Average IMDB Score Of Your Top 10?

[MortSahlFan]

Harry and Tonto - 7.4/10
La Strada - 8/10
Nashville - 7.7/10
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest - 8.7/10
They Shoot Horses, Don't They? - 7.9/10
The Battle of Algiers - 8.1/10
Network - 8.1/10
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre - 8.2/10
A Woman Under the Influence -8.2/10
Buffalo '66 - 7.5/10

Avg Score = 7.98

[sevendaughters]

(7.9 + 7.5 + 8.3 + 8.2 + 8.1 + 8.2 + 7.1 + 8.3 + 8.3 + 7.6) / 10
= 7.95

Fun but meaningless exercise in the end, what are IMDB scores but a race to the middle.

[peanutbutter]

6.19

[wasp_f15ting]

1. Blade Runner 8.1
2. The Red Shoes 8.1
3. Ikiru 8.3
4. The Thin Red Line 7.6
5. Wild Strawberries 8.2
6. Akira 8.0
7. Pulp Fiction 8.9
8. Black Narcissus 7.8
9. The Apartment 8.3
10. Nausicaa of the valley of the wind 8.1

Average 8.14

[Menu]

(7.9 + 7.5 + 8.3 + 8.2 + 8.1 + 8.2 + 7.1 + 8.3 + 8.3 + 7.6) / 10
= 7.95

Fun but meaningless exercise in the end, what are IMDB scores but a race to the middle.

Yes, not sure what we're meant to conclude from whatever score we happen to get. I hate ratings systems like that. Not sure why I'm even bothering to say thisFUCK IT POST

[Menu]

I expect MortSahlFan, uber-capitalist that he is, has found a way of monetising the exchange of average IMDB scores of top 10s.

Heh heh. Sly old dog.

[greenman]

Everybody knows cinema attained perfection in 1974.

[Captain Z]

12

[El Unicornio, mang]

IMDB scoring is decent as a general guide, although it's ridiculous how films will get a ton of 1s, which should really be reserved for absolute bottom of the barrel stuff, or 10s, just out of spite or because they're just too lazy to give some thought to the score. The "top 1000" imdb voters do this a lot too, I was surprised to find.

The Godfather has 30,000 people thinking it's a 1 out of 10 film, the same amount as all the people thinking it's between 2-5 combined, 16 of those are top 1000 voters.

[Chedney Honks]

Good to know that level of infantile cuntery isn't exclusive to gamers.

[peanutbutter]

IMDB scoring is decent as a general guide, although it's ridiculous how films will get a ton of 1s, which should really be reserved for absolute bottom of the barrel stuff, or 10s, just out of spite or because they're just too lazy to give some thought to the score. The "top 1000" imdb voters do this a lot too, I was surprised to find.

The Godfather has 30,000 people thinking it's a 1 out of 10 film, the same amount as all the people thinking it's between 2-5 combined, 16 of those are top 1000 voters.

Wasn't this something Youtube observed after 2 years of using a star system that the number of people who gave 2-4 stars for anything was obscenely low. I suspect IMDb and similar sites have the same issue with below average ratings. It's either meh and you give it a 6, you don't bother finishing it and forget to rate it, or it's horrible and you give it a 1.
Once you're dealing with more than a binary option you then have to account for absolutely wild variances in how a person decides what's a 7 and what's a 10. Then if it's closer to the thing's release you've gotta offset some level of hype factor (e.g. No Man's Sky is still rated as "Mixed" on Steam despite the vast majority of contemporary accounts being positive it's never gonna totally shake off the initial response), media that came out pre-internet needs to be assessed on a totally different level to stuff that has come out since. Bolder contemporary films will suffer from having an audience rating them that would never have watched them if they weren't a new release.


Can MortSahlFan explain what the purpose of this averaging is? What does it serve to showcase and what are you expecting to gain from the discourse?

[El Unicornio, mang]

Bolder contemporary films will suffer from having an audience rating them that would never have watched them if they weren't a new release.

With that kind of film I tend to pay even less attention to imdb scores. Under the Skin (which I think is a masterpiece) is rated 6.3 which puts it on par with one of the worse Bond films, but I understand that rating as a lot of people are going to hate it.

[greenman]

With that kind of film I tend to pay even less attention to imdb scores. Under the Skin (which I think is a masterpiece) is rated 6.3 which puts it on par with one of the worse Bond films, but I understand that rating as a lot of people are going to hate it.

Really its why judgement of quality that includes large amounts of peoples opinions becomes less and less worthwhile, it tends to favour the inoffencive films over those that are more challenging and likely to get very low rankings from some viewers.

