|
Post by moviemouth on May 15, 2020 2:24:46 GMT
The Raging Bull poll made me want to ask this.
Someone can think Citizen Kane is a very good movie and still consider it overrated.
The way I use overrated (I don't use the term often because I dislike the term) is when I don't think a movie is as great as it's reputation. A movie can be good and I can still consider it overrated, if the majority considers it one of the greatest movies ever made. Back to the Future is a movie that fits this description for me.
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on May 15, 2020 2:27:59 GMT
The Irishman Django Unchained The Hateful Eight Once Upon a Time in Hollywood Juno American Hustle Spider-Man 2 The Martian
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 15, 2020 2:30:28 GMT
The Irishman Django Unchained The Hateful Eight Once Upon a Time in Hollywood Juno American Hustle Spider-Man 2 The Martian You didn't even come close to answering my question. I am not asking for what movies you consider overrated. I am asking you to define what you mean by overrated.
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on May 15, 2020 2:33:19 GMT
The Irishman Django Unchained The Hateful Eight Once Upon a Time in Hollywood Juno American Hustle Spider-Man 2 The Martian You didn't even come close to answering my question. Yeah, I know, but other people are going to do this whether you like it or not. But I'll play fair and answer your question. I think usually for me is a movie that gets lots of praise and success and I watch it and either (A.) think it's not good at all or (B.) think it's good, but not as good as people make it out to be.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on May 15, 2020 2:40:38 GMT
Overrated - movies that are praised as great by a minority using standards that may not have wide appeal, or movies praised by a majority as great using standards that are too broad in appeal.
My, I must say I rather like that definition I just made on the spot!
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,520
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on May 15, 2020 3:07:59 GMT
I can't think of a single definition, and if I had one it would be more theoretical than descriptive. There are quite a few reasons to consider a movie overrated. I'll give a couple. A movie could have a narrative flaw, like The Matrix where Cypher connects himself to the Matrix with no explanation or Citizen Kane where the servant couldn't hear the word "Rosebud". It could have a higher level flaw like Spider-Man 2 where the villain isn't a real villain, just a person who needs to be saved from a piece of technology or some corny development like in It's A Wonderful Life where the angel shows an alternate present where everything is implausibly exactly the same except for the things that the main character didn't do.
In animation, there are reasons that you don't see in live action. There's the Saturday morning cartoon effect where people like things that are clearly mediocre, especially when it comes to giant robot cartoons where the robots are modeled after ninjas or samurai. There's also the divide between those who prefer minimal designs with good movement and those who prefer more detailed designs with less movement. That's obviously a bit more subjective. But there's also those who don't like a lot of animation simply because it's too minimalist compared to live action and those who do like it have to live with the fact that the best animated acting is usually worse than most bad live action acting and that the designs that scare people in a cartoon are very low on detail compared to the equivalent in live action.
|
|
|
Post by marth on May 15, 2020 3:15:07 GMT
The way I use overrated ... ... is when I don't think a movie is as great as it's reputation. Exactly this.
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on May 15, 2020 3:28:27 GMT
For me, it's not about the "definition"... I think many people know what "overrated" means...
The problem I have with the term, is that, many people mis-use it... Usually in a manner that suggests: "Their singular opinion of a movie, is more important, that everyone else's."
FOR EXAMPLE:
Everyone that I know loves the movie: "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" (1975), but I think it is highly overrated.
WHAT SHOULD BE SAID:
Everyone I know loves the movie: "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" (1975), but for some reason I'm one of the few that hated it. Any reviews of the film that I would give, would probably underrate it's worth for others who might want to see it.
For a movie that I liked, and that everyone one else hated... The usage should be reversed:
Their view of the film is not underrated, My opinion of the film is overrated...
Why?
The majority of those who reviewed the film, can NOT be wrong...
Because, who the fuck am I, a single individual, to say that everyone else in the world is wrong!
However, it is possible for... SHILLS or FANBOYS to "OVERRATE" a new film, by giving it higher scores, to get other people to buy tickets... and for (TROLLS?) to "UNDERRATE" a new film, by giving it low scores and bad reviews, to prevent other people from buying tickets, and to hurt the studios...
But, at the end of the day, I have no proof that the majority of reviewers did such acts on purpose, and so, I must assume they genuinely mean what they said...
If it has a high rating, I'll probably see the film... If it has a low rating, I probably won't...
But that doesn't always mean that I'll agree with them...
Ghostbusters (2016), wasn't AS BAD as most people claimed. But yeah, it wasn't great either... I'm sure they would probably think that any opinions of the movie that I might have are "overrated".
Confused Yet? LOL!
