It's an awful metric because it uses review scores which are subjective and increasingly as Hollywood turns out crap the standards have fallen. So now you have something that by any rights should be a 60% to Seven Samurai's 99 or 100% getting higher than it because the reviewers are tired, apathetic and just don't feel they can give everything a low grade year after year. It's like the MPAA rating system, it's not objective but based on the subjective cultural sensibilities and sensitivities of a tiny group of non-randomized people.
It also doesn't take into account that a great movie from 50 years ago (and generally only great movies or cult classics of some sort are going to be reviewed again decades after the fact, no one in the 2040s is going to be re-reviewing Ted 2 or Transformers 6 or whatever) has gotten a lot more retrospective reviews, including very critical ones from people who dislike it just to dislike it and be snobs and/or people with no taste.
You actually can get sort of accurate ratings from these systems but you have to pretty much exclude content from the last 20-25 years from results. At that point it starts looking a lot more sensible and that tells the whole story about the skew of recent stuff. When you've served reviewers mundane garbage for a couple decades, anything that really stands out and tries, even if it isn't a real masterpiece, gets praised as such.
When you’ve served reviewers mundane garbage for a couple decades, anything that really stands out and tries, even if it isn’t a real masterpiece, gets praised as such.
It's an awful metric because it uses review scores which are subjective and increasingly as Hollywood turns out crap the standards have fallen. So now you have something that by any rights should be a 60% to Seven Samurai's 99 or 100% getting higher than it because the reviewers are tired, apathetic and just don't feel they can give everything a low grade year after year. It's like the MPAA rating system, it's not objective but based on the subjective cultural sensibilities and sensitivities of a tiny group of non-randomized people.
It also doesn't take into account that a great movie from 50 years ago (and generally only great movies or cult classics of some sort are going to be reviewed again decades after the fact, no one in the 2040s is going to be re-reviewing Ted 2 or Transformers 6 or whatever) has gotten a lot more retrospective reviews, including very critical ones from people who dislike it just to dislike it and be snobs and/or people with no taste.
You actually can get sort of accurate ratings from these systems but you have to pretty much exclude content from the last 20-25 years from results. At that point it starts looking a lot more sensible and that tells the whole story about the skew of recent stuff. When you've served reviewers mundane garbage for a couple decades, anything that really stands out and tries, even if it isn't a real masterpiece, gets praised as such.
:i-do: