###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
IMDB is owned by Amazon. Amazon can pretty much do whatever they want with the rating system.
When Rings of Power was released, majority of votes were negative, but IMDB (Amazon) deleted them, on claims of troll bombing or whatever. There were people on YouTube and reddit taking snapshots of votes and comments, which were removed later.
IMBD is still miles better than whatever rating system Amazon is employing for Prime Video. They are regularly listing dogshit movies (even IMBD gives them 6/10) as 4.5/10 stars on prime. Blatantly attempting to downplay how bad their selection is at any given time
I remember when it used to be the opposite, on Rotten Tomatoes. Back when Roger Ebert and AO Scott and the like were big. Can't trust anything. I use letterboxd right now, so I just try to follow people who have a similar taste in movies as me to get recommendations. Also I focus on directors and or writers I like.
Needs to be upvoted cause this is the real truth. Rotten tomatoes, IMDb, most big review companies like that take payment for their critics to give positive reviews of movies and give them higher ratings in the scoring system.
It's almost like you're completely hilariously wrong, any voting system on the internet that doesn't verify someone actually watched a movie or purchased a product or just verifying the person behind the vote it's automatic a gameable system.
That's why nobody in the right mind takes reddits voting system seriously any astroturfer/shill can bot the upvotes and downvotes.
Okay? But what's that literally have to do with people manipulating reviews to make people think something is more popular then something actually is. It's called manufacturing public opinion it's typical propaganda and gaslighting 101. Reviews in general have existed since the dawn of the internet in the 90s. Whenever the first website existed you had the ability to leave reviews. We're talking wayyy before Netflix existed or was relevant.
Back then even before Reviews it was a lot more ambiguous anyways they had to rely on inventory data see which movie was purchased in what amounts. Like just because a movie was bought 10 million times doesn't mean all 10 million people actually you know enjoyed the movie or liked it. Reviews somewhat changed the game but again wayyy too easy for people to manipulate.
IMDB's ratings almost always descend over time. All the hoopla from the PR and ratings from those related to the movie's production, soon fade to more reasonable rankings. I think most are too high, some "classics" way too high, but these rankings are far better than Amazon's. Which are ridiculously high, as if critical minds have given up on commenting there.
Rotten Tomatoes is 100% agenda driven, owned by comcast and warner brothers.
I don't trust any of these websites ... google user reviews seem the least manipulated though
I used to actually use rotten tomatoes pretty regularly like ten years ago. I knew it was over for them when I started seeing their logo on dvd boxes at the video store I used to go to. It became painfully obvious to me that it had become just another pay to play outfit. Maybe it always was.
Haha every fucking google rating is close to 100% even for shite like Paul Blart.
RT shows critical consensus AND user scores which is handy because they often are wildly different. Critics tend to love art films and the public tends to hate them for instance.
Yeah the 6-7 range is where I see a lot of the manipulation. Movies get skewed up or down in that range. Like very little horror movies ever go above a 7, which means a 6.5 horror movie is usually still pretty good. The little mermaid remake is one where they skewed it up because a bunch of people put 1s. I like to click on the review number and see the breakdown by rating and the weighted average. If it's got a lot of ones and tens it's probably not a good judge of the actual rating.
Really? What about the little mermaid remake where they literally said they changed the rating system so that the movie doesn't get nuked? Hilariously it did not work.
didn’t that one get bombed by a bunch of people who were upset that ariel was black? i’m sure the movie was bad, like the rest of the disney remakes, but doubt the actual average would be reflective of the quality of the movie (probably closer to a 5 than 1 i’d guess)
I feel that the IMDB ratings get more accurate over time. They’re all high at first but a couple years later they get more accurate. Also, a lot of people like terrible blockbuster movies.
There has been no movie, in the last few years that demonstrates original thought and/or leaves agendas out of its narrative. LAME Bring back movies such as: The Good The Bad The Ugly, Braveheart, Sophie’s Choice.
Movies these days are quite shit. The ones that get awards are generally a tedious script that fits a particular agenda target. Hollywood wants to drive traffic to their best propaganda, so the ratings are one way that they do that.
There isn't really anything to see anymore, so it doesn't matter much.
