Can a movie rating reflect the quality of a movie?

To a large extent, the rating of a movie can reflect the quality of the movie.

Indeed, the quality of a movie is a subjective feeling just like evaluating literary works. No movie can please all audiences. Take the Douban movie ratings that everyone is most familiar with. For classic high-scoring movies such as "The Shawshank Redemption", "The Godfather" and "Titanic", some people also give them one star. The reason may be very simple: I don't like it, it's boring. I can't watch it; in the same way, so-called bad movies may also be the favorites of some people, and "Sadness Against the River" can also touch the soft hearts of some people.

However, even if it is a subjective feeling, everyone has their own preferences for radish and green vegetables, but the rating of a movie is not a one-word assessment. After all, it is a combination of the high ratings given by thousands of viewers who have watched the movie. The average score obtained after scoring and low scores, the final score reflects the audience's preferences to a large extent.

I also admit that the audience's preferences are not completely equivalent to the quality of a movie, but the movie is meant to serve the audience. If it cannot win the love of the majority of the audience, then it is ultimately a movie. A work that "failed" in a short period of time.

Of course, it is not ruled out that this "failed" work may suddenly be appreciated and liked a few years or more than ten years later, and even be regarded as a masterpiece, but in this case At the moment, it is a "failed" or unsuccessful film, and its rating will definitely not be much higher. Only when it can be understood and appreciated by the audience, will the rating have the possibility of rising, such as "Piano on the Sea" When "The Master" first came out, the response from the audience and the market was mediocre, but many years later, it has become the untitled film on the major movie rankings. No one can say that it is not a good movie.

So, even if the scoring mechanism can be affected by audience tastes and market trends in the short term, in the long term, a good movie will eventually get a high score.

Similarly, there are also movies that are currently being sought after by audiences and capital. They have gained super popularity and box office, but this does not mean that it is a good movie, and this can definitely be reflected in the ratings. For example, the works of director Guo Jingming, or "Shanghai Fortress".

Finally, I would like to add that a movie no longer belongs to the director from the moment it faces the audience. How the audience interprets and understands the movie itself, as well as the deep meaning the movie wants to express, are not The director can control things, but he cannot control them. If in the director's understanding, his film has a deeper meaning than what most viewers understand, but the audience does not feel it, then the director cannot impose it on the audience. This is a movie. Failed works. In fact, from this perspective, the scores given by most viewers can exactly reflect the quality of a movie.

Above.

Of course not. First of all, personal tastes are different, and other people’s evaluations cannot fully represent them; in addition, the raters on various platforms have different positions, and there are even professional reviewers who are professional critics or professional reviewers. They tend to influence the attitude of the audience with their own ratings. Do you think it is okay? Do you believe it?

The answer is no: a movie with high ratings does not indicate how good the movie is. I divide current movies into commercial movies and art movies. Most commercial movies cater to the public's taste and appreciation level in order to make profits. Naturally, many people will give high marks to them, but they do not deny the quality of some commercial movies. Generally, art films have a unique way of expression. The general audience cannot understand the content to be expressed, or it is not a type that the public likes. They will be confused from beginning to end and have low interest, so the rating will naturally be low. Today we will talk about the factors that a good movie should have:

1. Movie script

Looking back on the past, it is not difficult to find that movies that are popular with the audience are often those that can A movie that fully captures the audience in terms of plot. A successful movie starts with a script. The script can truly show the story and characters, and lead the audience to understand the underlying theme that the author wants to express.

2. Movie casting

Movie casting is also the key to a good movie. No matter how good the script is, it is useless if the actors cannot express it. Good actors will convey the story through their acting skills. The theme expressed brings the audience into the story situation, making it easier for the audience to understand the central idea of ??the film.

3. Movie Director

A good director is crucial to a movie. The overall style and quality of a movie are controlled by the director. A good director is not only responsible for the story, scenes, Editing requirements are particularly high, which has also led to increased requirements for art design, lighting, character modeling, etc. Not only that, a good director can capture the actor's emotions. Emotions are the body's possibility and even inevitability of a successful behavior. The evaluation and experience of physiological reactions can make the audience reach a climax and feel the actor's joy, anger, and sorrow. , joy, sadness, fear, surprise.

Therefore, for a good movie, it is not enough to simply focus on its rating. At least you must also pay attention to the movie's script, actors, creative skills and the audience's response.

Yes, generally good movies have high ratings, educational or classic ones

Different people have different opinions, and everyone’s experience, thoughts and interests are different, so the rating is No, a movie is like coffee, it needs to be tasted slowly and needs time to settle.

Generally speaking, we would say that a movie with a score below 6 on Douban is a "bad movie", and a score above 7 (or 7.5) is "worth watching". I personally think this statement is indeed OK, but it is not without problems.