IMDB as well is basically dude bro cinema central were Chris Nolan is god.

[dissolute ocelot]

It's definitely not a good marker of quality - although virtually every film in my top ten gets between about 7.8 and 8.8, insofar as I have a top ten. It's easy to get paranoid about things like how none of Agnes Varda's films get above 7.8, but it's a waste of time. They used to explain how the algorithm worked, but they've changed it and now it's a secret. It used to discriminate against films that get fewer votes and I suspect that persists. In the past directors taught a lot on film studies classes scored much worse than you might think (mainly older European film), presumably because of bored American[nb]Unfair? I suspect most people studying film studies would be at an American institution particularly on a historically English-language website[/nb] students voting down, but they seem to have ameliorated that somehow. These days they tweak it ad hoc (e.g. when they suspect an organised campaign to vote a film up or down), so it's always going to privilege the blockbusters, mainstream taste, and how they expect people will vote.

[El Unicornio, mang]

Also, I've noticed that TV shows get massively inflated scores compared to films. The last episode of The Mandalorian is currently at 9.9. So basically they're saying it's better than every film ever made.

[MortSahlFan]

I expect MortSahlFan, uber-capitalist that he is, has found a way of monetising the exchange of average IMDB scores of top 10s.

Heh heh. Sly old dog.

Ha @ uber-capitalist.. I'm a huge critic of capitalism, or whatever system we have (which is a mix of bullshit).

To address the other comments - I think IMDB is the best site for accurate movie ratings.. I'd trust Thousands of people like you and me as opposed to Rotten Tomatoes, or Metacritic, which sometimes have only SIX people rating, but those ratings are stamped all over Google, my Cable TV, etc..

There's always going to be some who give a movie a 1/10 or a 10/10, but I think they balance out. I can't think of any great movies with very low scores, and most of the movies with high ratings are usually good.

Also, if you click on the number of votes (underneath the score itself), you can see the breakdown between age groups, gender.

[greenman]

My top 10 films with IMDB scores below 7.

Under the Skin - 6.3
Christine - 6.7
Body Double - 6.8
Crash - 6.4
Hard To Be a God - 6.7
Birth - 6.1
The Exorcist III - 6.4
The Duke of Burgundy - 6.5
Night Tide - 6.4
Inherent Vice - 6.7

Does that make Glazer the Anti-Nolan?

[peanutbutter]

To address the other comments - I think IMDB is the best site for accurate movie ratings.. I'd trust Thousands of people like you and me as opposed to Rotten Tomatoes, or Metacritic, which sometimes have only SIX people rating, but those ratings are stamped all over Google, my Cable TV, etc..

But the other side of this is that you can quite quickly glaze over those six reviews and get an idea of where they're coming from, you can even go beyond that and look at all of the other reviews by that person. Just because Google et al know most people don't care to delve deeper doesn't mean you shouldn't. IMDb's on the other hand make it quite hard to view a good range of reviews even for things with a minuscule number of reviews as the ones that have titles which most match the general consensus will be the most upvoted.

Here's an example of a film that got mauled on release but has since had a strong reappraisal, but even just from glancing through the negative blurbs it's pretty clear to see a lot of them were frustrated because there was a lot of good in it
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/margaret_2010/reviews?sort=rotten

Inherent Vice - 6.7

Ooof, I thought PTA would be a bit immune to downvoting on there cos he's surely regarded as a very cool director in a mainstream sense even if his films are deemed a bit more difficult but I see The Master only has 7.2. Phantom Thread surprisingly has a higher average but I guess the general plot description was enough to run off a lot of people that would've given it a 1.

[dead-ced-dead]

I honestly wouldn't trust the ratings on IMDb as far as I can throw them. They routinely hate or love bomb movies that go against or affirm their incredibly fragile sensibilities or politics all the time and while lots of lovely people rate honestly, loads more people are out there just to give things 1s or 10s.

I'd trust six critics whose opinions I can read (who are also guilty of falling to prejudices, don't get me wrong) rather than 1000s of losers hate-spam voting Harley Quinn or The Last Jedi or whatever.

[sevendaughters]

From what I can tell IMDB's userbase hates new films, and only likes films that have been canonised in some form already. WHAT IS POINT.

[MortSahlFan]

But the other side of this is that you can quite quickly glaze over those six reviews and get an idea of where they're coming from, you can even go beyond that and look at all of the other reviews by that person. Just because Google et al know most people don't care to delve deeper doesn't mean you shouldn't. IMDb's on the other hand make it quite hard to view a good range of reviews even for things with a minuscule number of reviews as the ones that have titles which most match the general consensus will be the most upvoted.

