MovieChat Forums > Generation Um... (2012) Discussion > Reasons for such a low rating?

Reasons for such a low rating?


Despite the fact that it doesn't have many views for a meaningful rating as of yet.... someone who has seen this film... would you care to share your opinions of weather you liked it or not... and why? I haven't seen it yet.

reply

one big reason why i hate this site - movies are rated by a simple click. No comments or thought or opinions. just faceless clicks...

reply

most people don't take the ratings seriously here once they see 1 highly anticipated movie that's not out yet and it's rated by 5,000+ people. they at least read the written reviews, look up meta-scores, or check rottentomatoes review as well. this site's too useful in many other ways to avoid because of a shoddy rating system

reply

It's simple, u don't like the movie, rate 1, movie somewhat interesting.. 5-8.. you loved the movie 9-10.

reply

yea it's very simple that's how I do it, not going to hold my breath and trust everyone else to though, better off ignoring the number rating entirely

reply

I used to rate movies like that when I was younger. 1 was for if it was bad and 10 if it was good. That's an unfair way to rate a movie on a site where people (like myself sometimes) use the rating system to get a sense of other's opinion on a movie.

_______
http://ThatWasJunk.com
http://www.PaPeopleProd.com

reply

It's actually the BEST way to rate movies. a 1 or 10 is basically a thumbs up or a thumbs down, where averages will tally to get an accurate measure of how many people liked it and how many didn't like it. If you are picking something in the middle, it muddles the results.

reply

No it isn't the best way because then it becomes exactly like RT. There are movies that are 100% on RT, doesn't mean they're the best movies ever, it just means everyone liked it. But everyone liking a movie doesn't tell you how much they liked it and whether it's just a good movie or it's the best movie of all-time.

A 10 star rating system would do a better job at telling you that if people actually rated intelligently. You don't rate something a 1 just because you didn't like it. There are plenty of movies I didn't like but it doesn't mean they all sucked the same. Some were just not that good, some were absolutely friggin aweful. Rating both of them a 1 is where ratings would get skewered. You have 10 stars for a reason, you should be making use of all of them. 1 should be one of the worst movies you've ever seen, 2~4 should range from terrible to below average, 5 should be average, 6 should be okay, 7 should be good, 8 should be great, 9 should be amazing and 10 should be one of the best you've ever seen. This is how I take advantage of this rating system and this is how people should be rating movies on here.

__________________________________________
I don't win, I don't eat.

reply

What about 2-4? And when it comes to rating a mediocre movie, I prefer using 5~6, since it's, you know, the middle of the scale... I just like to use the full 1~10 scale.

reply

What are you, an imdb noob? No one rates 2–4. Damn kids.

is.gd/icebergstorm

reply

xD

reply

10 - Loved it, an absolute favorite.
9 - Amazing
8 - Great
7 - Good
6 - Okay
5 - Meh
4 - Bad
3 - Very Bad
2 - Terrible
1 - Hate this film.

That is how I rate it anyway.


Signature.

reply

@ HamsterRecon: That's how everyone should. Unfortunately it's more like this;

10. Loved it, Amazing, Great

5-7. Good, Okay, meh

1 Bad, Very bad, terrible, hated this film.

reply

10 - Epic!

reply

[deleted]

it just let me rate "Dredd".

reply

Dredd has been released in the UK.

-
I was like an egg rolling through time until I was 21. Then the egg cracked and I popped out.

reply

alright Twilight Breaking Dawn 2 let me rate it, looks like it's not out anywhere unless i missed something

reply

[deleted]


True.
-
I was like an egg rolling through time until I was 21. Then the egg cracked and I popped out.

reply

Nope, It's out in the UK on the 7th September.

reply

[deleted]

I've seen REALLY bad movies before and I don't think I've ever rated a movie a 1. I think the lowest I've ever given a movie was a 2 and that was because it was made poorly, bad acting and the like. It seemed like it was made by college film seniors. I don't think a movie like this is so bad that it constitutes a 1. Sure the story may have sucked and didn't inspire you but was it a well made movie? A movies story, character and acting can suck but it can still be made well. Even if it's not made well I'm sure it's average at best.

_______
http://ThatWasJunk.com
http://www.PaPeopleProd.com

reply

Agree.
JOHN (Constantine ?) will not be forgiven for this movie...☺

reply

I appologize for necroposting, but I just can't pass by this. If you ever want to see a movie worth a "1" rating, watch "The Room" with Tommy Wiseau. It's great.

reply

Haha, you see, here lies a problem. The Room is REALLY REALLY bad BUT it's very entertaining at the least. So I'm often conflicted with a movie like that. It's not made well, or acted well and has a crap story, but it's entertaining even if it's entertaining for the wrong reasons. And that makes me want to give a movie like that a higher score.

_______
http://ThatWasJunk.com
http://www.PaPeopleProd.com

reply

i rated it 8, maybe cause i felt the current score was way too low though! lol

its defo worth a 6 imo. some great moments in it if your 20-30 and like to party. there are some very slow scenes and some very arty scenes.

it wasnt what i was expecting from the description but i enjoyed it and would reccomend it to my friends

reply

Are your 6 AND 7 AND 5 bugged, somehow?

reply

I think this logic is quite flawed. To rate a film higher (or lower) than you actually think it deserves to move the overall rating is a poor habit. I know you are free to rate however you like, but I appreciate those who give their honest assessment after watching the movie. That is the only drawback though: you have to sit through an entire crappy movie just to give it an honest low rating.

reply


Americans for the most part are dumb as a box of rocks


Woah. For a second there I thought I'd get through a whole evening of IMDB rants without any American bashing.

I'm a seeker too. But my dreams aren't like yours...

reply

You probably set your hopes too high then.

reply

[deleted]

Thanks, that's very specific.

reply

it's important to note that, mathematically speaking, the average is rating for 'Generation Um' is actually 5.1, it's just that imdb uses this stupid "weighted average" crap.

My name is Mike. His name is Bob

reply

Maybe I'm the only one, but I actualy prefer the weighted average. It helps ignore dumb fanboys/haters and general offsetters. Of course, to properly show the value of the movie, the rating needs more voters.

reply

I'm not sure I agree. There are plenty of trolls who will thumb a movie down (I know from films I've made where voters from countries it hasn't been released in have given a film '1')

My name is Mike. His name is Bob

reply

i gave this movie a 1...
because it deserves it...




'i have one thing to say, i can't give you advice if you don't write your hate mail in the form of a question...'

reply

HamsterRecon wrote:

10 - Loved it, an absolute favorite.
9 - Amazing
8 - Great
7 - Good
6 - Okay
5 - Meh
4 - Bad
3 - Very Bad
2 - Terrible
1 - Hate this film.

That is how I rate it anyway.


ProudTraitor wrote:

@ HamsterRecon: That's how everyone should. Unfortunately it's more like this;

10. Loved it, Amazing, Great

5-7. Good, Okay, meh

1 Bad, Very bad, terrible, hated this film.




...Err, they are exactly the same thing... Literally!


Anyway, I agree with HamsterRecon's voting system, that is pretty much how I vote also. The 3.7 score on this film is just preposterous, even by imdb standards it deserves at least a 5. I personally rate it at 7.5/10.



reply