First, you cannot put all types of films on Douban into the same scoring system.

To give a very typical example, we are generally very tolerant of superhero movies - not just ordinary audiences, but also film critics - as long as they are not to the same extent as "Thor 1" and "Captain America 1" , basically definitely above 7 points. For example, "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2" and "La La Land" both scored 8.2 points when they were released, but you should know that the gold content in them is completely different. (Now one has dropped by 0.1 and the other has risen by 0.1)

Not only movie types, but there are also differences between regions. For example, I have to admit that Douban viewers have somewhat strict requirements for current domestic movies in theaters. (Of course, we should also admit that it is not an exaggeration to give negative marks to some bad domestic films.) And I watched the "BJ's Diary" trilogy two days ago for Uncle Colin. This type of Mary Sue is illogical and obscene. Is the plot really worthy of a unified score of 7 or more? For another example, after watching Japanese dramas some time ago, I found that the scoring system for Japanese dramas cannot be used as a category for domestic dramas at all. Of course, this also includes Korean dramas, British dramas, and American dramas, as well as British and American (mainstream) movies, European (non-mainstream) movies, and Indian movies. Movies blah blah blah.

In fact, the region determines to a certain extent how we view the movie, because as long as it involves the region, it involves factors such as the background of the film and the national conditions to a certain extent. For example, the score of "The Great Protector" is 8.0. We do admit that this movie has flaws of one kind or another. There are also excellent cases of the same theme in foreign movies, but such a self-rated and allegorical dystopia (or Anti-totalitarianism) There is a certain reason why domestic animated films have such scores. Similarly, the score of 9.1 for "Dangal" is indeed a bit high, but when you combine it with India's national conditions, such a forward-looking and educational film deserves people's deep thought and respect.

This also involves several issues to be discussed next.

Second, audience scope. A 9-point score averaged by a thousand people and a 9-point score averaged by 100,000 people must have different value. Compared with Chinese dramas and even some British and American dramas, the audience of Japanese dramas is ultimately limited. Another example is niche American dramas. If audiences who simply like good looks or sexual feelings are praised and criticized in a small area, the high or low scores will be marked with question marks and reservations. For example, my boyfriend's "Assassin's Creed" has a score of 5.4 (rated by 50,000 people), and "Centurion", which is almost terrible, has a score of 6.3 (rated by 7,000 people). The difference is nearly 1 point, but You can't say that the former is worse than the latter. In fact, I think that when the two narratives are equally rubbish, the visual effects of the former are even better. But the problem is that "Assassin's Creed" is a work that costs a lot of money and has a strong lineup, and has a huge response both at home and abroad. Those who pay attention to this movie are not only fans of the actors and directors, but also a large number of extremely loyal fans of the original game. , their expectations and requirements for the movie from the perspective of watching the movie are incomparable to an ordinary B-level movie that did not cause much splash in a small-scale release (even a movie that only fans will go to see now).

Third, in the final analysis, scoring is a very subjective matter. Even film critics may only be able to say that they tend to be objective, but cannot completely abandon subjectivity. We often see a saying - "one more star for xxx" and "one star less for xxx". This situation is often seen in niche movies, such as the high scores mentioned in the second point for "good looks and love". But in fact this problem is widespread. For example, the movie my idol participated in last year, although the movie still received a low score, there were many short reviews like "One star for xxx (my idol) and one star for the theme song sung by xxx"... But the problem is, he really Does it deserve this star (i.e. two points)? How good is his acting? ...So why? Is it just because of the number of fans? Of course, these thoughts, including my thoughts on "BJ's Single Diary" above, are my personal subjective thoughts and do not represent anyone else. Ultimately, this is because Douban’s audience is not generally film critics with professional knowledge, and even film critics are not 100% authoritative or standard answers. I have also experienced Douban 5.0 movies that I thought were good, and Douban 8.9 movies that I thought were average, but I don’t doubt my judgment because of this.

Watching movies is actually a process of self-exploration. Although scores have the above limitations, they are indeed a shortcut to good movies. However, when you want to truly have your own unique or even independent understanding of movies, it is a process with no shortcuts.

I believe that different people will have different opinions when it comes to evaluating the quality of a movie, and there is no one-size-fits-all judgment standard. I personally think so.

First, ratings cannot represent everything. Nowadays, many movie websites have opened rating functions, but the ratings can only represent some of the people who have watched the movie. There are also some people who may not have participated in the rating even though they have watched the movie. I personally have no rating. habits. On the other hand, people who haven't watched the movie will certainly not rate it on the site. This means that the ratings we see on the website only represent the preferences of some people and are not universally representative. Therefore, whether this movie is a high-quality movie has very little to do with the rating of the website.

