I understand where you're coming from, and you make valid points. I do have a few counters, though. I really love Letterboxd because it gives me what feels like a genuine perspective of movie-lovers. IMBD isn't saturated/modern enough, and RT is somewhat poisoned by critics and a weird rating system. Yeah, the rating system of Letterboxd is also going to be flawed, like every other, because art is inherently subjective. As you point out, each person's biases, background, and even the way we feel on a given day will affect the ratings given. But Letterboxd gives me the inclination of how the average film buff is experiencing cinema. I really like reading reviews, because ratings are so subjective, but the reviews give me an actual idea of the person's thoughts and feelings about the film. Yes, there will be some pretentious reviews, but there will also be ones that make me laugh. There will be someone with a super harsh rating of a movie I love, but that's okay, we can disagree. That's not to say that other people's ratings never affect my own, but for the most part, I actually find it very refreshing to form and share my opinion, and then go scour reviews to see what other people think. When I find those who disagree, I read their reviews to understand what they saw differently. When I find those who agree, it's satisfying and refreshing-- "they get it!" But either way, it stimulates me to better understand a variety of perspectives on a film. There are also, to some degree, benefits to analyzing the details of a movie. Obviously it can go too far, and it's not helpful if it's done for the sake of being critical. But I love that Letterboxd gives me the motivation to pay more attention to what I'm consuming-- and it doesn't even typically result in a lengthy, tedious review (like this comment); it usually just results in me musing on the film more in-depth. If I want to turn my brain off and "just enjoy it" instead, then I can, but I often find that paying attention more closely *is* a way of enjoying it (within a certain extent). I also really enjoy finding "friends" on Letterboxd who have the same taste in movies (typically) that I do. I enjoy keeping up with what they watch, because it helps give me ideas of what to check out, knowing that there's a higher chance I'll like it. I actually love going to Letterboxd before I watch a movie, instead of going in blind, as seeing varying perspectives on the film often makes me more excited to go into it. I do agree there is pressure to "finish films for the count" or "keep up", and turning cinema into a consumption machine is an unfortunate side effect that comes with social-media-ifying anything. But I think once you can move past the stats and comparison, and be willing to straight up stop watching a movie if you don't like it (even if it's in the middle of the runtime... a skill I'm still learning), you can really enjoy Letterboxd. Obviously it's not for everyone, but I feel like it has mostly the same pros and cons as other social media platforms. It can be informative, unifying, and create a sense of community. It can be thought-provoking. It can also be soul-draining, result in comparison and isolation, and create self-doubt. So it's really just a mixed bag. Anyway, thanks for this video! It made me think. :)
good to see people finally talking about this, it's been bugging me for a while. agree on a lot of these points, but I would add that i think the game of virality is a massive problem in this as well. the overabundance of joke reviews on every single film you click on where sometimes you have to click to the next page to find a serious review is awful and it makes reviewing films a game of having the best punchline to the point where they're probably thinking of the joke while watching the film and the film itself is secondary to that. There is so many large accounts like Karsten Runquist, that guy with the truman show pfp and others that just feel the need to review everything while also saying nothing, sometimes I see reviews that are just emojis and they have thousands of likes and when one of them finds a punchline, it spreads everywhere until it's just the same tired jokes because it's a game of virality. What's the point of the site's social aspect if people can't even discern what you think of a movie and it clogs up almost all of the popular reviews. the whole community for letterboxd sucks so bad. Great video though lol
This is true of all rating systems online. Not only is there no agreed upon scoring, but not everybody rates in one place or at all. Or worse, they rate based on peer pressure, undermining the point of having a scoring system in the first place. It makes it impossible for anyone to get a true grasp of a film, album or game's true reception. I wish we could give two ratings. One for perceived greatness or competence. And one for personal enjoyment.
