Upvoting on IMDB already - Justice League (2017) Discussion

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

It's marketing 101

reply

[–] lordbishop34 (1442) 6 years ago

Its just irritating. If you havn't watched it don't rate it at all. If you have don't give it a score it doesn't deserve because you want to "correct" the score. And IMDB should actively remove scores that they suspect may be from people associated with film or perhaps lock votes until the film opens.

reply

[–] mitzibishi (1623) 6 years ago

The real reason imdb boards were shut down. full of shills. Now Reddit has them

reply

[–] grindovermatter (380) 6 years ago

The REAL reason imdb boards were shut down. Full of small minded idiots throwing the "shill" gambit at anyone who dared to disagree with them.

reply

[–] mitzibishi (1623) 6 years ago

And it was actually rife with shills.

Case and point look at Reddit. Accounts are bought and sold.

reply

[–] grindovermatter (380) 6 years ago

and your proof of this is...?

reply

[–] TJLamb0518 (3316) 6 years ago

Easy. The dozens of posters who would either 1/10 or 10/10 a movie WEEKS before it was released just so they could influence the star rating. It was shown and ADMITTED to.

reply

[–] grindovermatter (380) 6 years ago

That's not proof of "shills," just overzealous fanboyism.

reply

[–] mitzibishi (1623) 6 years ago

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=reddit+accounts+sold&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=N0MfWuOhC6eBtgeBgaHgBA

People build up easy karma from reposting photos in r/funny for example and sell them off.

Marketing companies buy them or farm their own.

Same thing with imdb except you didnt have to build up karma. Its well known voting was bombarded but the infiltration on boards with PR shills was just as heavy for new films, not just super hero films like JL but new releases in general from big studios.

reply

[–] grindovermatter (380) 6 years ago

Allow me to reiterate; your proof that the IMDb Message Boards were full of "shills"?

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 6 years ago

"shills" were pretty easy to spot on indy films. "the best horror movie of all time"; "deep, intriguing" and "a masterpiece" were abundant on low budget movies.

I caught quite a few posting on IMDB.

reply

[–] TJLamb0518 (3316) 6 years ago

I'll assume you mean "PAID shills" since there's ample evidence of the slavish fanboy/internet troll kind.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

It's an indication of how bad it is that bots are used to sway the casual movie go'er.

It has a limited lifetime and will make IMDb be cast from most people's decision making processes once they all catch on.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

I don't personally know anyone who still takes the IMDB score as representative.

reply

[–] Satan2016 (23623) 6 years ago

Anyone with a clue noticed that days ago. Legit reviews started Wed.

IMDb now has the metascore of 49.

reply

[–] particles (37) 6 years ago

i dunno if this is offtopic, but i've seen it brought up before that rotten tomatoes score makes no sense, because they count a bad review as a 0, and a good review as 100.
based on this logic a 50 should be a fresh rating, but they arbitrarily picked 60
anyway that wouldn't help justice league's 39

but the rotten tomatoes rating system is just like IMDB users
if they hate a movie it's 0/10
if they love a movie it's 10/10
that's exactly how rotten tomatoes aggregates critics reviews, and i don't know how accurate it is compared to if they used actual values between 0 and 100
metacritic uses the most sensible system, but i don't know how they decide what number to assign the review... so maybe rotten tomatoes has value, as does IMDB

reply

[–] Nicko's Nose (1651) 6 years ago

Upvoting is not as bad as downvoting imo. If you give a movie 10/10 without seeing it you’re eventually gonna see it and maybe change your rating. If you give a movie 1/10 without seeing it you’re most likely never gonna see it and never change your rating.

reply

[–] lordbishop34 (1442) 6 years ago

There both equally bad, why would you give a film a 10/10 which is supposed to represent its quality if you have not seen it? It serves no other purpose, its the same reason a person gives it a 1/10 without seeing it, they are trying to manipulate the score.

While the IMDB score is weighted a certain way to help limit up and down voting it still effects the score in this case giving it a much higher score than it should probably have because of the amount of fake 10 scores.

reply

[–] Renovatio (2990) 6 years ago

Ratings are meaningless as to whether or not you'll enjoy a movie... It's also meaningless as to whether a movie is "good" or not...

At best, it's a superficial consumer reports style of thinking about movies, at worst it treats our greatest popular art form as if we're grading cement...

I watch low and average rated movies all the time... Some real gems there...

"Gaming" the ratings system is the least of it's problems... Rating have such a hold on people's minds that it has stunted how we think and talk about movies...

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 6 years ago

One of my favorite movies has a terrible score. Yet I see it as one of the best Sci-fi/Noir/Thriller movies done in decades [The Mothman Prophecies]. And the Soundtrack is really well made.

reply

[–] razerrunner (24) 6 years ago

Sure but Justice league truly sucked

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 6 years ago

I believe you

reply

[–] JohnnyUtahx (161) 6 years ago

It will balance out over the coming months. Same thing happened with Wonder Woman, it started out with like an 8.4, now it's down to around 7.6

reply

[–] lordbishop34 (1442) 6 years ago

I know, i just don't why people need to act like children. Its just a movie, see it and rate it honestly. Its dropped to 7.7 now and as it corrects itself it might hover around 7 maybe dip a little below since people seem to believe its better than BvS and SS.

reply

[–] ufc3548 (171) 6 years ago

I downvoted the female Ghostbusters as soon as it opened in theaters

reply

[–] lordbishop34 (1442) 6 years ago

Had you seen it when you voted?

reply

[–] ufc3548 (171) 6 years ago

I saw it months later for free on DVD and fast forwarded through about 80% of the movie. After seeing it I wish there was a way to change my initial one star to negative 100 stars, take a giant shit and mail it overnight to Sony.

reply

[–] lordbishop34 (1442) 6 years ago

I see, well I can understand you not liking it once you saw it, but why 1 star something you did not see yet? The ratings are for when you have seen the movie, to help others make a reasonable decision about seeing the film. Why give a fake score to manipulate a film's rating without seeing it?

reply

[–] ufc3548 (171) 6 years ago

Because if I can't take a shit and mail it to Sony without getting in trouble then I'll at least downvote it before I see it.

reply