Second, the box office of a movie does not explain the problem. We know that the box office of a movie directly determines whether friends who invest in the movie can make a profit or lose money. If a movie has a high box office, we can only say that the movie is very popular with one person (this group of people refers to the people who buy tickets to watch the movie), but this cannot be used to judge whether it is a good movie. In addition, a movie's high box office may be the result of strong publicity; similarly, if a movie's box office is low, we can only say that the movie is not very popular with the audience, or it may be caused by insufficient publicity. But you can't judge this as a good movie.

Therefore, before we judge the quality of a movie, we must first clarify the difference between two concepts, that is, popularity does not mean high quality, and unpopularity does not mean poor quality. These are two completely different concepts. Of course, there are also many movies that have high ratings, high box office, and are also good movies.

In summary, judging movies should not be based on ratings and box office performance. I think this should be considered from all aspects such as script plot, actor professionalism, and the mainstream values ????disseminated.

We are currently in the Internet age, and the rating is related to which movie the audience chooses to watch, causing confusion in the quality of the movie.

1. Ratings are affected by many factors and are difficult to reflect the true level of the movie

1. The quality of some movies may not be determined by real audience votes, but by the Internet one by one. Determined by the platform.

2. The intensity of movie advertising also plays a certain role in the quality of the movie.

3. The name of the movie and the popularity of the star also have a certain impact on the box office and ratings of the movie.

4. We choose not to read some works that are not highly rated, but do those with low ratings necessarily be bad works?

For example: Stephen Chow’s work must be the first thing that everyone thinks of now is the classic film "Journey to the West". However, when this movie was first released, the box office reception was very bleak, and many people even thought of it. It's not clear whether this drama is about comedy or love. Due to the dismal box office performance, Star's company eventually went bankrupt.

Therefore, there are many scoring standards, so I will not describe them one by one. They are mainly determined based on the public's appreciation level and social background.

Ratings are affected by many factors, and it is difficult to reflect the true level of the movie, such as advertising, word-of-mouth, the quality of the movie's name, whether there are stars, and whether there are many trolls. , there are too many factors that can affect the rating. Personally, I think the early reactions are relatively objective, and you have to look at the mid-term ratings

Nowadays, everyone has their own standards for movie ratings. As far as public ratings are concerned, Douban ratings are relatively representative of the true level of the movie. , so Douban ratings have become one of the standards for many viewers to refer to the quality of films.

Some netizens said that if we don’t look at the Douban score, what else can we look at? Because you simply won't find a more convincing rating site. In terms of Maoyan score, the film "Sky Hunter" is a failing film, but it actually has a high score of 8.7. "Chasing the Dragon" and "Shameful Iron Fist" even reached nine points, and "Sewing Machine Band" actually also scored 9.3 points. On Douban, "Shameful Iron Fist" only scored 7.5 points, "Chasing the Dragon" scored 7.6 points, and "Sky Hunter" only scored 7.8 points.

In fact, no matter whether it is domestic or foreign, Douban, imbd or Rotten Tomatoes, no rating platform can completely define the quality of a movie. It's just that Douban represents the public's more professional views, and many people know Douban. Over time, it has become a rating platform that everyone recognizes. And when the self-media era arrives, many big Vs use Douban’s ratings as a standard to evaluate the quality of a movie. Regardless of whether you are a professional film critic or an uncle selling Douban on the street, you can rate, and the ratings of both people will eventually be digested into the average score of nearly all people's ratings, which is at the bottom of the average number of people. This rating mechanism is more effective The more people rate, the more impartial it is.

Douban’s raters are real, the platform is solid, and it is not affected by outside influences. When a movie is first released on Douban, there may be a phenomenon of trolls brushing up the ratings, but as the number of ratings increases, word-of-mouth will also have a relatively fair reflection. The best part is that movie ratings are a process of continuous movement and fermentation.

In recent years, the ratings have been flooded by a large number of trolls, and there is a lot of hate caused by brushing up the scores. Gradually, people feel that the ratings are a kind of joke. However, for example, the old movies "The Shawshank Redemption", "Ash" "The Story of Gansu" and so on. The ratings of these movies on Douban are trustworthy, because there is no profit to be made from such movies, and there is no need to buy a large number of trolls to lower the scores.

Douban does not participate in film distribution, and Douban Pictures participates in the production of very few films. Douban’s market share of ticket sales is basically negligible, so Douban basically has no interest in film producers, and Douban wants to Maintain the objectivity and fairness of your own ratings, be on the opposite side of the trolls, and resolutely crack down on the trolls' behavior of cheating on you. After all, no platform is authoritative and standard for judging. A movie needs to be comprehensively evaluated. After all, there are a thousand Hamlets in the hearts of a thousand people.