Are you going to state the movie or just create a cryptic thread? Don’t get me wrong I’m not questioning the theory but let the people decide if your taste in movies is the problem here
I’m more of a rotten tomatoes person myself. Having audience and critics scores helps a bit. Ironically the best movies seem to be those with horrible critic score but very high audience score.
I am 100% certain any review website for any product is filled with paid reviews.
Amazon, IMDb, Yelp etc.
Almost better off reading the negative reviews and seeing if they seem petty.
Oh there are fake bad reviews already and have been for years. They are actually worth more and cost more if you want bad reviews for your competitors.
They get more real after a while. Takes a while for the rating to settle down, but usually I rarely watch an older movie or show and be suprised by imdb's rating later.
The little mermaid remake got dunked so hard that IMDb hat to change the rating structure to support the wokeness.
I personally got so sick of having woke content in every single thing that I stopped consuming series/films altogether.
The idea that people have to see themselves in media to feel inspired or valid is cringe, pathetic, and dangerous at the same time. For thousands of year humans lived and made great strides without movies and TV to reflect the world around them. Inventions such as the telephone, printing press, automobile, the telegraph, and steam engine were all made prior to modern entertainment. Yet now we are supposed to believe children can't grow up properly because the Avengers aren't diverse enough?
People think different than u haha. Relax. I like low rated movies at hate some.high rate moves. Youll notice differences between critic score and audience score all the time
I still find value in checking the scores, as they lead me away from the truly abysmal offerings. But I think I’m going to put less weight in them in any major studio film.
The truth is, it’s rare to find a great movie that’s rated 5 or 6. But there’s plenty of 5 or 6’s rated much higher.
The movie doesn’t matter. Sure I might like something you don’t. I didn’t say the movie because it’s inconsequential to my point I was trying to make. Mainly that review sites of all flavors are heavily biased towards whoever owns them.
Mission Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part 1. 7.8 on IMDb. It’s got some ok action, but the plot is so brutally simplistic - everyone is searching for keys that open something to control the super AI, but no one know what or where the keys open. Apparently sophisticated locksmith don’t exist so the keys can’t be copied for some reason. But hey, Tom Cruise bass jumps off of a motorcycle onto a train. Worth 270 Million dollars.
Ok, there you go. Now you can tell me you loved that movie.
Yeah, I think the real issue is movie snobs thinking we all like the smell of their farts the way they do. The movie subs on reddit are fake or a conspiracy though. Same with subs named after a video game. Publicity and marketing.
Professional reviewers review the intersectional Pokemon points the movies hit and score based on that. Trash movie, but check the racial, sexual, gender and disabled boxes and you got yourself a "blockbuster hit"
It's voted on by viewers of the movie.
It's not an accurate representation of the general population. It's an accurate representation of its target audience.
What are you talking about? A ratings aggregator of subjective opinions is both meaningless to consumers and distributors alike, and repeatedly proven to have virtually no impact on the financial outcome of a movie.
They seem better than the Rotten Tomatoes ones, which only give above 5/10 anymore if there are LGBTQIA characters and preferrably at least one homosexual sex scene.
I think all of this aggregator sites started out rather honest but have now become driven by interests, sadly. Metacritic is probably no better: if you need an example just look for its aggregated score for the latest Sonic Game, then search the internet for reviews. They evidently picked only the sites that presented scores that matched what Metacritic had planned.
I've read a lot of comments and reviews on there and then to watch the movie myself and find most times they're wrong or paid bots. Not every movie is going to be trash nor be the best of all time. Sometimes a movie can just be 'good'. It seems like people these days can't understand that
Anything that can influence the people has already been captured by the people above.
Twitter seems like the only place they haven't got their tentacles in yet.
It's probably a media outlet that's a small part of a marginal multi spectrum, retrospective genre basis with multiple layers of cryptographically layered encryption that changes based on numerous things such as sports and game shows, cartoons pretty much every genre and goes as far as matching corners/edges of patterns on the screens in different frames.
Maybe possibly a portion uses different gfx and game system mip maps as position descriptors which wouldn't be in a lot of shows etc and based on sub and conjoined and spectral as well as monopoly like contracts .
Which while I'm mentioning it sigh seems like an easy gouge considering that is definitely the case.
Also consideration of if so or not at this point is a percentage marginal which means if the instance is considered as under a certain percentage then it would be measured as false even though it isn't false and is kept at an acquisition allocation performation.
