB https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6027916/ratings While the ratings and demographics aren't perfect, I find that the 30 - 44 All gives the...
Its also worth looking at the breakdown of the voting on IMDB
My film watching life got much better when I ignored IMDB / Rotten Tomato ratings and just read reviews from Cherry Picks. https://www.thecherrypicks.com/
My film watching life got much better when I ignored IMDB / Rotten Tomato ratings and just read reviews from Cherry Picks. https://www.thecherrypicks.com/
How is 'Lost' not on their list of epic nosedives?! I loved that show, and even though I saw the shark coming I still watched it right till the bitter, horrible terrible end (and wow was I...
How is 'Lost' not on their list of epic nosedives?! I loved that show, and even though I saw the shark coming I still watched it right till the bitter, horrible terrible end (and wow was I pissed!).
But that was nothing compared to the ruining of one of my favorite shows - Dexter.
As for GoT, having never read the books, I lost interest the minute they starting the zombie apocalypse stuff sometime in the last season. This addiction to zombie movies/shows, I just don't get it!!! LOL (although I loved Walking Dead for 3 seasons or thereabouts). But enough is enough for me! LOL I'll still watch the last couple of GoT episodes though... but only as amusement kinda like how I watch Ridiculousness ;-)
PS: I loved the statement in the article "Our data is accurate as of" - um, never I would say. Not knocking IMDB, it's just how I feel about statistics in general when used to support an opinion ;-)
Christ, Lost was awful. And yet, Dexter was worse. Sopranos wasn't great. Think about how awful Seinfeld was, even though it's just a sitcom. Success breeds a lack of creativity and vision in the...
Christ, Lost was awful. And yet, Dexter was worse. Sopranos wasn't great. Think about how awful Seinfeld was, even though it's just a sitcom. Success breeds a lack of creativity and vision in the arts. It's the same in music. It's sad, and I want to appreciate the body of work that made made me fall in love, but it's hard. It's one of the reasons I don't watch a lot of TV to be honest. I hate investing a lot of time and energy into something that gets quite literally ruined for me at the end.
HBO and GoT should not have had any such issues. The real issue with GoT is that the show writers started off relying on and adapting from the book series. They proved capable at adapting content...
The problem is that in the US, networks milk the show for all it's worth instead of caring about a satisfying story arc.
HBO and GoT should not have had any such issues. The real issue with GoT is that the show writers started off relying on and adapting from the book series. They proved capable at adapting content from the books into episodic television, but once they ran out of content to adapt from, and HBO gave them a deadline to wrap things up, the formula changed and the successful process fell apart. Being good at adapting and being good at synthesizing are not the same, and instead of hiring different talent for a different situation, HBO forced the show writers into a situation that was beyond their abilities (maybe beyond all possible human abilities). You’d think that HBO would be smart enough to have foreseen this, but maybe they’ve made so much money already they just don’t give a shit any more?
I can't speak to the validity of the ratings as I've not watched all of GoT (the missus has only recently convinced me to give it yet another shot, and we're only at the beginning of Season 2), but being incredibly familiar with IMDB and its rating system I can say that it's a terrible metric to use.
This isn't to say there's one "perfect" review aggregator or equivalent; there isn't, because art inherently has pieces to it that aren't quantifiable. This is to say there are far better choices to use than IMDB's user rating system.
Then again, as I grow older I grow less inclined to trust review aggregators in any capacity, simply because I'm noticing my tastes don't match up well with most of the people who use those sites (critics and users alike), or at bare minimum their concerns are focused in areas of production I'm uninterested in or have no effect on my enjoyment of the piece as a whole. "The Cloverfield Paradox" is an excellent, recent example.
Have you performed any sort of analysis?
Anecdotally, I've found three factors to be fairly good predictors in terms of if I will like a movie.
Incidentally, John Wick 3 is currently sitting at 7.48/10 average rating of all critics on RT - so I am very excited.
Not anything formal, no. But a quick check of IMDB's top 100 is enough to give me pause, plus personal experience with older movies.
IMDB's ratings work well for me.
If it rates below 5.7, as the bottom third of all titles do, chances are I will truly dislike it (55%).
If it rates 7 or above, as the top third of all titles do, there is a significant chance I will like it (65%).
It certainly works well to gauge quality relative to an existing franchise. How good is a sequel compared to the original? Which Star Trek movies are the best? Or branching out a bit - how does Galaxy Quest compare to Trek films? The further you go the less certainty there is.
Its also worth looking at the breakdown of the voting on IMDB
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6027916/ratings
While the ratings and demographics aren't perfect, I find that the 30 - 44 All gives the best picture.
My film watching life got much better when I ignored IMDB / Rotten Tomato ratings and just read reviews from Cherry Picks. https://www.thecherrypicks.com/
How is 'Lost' not on their list of epic nosedives?! I loved that show, and even though I saw the shark coming I still watched it right till the bitter, horrible terrible end (and wow was I pissed!).
But that was nothing compared to the ruining of one of my favorite shows - Dexter.
As for GoT, having never read the books, I lost interest the minute they starting the zombie apocalypse stuff sometime in the last season. This addiction to zombie movies/shows, I just don't get it!!! LOL (although I loved Walking Dead for 3 seasons or thereabouts). But enough is enough for me! LOL I'll still watch the last couple of GoT episodes though... but only as amusement kinda like how I watch Ridiculousness ;-)
PS: I loved the statement in the article "Our data is accurate as of" - um, never I would say. Not knocking IMDB, it's just how I feel about statistics in general when used to support an opinion ;-)
Christ, Lost was awful. And yet, Dexter was worse. Sopranos wasn't great. Think about how awful Seinfeld was, even though it's just a sitcom. Success breeds a lack of creativity and vision in the arts. It's the same in music. It's sad, and I want to appreciate the body of work that made made me fall in love, but it's hard. It's one of the reasons I don't watch a lot of TV to be honest. I hate investing a lot of time and energy into something that gets quite literally ruined for me at the end.
HBO and GoT should not have had any such issues. The real issue with GoT is that the show writers started off relying on and adapting from the book series. They proved capable at adapting content from the books into episodic television, but once they ran out of content to adapt from, and HBO gave them a deadline to wrap things up, the formula changed and the successful process fell apart. Being good at adapting and being good at synthesizing are not the same, and instead of hiring different talent for a different situation, HBO forced the show writers into a situation that was beyond their abilities (maybe beyond all possible human abilities). You’d think that HBO would be smart enough to have foreseen this, but maybe they’ve made so much money already they just don’t give a shit any more?
Well, at least we still have Taboo to look forward to on that front.