El Gunner wrote:I did not like Apocalypse Now

Obviously not everyone in the world is going to like it. I happen to think it's one of the greatest movies ever, but I can respect other people's opinion. At the same time, I would suggest that you give it a year or two and watch it again. If you can get over the drawn-out intro and immerse yourself in the setting, it becomes a much better experience.

can't wait ffs

Don't call me James wrote:Wtf, Furiuos 7 is 9.1 on IMDb after roughly 2000 votes.

Whaaaat!?! That is Shawshank Redemption, Godfather 1 &2 status. gtfo lol.

RealGunner wrote:

can't wait ffs

Can't wait too.

600 more votes in and it's still at 9.0

It will go down to 7.5 after few months.

Don't call me James wrote:600 more votes in and it's still at 9.0

Maybe it is just that GOAT

Wanna talk about IMDB scores being awful, look at Interstellar
Also Furious will get around 7 something when people who've seen it votes.

It's a fairly classic case of the "new is always better" mentality. As time passes the ratings will revert to the norm and the real greats will rise to the top, but at first films always tend to be scored higher in such rating systems than they necessarily deserve (compared to older counterparts) due to people favoring the cinematic style (fitting the current trend) and graphics at the time at the expense of well-written characters and stories.

My rating for Interstellar is actually 9.0/10
So no, it is just about right imo.

Case in point.

RedOranje wrote:It's a fairly classic case of the "new is always better" mentality. As time passes the ratings will revert to the norm and the real greats will rise to the top, but at first films always tend to be scored higher in such rating systems than they necessarily deserve (compared to older counterparts) due to people favoring the cinematic style (fitting the current trend) and graphics at the time at the expense of well-written characters and stories.

This is a perfect summary of how IMDB ratings work.

Forza wrote:

RedOranje wrote:It's a fairly classic case of the "new is always better" mentality.  As time passes the ratings will revert to the norm and the real greats will rise to the top, but at first films always tend to be scored higher in such rating systems than they necessarily deserve (compared to older counterparts) due to people favoring the cinematic style (fitting the current trend) and graphics at the time at the expense of well-written characters and stories.

This is a perfect summary of how IMDB ratings work.

Yeah, but Nolan and top Tv-shows are anomalies in this system. No idea how all his films are in top250 or somewhere close. It's kind of an opt in system. The show or movie with the most passionate fans vote 10s. And the ones who didn't enjoy it that much won't vote because they aren't passionate enough to spent time voting on that system.

The only ratings that matter for me are my own tbh. I can't stand when people use imdb as an argument.

Freeza wrote:

Forza wrote:

RedOranje wrote:It's a fairly classic case of the "new is always better" mentality. As time passes the ratings will revert to the norm and the real greats will rise to the top, but at first films always tend to be scored higher in such rating systems than they necessarily deserve (compared to older counterparts) due to people favoring the cinematic style (fitting the current trend) and graphics at the time at the expense of well-written characters and stories.

This is a perfect summary of how IMDB ratings work.

Yeah, but Nolan and top Tv-shows are anomalies in this system. No idea how all his films are in top250 or somewhere close.

And why is do you have no idea?

Generally, you should just judge for yourself

But obviously if a movie is consistently getting shredded with shit rating you can safely say it's a shit movie 99.9% of the time.

Freeza wrote:

Forza wrote:

RedOranje wrote:It's a fairly classic case of the "new is always better" mentality.  As time passes the ratings will revert to the norm and the real greats will rise to the top, but at first films always tend to be scored higher in such rating systems than they necessarily deserve (compared to older counterparts) due to people favoring the cinematic style (fitting the current trend) and graphics at the time at the expense of well-written characters and stories.

This is a perfect summary of how IMDB ratings work.

Yeah, but Nolan and top Tv-shows are anomalies in this system. No idea how all his films are in top250 or somewhere close. It's kind of an opt in system. The show or movie with the most passionate fans vote 10s. And the ones who didn't enjoy it that much won't vote because they aren't passionate enough to spent time voting on that system.

The only ratings that matter for me are my own tbh. I can't stand when people use imdb as an argument.

Yes that's good and well. Everyone has their own preference, but it is true that people generally like the same film. What I'm saying is, let's say you get a film like The Departed.

Popular director and stars might increase overall ratings. But it is a GOOD film. Why? Because usually the creme de la creme find their way to the top overtime. And that's why it has a high rating on IMDb. It's a good way to rate films imo, RedO's argument stands, so that's why I picked an older film. Yes, there will be that one out of 10 people who might not like The Departed, but in general terms it will be considered a good film because the MAJORITY like it. And I think we all know that's what IMDB top 250 is about, it's a list of the majority's favourites. Which makes it a pretty good list and comparison for your average person to go check out a film to see how good the film is, where it is viewed among the majority and if it is worth watching. So IMDB certainly isn't irrelevant or a complete joke.

