|
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 15, 2020 21:20:44 GMT
Basically films hated by critics but loved by filmgoers? Or vice versa?
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Dec 15, 2020 21:25:20 GMT
Not sure but it could be, The Boondock Saints (1999) IMDB: 7.8 and Rotten Tomatoes: 28%
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Dec 15, 2020 21:45:06 GMT
The Number 23
RT - 8%
IMDB - 6.4/10
|
|
|
Post by janntosh on Dec 15, 2020 21:46:29 GMT
Spy Kids
RT: 92%
IMDb: 5.4
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Dec 15, 2020 21:46:35 GMT
But R.T. has audience scores as well. Not that it matters, since it's just as unreliable as the IMDB scores. They're not a real reflection of what most moviegoers think.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 15, 2020 21:50:28 GMT
But R.T. has audience scores as well. Not that it matters, since it's just as unreliable as the IMDB scores. They're not a real reflection of what most moviegoers think. Admittingly IMDB isn't really an accurate reflection of the general film going public so much as it is a reflection of the how popular movies are with the Internet crowd. Something like this is probably gonna eschew the voting demographics (the average age of the typical IMDB user is probably considerably less than the average film goer). That would explain why "The Shawshank Redemption" beat out so many older, classic films on IMDB. But I dunno a better way to get the general consensus of a movie than IMDB.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Dec 15, 2020 21:53:50 GMT
The Butterfly Effect: 7.6 vs 33%
The Babadook: 6.8 vs 98%
The Guest: 6.7 vs 91%
It Follows: 6.8 vs 95%
The VVitch: 6.9 vs 90%
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Dec 15, 2020 21:58:00 GMT
The Butterfly Effect: 7.6 vs 33% The Babadook: 6.8 vs 98% The Guest: 6.7 vs 91% It Follows: 6.8 vs 95% The VVitch: 6.9 vs 90% Only 6.8 for Babadook? Really? For some reason I thought filmgoers loved that one. I certainly enjoyed it.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Dec 15, 2020 22:04:43 GMT
The Butterfly Effect: 7.6 vs 33% The Babadook: 6.8 vs 98% The Guest: 6.7 vs 91% It Follows: 6.8 vs 95% The VVitch: 6.9 vs 90% Only 6.8 for Babadook? Really? For some reason I thought filmgoers loved that one. There seems to have been some kind of paradigm shift where critics, who stereotypically hate Horror movies, started appreciating them more than the audience. Or maybe the ones I listed just relied too much on mood and atmosphere and not enough on jump scares or gore.
|
|
|
Post by jcush on Dec 15, 2020 22:19:37 GMT
Only 6.8 for Babadook? Really? For some reason I thought filmgoers loved that one. There seems to have been some kind of paradigm shift where critics, who stereotypically hate Horror movies, started appreciating them more than the audience. Or maybe the ones I listed just relied too much on mood and atmosphere and not enough on jump scares or gore. It seems to me that many "well liked" horror movies are rated in the 6's on imdb. Horror movies just tend to be rated lower I guess. For example, one of the one's you mentioned is The Witch. It seems to be really well liked, but didn't manage to crack 7/10 on imdb. Just a bias against the genre or something.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Dec 15, 2020 22:33:20 GMT
Admittingly IMDB isn't really an accurate reflection of the general film going public so much as it is a reflection of the how popular movies are with the Internet crowd. Something like this is probably gonna eschew the voting demographics (the average age of the typical IMDB user is probably considerably less than the average film goer). That would explain why "The Shawshank Redemption" beat out so many older, classic films on IMDB. But I dunno a better way to get the general consensus of a movie than IMDB. I didn't mean because of the age groups (in fact, the site can break down the demography of all the votes), but also because there are so many variables, such as trolls who review-bomb, and fans who don't think a movie deserves a 10 but vote that way anyway in order to increase the average score. There seems to have been some kind of paradigm shift where critics, who stereotypically hate Horror movies, started appreciating them more than the audience. That's because a lot of the highest-rated horror flicks of the last 5-10 years have been arthouse/experimental movies. A lot of people walk out of the theater disappointed at the ambiguity and the slow pace, because that's not what they consider horror to be like.