Democratization of public opinion subjects everything to the whims of the herd rather than critical thought and well considered analysis because the average person is an NPC who bases their beliefs and opinions on their perception of what others find correct or acceptable rather than because they've actually thought it through for themselves. Besides, the idea of giving a numerical score for a qualitative work/experience, at the very least without a universal standard of what exactly each score means across the board, is a fundamentally flawed concept. This is why I prefer actually reading and listening to people's reviews of something. Unless you're specifically looking at the ideas of a person whose judgment you trust and respect, numerical scores in general are a meaningless waste of time.
I have this same experience with IMDb movies because that is where I normally rate my movies. I much prefer movies to be out of 10 stars because there is much more wiggle room to rate a movie. I use 5 stars with books.
I purely use Letterbox to document the movies I’ve seen in theaters. I don’t think art was meant to be put on a rubric and rating “good” or “bad” usually stops interesting conversations. Like, I think Star Wars is dumb. My roommate is obsessed with it. We’ve had many fun conversations about Star Wars that couldn’t happen if we just spoke through the lens of rankings and tomatometers and number of stars 1-5.
I don't think the problem is giving an assessment of a thing. The solution to me seems to he getting rid of numerical scoring altogether. The only way I judge what I see is whether I recommend/like it, love it, thought it was fine or mediocre, or didn't like it. Or perhaps see in theaters and buy, see in matinee, leave it to personal discretion because I didn't care for it, but it might appeal to others, or don't recommend it at all. Personally, my "score is 👍 (like), 👍👍 (love), or nothing at all.
Woah, it's almost like other people can also have opinions on movies that can be different and they put them on a service that compiles them. No service has a set criteria for how you should rate a movie, it would take all the opinions and fun out of reviews and feel restraining. Enjoyment and preference is a crucial part of a film review. I say Revenge of the Sith is a 5-star movie. Is it really? No. I just love it blindly and embrace its flaws, and my review and rating should reflect that. The same goes for a movie I really hate. If every review was purely about the filmmaking, it would feel incomplete and not your true thoughts. If a movie feels bland and generic, it is purely because of what we've seen before. If someone enjoys reviewing and talking about movies, who are you to say they shouldn't critique it? It's completely normal during a movie to say in your head: "That wasn't a great line delivery and it keeps happening", or "Wow that was a beautiful scene". Determining how good a movie is during it is completely normal, there's now just a system to do it on. People love to share it with the world because many people around them don't always share the same level of passion for movies. They want to discuss their opinion with others and a big movie just widens the scope and opportunity. Letterboxd hasn't gamified anything, it just makes people more passionate about filmmaking, discovering new films, and people to discuss them with. Not everything's a competition, and nobody cares how many movies you see, just that you see what they love so that they can share their thoughts. This widespread discussion on what we love also helps us think about these things when watching a movie. This enhances the experience by having more to appreciate. It's also how we educate the next generation of the film industry, by having discussions and broadening horizons. Why do you care so much what other people think of your rating? Why do you feel the need to be such a conformist? No one's going to be so mad that your opinion of a movie differs so much from the average that it causes you harm or embarrassment in any way. If on the off chance that happens, there are features to stop it. There's always someone who agrees with you, that's how average ratings work. Plus you can always seek out these reviews if you feel like you need to feel validated. If you don't like it, you shouldn't be on the app and just review it on your notes app or something.
He does have a point, though. The problem is the very concept of numerically scoring something. Without predetermined criteria for what a particular score means, a score means absolutely nothing because one person's 2 is another person's 4. Undefined criteria for scoring defeats the purpose of the existence of scoring something in the first place. Unless you're just judging each review from a specific person in comparison to their specific reviews of other things, there's no point. The concept of using a quantitative measurement judge something heavily qualitative like a like a piece of art/entertainment is a fundamentally flawed concept. It's the wrong tool for the job, which is why only non-numerical scoring makes sense for such things, or better yet, actually gauge someone's opinions by expanding one's attention span long enough to actually read or listen to a person's thoughts and ideas about what they're reviewing. Likewise, people inflating or devaluing their own scores based on the perceives consensus of others also defeats the point of the score. It's also weak minded NPC herd animal behavior. The point of a scoring system is to weigh each person's genuine thoughts. Giving something a score you wouldn't otherwise give it because you don't want to be seen as a contrarian or against popular opinion makes the score even more unreliable than it already is.
