Awards Season 2010

[James Mills]

Once again you make yourself as clear as a glass of Harry Knowles' colostomy overflow.

lol I made a true statement and people mocked it, so I supported the statement with evidence. I fail to see any lack of clarity in between.

As I said in another thread, I feel as though the spike in ratings for such films stems from an absolutely abysmal first half of 2010 in terms of American cinema. I think critics wanted to be excited about something, hence the ridiculous amount of praise for Social Network and a few others from the Fall onwards.

I obviously do not think Social Network deserves this level of acclaim, if that was unclear or something.

[domino harvey]

To be fair, your first statement simply said that it was getting the best reviews since the Godfather, not the most good reviews (which is not the same thing), and certainly nothing about an arbitrary number of 50 reviews. Does that number nine really mean the consensus is that Apocalypse Now is not as good as the Social Network, or just that a lot more critics on RottenTomatoes' radar have weighed in on a recent film than they have on an older one?

[mfunk9786]

The 2000s had a lot more movies with Anne Hathaway in them than the 70s. Discuss.

[swo17]

Perhaps you should save your condescensions for when you have your own research to refute.

In what universe does browsing through Rotten Tomatoes' website constitute research?

[James Mills]

Perhaps you should save your condescensions for when you have your own research to refute.

In what universe does browsing through Rotten Tomatoes' website constitute research?

What other means of research for professional reviews does one take other than a database that catalogs and aggregates their scores already for you? If it's so simple, why not do a quick check before you mock someone's claim? Also, it's not as if there's a part of the site that tells you the highest average ratings of all time for you (there's only a list of highest percentages of approval, which is basically worthless and suggests films like Ratatoulie are better than There Will Be Blood). Do you have any idea how many hours I've spent on RT reading reviews about films? It's not as if I spent a few hours browsing to come up with this conclusion for Social Network, I've been reading reviews and checking aggregate scores on RT for years and years. I've always valued their average ratings more than any other statistic, therefor the highest ratings for various films over the past century have always stuck in my head.

There's no point in arguing with any of you guys because I can't win. I made a comment that perhaps you thought sounded glib, but it wasn't; it's the truth. Social Network was has gotten the strongest and most consensual critical acclaim of any film since The Godfather. Is it stupid that critics have effusively gushed over Social Network? Yes. Don't kill the messenger, please.

[domino harvey]

Who is arguing? Your methodology is debatable, and so is your conclusion. You cannot keep making strong claims and then willingly slip into taking the victim role when you are called on it. Now that we've all been warned to treat you with kid gloves, we are ( or at the very least, I am), so give us a break too. If you value the aggregate score of a bunch of movie blogs run by people whose idea of great cinema is a remake of I Spit On Your Grave, well, okay, but as you are a professed student of film, it's disappointing that you value compiled opinions and recommendations over academic (actual) film criticism, which won't likely be found on RT

[Alan Smithee]

I've always valued their average ratings more than any other statistic, therefor the highest ratings for various films over the past century have always stuck in my head.

Please don't value these ratings and please don't worry about statistics when browsing for film recommendations. Read actual reviews not numbered scores.

[James Mills]

Who is arguing? Your methodology is debatable, and so is your conclusion. You cannot keep making strong claims and then willingly slip into taking the victim role when you are called on it. Now that we've all been warned to treat you with kid gloves, we are ( or at the very least, I am), so give us a break too. If you value the aggregate score of a bunch of movie blogs run by people whose idea of great cinema is a remake of I Spit On Your Grave, well, okay, but as you are a professed student of film, it's disappointing that you value compiled opinions and recommendations over academic (actual) film criticism, which won't likely be found on RT

First off, in order for your critiques to get recognized by Rotten Tomatoes, you have to have written at least 100 professionally released reviews within the past two years. If they're released only online, the website has to receive at least 500,000 visits per month. You are flat out wrong about your condescending "movie blogs" statement, as each critic on ROtten TOmatoes is certified and has done a hell of a lot more film critiquing than yourself.

Secondly, you are especially wrong in assuming that the top critics don't favor Social Network as heavily. If you check only the top critics' scores on Rotten Tomatoes (as in literally the most well respected critics in North America), Social Network has an unimaginably high 9.5 average rating while the Godfather only has an 8.4.

I'm not equivocating or hiding from my original statement because my original statement was true. I don't need your patronizing "kid's gloves" bullshit, thank you.

[aox]

Lots of 'wrong' in this thread.

[matrixschmatrix]

I think almost any good critic you read who does have some sort of number of stars or letter grade or what have you will, if you read often enough, say over and over that it's a bad idea to depend on those even to gauge how strongly they feel about the work- some critics essentially grade on a curve, where a higher score is in relation to perceived potential rather than absolute quality, some critics will talk insightfully about a movie and then lob a score out there with little justification, and some critics don't actually put scores (which leaves whoever runs RottenTomatoes to guess how strong their review is.) It's a near-meaningless way to try to measure something obviously qualitative in quantitatively- like judging a movie on its IMDB scores.

On the other hand, we are (theoretically) talking about the Oscars here, so meaningless bullshit does seem pretty relevant.

[James]

Rotten Tomatoes' aggregates an average rating out of every professionally released review (compounded to a ten point system), so it is about as encompassing as you're going to find. Social Network received an average rating of 9 out of 10 and King's Speech has an 8.7, both higher than any film I've researched (with at least 50 reviews) since the Godfather.

