6 ms·

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 "be

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 some smaller sites I see a different story. Letterboxd: 7.2/10, 234k votes RateYourMusic: 6.4/10, 3k votes The first site has a higher ratio of capital f Film fans and the second site is a much smaller site focused on music. Using these three data points I can deduct that Star Trek (2009) is probably a decent franchise action movie that most will find enjoyable but won't stand up to scrutiny as a stand alone film or for those expecting something more substantial. The article is right that it's so much easier to access the history of a medium than in the past. It's interesting to me when a previously unknown work from 25+ years ago is rediscovered and entered into "the canon". In alternative music a recent example is Long Season by Fishmans from 1996. But going through the canonical "best of" lists for a medium is more-or-less a gateway to developing and discovering your own taste in these things (a process that never ends). You shouldn't put much trust in any single source. Something that's missing now with this intermingling of old and new art is historical context. A film streaming platform is just a directory of video files attached to 250px images and paragraph blurbs. What is Netflix saying about film and its viewers when it has less than 50 films pre-1980? Now that watching 2000+ films before the age of 30 is common for film fans, what will that mean for the future of film?

conception 6y ago
Your mention of taste is interesting as https://www.criticker.com 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!
- Fnoord 6y ago
  Good way to enhance your bubble. I like to be thought provoked at times.
  - kubanczyk 6y ago
    Yes, that's what the site is supposed to do. It is entertainment, not facts, and so I want to be entirely in the bubble of "Hot Fuzz" fans or "Dead Snow" fans and very much without intersection with any superhero stuff.
    - Fnoord 6y ago
      Entertainment and thought provoking are not mutually exclusive.
- alexilliamson 6y ago
  This is awesome will check out later. Is this site good for smaller/older/more obscure recommendations?
  - conception 6y ago
    It seems to be? I get a lot of recommendations I’ve never seen before. I think if you rate a lot of non mainstream stuff it’ll pair you with people who do the same and voila - new non mainstream stuff!
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  I admittedly haven’t tried this one (I guess I will), but this was also the promise of Goodreads, and Netflix since the DVD era, and it just never seems to work for me. I have admittedly discovered a handful of great authors via Goodreads recommendations, but they’re big names I think I would have eventually found anyway (e.g. Brandon Sanderson), and I spent a lot of time adding books I’d read and carefully considering how to rate each one. I’m actually broadly curious why these systems aren’t more effective. It seems like such a perfect system on paper.
  - mhb 6y ago
    One reason is that Netflix killed theirs after paying a prize of $1M for a 10% improvement to their already good Cinematch recommender. See: https://www.netflixprize.com/ https://www.netflixprize.com/
- gurkendoktor 6y ago
  I've just imported 300+ ratings from IMDb into Criticker, and the recommendations it gave me seemed so far off that I didn't even feel like giving any of the movies a chance. Maybe I'm not watching enough classics, but it feels like the site hasn't really gotten to the long tail of movies. In comparison, when I go rate movies on IDMb I'm rarely more than one star away from the average rating, so IMDb serves my needs quite well, anyway.
- barbs 6y ago
  https://www.last.fm https://www.last.fm has a similar engine for music
Fnoord 6y ago
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 https://www.metacritic.com/movie/star-trek
alexilliamson 6y ago
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.
- seg_lol 6y ago
  Most critics are jerks, passing off attitude and masquerading opinion as deep domain knowledge. The comic book guy trope from the Simpsons or Sponge Bob. Roger Ebert [1] and Gene Siskel [2] were my introduction to analysis and argumentation. Watching two adults getting into a argument and discussing something using some sort of rules-of-engagement fascinated me. That they viewed a piece from so many angles, criticism is a skill and an art. Opinion shouldn't occupy more than 10% of result. ;) I didn't understand the depth of that personal and professional relationship until I saw an interview with Ebert, where he teared up at the loss of his friend Gene. [3] What are some other professional duos? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ebert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ebert [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Siskel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Siskel [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Siskel#Death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Siskel#Death
  - alexilliamson 6y ago
    Just want to say check out Life Itself, the biography film about Roger Ebert. It bring me to tears everytime but is also filled with so much joy.
    - seg_lol 6y ago
      Thank you! This looks excellent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Itself_(2014_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Itself_(2014_film) I have been wanting to join http://blog.scarecrow.com/ http://blog.scarecrow.com/ for awhile now, it is a Seattle based video rental place with lots of rare movies and videos. Years ago we rented 2001 on laserdisc and a laserdisc player. Not quite as cool as running a film projector but still a fun experience. If it wasn't clear in my first paragraph, Siskel and Ebert were definitely in a class of their own in the professionalism and thoroughness they brought to film criticism.
kinghtown 6y ago
I don’t think Netflix is entirely at fault. It’s sad how most people seem to be super ok with flushing the past down a toilet. Like anything from before they were born is irrelevant. I think it’s selfish in a way but mostly I think people are terrified of coming across as weird. Like imagine going to work at a generic office and trying to talk about a half forgotten French movie like The Green Ray. There are too many unknowns (no recognizable cast, foreign film, kind of old) and I don’t think the average person has the fortitude to stand up to that kind of social situation so they avoid it instinctively. But Netflix could definitely try harder instead of nurturing lazy entertainment. I don’t expect much from them since they made Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon 2 in English. What a lame decision.
- clairity 6y ago
  > "I don’t expect much from them since they made Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon 2 in English." that movie was awful, especially in comparison to the original. it had none of the innuendo and poetry, more a punch in the face. imho, the hollowing out of american film began ~20 years ago, with netflix being just a milestone in that evolution. i've been much more interested in foreign films as a result. i'm currently going through the recent back canon of korean films (take care of my cat, oldboy, mother), and it's been great! reminds me of the 90's in american film--while today's films are technically and visually more sophisticated, storytelling and character development has suffered measurably. older french films (and others) are great for that too. the big american blockbusters are fun to watch in the moment but feel like empty calories afterwards.
- MereInterest 6y ago
  I think part of it is also Netflix's shrinking catalog. Five years ago, before their initial contracts started running out, Netflix was a spot where you to go to watch anything. Netflix could afford to push people to tailored content because they had all the content. Now, however, those initial contracts have expired, and a host of streaming services have popped up. If I want to find a movie, I need to fire up Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, and Amazon Prime, then run a search on each of them. Half the time, I still fall back to placing a hold at my local library. I don't think Netflix is pushing new shows because they think the new shows are best. I think they are pushing new shows because they are desperately trying to pivot from a streaming company to a production studio, and the only way to do so is to downplay older media.
JKCalhoun 6y ago
Yeah, agree with the general sentiment of the post, but I think it does not go nearly far enough. The TV Series rating link: call me old or highbrow but I really thought Rod Serling's "The Twilight Zone" should be in the top 10. Nope, not even in the top 146. The U.S. "The Office" makes the top 146 (#13) but not the U.K. version. Fawlty Towers? Nowhere. Etc.
- BeetleB 6y ago
  Where are you getting these ratings? Twilight Zone is #21 on IMDB. Fawlty Towers is #64.
danbmil99 6y ago
Maybe what is needed is an AI engine that you can train on your own tastes, so it can crawl through the literally millions of pieces of media out there to find ones that you are likely to find interesting and enjoy.
unraveller 6y ago
Netflix is a luxury lowbrow brand, a digital status symbol boredom reliever, the opposite of elevating expectations of quality. They know they cannot compete with the backlog on quality, so an all out assault on individual assessment is waged on users. Netflix discovered that the search for novelty is a near perfect substitute for novelty itself -- when self-congratulatory choice fatigue is factored in. The future of film is on the same path as ever: basic, boutique, or blockbuster, maybe some a.i. remastering to align with dainty modern audio and visual trends and extract the most out of newbs with the allure of familiarity.
bgilroy26 6y ago
Letterboxed is a really important part of today's movie watching story
kartickv 6y ago
> the idea that the highest rated films and shows on IMDB represent the "best" of the mediums is kinda silly. OP here. If you have a better source, use it. Which source is the best was not the point of the article anyway. The point was that you should look for good stuff, not blindly watch the new movie or read the new book.