Nolan films having high ratings is also the same case. The majority like/really love his films and think that his films are good, because THEY ARE in the opinion of the majority. Again, if you don't like his films, that's all well and fine, nobody will hate on you for that. Does that mean you have to get annoyed by the fact that the guy makes good films and has huge success with them among the people, no you don't have to!

It's pretty much your sentiment towards those who don't like superhero-era, just the tables turned.

I've pretty much always found IMDB ratings to be pretty much trash tbh

IMDb is not a yardstick. It gives you a rough idea. But relying heavily on imdb ratings is a stupid way to prioritize your watchlist. Same with RT. In fact is RT is worse than IMDb. You have to be logical enough to find that middle ground.

I personally do it by going with the directors and other collaborators. Watch the trailer on youtube, may be not fully and then simply trust your instincts. 90% of the time I have felt vindicated.

Case in point.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0337876/?ref_=nv_sr_3
Jonathan Glazer's BIRTH

This film got trashed both on IMDb and RT. 6.0 and 38% respectively.
And yet when you watch it. it will come about as astonishing for most of them.

Another magnificent film that is cirminally underrated is Kate Winslet starrer Holy Smoke which has 5.8 on IMDb.

Lumiere_Blanche wrote:IMDb is not a yardstick. It gives you a rough idea. But relying heavily on imdb ratings is a stupid way to prioritize your watchlist. Same with RT. In fact is RT is worse than IMDb. You have to be logical enough to find that middle ground.

I personally do it by going with the directors and other collaborators. Watch the trailer on youtube, may be not fully and then simply trust your instincts. 90% of the time I have felt vindicated.

Case in point.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0337876/?ref_=nv_sr_3
Jonathan Glazer's BIRTH

This film got trashed both on IMDb and RT. 6.0 and 38% respectively.
And yet when you watch it. it will come about as astonishing for most of them.

Another magnificent film that is cirminally underrated is Kate Winslet starrer Holy Smoke which has 5.8 on IMDb.

Fully agree with everything, for once

@EG The Departed "an older" film. It's still popular among everyone in mainstream. A better example would be 70s films like Godfather. Also no one disagrees that any of those movies are good. But is it one of the best ever?

Only use IMDB for the trivia, to look up which movies specific people have made etc. For me personally ratings are the least interesting about that site.

As I said it serves as good initial indicator. I agree though it is certainly not a yardstick.

@Freeze but that's too old. Might be a semantics issue again, as my old might not be yours My point is the internet wasn't around back then. Classics like Ben Hur, The Great Escape, how many votes do they have? Probably just from the older people and from the people who are fans of those films. The Departed is pretty old enough imo to use as an example. Most people around today, ordinary people, not film geeks like us, don't bother watching old films, especially if they are from the previous century.

RealGunner wrote:

can't wait ffs

Tom Cruise is legit insane. God, I love that man. Doubt there's a more commited and dedicated actor out there.

I agree man. I have never NOT enjoyed a Tom Cruise movie.

Freeza wrote:

Lumiere_Blanche wrote:IMDb is not a yardstick. It gives you a rough idea. But relying heavily on imdb ratings is a stupid way to prioritize your watchlist. Same with RT. In fact is RT is worse than IMDb. You have to be logical enough to find that middle ground.

I personally do it by going with the directors and other collaborators. Watch the trailer on youtube, may be not fully and then simply trust your instincts. 90% of the time I have felt vindicated.

Case in point.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0337876/?ref_=nv_sr_3
Jonathan Glazer's BIRTH

This film got trashed both on IMDb and RT. 6.0 and 38% respectively.
And yet when you watch it. it will come about as astonishing for most of them.

Another magnificent film that is cirminally underrated is Kate Winslet starrer Holy Smoke which has 5.8 on IMDb.

Fully agree with everything, for once

@EG The Departed "an older" film. It's still popular among everyone in mainstream. A better example would be 70s films like Godfather. Also no one disagrees that any of those movies are good. But is it one of the best ever?

Only use IMDB for the trivia, to look up which movies specific people have made etc. For me personally ratings are the least interesting about that site.

we are cool.

k then
I watched a film The Little Death.
An Australian one.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2785032/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Impressive film. Little death btw means Orgasm!! ...
It was an anthology of sorts and all the segments were quite funny.

It is the directorial debut of Josh Lawson. And on twitter I simply wrote impressive work and stuff when the director himself  actually favorited the tweet . Classy man! .  
The actress from the most brilliant segment Erin James also favorited it. Such down to earth artists from Australia! El Gunner man, I am impressed.

Lumiere_Blanche wrote:El Gunner man, I am impressed.

Why thank you, but what exactly did I do?

El Gunner wrote:

Lumiere_Blanche wrote:El Gunner man, I am impressed.

Why thank you, but what exactly did I do?

never mind. But arent you an Aussie ?