SPEARE'S TIPS - The Films of 1/27/12

[Buscemi]

I'm not talking about an eight year-old movie, I'm about new movies and the fact that their IMDb ratings are always inflated. For example, how was Zombieland considered a better movie than Shaun of the Dead during that time? IMDb ratings don't reach their normalcy until about a year after release.

Also I'm willing to bet you that The Notebook did not reach 7.9 until it hit DVD, therefore it doesn't fit the conversation.

My suggested format of IMDb rating + Rotten Tomatoes rating + Flixster/Rotten Tomatoes user rating (and maybe Cinemascore on wide releases) would fix these problems and weigh down the problems of IMDb.

Here are a few examples (using mostly older movies but still, this is just a demonstration):

The Tree of Life

Current IMDb rating: 7.1
Suggested format: 7.1 (IMDb) + 8.4 (Rotten Tomatoes) + 6.1 (Flixster) = 21.6/3
New rating: 7.2

The Boondock Saints
Current IMDb rating: 7.8
Suggested format: 7.8 (IMDb) + 1.7 (Rotten Tomatoes) + 9.3 (Flixster) = 18.8/3
New rating: 6.3

The Notebook
Current IMDb rating: 7.9
Suggested format: 7.9 (IMDb) + 5.2 (Rotten Tomatoes) + 8.5 (Flixster) = 21.6/3
New rating: 7.2

The Artist
Current IMDb rating: 8.4
Suggested format: 8.4 (IMDb) + 9.7 (Rotten Tomatoes) + 9.1 (Flixster) = 27.2/3
New rating: 9.1

As I said, I feel doing a different version of the rating chart creates a new experience that gets you to think instead of "what movie will dumb kids overrate this week".

[numbersix]

I am against using a Rotton Tomatoes score. Their score is very underhanded and inaccurate. Again, I'll remind you all that if all critics say the film is decent (eg 3/5) then it gets a 100% RT, and if all critics say a movie is astounding (e.g. 5/5) it gets a 100%. But they are obviously not the same. So if we're going to address the reception of film on some sort of elabortate, objective basis, Rotton Tomatoes is not the way.

I also debate the accuracy of something like Cinemascore/Flixster.

[Geezer]

Except the Boondock Saints in no way should be reduced in grade, as it is one of the 5 greatest films ever made. Like I said, its not as predictable as you may think. Only in the case of movies made by Tyler Perry or Twilight (which, by the way, is in no way an issue, as they all suck and their grades are accurate) can you truly predict ahead of time. Otherwise, you can guess based on whether the film will be terrible or not, and reviews will help determine, but its not like every film that comes out you can guess its imdb score, and in no way does it eliminate strategy, as i pointed out before, if it did, you would win every time.

[Buscemi]

Cinemascore is more accurate at telling you how a movie is than IMDb. IMDb is incredibly easy to troll or spam and tends to be to split evenly across two groups (the film snobs and hormone-addled teen boys). Cinemascore (which is a poll done in 25 different markets) tends to have a more diverse group of people.

Flixster tends to be used more than IMDb and you will get more votes early on from viewers than IMDb. It's also easy to use (they also have a Facebook app which connects to Rotten Tomatoes). Flixster also tends to read audiences better than IMDb.

I also considered adding Metacritic for people like Six, but who uses Metacritic anyway?

[numbersix]

I also considered adding Metacritic for people like Six, but who uses Metacritic anyway?

People who realise that RT is a complete farce and essentially a duking of the stats?

[Buscemi]

Which is about eight people. Come on, how many people have you heard of going to Metacritic to check if a movie's good or not?

[numbersix]

Are you arguing that popularity somehow determines if something is true or not? It doesn't matter if people believe in a lie, it's still a lie.

And I really doubt RT has a huge impact on what people watch in the first place. It's mostly used by the industry who want to pretend something is considered great when it is merely endured.

[W]

I like that Metacritic has movies and games both.

IMDb is the easiest, has the most users, and (I believe) is the most democratic.

[Geezer]

We should also remember that if it weren't for imdb, there never would have been a fantasy moguls, and thus there never would have been a Reel Society.

[englishozzy]

You also gotta take into fact the complexity of changing the formula that the Italians are using now to something that drags results from various different websites.

For the sake of changing a rating score a couple of points i don't see the point.

[Brockster]

We've been having this discussion/argument since back in the Fantasy Moguls days.

[Shrykespeare]

Weekend Estimates

Top 10:
5 points - The Grey, $20.0M
4 points - Underworld Awakening, $12.5M (only a 50% drop... not bad)
3 points - One For the Money, $11.7M
2 points - Red Tails, $10.4M
1 point - Man on a Ledge, $8.3M
Extremely Loud, $7.1M
The Descendants, $6.6M
Contraband, $6.5M
Beauty and the Beast, $5.3M
Haywire, $4.0M

PTA (Nov/Dec leagues):
5 points - A Separation (20 total)
4 points - We Need to Talk About Kevin (16 total)
3 points - The Grey
2 points - One For the Money
1 point - Coriolanus

PTA (Jan leauges):
5 points - The Grey
4 points - One For the Money
3 points - Coriolanus
2 points - Underworld Awakening
1 point - Red Tails

No word yet on Declaration of War.

[Chienfantome]

The Artist has passed 16 million now, and it keeps expanding, it seems now it will easily grab at least 25 million.

[silversurfer19]

Very happy I have both The Grey and Underworld on all my January league slates, makes up for Coriolanus' relative disappointment (though another couple of PTA this week has softened that blow a little).

January has been a very solid month for the openers, let's hope February can keep it up.

[Shrykespeare]

Well, in the January leagues Coriolanus now has six PTA points. That's not too shabby for $7.