Well, I hope you understand what I meant.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 15, 2020 3:39:34 GMT
I can't think of a single definition, and if I had one it would be more theoretical than descriptive. There are quite a few reasons to consider a movie overrated. I'll give a couple. A movie could have a narrative flaw, like The Matrix where Cypher connects himself to the Matrix with no explanation or Citizen Kane where the servant couldn't hear the word "Rosebud". It could have a higher level flaw like Spider-Man 2 where the villain isn't a real villain, just a person who needs to be saved from a piece of technology or some corny development like in It's A Wonderful Life where the angel shows an alternate present where everything is implausibly exactly the same except for the things that the main character didn't do. In animation, there are reasons that you don't see in live action. There's the Saturday morning cartoon effect where people like things that are clearly mediocre, especially when it comes to giant robot cartoons where the robots are modeled after ninjas or samurai. There's also the divide between those who prefer minimal designs with good movement and those who prefer more detailed designs with less movement. That's obviously a bit more subjective. But there's also those who don't like a lot of animation simply because it's too minimalist compared to live action and those who do like it have to live with the fact that the best animated acting is usually worse than most bad live action acting and that the designs that scare people in a cartoon are very low on detail compared to the equivalent in live action. You are specifically referring to critics, and even critics use subjective criteria to rate movies. The stuff you mention is only an issue if someone is rating a movie 100% objectively. Most people are able to overlook flaws like the ones you point out and I am very forgiving of flaws. The Matrix is considered a great movie because of what it does that makes it so unique. I don't personally think it is a great movie, but I understand why the majority considers it a great movie. There are many movies that have some very noticeable flaws that I still rate as great films and movies with no flaws that I don't consider great films., because I rate subjectively. Most of the general public and even most critics rate subjectively, at least to an extent. You say that people like things that are clearly mediocre, but to those people those things aren't mediocre. They are getting something out of it that you aren't. Movies are about the personal experience of watching them and whether you are satisfied with what you are getting.
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on May 15, 2020 3:44:02 GMT
Pretty much what you said, when I don't think it's as good as the "general consensus".
I think of it as a subjective term, just like "good" or "bad", so I can never understand why people dislike it so much. It just a convenient way of saying "I don't like this film as much as the general consensus (public or critical) does".
Your Kane example is a good one and I frequently use The Beatles similarly when talking music. Sure they're a groudbreaking, extremely popular and influential band and I quite like some of their stuff, but I don't rate them anywhere near "greatest of all time, with no one else coming even remotely close" like many do.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 15, 2020 3:45:41 GMT
For me, it's not about the "definition"... I think many people know what "overrated" means... The problem I have with the term, is that, many people mis-use it... Usually in a manner that suggests: "Their singular opinion of a movie, is more important, that everyone else's." FOR EXAMPLE: Everyone that I know loves the movie: "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" (1975), but I think it is highly overrated. WHAT SHOULD BE SAID: Everyone I know loves the movie: "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" (1975), but for some reason I'm one of the few that hated it. Any reviews of the film that I would give, would probably underrate it's worth for others who might want to see it. For a movie that I liked, and that everyone one else hated... The usage should be reversed: Their view of the film is not underrated, My opinion of the film is overrated... Why? The majority of those who reviewed the film, can NOT be wrong... Because, who the fuck am I, a single individual, to say that everyone else in the world is wrong! However, it is possible for... SHILLS or FANBOYS to "OVERRATE" a new film, by giving it higher scores, to get other people to buy tickets... and for (TROLLS?) to "UNDERRATE" a new film, by giving it low scores and bad reviews, to prevent other people from buying tickets, and to hurt the studios... But, at the end of the day, I have no proof that the majority of reviewers did such acts on purpose, and so, I must assume they genuinely mean what they said... If it has a high rating, I'll probably see the film... If it has a low rating, I probably won't... But that doesn't always mean that I'll agree with them... Ghostbusters (2016), wasn't AS BAD as most people claimed. But yeah, it wasn't great either... I'm sure they would probably think that any opinions of the movie that I might have are "overrated". Confused Yet? LOL! Well, I hope you understand what I meant. I understand what you mean. Our opinion on the matter are almost exactly the same.
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on May 15, 2020 3:48:16 GMT
What you said, movieman. A fair amount of movies that I feel are overrated I still enjoy (e.g. Parasite).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2020 4:10:08 GMT
I don't personally like the term because it implies that movies stand on some sort of common ground where they can be rated accurately and objectively and filed away in neat little categories. I'm sure I've used the term before, but thinking on it, it's not an ideal way to discuss film. It speaks more of the response to and the popularity of the film than the qualities of the film itself.
I think it's mostly a means to criticize a film for being more popular than you believe it merits. You know, you watch a film everybody is praising and it just doesn't click with you personally and you don't understand why it is getting all the praise. But that can go for any film. Not everybody likes the same things.
So I'd say, if you think a film is "overrated", you should ask yourself why you think that. Is it because the film doesn't work for reasons of story or technique or is it because it's just not your cup of tea? And can you understand why people enjoyed it when you didn't?