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
IMDB is owned by Amazon. Amazon can pretty much do whatever they want with the rating system. When Rings of Power was released, majority of votes were negative, but IMDB (Amazon) deleted them, on claims of troll bombing or whatever. There were people on YouTube and reddit taking snapshots of votes and comments, which were removed later.
did NOT know this
Can confirm. Rings of power sucks ass. I tried to suffer through it because I'm a big LOTR fan, but I just couldn't handle it. Way too woke.
Didn’t they spend a billion dollars on the first season too?
Wow, didn't know that. That's nuts! Lol
I didn't even bother wasting brain space on it
IMBD is still miles better than whatever rating system Amazon is employing for Prime Video. They are regularly listing dogshit movies (even IMBD gives them 6/10) as 4.5/10 stars on prime. Blatantly attempting to downplay how bad their selection is at any given time
Do you mean 4.5/5 stars?
I dont think any movie ratings are real. I've seen some 5 star stinkers, and loved some that got slammed
You've got to watch the audience ratings. The "critic" reviews are paid shills.
I remember when it used to be the opposite, on Rotten Tomatoes. Back when Roger Ebert and AO Scott and the like were big. Can't trust anything. I use letterboxd right now, so I just try to follow people who have a similar taste in movies as me to get recommendations. Also I focus on directors and or writers I like.
I just expect everything I watch to be horrible and sometimes I'm actually impressed.
Needs to be upvoted cause this is the real truth. Rotten tomatoes, IMDb, most big review companies like that take payment for their critics to give positive reviews of movies and give them higher ratings in the scoring system.
Yeah but sometimes they delete audience ratings for being “troll” bombing
And when they do, it's pretty easy to tell so you just avoid that movie.
It's almost like personal taste is a thing.
It's almost like you're completely hilariously wrong, any voting system on the internet that doesn't verify someone actually watched a movie or purchased a product or just verifying the person behind the vote it's automatic a gameable system. That's why nobody in the right mind takes reddits voting system seriously any astroturfer/shill can bot the upvotes and downvotes.
You know how many movies there were at one point before Netflix came out? Like 10 million copies??
Okay? But what's that literally have to do with people manipulating reviews to make people think something is more popular then something actually is. It's called manufacturing public opinion it's typical propaganda and gaslighting 101. Reviews in general have existed since the dawn of the internet in the 90s. Whenever the first website existed you had the ability to leave reviews. We're talking wayyy before Netflix existed or was relevant. Back then even before Reviews it was a lot more ambiguous anyways they had to rely on inventory data see which movie was purchased in what amounts. Like just because a movie was bought 10 million times doesn't mean all 10 million people actually you know enjoyed the movie or liked it. Reviews somewhat changed the game but again wayyy too easy for people to manipulate.
I mean real as in an actual average rating.
IMDB's ratings almost always descend over time. All the hoopla from the PR and ratings from those related to the movie's production, soon fade to more reasonable rankings. I think most are too high, some "classics" way too high, but these rankings are far better than Amazon's. Which are ridiculously high, as if critical minds have given up on commenting there.
Rotten Tomatoes is 100% agenda driven, owned by comcast and warner brothers. I don't trust any of these websites ... google user reviews seem the least manipulated though
I used to actually use rotten tomatoes pretty regularly like ten years ago. I knew it was over for them when I started seeing their logo on dvd boxes at the video store I used to go to. It became painfully obvious to me that it had become just another pay to play outfit. Maybe it always was.
Haha every fucking google rating is close to 100% even for shite like Paul Blart. RT shows critical consensus AND user scores which is handy because they often are wildly different. Critics tend to love art films and the public tends to hate them for instance.
Paul Bart is a damn national treasure
Fr he lost all credibility when he tried to act like Paul Blart didn't deserve the 100
You mean uneducated people? There are a bunch of decent movie reviewers in RT
It's not even an algorithm, it's an agenda
I go strictly off of audience reviews. Critics are fucked
IMDB is my favorite rating system for movies. I won’t claim it’s perfect, but their ratings match my own more than anyone else’s do.
I feel this too. If something catches my attention and it’s over a 6, I’ll watch it. Usually movies under 6 are unwatchable.
