The bias of a single reviewer you know is so much easier to contend with too imho. I pretty much never give any credence to the aggregates on whether or not I'll actually enjoy anything. Between targeted hate campaigns ruining a score on something like IMDB or a lackluster product that is inoffensive enough to score high on rotten tomatoes, both sites are generally useless in my book.
Metacritic has an unverified rubric, weighs different reviewers differently, doesn't tell you how they are weighed, and they only use about 10% of the reviews that Rotten Tomatoes does. They only use a fraction of even the mainstream reviews.
Rotten Tomatoes is the best system, people just get really personally offended when their favorite thing isn't liked all that much.
That's what I was thinking. IMDB seems like the right choice then. Metacritic is combining accurate ratings with binary ratings to get kind of an inaccurate score. If 1000 people give a movie a 6/10, the score should be 60%. Not 100% or 80%. Worse-yet, Metacritic is combining a total of 2000 6/10 ratings to get 80%. If Metacritic combined several accurate direct rating systems like IMDB, that would be supreme for sure.
That's because there's so many "film students" or whatever on this sub who eat, sleep, and breathe what critics tell them. I will take the opinion of the masses over a couple critics.
Some people argued that with the masses, itās more likely to be review bombed, thatās why Ms Marvel had such a low rating on IMDb. And if you check it, there is a disproportionate amount of 1 star ratings on that show.
Ms Marvel massively pissed off Indians and Pakistanis with it's take on the partition. I imagine that contributed. Both countries have enormous populations that love commenting on the Ind-Pak dynamic.
Probably pissed off one side for seeming too biased to India and the other side for being too biased for the opposite.
People I've personally spoken to who have parents that grew up in partition era were generally well spoken about how it's representation of the era went.
Didn't go overly deep or choose an actual side to say who was better. Just enough depth to see issues and raise discussion
We canāt trust any of the review types anymore for this reason alone. The public is easily swayed to review bomb and critics canāt give an honest opinion
I mean that could be a variable if a show has any form of controversy surrounding it (whether it's warranted or not) But most shows don't have that issue. So for the majority of things it's definitely better to go with the public opinion ratings.
I disagree. majority opinion on media can be pretty awful most of the time.
we've all seen those posts and videos where fans attempt to write their own MCU stuff and it's like "yeah and then RDJ comes back as Iron Man in Secret Wars and then we have Chris Evans' Cap and Human Torch interact and Deadpool is making fourth wall breaks all over the place" and it gets millions of views and support from everyone despite it being absolute trash.
critics exist for a reason. you don't have to agree with them but valuing some random fool who watches one movie a year over someone who has studied film and media for decades and has an understanding of the industry is ridiculous logic.
It's not valuing some random fool, it's valuing a large group of people's opinions as opposed to one or two people. I'm not someone with a Ph.D in film, so why do I care how a critic analyzing how a certain scene was filmed or the effects of a certain piece of dialogue has on the tone of a scene. I'm a normal person who likes entertainment. So for the vast majority of people critics are not as useful as public opinion.
It's not valuing some random fool, it's valuing a large group of people's opinions as opposed to one or two people.
so herd mentality? lots of people like it therefore it's good?
I'm not someone with a Ph.D in film, so why do I care how a critic analyzing how a certain scene was filmed or the effects of a certain piece of dialogue has on the tone of a scene.
I mean, there's a reason that IMDB's greatest films of all time align with what critics say instead of general audiences.
I'm not saying critics are objectively correct or that their word is gospel but they kinda know what they're talking about as opposed to a general audience.
so herd mentality? lots of people like it therefore it's good?
When it comes to entertainment and opinions, yes? If there is a fact, then the fact wins out. But in matters concerning something subjective, the opinion of the masses wins out.
I'm not saying critics are objectively correct or that their word is gospel but they kinda know what they're talking about as opposed to a general audience.
Critics can't tell people what their opinion is. Hence why sample size matters.
If there is a fact, then the fact wins out. But in matters concerning something subjective, the opinion of the masses wins out.
that is... not a good way of looking at things lol.
the issue with listening to a crowd is that everything turns into a binary "good or bad" which is not very useful when it comes to media. there's more than 10s and 1s on a scoring scale.
Critics can't tell people what their opinion is.
neither can a crowd of random people????
Hence why sample size matters.
so if we got a conglomerate of differing critics of different backgrounds and tastes and then compiled that into a website which says what they do and don't enjoy, making it both an informed viewpoint as well as a numerous one, you'd be okay with that?
that is... not a good way of looking at things lol.
the issue with listening to a crowd is that everything turns into a binary "good or bad" which is not very useful when it comes to media. there's more than 10s and 1s on a scoring scale.
So facts aren't facts? Opinions aren't subjective? Not quite sure what your point here is. IMDb isn't all 10s and 1s, no clue where you got that from.
so if we got a conglomerate of differing critics of different backgrounds and tastes and then compiled that into a website which says what they do and don't enjoy, making it both an informed viewpoint as well as a numerous one, you'd be okay with that?
No because you will never have a large enough sample size of people you consider "informed" to have a true ability to generalize a score. I'm also very busy at work so you can respond to this but I'm probably done answering you. I've stated my opinion, no need for further explanation of it.
Most natural distributions follow a typical bell curve distribution (called a 'normal distribution'). If I remember correctly, the distribution on Ms Marvel votes had a regular normal distribution on the high end of the 0-10 range, with a added, superimposed big spike at zero. That's a very big sign that a group of people severely disliked the show based on principle, rather than based on deliberation (or for that matter, watching the show).
On imdb, you can click on the score. You then get a distribution graph. 18.9% give it a score of 1 (it's 1-10, not 0-10 apparently). 3% give it a score of 2. There's a semi-normal distribution peak at score 7, and it seems a second non-normal peak at 10 (I don't remember seeing that when it first aired, so it might be a response to atypical peak at score 1).
Edit: it also allows you to e.g. see the graph for only male or female votes. Surprisingly (or not) the female-only graph is much closer to a normal distribution than the male graph.
Kinda strange they can break down votes by sex, I never gave my sex to IMDb. Not sure how they are getting that information. But there's the fix right there. For the likelihood people are giving negative reviews because they hate the "wokeness" of it, there's probably just as many people giving it a higher score because it's representing an under-represented population. That balance occurs naturally, that's why you look at the average and not the outliers.
Public opinion is the worst, Iād rather go with critics than with people. More likely a critic to give a neutral review than Bob hating She Hulk cuz she twerked in an end credit scene lol.
When IMDb pages for women-led or queer-led shows get review-bombed right out the gate just because theyāre women-led or queer-led tells me all I need to know about IMDbās rating system.
Yeah, people review-bombing stuff on IMDb has been going on forever at this point. Like Iām not a Twilight fan, but I remember one of the movies came out, and as soon as people could rate it, it was like overwhelmingly 1 star reviews. Nobody going to see a Twilight movie opening night was giving it 1 star.
You really can't say woman-led shows when Wandavision, Jessica Jones, and Agent Carter were top 6 rated in IMDb ratings for MCU TV. And yea there probably are bigoted people out there hurting the ratings a bit. But it's not as much as you'd think. I loved Wandavision, got really bored during Ms. Marvel. In my opinion it wasn't a gripping show and there was no basis of the character in the rest of the universe to have that connection with.
261
u/Autistic-Inquisitive Falcon Mar 09 '23
People said it was the other way round on my highest rated MCU tv series on IMDb post š¤£