The problem is the concept of judging something qualitative with a quantitative measurement. Numerical ratings systems for art/entertainment is fundamentally flawed. Also, the problems you describe are also partially a consequence of people putting too much weight on the opinions of others when forming your own thoughts. Overinflating or deflating your judgment of something based on "consensus" or only engaging with a piece of media to be a part of "the conversation" afterwards whether you're actually interested in the thing or not are stupid and weak minded.
I hate how a lot of RUclipsrs have decided it's cool to hold micros in the hand. What's that for? It's so distracting and cheugy. Get a tripod, folks, please!
Video too long, you’re wrong, blah blah blah, random RUclips comment, letterbox isn’t ruining anything except giving snobs a place to be snobs like with last fm or quite literally any other rating system ever
Internet Movie Data Base Imdb is a website that lists movies and movie information like who worked on it and such. I find it quite useful. Because of how many movies I see, I probably go there more than any other website. I'm really good at following story, but I sometimes struggle with remembering names, so having IMDB up when I watch things at home helps, lol.
i normally just use the imdb rating if its a 7.5-7.9 then theres a good chance its one of those "underrated" films , something like gattaca sicario or children of men imo are FAR better than say good will hunting(possibly unpopular but oh well) as well as deadpoets society now of course im bias and but at least its a good basis and comedy ratings dont matter much as long as youre laughing unless its superbad then thats both
I’d say just take it like a man and not worry about being an outlier on a movie.
True, at the end of the day, all that matter is if you enjoyed the movie.
my rating system is nothing. I stopped giving star ratings a couple years ago and ive been so much happier ever since
I understand where you're coming from, and you make valid points. I do have a few counters, though. I really love Letterboxd because it gives me what feels like a genuine perspective of movie-lovers. IMBD isn't saturated/modern enough, and RT is somewhat poisoned by critics and a weird rating system. Yeah, the rating system of Letterboxd is also going to be flawed, like every other, because art is inherently subjective. As you point out, each person's biases, background, and even the way we feel on a given day will affect the ratings given.
But Letterboxd gives me the inclination of how the average film buff is experiencing cinema. I really like reading reviews, because ratings are so subjective, but the reviews give me an actual idea of the person's thoughts and feelings about the film. Yes, there will be some pretentious reviews, but there will also be ones that make me laugh. There will be someone with a super harsh rating of a movie I love, but that's okay, we can disagree.
That's not to say that other people's ratings never affect my own, but for the most part, I actually find it very refreshing to form and share my opinion, and then go scour reviews to see what other people think. When I find those who disagree, I read their reviews to understand what they saw differently. When I find those who agree, it's satisfying and refreshing-- "they get it!" But either way, it stimulates me to better understand a variety of perspectives on a film.
There are also, to some degree, benefits to analyzing the details of a movie. Obviously it can go too far, and it's not helpful if it's done for the sake of being critical. But I love that Letterboxd gives me the motivation to pay more attention to what I'm consuming-- and it doesn't even typically result in a lengthy, tedious review (like this comment); it usually just results in me musing on the film more in-depth. If I want to turn my brain off and "just enjoy it" instead, then I can, but I often find that paying attention more closely *is* a way of enjoying it (within a certain extent).
I also really enjoy finding "friends" on Letterboxd who have the same taste in movies (typically) that I do. I enjoy keeping up with what they watch, because it helps give me ideas of what to check out, knowing that there's a higher chance I'll like it. I actually love going to Letterboxd before I watch a movie, instead of going in blind, as seeing varying perspectives on the film often makes me more excited to go into it.
I do agree there is pressure to "finish films for the count" or "keep up", and turning cinema into a consumption machine is an unfortunate side effect that comes with social-media-ifying anything. But I think once you can move past the stats and comparison, and be willing to straight up stop watching a movie if you don't like it (even if it's in the middle of the runtime... a skill I'm still learning), you can really enjoy Letterboxd.