Perhaps you should save your condescensions for when you have your own research to refute.

Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic self-apply ratings to reviews without them in order to obtain a numeric average. Perhaps you should get your facts straight before going off on meaningless tangents toward long-time members on here.

[domino harvey]

James Mills, it is not a great idea to make claims about what I have and have not done, FYI. And it is an even worse one to argue that my opinion is less informed or valuable than some film reviewer who appears alongside a couple hundred others.

[James Mills]

Rotten Tomatoes' aggregates an average rating out of every professionally released review (compounded to a ten point system), so it is about as encompassing as you're going to find. Social Network received an average rating of 9 out of 10 and King's Speech has an 8.7, both higher than any film I've researched (with at least 50 reviews) since the Godfather.

Perhaps you should save your condescensions for when you have your own research to refute.

Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic self-apply ratings to reviews without them in order to obtain a numeric average. Perhaps you should get your facts straight before going off on meaningless tangents toward long-time members on here.

Care to elaborate? I don't understand what you're trying to say. And I didn't go off on a tangent, I supported my statement because it was mocked.

I think almost any good critic you read who does have some sort of number of stars or letter grade or what have you will, if you read often enough, say over and over that it's a bad idea to depend on those even to gauge how strongly they feel about the work- some critics essentially grade on a curve, where a higher score is in relation to perceived potential rather than absolute quality, some critics will talk insightfully about a movie and then lob a score out there with little justification, and some critics don't actually put scores (which leaves whoever runs RottenTomatoes to guess how strong their review is.) It's a near-meaningless way to try to measure something obviously qualitative in quantitatively- like judging a movie on its IMDB scores.

On the other hand, we are (theoretically) talking about the Oscars here, so meaningless bullshit does seem pretty relevant.

This is absolutely true. However, structurally speaking, all we can use for such an argument over what has gotten the "best" reviews is the actual text. There is no better representative of this figure than Rotten Tomatoes' aggregate rating.

The average "top" critic for the largest publications in North America gave Social Network a 9.5 out of 10. We can debate whether or not these critics actually felt strongly about their review's rating or not, or how much they liked this four star movie compared to the previous movie they rated four stars, but the point is that it is still the highest reviewed film since The Godfather.

[swo17]

JM, results are only as meaningful as the data used to derive them. We are now living in a different era of film criticism than existed 40 or even just 10 years ago, so you aren't making a fair comparison. And even if you were, even if you could somehow empirically demonstrate that Film X is the best reviewed film since Film Y, who cares? This is how robots eat breakfast, not how human beings experience life and all it has to offer. Sites like RT and Metacritic are good for informing your decision about whether a film is worth your time, but that's about it.

[James Mills]

JM, results are only as meaningful as the data used to derive them. We are now living in a different era of film criticism than existed 40 or even just 10 years ago, so you aren't making a fair comparison. And even if you were, even if you could somehow empirically demonstrate that Film X is the best reviewed film since Film Y, who cares? This is how robots eat breakfast, not how human beings experience life and all it has to offer. Sites like RT and Metacritic are good for informing your decision about whether a film is worth your time, but that's about it.

I agree entirely. I never said that one should care about it, only that it's discouraging to see so many foreign films get mundane reviews this year while Westernized blockbusters are getting insanely positive reviews.

[Feego]

Aaaaanywaaaay . . . Ed Gonzalez at Slant Magazine seems to think that Hailee Steinfeld will be nominated in the Best Actress category rather than supporting at the Oscars, a la Kate Winslet's Reader nomination last year and Keisha Castle-Hughes several years back. Anyone think this is a likely occurrance?

[zedz]

Oh, not again!

Stating that The Social Network has attracted an inordinate amount of positive critical responses is hardly a contentious or provocative statement, and it certainly doesn't warrant the nitpicky outrage on display here. For better or worse, people on this forum refer to Rotten Tomatoes ratings all the time, and I haven't seen anybody else shouted down for that presumption.

I think a lot of you guys need to take your mysteriously wounded egos and nurse them in private. These public displays are really embarrassing.

[mfunk9786]

Well don't worry zedz, all the baaaaad posts have been locked away yet again

[zedz]

Seriously? You mean you think the stuff above is something to be proud of? (I'm glad I didn't see the truly worthless shit, then!)

[mfunk9786]

The stuff above, seriously? What universe do you live in?

[Mr Sausage]

Well don't worry zedz, all the baaaaad posts have been locked away yet again

You mean your non-contributions that serve only to wind people up and sow discord? Yep. Judging by them I'd say you must really want a week long vacation from this forum. Because I know I didn't fail to make myself clear last time this bullshit came up.

[zedz]

The stuff above, seriously? What universe do you live in?

Well, most of the people here are adults, and they deal with life's little frustrations in adult ways. Bullying is something most people grew out of in high school, and if it happens to occur in the workplace it's considered a serious offence with serious consequences. It's actually a pretty nice place, and I'd love you to come visit some time.

[mfunk9786]

Point out to me how any of the remaining posts in the last couple of pages of this thread can possibly be considered bullying.

[zedz]

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that there's not a lot of disingenuity over here either.

Sorry mfunk, but I have no desire to engage in a slanging match with you. Your behaviour over the last few weeks speaks for itself.

[mfunk9786]

Hey, you brought it up, I was only trying to defend myself and the other people who had valid things to say in this thread.