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on May 15, 2020 4:57:06 GMT
A movie that is rated over what I think of it.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,520
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on May 15, 2020 6:06:15 GMT
I can't think of a single definition, and if I had one it would be more theoretical than descriptive. There are quite a few reasons to consider a movie overrated. I'll give a couple. A movie could have a narrative flaw, like The Matrix where Cypher connects himself to the Matrix with no explanation or Citizen Kane where the servant couldn't hear the word "Rosebud". It could have a higher level flaw like Spider-Man 2 where the villain isn't a real villain, just a person who needs to be saved from a piece of technology or some corny development like in It's A Wonderful Life where the angel shows an alternate present where everything is implausibly exactly the same except for the things that the main character didn't do. In animation, there are reasons that you don't see in live action. There's the Saturday morning cartoon effect where people like things that are clearly mediocre, especially when it comes to giant robot cartoons where the robots are modeled after ninjas or samurai. There's also the divide between those who prefer minimal designs with good movement and those who prefer more detailed designs with less movement. That's obviously a bit more subjective. But there's also those who don't like a lot of animation simply because it's too minimalist compared to live action and those who do like it have to live with the fact that the best animated acting is usually worse than most bad live action acting and that the designs that scare people in a cartoon are very low on detail compared to the equivalent in live action. You are specifically referring to critics and even critics use subjective criteria to rate movies. The stuff you mention is only an issue if someone is rating a movie 100% objectively. Most people are able to overlook flaws like the ones you point out and I am very forgiving of flaws. The Matrix is considered a great movie because of what it does that makes it so unique. I don't personally think it is a great movie, but I understand why the majority considers it a great movie. There are many movies that have some very noticeable flaws that I still rate as great films and movies with no flaws that I don't consider great films., because I rate subjectively. Most of the general public and even most critics rate subjectively, at least to an extent. You've got a good point. Some of those are movies that I like which I should have said. But after the flaws get pointed out it's hard to enjoy a movie quite as much. I am aware that there are some things that movies do like having impossible car jumps, having horses come to an unrealistically quick stop or eliminating road noise so that you can hear dialogue in a car but there's a certain point where you have to admit that the thing that you like doesn't make any sense because you just can't make a sensible narrative out of it anymore because of some outstanding flaws. Are there any flaws with a movie where you would say "That's too big of a flaw." or do you not care as long as it doesn't have superficial flaws like poorly written dialogue or unconvincing fake driving?
I realize that people have their own opinions over which flaws matter most but I think that the flaws I mentioned speak for themselves. If those don't mean much to you, then what flaws do?
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 15, 2020 6:15:44 GMT
You are specifically referring to critics and even critics use subjective criteria to rate movies. The stuff you mention is only an issue if someone is rating a movie 100% objectively. Most people are able to overlook flaws like the ones you point out and I am very forgiving of flaws. The Matrix is considered a great movie because of what it does that makes it so unique. I don't personally think it is a great movie, but I understand why the majority considers it a great movie. There are many movies that have some very noticeable flaws that I still rate as great films and movies with no flaws that I don't consider great films., because I rate subjectively. Most of the general public and even most critics rate subjectively, at least to an extent. You've got a good point. Some of those are movies that I like which I should have said. But after the flaws get pointed out it's hard to enjoy a movie quite as much. I am aware that there are some things that movies do like having impossible car jumps, having horses come to an unrealistically quick stop or eliminating road noise so that you can hear dialogue in a car but there's a certain point where you have to admit that the thing that you like doesn't make any sense because you just can't make a sensible narrative out of it anymore because of some outstanding flaws. Are there any flaws with a movie where you would say "That's too big of a flaw." or do you not care as long as it doesn't have superficial flaws like poorly written dialogue or unconvincing fake driving?
I realize that people have their own opinions over which flaws matter most but I think that the flaws I mentioned speak for themselves. If those don't mean much to you, then what flaws do?
It depends entirely on the movie. There are some movies with massive flaws and those movies I don't consider great, there are movies with massive flaws that I do like a lot though, because there are more things I admire about them and those things overpower the flaws. On the other hand there are movies with almost no flaws, that I dislike because they just don't interest me as stories. Almost all the "flaws" you mentioned in your first reply, don't bother me in the slightest. Some of them I don't even see as flaws. Another good example is Memento. Roger Ebert pointed out that he had a issue with the fact that somehow Leonard can remember that he has a memory problem. There are people who will argue that the repetition is why he can remember this. I don't care either way, the movie is one of the most interesting movies ever made even with this potential plot hole. The same thing most notably applies to Citizen Kane. You fix that one problem and that fixes everything. Whether or not someone is able to hear it in the movie, they were suppose to hear it. I don't even understand how Orson Welles overlooked that, unless it was intentional for some reason. That one mistake doesn't ruin everything else that is great about the movie.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,520
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on May 15, 2020 6:48:31 GMT
You've got a good point. Some of those are movies that I like which I should have said. But after the flaws get pointed out it's hard to enjoy a movie quite as much. I am aware that there are some things that movies do like having impossible car jumps, having horses come to an unrealistically quick stop or eliminating road noise so that you can hear dialogue in a car but there's a certain point where you have to admit that the thing that you like doesn't make any sense because you just can't make a sensible narrative out of it anymore because of some outstanding flaws. Are there any flaws with a movie where you would say "That's too big of a flaw." or do you not care as long as it doesn't have superficial flaws like poorly written dialogue or unconvincing fake driving?