Obviously it's not for everyone, but I feel like it has mostly the same pros and cons as other social media platforms. It can be informative, unifying, and create a sense of community. It can be thought-provoking. It can also be soul-draining, result in comparison and isolation, and create self-doubt. So it's really just a mixed bag.
Anyway, thanks for this video! It made me think. :)
good to see people finally talking about this, it's been bugging me for a while. agree on a lot of these points, but I would add that i think the game of virality is a massive problem in this as well. the overabundance of joke reviews on every single film you click on where sometimes you have to click to the next page to find a serious review is awful and it makes reviewing films a game of having the best punchline to the point where they're probably thinking of the joke while watching the film and the film itself is secondary to that. There is so many large accounts like Karsten Runquist, that guy with the truman show pfp and others that just feel the need to review everything while also saying nothing, sometimes I see reviews that are just emojis and they have thousands of likes and when one of them finds a punchline, it spreads everywhere until it's just the same tired jokes because it's a game of virality. What's the point of the site's social aspect if people can't even discern what you think of a movie and it clogs up almost all of the popular reviews. the whole community for letterboxd sucks so bad. Great video though lol
This is true of all rating systems online. Not only is there no agreed upon scoring, but not everybody rates in one place or at all. Or worse, they rate based on peer pressure, undermining the point of having a scoring system in the first place. It makes it impossible for anyone to get a true grasp of a film, album or game's true reception.
I wish we could give two ratings. One for perceived greatness or competence. And one for personal enjoyment.
I agree. It’s not just Letterboxd, all reviews are inherently bias. We may never be truly neutral , when it comes to rating movies.
Democratization of public opinion subjects everything to the whims of the herd rather than critical thought and well considered analysis because the average person is an NPC who bases their beliefs and opinions on their perception of what others find correct or acceptable rather than because they've actually thought it through for themselves. Besides, the idea of giving a numerical score for a qualitative work/experience, at the very least without a universal standard of what exactly each score means across the board, is a fundamentally flawed concept. This is why I prefer actually reading and listening to people's reviews of something. Unless you're specifically looking at the ideas of a person whose judgment you trust and respect, numerical scores in general are a meaningless waste of time.
“The rating system is whatever the user wants it to be”
That’s what makes it GOOD
1:56 Literally me (I still don't understand why it has such a great reputation)
I have this same experience with IMDb movies because that is where I normally rate my movies. I much prefer movies to be out of 10 stars because there is much more wiggle room to rate a movie. I use 5 stars with books.
I joined Letterboxd Jan 2024 and absolutely love it…. 5 Perfection, 4 Good, 3 OK, 2 Bad, 1 Horrendous
Nice, what was the 1 Horrendous movie ?
@@ForgottenPopcorn Knock knock with keanu reeves
I purely use Letterbox to document the movies I’ve seen in theaters. I don’t think art was meant to be put on a rubric and rating “good” or “bad” usually stops interesting conversations. Like, I think Star Wars is dumb. My roommate is obsessed with it. We’ve had many fun conversations about Star Wars that couldn’t happen if we just spoke through the lens of rankings and tomatometers and number of stars 1-5.
I don't think the problem is giving an assessment of a thing. The solution to me seems to he getting rid of numerical scoring altogether. The only way I judge what I see is whether I recommend/like it, love it, thought it was fine or mediocre, or didn't like it. Or perhaps see in theaters and buy, see in matinee, leave it to personal discretion because I didn't care for it, but it might appeal to others, or don't recommend it at all. Personally, my "score is 👍 (like), 👍👍 (love), or nothing at all.