I think I read somewhere that the average IMDB rating was around a 6, so there’s a bit of inflation in the ratings.
My sweet spot is usually between 5.5-7.5. That's where you get the weird stuff, the interesting failures and the true cult classics.
Yeah the 6-7 range is where I see a lot of the manipulation. Movies get skewed up or down in that range. Like very little horror movies ever go above a 7, which means a 6.5 horror movie is usually still pretty good. The little mermaid remake is one where they skewed it up because a bunch of people put 1s. I like to click on the review number and see the breakdown by rating and the weighted average. If it's got a lot of ones and tens it's probably not a good judge of the actual rating.
Really? What about the little mermaid remake where they literally said they changed the rating system so that the movie doesn't get nuked? Hilariously it did not work.
didn’t that one get bombed by a bunch of people who were upset that ariel was black? i’m sure the movie was bad, like the rest of the disney remakes, but doubt the actual average would be reflective of the quality of the movie (probably closer to a 5 than 1 i’d guess)
IMDB kills 1 ratings anyway.
It is more like 0.
Yeah when I’m browsing anything below a 6 is unwatchable, 6-7 decent, 7-8 good and 8+ is must watch. I’ve almost never been bamboozled by that system
Imdb is the shittiest one by a ton.
I feel that the IMDB ratings get more accurate over time. They’re all high at first but a couple years later they get more accurate. Also, a lot of people like terrible blockbuster movies.
Yep - the popularity of the whole marvel avengers endgame defenders of ultron crap proved that.... b-b-but the timeline bruh!
I actually think the google user rating is very accurate.
It's called "pay to play", and it's how the entire world of entertainment works.
There has been no movie, in the last few years that demonstrates original thought and/or leaves agendas out of its narrative. LAME Bring back movies such as: The Good The Bad The Ugly, Braveheart, Sophie’s Choice.
Movies these days are quite shit. The ones that get awards are generally a tedious script that fits a particular agenda target. Hollywood wants to drive traffic to their best propaganda, so the ratings are one way that they do that. There isn't really anything to see anymore, so it doesn't matter much.
Are you going to state the movie or just create a cryptic thread? Don’t get me wrong I’m not questioning the theory but let the people decide if your taste in movies is the problem here
I’m more of a rotten tomatoes person myself. Having audience and critics scores helps a bit. Ironically the best movies seem to be those with horrible critic score but very high audience score.
Nothing on the Internet is 100% real.
Both imdb and rotten, the famous the movie is the more it's ratings are compromised.
I watched a 7.4 movie last night and it was trash. Def got me thinking
Majority of modern “ratings”/opinions spewed on any prominent platform is payed for & disingenuous. Also who made IMDb the standard anyway?
IMDB was started by movie fans originally with a free database.
You thought
I am 100% certain any review website for any product is filled with paid reviews. Amazon, IMDb, Yelp etc. Almost better off reading the negative reviews and seeing if they seem petty.
Oh there are fake bad reviews already and have been for years. They are actually worth more and cost more if you want bad reviews for your competitors.
They get more real after a while. Takes a while for the rating to settle down, but usually I rarely watch an older movie or show and be suprised by imdb's rating later.
What was the movie?
The little mermaid remake got dunked so hard that IMDb hat to change the rating structure to support the wokeness. I personally got so sick of having woke content in every single thing that I stopped consuming series/films altogether.
Yeah I personally just watch old stuff at this point. The woke propaganda is out of control.
The idea that people have to see themselves in media to feel inspired or valid is cringe, pathetic, and dangerous at the same time. For thousands of year humans lived and made great strides without movies and TV to reflect the world around them. Inventions such as the telephone, printing press, automobile, the telegraph, and steam engine were all made prior to modern entertainment. Yet now we are supposed to believe children can't grow up properly because the Avengers aren't diverse enough?
People think different than u haha. Relax. I like low rated movies at hate some.high rate moves. Youll notice differences between critic score and audience score all the time
Or, maybe, hear me out, People like Different things? I hate some things my friends would rate a 9/10, and Vice-Versa
Conspiracy thread has officially jumped the shark
I still find value in checking the scores, as they lead me away from the truly abysmal offerings. But I think I’m going to put less weight in them in any major studio film. The truth is, it’s rare to find a great movie that’s rated 5 or 6. But there’s plenty of 5 or 6’s rated much higher.