I realize that people have their own opinions over which flaws matter most but I think that the flaws I mentioned speak for themselves. If those don't mean much to you, then what flaws do?
It depends entirely on the movie. There are some movies with massive flaws and those movies I don't consider great, there are movies with massive flaws that I do like a lot though, because there are more things I admire about them and those things overpower the flaws. On the other hand there are movies with almost no flaws, that I dislike because they just don't interest me as stories. Almost all the "flaws" you mentioned in your first reply, don't bother me in the slightest. Some of them I don't even see as flaws. Another good example is Memento. Roger Ebert pointed out that he had a issue with the fact that somehow Leonard can remember that he has a memory problem. There are people who will argue that the repetition is why he can remember this. I don't care either way, the movie is one of the most interesting movies ever made even with this potential plot hole. I can see how you wouldn't see Spiderman 2's Doc Ock and It's a Wonderful Life's moral tale as faults. The former was disappointing to me dramatically because it took away from Octavius' villainy which I considered to take away from the film's drama. IaWL's twist was just too convenient and cheapened the movie in that respect. As for Memento, I'll compare it to The Martian. The atmosphere of Mars is too thin to cause such a storm but without it there wouldn't be a movie. We all have our preferences but it's always good to remind ourselves of when we're watching something that doesn't come together completely or has some sort of other flaw that makes it less enjoyable due to having some kind of trait like the Spider-Man 2 one where it can sour the experience even if some people don't mind it.
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on May 15, 2020 6:53:14 GMT
It depends entirely on the movie. There are some movies with massive flaws and those movies I don't consider great, there are movies with massive flaws that I do like a lot though, because there are more things I admire about them and those things overpower the flaws. On the other hand there are movies with almost no flaws, that I dislike because they just don't interest me as stories. Almost all the "flaws" you mentioned in your first reply, don't bother me in the slightest. Some of them I don't even see as flaws. Another good example is Memento. Roger Ebert pointed out that he had a issue with the fact that somehow Leonard can remember that he has a memory problem. There are people who will argue that the repetition is why he can remember this. I don't care either way, the movie is one of the most interesting movies ever made even with this potential plot hole. I can see how you wouldn't see Spiderman 2's Doc Ock and It's a Wonderful Life's moral tale as faults. The former was disappointing to me dramatically because it took away from Octavius' villainy which I considered to take away from the film's drama. IaWL's twist was just too convenient and cheapened the movie in that respect. As for Memento, I'll compare it to The Martian. The atmosphere of Mars is too thin to cause such a storm but without it there wouldn't be a movie. We all have our preferences but it's always good to remind ourselves of when we're watching something that doesn't come together completely or has some sort of other flaw that makes it less enjoyable due to having some kind of trait like the Spider-Man 2 one where it can sour the experience even if some people don't mind it. You say it can sour the experience even if some people don't mind it. Not only do I not mind the Spider-Man 2 thing you are talking about, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. How can it sour my experience if it doesn't bother me at all? It can't. You seem to just be uncomfortable with the fact that it doesn't bother other people or that other people don't see it as a flaw. Some people might even see it as an asset. It is comparable to a character getting brain damage and then becoming a villain. It still ties into his obsession with his work that was destroyed and the effect this would have on any person's brain. The accident just enhances it.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on May 15, 2020 7:48:25 GMT
A movie that is considered great by the majority of people, but its not really as great as they claim it to be. Its either just average or good in my opinion. Also to me overrated is not the same as being bad.
That is my definition.
|
|
|
Post by Fox in the Snow on May 15, 2020 9:17:46 GMT
The problem I have with the term, is that, many people mis-use it... Usually in a manner that suggests: "Their singular opinion of a movie, is more important, that everyone else's." Why? The majority of those who reviewed the film, can NOT be wrong... Because, who the fuck am I, a single individual, to say that everyone else in the world is wrong! I can’t speak for anyone else, but I certainly don’t think my opinion is more important/correct than anyone else’s when I use the term. I’m just expressing where/how my opinion differs from the “perceived popular” opinion.
|
|