Woah, it's almost like other people can also have opinions on movies that can be different and they put them on a service that compiles them. No service has a set criteria for how you should rate a movie, it would take all the opinions and fun out of reviews and feel restraining. Enjoyment and preference is a crucial part of a film review. I say Revenge of the Sith is a 5-star movie. Is it really? No. I just love it blindly and embrace its flaws, and my review and rating should reflect that. The same goes for a movie I really hate. If every review was purely about the filmmaking, it would feel incomplete and not your true thoughts. If a movie feels bland and generic, it is purely because of what we've seen before. If someone enjoys reviewing and talking about movies, who are you to say they shouldn't critique it? It's completely normal during a movie to say in your head: "That wasn't a great line delivery and it keeps happening", or "Wow that was a beautiful scene". Determining how good a movie is during it is completely normal, there's now just a system to do it on. People love to share it with the world because many people around them don't always share the same level of passion for movies. They want to discuss their opinion with others and a big movie just widens the scope and opportunity. Letterboxd hasn't gamified anything, it just makes people more passionate about filmmaking, discovering new films, and people to discuss them with. Not everything's a competition, and nobody cares how many movies you see, just that you see what they love so that they can share their thoughts. This widespread discussion on what we love also helps us think about these things when watching a movie. This enhances the experience by having more to appreciate. It's also how we educate the next generation of the film industry, by having discussions and broadening horizons. Why do you care so much what other people think of your rating? Why do you feel the need to be such a conformist? No one's going to be so mad that your opinion of a movie differs so much from the average that it causes you harm or embarrassment in any way. If on the off chance that happens, there are features to stop it. There's always someone who agrees with you, that's how average ratings work. Plus you can always seek out these reviews if you feel like you need to feel validated. If you don't like it, you shouldn't be on the app and just review it on your notes app or something.
He does have a point, though. The problem is the very concept of numerically scoring something. Without predetermined criteria for what a particular score means, a score means absolutely nothing because one person's 2 is another person's 4. Undefined criteria for scoring defeats the purpose of the existence of scoring something in the first place. Unless you're just judging each review from a specific person in comparison to their specific reviews of other things, there's no point. The concept of using a quantitative measurement judge something heavily qualitative like a like a piece of art/entertainment is a fundamentally flawed concept. It's the wrong tool for the job, which is why only non-numerical scoring makes sense for such things, or better yet, actually gauge someone's opinions by expanding one's attention span long enough to actually read or listen to a person's thoughts and ideas about what they're reviewing.
Likewise, people inflating or devaluing their own scores based on the perceives consensus of others also defeats the point of the score. It's also weak minded NPC herd animal behavior. The point of a scoring system is to weigh each person's genuine thoughts. Giving something a score you wouldn't otherwise give it because you don't want to be seen as a contrarian or against popular opinion makes the score even more unreliable than it already is.
People think im a trolling contrarian when i post my real rating opinions hahaha
Fuck em
The problem is the concept of judging something qualitative with a quantitative measurement. Numerical ratings systems for art/entertainment is fundamentally flawed.
Also, the problems you describe are also partially a consequence of people putting too much weight on the opinions of others when forming your own thoughts. Overinflating or deflating your judgment of something based on "consensus" or only engaging with a piece of media to be a part of "the conversation" afterwards whether you're actually interested in the thing or not are stupid and weak minded.
I hate how a lot of RUclipsrs have decided it's cool to hold micros in the hand. What's that for? It's so distracting and cheugy. Get a tripod, folks, please!
I actually just bought one today 😂. It’ll be in the next video
Video too long, you’re wrong, blah blah blah, random RUclips comment, letterbox isn’t ruining anything except giving snobs a place to be snobs like with last fm or quite literally any other rating system ever
Imdb?
Internet Movie Data Base
Imdb is a website that lists movies and movie information like who worked on it and such. I find it quite useful. Because of how many movies I see, I probably go there more than any other website. I'm really good at following story, but I sometimes struggle with remembering names, so having IMDB up when I watch things at home helps, lol.
i normally just use the imdb rating if its a 7.5-7.9 then theres a good chance its one of those "underrated" films , something like gattaca sicario or children of men imo are FAR better than say good will hunting(possibly unpopular but oh well) as well as deadpoets society now of course im bias and but at least its a good basis and comedy ratings dont matter much as long as youre laughing unless its superbad then thats both
I don't care about the opinion of others. The rating on my Letterboxd is my rating. Do with that what you want. Or not.
this is such a weird take, everybody has their own taste
Is that a BlackBerry Torch?
bullshit