A Serious Man

[AYBG]

Merely making an observation about the IMDB. Their ratings are likely to be somewhere in between the critics' and the public's, but most likely leaning toward the former.

[TheyCallMeMrGlass]

more astonishingly same percentage sample of the public are loving it too according to IMDB. At least on this thread its looking 50-50.

Film buffs, not the public. IMDB users are nearly all film buffs. An important distinction.

Pretty damn good point. Somehow, that makes me feel better...

[kevinknapman]

more astonishingly same percentage sample of the public are loving it too according to IMDB. At least on this thread its looking 50-50.

Film buffs, not the public. IMDB users are nearly all film buffs. An important distinction.

What a bizarre statement to make. Have you ever been on any of the forums on IMDB? I remember looking at the forums for 'Paranormal Activity' and most posts seemed to be about how fat and unattractive the lead actress was. Trust me, a lot of people on IMDB are clearly not film buffs. I think quite a diverse group of people use it. Just like on here.

[EthanRunt]

It depends, you might find yourself on the imdb board for a small arthouse film and get a lot of well researched dialogues over the symbolism, or you might hit up American Idol and see posts entitled "OMGZ I LUV THE GUY WIV DA HAIRS!"

Like any part of society, there's a safe haven and the hell hole. (I'll let you pick which two are yours)

[ciro22]

I wouldn't trust the ratings on IMDB for 2 simple reasons:

Firstly, as some people have already pointed out, the IMDB isn't a brain trust of film buffs. There are a lot of film buffs who use the site (I'll count myself in on that one... ), and it's also possible that you can even find some real film and TV professionals on there, but there's still an overwhelming majority of random people on there with overwhelmingly random views and in my experience it's never been a good idea to follow the views of the overwhelmingly random majority...

Secondly, the main people who are using the ratings and casting their votes are usually the ones with the most extreme or biased views of that particular film. So they are more likely to give any films that they love ridiculously high votes and any films that they hate ridiculously low votes. So I don't think the ratings are any real reflection of either the critics or the general public - just the small number of people who were bothered enough either way to vote on that film...

[TheyCallMeMrGlass]

Secondly, the main people who are using the ratings and casting their votes are usually the ones with the most extreme or biased views of that particular film. So they are more likely to give any films that they love ridiculously high votes and any films that they hate ridiculously low votes. So I don't think the ratings are any real reflection of either the critics or the general public - just the small number of people who were bothered enough either way to vote on that film...

Another good point BUT your theory doesnt ring true all the time. Take A Serious Man for example (I better do, otherwise Beate will be using her whip to have us stay on topic, she's used it already today!). If you look at the breakdown of the votes, its pretty uniform across every demographic (ie around 8/10 rating) AND a large percentage of votes are giving mid-way scores.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1019452/ratings

Compare that to New Moon though which does correlate with your theory, the ratings are crazily deformed with females giving substantially higher marks and 80% of the marks are either 1/10 or 10/10.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1259571/ratings

Maybe I need to get out more but I find the graphs in that last link, hilarious!

[ciro22]

For A Serious Man, only 7% of voters actually gave the movie anything lower than a 7/10...

After you factor in the concept of the kind of person who is likely to go and see the film in the first place, along with the fact that most voters gave it 7-10, whilst taking into account that only 3000 people have actually voted, then one possible explanation is a trend of people bothering to vote because they love the film or perhaps it might even be because they want to give out the impression that they they understood and appreciated it.

As for New Moon... well... I think we both agree on that one...

[AYBG]

perhaps it might even be because they want to give out the impression that they they understood and appreciated it.

Er, yeah, that's exactly what I do whenever I rate a film. Just in case someone looks up all my ratings - I wouldn't want them to think me stupid...

For goodness sake, people - just because some, or in this case a lot of, critics and people liked a film you didn't doesn't mean they have an ulterior motive.

[TheyCallMeMrGlass]

perhaps it might even be because they want to give out the impression that they they understood and appreciated it.

For goodness sake, people - just because some, or in this case a lot of, critics and people liked a film you didn't doesn't mean they have an ulterior motive.

But...can you not see, its a conspiracy I tellya! I think the US Government is behind it, somehow. We, we need to find more proof...

[superhero]

There's a pullout on the Coen Brothers in last weeks Timeout. I haven't read it completely yet, but makes interesting reading.