Here's an example of a film that got mauled on release but has since had a strong reappraisal, but even just from glancing through the negative blurbs it's pretty clear to see a lot of them were frustrated because there was a lot of good in it
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/margaret_2010/reviews?sort=rotten
Ooof, I thought PTA would be a bit immune to downvoting on there cos he's surely regarded as a very cool director in a mainstream sense even if his films are deemed a bit more difficult but I see The Master only has 7.2. Phantom Thread surprisingly has a higher average but I guess the general plot description was enough to run off a lot of people that would've given it a 1.

On IMDB, you have the choice of critic and user reviews. You can even go further and select reviews with certain scores. I like to see the best, worst, and somewhere in the middle. As a reader, you also have the option to "Yes" or "No" each review if it was helpful, and I find it handy.

[greenman]

From what I can tell IMDB's userbase hates new films, and only likes films that have been canonised in some form already. WHAT IS POINT.

It seems basically modern arty stuff thats gotten a bit of hype tends to score quite low, I'd imagine from people who use "pretentious" way too much when describing art rating it 1.

I suspect really its the 1's more than the 10's that are the big factor as the reviews inbetween are probably more likely to rate stuff in the 5-9 range.

[EOLAN]

Sherlock Jr - 8.2
Blue Velvet - 7.7
The Big Sleep (1946) - 7.9
Bringing Up Baby - 7.9
Casablanca - 8.5
The Producers (1967) - 7.6
The Long Good Friday - 7.6
Rio Bravo - 8.0
Some Like It Hot - 8.2
The Forty-First  - 7.5

Mean of 7.91 with a fairly low Standard Deviation of 0.32.

[sevendaughters]

It seems basically modern arty stuff thats gotten a bit of hype tends to score quite low, I'd imagine from people who use "pretentious" way too much when describing art rating it 1.

Well my lowest mark was Bait, which fits your schematic perfectly.

[chveik]

I don't have a top ten

[Lungpuddle]

Top 3:
Garden State - 7.4
Eraserhead - 7.4
The Holy Mountain - 7.9

22.7

Seems these unique films are quite popular.

[Sin Agog]

I don't have a top ten

I think having a top ten (or even a top 50) list would change the way I watch films I haven't seen before.  There'd always be this tight clutch of unshakeable favourites I'm pitting every new watch against, when the reality is (for me) that even something that I don't flat-out adore can actually excel in one scene, or one moment, or one little fragment of verisimilitude that can make it feel totally transcendental for a spell; it can bring up a thought or reflection that I'd otherwise never have had.  I've nothing against people whose brains require ratings and numbered positioning, but I worry with me it would be too heavy a burden to bring in with me.  It's one reason why I quit all the ratings sites.  If something has gone through the process of really garnering my attention, chances are I'll see some merit in it somehow, without turning off my critical faculties altogether.

[greenman]

Well my lowest mark was Bait, which fits your schematic perfectly.

Pretty much, enough hype to get people who don't normally watch arty stuff to bother with it.

I think having a top ten (or even a top 50) list would change the way I watch films I haven't seen before.  There'd always be this tight clutch of unshakeable favourites I'm pitting every new watch against, when the reality is (for me) that even something that I don't flat-out adore can actually excel in one scene, or one moment, or one little fragment of verisimilitude that can make it feel totally transcendental for a spell; it can bring up a thought or reflection that I'd otherwise never have had.  I've nothing against people whose brains require ratings and numbered positioning, but I worry with me it would be too heavy a burden to bring in with me.  It's one reason why I quit all the ratings sites.  If something has gone through the process of really garnering my attention, chances are I'll see some merit in it somehow, without turning off my critical faculties altogether.

A top 50 might be starting to approach the number of films I find myself going back to fairly regularly although 100 would probably be closer. When you get down to 10 I think it starts to shift into a statement of valuing one kind of cinema over another, entertaining blockbusters, dramas, atmospheric art cinema, etc. I think you see that somewhat in Mort's list, a bias towards 70's dramas.

I'm not sure I consider that really very worthwhile, I don't care much about debate over whether Raiders of the Lost Ark is of more value to the world than Stalker.

[chveik]

on mubi Portrait of a Lady in Fire has a rating of 9.2 and is, according to the users, the second best film of all time. I don't think the 'arthouse' audience is very trustworthy either

[sevendaughters]

on mubi Portrait of a Lady in Fire has a rating of 9.2 and is, according to the users, the second best film of all time. I don't think the 'arthouse' audience is very trustworthy either

similarly Parasite is still Letterboxd's all time greatest feature...time will settle these things