conception 6y ago

Your mention of taste is interesting as https://www.criticker.com 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!

Fnoord 6y ago
Good way to enhance your bubble. I like to be thought provoked at times.
- kubanczyk 6y ago
  Yes, that's what the site is supposed to do. It is entertainment, not facts, and so I want to be entirely in the bubble of "Hot Fuzz" fans or "Dead Snow" fans and very much without intersection with any superhero stuff.
  - Fnoord 6y ago
    Entertainment and thought provoking are not mutually exclusive.
alexilliamson 6y ago
This is awesome will check out later. Is this site good for smaller/older/more obscure recommendations?
- conception 6y ago
  It seems to be? I get a lot of recommendations I’ve never seen before. I think if you rate a lot of non mainstream stuff it’ll pair you with people who do the same and voila - new non mainstream stuff!
Wowfunhappy 6y ago
I admittedly haven’t tried this one (I guess I will), but this was also the promise of Goodreads, and Netflix since the DVD era, and it just never seems to work for me. I have admittedly discovered a handful of great authors via Goodreads recommendations, but they’re big names I think I would have eventually found anyway (e.g. Brandon Sanderson), and I spent a lot of time adding books I’d read and carefully considering how to rate each one. I’m actually broadly curious why these systems aren’t more effective. It seems like such a perfect system on paper.
- mhb 6y ago
  One reason is that Netflix killed theirs after paying a prize of $1M for a 10% improvement to their already good Cinematch recommender. See: https://www.netflixprize.com/ https://www.netflixprize.com/
gurkendoktor 6y ago
I've just imported 300+ ratings from IMDb into Criticker, and the recommendations it gave me seemed so far off that I didn't even feel like giving any of the movies a chance. Maybe I'm not watching enough classics, but it feels like the site hasn't really gotten to the long tail of movies. In comparison, when I go rate movies on IDMb I'm rarely more than one star away from the average rating, so IMDb serves my needs quite well, anyway.
barbs 6y ago
https://www.last.fm https://www.last.fm has a similar engine for music