|
|
Jason143
Junior Member
@glaceon
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 610
|
Post by Jason143 on Dec 15, 2020 22:43:09 GMT
But R.T. has audience scores as well. Not that it matters, since it's just as unreliable as the IMDB scores. They're not a real reflection of what most moviegoers think. Imdb is a pretty accurate reflection of what general audiences think.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Dec 15, 2020 23:03:43 GMT
Wait, seriously? I remember the first one being pretty good.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS⺠on Dec 16, 2020 0:00:22 GMT
I would have thought Last Jedi but it's at a surprisingly high 7.0 for user views.
|
|
|
Post by marth on Dec 16, 2020 1:29:27 GMT
BvS 6.4 vs 28%
Sucker Punch 6 vs 22%
Natural Born Killers 7.3 vs 48%
Robin Hood (2010) 6.6 vs 43%
Not a terrible gap, but interesting:
Spider-Man 2 7.3 vs 93%
Annihilation 6.8 vs 88%
The Gift (2015) 7 vs 91%
American Hustle 7.2 vs 92%
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Dec 16, 2020 10:41:39 GMT
Imdb is a pretty accurate reflection of what general audiences think. I'm listening. Amuse me.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Dec 16, 2020 11:12:25 GMT
But R.T. has audience scores as well. Not that it matters, since it's just as unreliable as the IMDB scores. They're not a real reflection of what most moviegoers think. The Tomato meter is even more unreliable IMO considering it doesn't measure how good a film was, only the percentage of critics gave it a positive review. That's why you have crowd pleasers with 90%+ on the tomato meter but with a not that great of a rating because the movie was ok but not great. For example Wonder Woman (2017) has a 93% on the tomato meter with a rating of 7.70/10 and 1917 has a lower score of 89% on the tomato meter but a rating of 8.4/10 which means it has a higher rating than Wonder Woman but a lower score on the Tomato Meter. I find the IMDB score to be more aligned with my views but only after a few years have passed since the release of the film.
|
|
Jason143
Junior Member
@glaceon
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 610
|
Post by Jason143 on Dec 16, 2020 11:45:58 GMT
Imdb is a pretty accurate reflection of what general audiences think. I'm listening. Amuse me. Because more casual fans are voting in their 100s of thousands on the site. Any other rating site like RT or cinemascore are for more hardcore cinephiles. Imdb has been around a long long time and is synonymous with movie ratings for even casual movie fans wholl look up a movie score before or after they see a release. And on a observational basis, I dont see many movie ratings on imdb at all that I am raising my eyebrow at. Pretty much every movie is about where id guess the general public view it at. Wheras on sites like RT there's a long list of movies which have ridiculous high or low scores that dont parrelel general audience sentiment. Just going on imdb now to see a few random movie ratings Aquaman - 6.9/10 Arrival - 7.9/10 Once upon a time in H'wood- 7.6/10 Shape of Water - 7.3/10 The Last Jedi - 7/10 1917 - 8.3/10 All are reasonable ratings I would expect the GA to give. I might give Arrival and OuatiH 9's and 10's but I understand that casual film goers would be more mixed on these type of movies so would expect ratings of around 7. I gave Aquaman a 4 but understand that this blockbuster sort of movie is popular with casuals so expect a higher rating than I would give it. Every rating feels about right. But when you go on othet sites, their scores are sky high and I don't see that as a accurately widespread representation.
|
|
|
Post by James on Dec 16, 2020 12:22:02 GMT
Saw: 7.6 and 50
|
|
|
Post by janntosh on Dec 16, 2020 13:42:20 GMT
Us (2019)
6.8 IMDb vs 93% RT
|
|