 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
OK, so I've known that this thing exists for quite a while. But only
recently have I actually visited it to see what it's like.
Now it should come as no surprise that for almost any given thing, some
people like it and some people hate it. That's just human nature, right?
And yet, reading some of the descriptions, I almost find it hard to
believe that they're describing the same thing. One person comments "the
performance by actor X was especially weak", and the next person adds
"for me, actor X was the best part". Wuh?!
The critics give moderately consistent reviews. The user reviews are
just all over the place. If you go look up the crappiest, lamest
computer game you've ever played in your life, somebody on Metacritic
will tell you how it's the greatest game ever made in history. If you
look up the best film ever, somebody will claim it's mass-produced garbage.
I notice that all of the user ratings are either 10 or 0, or very near
to one of those extremes. I have a couple of theories as to why:
- If the film (or whatever) was "just OK", are you going to bother going
to Metacritic, creating a user account, finding the thing, and writing a
review? Probably not. Only the people who really loved it or really
hated it are likely to be motivated enough to write reviews.
- If an item was mostly good but let down by one thing, that's probably
going to leave you with an overall negative impression. And hence a low
rating. So all the stuff that was imperfect gets very low ratings, and
all the stuff lacking any major flaws gets very high ratings, leaving
little in the middle.
In particular, I looked at the reviews for the final Harry Potter film.
Now granted, this is the type of product where some people will gladly
throw themselves off of bridges just because it says Harry Potter on it,
while others will automatically hate it just because it's super-popular.
But I couldn't help but chuckle when one reviewer claimed that they
watched every single film, and they were all terrible.
Hey genius, if you don't like HP films, WHY ARE YOU STILL WATCHING
THEM?! Do you just enjoy having something to whine about? Because in
that case, you know, you could just *pretend* to have watched it and
save yourself some money. Also: try getting a life.
My personal opinion - not that anyone cares - is that this is a film
that actually deserves a rating somewhere near a 5. After 10 years of
anticipation, basically any product you can release is going to be a
monumental anticlimax. I don't think the film was done very well - but
then again, I hear people complain the final book wasn't great either.
But it certainly wasn't a /bad/ film. It just wasn't spectacular. I've
seen much worse...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> And yet, reading some of the descriptions, I almost find it hard to
> believe that they're describing the same thing. One person comments "the
> performance by actor X was especially weak", and the next person adds
> "for me, actor X was the best part". Wuh?!
People tend to like wildly different things. That's true for basically
anything, be it movies, music, games, books, acting performances, and so on.
As an example of an acting performance, in my opinion Shelley Duvall's
performance in "The Shining" is absolutely superb. Yet it seems to be an
almost universal consensus among people that her performance was horrendous.
Go figure. I suppose these people are just not seeing it in the same way
as I am.
> I notice that all of the user ratings are either 10 or 0, or very near
> to one of those extremes. I have a couple of theories as to why:
I think that the main psychological reason is that when the voting range
is that large, people want to make their own vote "count" more, and hence
choose only the extremes. Basically they want to shift the average as much
as possible towards their own liking.
Some people argue that public voting like this should be restricted to
two values ("like" and "dislike") or at the very most three ("no opinion").
That way everybody's vote has the exact same weight as everybody else's,
and people can't abuse the system by voting the extremes even on very
average entries. (I don't know if YouTube has a 2-value voting system
precisely because of this, but it probably works there quite well.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/26/2011 8:11, Warp wrote:
> I suppose these people are just not seeing it in the same way
> as I am.
This coming from the guy who likes Phantom Menace. ;-) ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26/09/2011 06:00 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 9/26/2011 8:11, Warp wrote:
>> I suppose these people are just not seeing it in the same way
>> as I am.
>
> This coming from the guy who likes Phantom Menace. ;-) ;-)
The Phantom Menace is not /completely/ without merit. It's just not
nearly as good as the original trilogy. The later prequals are worse...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/26/2011 11:22, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> On 26/09/2011 06:00 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> On 9/26/2011 8:11, Warp wrote:
>>> I suppose these people are just not seeing it in the same way
>>> as I am.
>>
>> This coming from the guy who likes Phantom Menace. ;-) ;-)
>
> The Phantom Menace is not /completely/ without merit. It's just not nearly
> as good as the original trilogy. The later prequals are worse...
>
I agree. I was just being silly. Altho I'd say the prequels kind of screwed
up the whole feeling of the later movies (like making "being good with the
force" into a medical condition). But taken as stand-alone movies, I've
certainly enjoyed worse.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