Fnoord 6y ago

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 https://www.metacritic.com/movie/star-trek

alexilliamson 6y ago

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.

seg_lol 6y ago
Most critics are jerks, passing off attitude and masquerading opinion as deep domain knowledge. The comic book guy trope from the Simpsons or Sponge Bob. Roger Ebert [1] and Gene Siskel [2] were my introduction to analysis and argumentation. Watching two adults getting into a argument and discussing something using some sort of rules-of-engagement fascinated me. That they viewed a piece from so many angles, criticism is a skill and an art. Opinion shouldn't occupy more than 10% of result. ;) I didn't understand the depth of that personal and professional relationship until I saw an interview with Ebert, where he teared up at the loss of his friend Gene. [3] What are some other professional duos? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ebert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ebert [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Siskel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Siskel [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Siskel#Death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Siskel#Death
- alexilliamson 6y ago
  Just want to say check out Life Itself, the biography film about Roger Ebert. It bring me to tears everytime but is also filled with so much joy.
  - seg_lol 6y ago
    Thank you! This looks excellent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Itself_(2014_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Itself_(2014_film) I have been wanting to join http://blog.scarecrow.com/ http://blog.scarecrow.com/ for awhile now, it is a Seattle based video rental place with lots of rare movies and videos. Years ago we rented 2001 on laserdisc and a laserdisc player. Not quite as cool as running a film projector but still a fun experience. If it wasn't clear in my first paragraph, Siskel and Ebert were definitely in a class of their own in the professionalism and thoroughness they brought to film criticism.

kinghtown 6y ago

I don’t think Netflix is entirely at fault. It’s sad how most people seem to be super ok with flushing the past down a toilet. Like anything from before they were born is irrelevant. I think it’s selfish in a way but mostly I think people are terrified of coming across as weird. Like imagine going to work at a generic office and trying to talk about a half forgotten French movie like The Green Ray. There are too many unknowns (no recognizable cast, foreign film, kind of old) and I don’t think the average person has the fortitude to stand up to that kind of social situation so they avoid it instinctively. But Netflix could definitely try harder instead of nurturing lazy entertainment. I don’t expect much from them since they made Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon 2 in English. What a lame decision.

clairity 6y ago
> "I don’t expect much from them since they made Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon 2 in English." that movie was awful, especially in comparison to the original. it had none of the innuendo and poetry, more a punch in the face. imho, the hollowing out of american film began ~20 years ago, with netflix being just a milestone in that evolution. i've been much more interested in foreign films as a result. i'm currently going through the recent back canon of korean films (take care of my cat, oldboy, mother), and it's been great! reminds me of the 90's in american film--while today's films are technically and visually more sophisticated, storytelling and character development has suffered measurably. older french films (and others) are great for that too. the big american blockbusters are fun to watch in the moment but feel like empty calories afterwards.
MereInterest 6y ago
I think part of it is also Netflix's shrinking catalog. Five years ago, before their initial contracts started running out, Netflix was a spot where you to go to watch anything. Netflix could afford to push people to tailored content because they had all the content. Now, however, those initial contracts have expired, and a host of streaming services have popped up. If I want to find a movie, I need to fire up Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, and Amazon Prime, then run a search on each of them. Half the time, I still fall back to placing a hold at my local library. I don't think Netflix is pushing new shows because they think the new shows are best. I think they are pushing new shows because they are desperately trying to pivot from a streaming company to a production studio, and the only way to do so is to downplay older media.

JKCalhoun 6y ago

Yeah, agree with the general sentiment of the post, but I think it does not go nearly far enough. The TV Series rating link: call me old or highbrow but I really thought Rod Serling's "The Twilight Zone" should be in the top 10. Nope, not even in the top 146. The U.S. "The Office" makes the top 146 (#13) but not the U.K. version. Fawlty Towers? Nowhere. Etc.

BeetleB 6y ago
Where are you getting these ratings? Twilight Zone is #21 on IMDB. Fawlty Towers is #64.

danbmil99 6y ago

Maybe what is needed is an AI engine that you can train on your own tastes, so it can crawl through the literally millions of pieces of media out there to find ones that you are likely to find interesting and enjoy.

unraveller 6y ago

Netflix is a luxury lowbrow brand, a digital status symbol boredom reliever, the opposite of elevating expectations of quality. They know they cannot compete with the backlog on quality, so an all out assault on individual assessment is waged on users. Netflix discovered that the search for novelty is a near perfect substitute for novelty itself -- when self-congratulatory choice fatigue is factored in. The future of film is on the same path as ever: basic, boutique, or blockbuster, maybe some a.i. remastering to align with dainty modern audio and visual trends and extract the most out of newbs with the allure of familiarity.

bgilroy26 6y ago

Letterboxed is a really important part of today's movie watching story

kartickv 6y ago

> the idea that the highest rated films and shows on IMDB represent the "best" of the mediums is kinda silly. OP here. If you have a better source, use it. Which source is the best was not the point of the article anyway. The point was that you should look for good stuff, not blindly watch the new movie or read the new book.