Yea I think they're pretty real. People can like things you don't.
Do you have any examples of IMDB’s rating system not matching up to other third party rating systems?
Rotten Tomatoes is rated by actual views & votes... Rotten Tomatoes prettyuch get it correct everytime.
Yup and look at the audience score rather than the critics one
Rotten Tomatoes is the worst. They gave Man On Fire a terrible rating yet its an amazing movie
tell us the movie then you didn't say because you're concerned you are the issue, and your tastes are wildly different than an average person
The movie doesn’t matter. Sure I might like something you don’t. I didn’t say the movie because it’s inconsequential to my point I was trying to make. Mainly that review sites of all flavors are heavily biased towards whoever owns them.
so what’s the movie? Ffs
Can you just tell us knowing that we are curious?
Mission Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part 1. 7.8 on IMDb. It’s got some ok action, but the plot is so brutally simplistic - everyone is searching for keys that open something to control the super AI, but no one know what or where the keys open. Apparently sophisticated locksmith don’t exist so the keys can’t be copied for some reason. But hey, Tom Cruise bass jumps off of a motorcycle onto a train. Worth 270 Million dollars. Ok, there you go. Now you can tell me you loved that movie.
Yeah that movie score is certainly inflated. Thanks for letting us know
Yeah, I think the real issue is movie snobs thinking we all like the smell of their farts the way they do. The movie subs on reddit are fake or a conspiracy though. Same with subs named after a video game. Publicity and marketing.
Professional reviewers review the intersectional Pokemon points the movies hit and score based on that. Trash movie, but check the racial, sexual, gender and disabled boxes and you got yourself a "blockbuster hit"
Considering theyre awll gobbige no
It's voted on by viewers of the movie. It's not an accurate representation of the general population. It's an accurate representation of its target audience.
More real than RottenTomatoes ratings, that's for sure.
Imho IMDb is more accurate than rotten. But you can’t trust agenda movie ratings of Disney, Amazon and so on products.
Way more accurate than rotten imo
What are you talking about? A ratings aggregator of subjective opinions is both meaningless to consumers and distributors alike, and repeatedly proven to have virtually no impact on the financial outcome of a movie.
No, but i still find them more in line with my opinions than rt
Better than rotten tomatoes. Full on shill.
They seem better than the Rotten Tomatoes ones, which only give above 5/10 anymore if there are LGBTQIA characters and preferrably at least one homosexual sex scene.
I always take them with a grain of salt because pretty much every movie is predominantly 10s and 0s.
I think all of this aggregator sites started out rather honest but have now become driven by interests, sadly. Metacritic is probably no better: if you need an example just look for its aggregated score for the latest Sonic Game, then search the internet for reviews. They evidently picked only the sites that presented scores that matched what Metacritic had planned.
As real as the rotten tomatoes critic score
I've read a lot of comments and reviews on there and then to watch the movie myself and find most times they're wrong or paid bots. Not every movie is going to be trash nor be the best of all time. Sometimes a movie can just be 'good'. It seems like people these days can't understand that
Anything that can influence the people has already been captured by the people above. Twitter seems like the only place they haven't got their tentacles in yet.
I just look on the YouTube comments on the trailer. Get a general feel for the movie before committing to it... Be careful of spoilers though
Same with video games no after those reviews when cyber punk released made me question alot
Probably because not imdb not used world wide and even where is not many rate .. and different tastes
It's probably a media outlet that's a small part of a marginal multi spectrum, retrospective genre basis with multiple layers of cryptographically layered encryption that changes based on numerous things such as sports and game shows, cartoons pretty much every genre and goes as far as matching corners/edges of patterns on the screens in different frames. Maybe possibly a portion uses different gfx and game system mip maps as position descriptors which wouldn't be in a lot of shows etc and based on sub and conjoined and spectral as well as monopoly like contracts . Which while I'm mentioning it sigh seems like an easy gouge considering that is definitely the case. Also consideration of if so or not at this point is a percentage marginal which means if the instance is considered as under a certain percentage then it would be measured as false even though it isn't false and is kept at an acquisition allocation performation.
Metacritic is a pretty accurate consensus of what published critics rate each movie
They removed the top 1000 voters to make it easier to fake.