Baby Driver (Edgar Wright, 2017) Movie • Page 14

2030 Person: "Alexa, Netflix a movie I'll like."

Person on the internet: But it's still not a good system.

2030 Person: "I liked the movie."

Person on the internet: No one watches my review vlogs.

 

Me forever.

 

The options are trolling and genuinely not understanding despite three people spelling it out several times. Either way, don't see a reason to continue this exchange.

 

No, I understand: you said it's "not effective." We know you're wrong and have science that says it's very effective for all the stated goals, and that these systems are getting better all the time to where they'll one day be individually predictive. So, I don't know why you keep doubling down on this, but to do so you're ignoring all of the research and science and technology we have on this topic. You saying it's not "effective" is flying in the face of the big data science that says it is.

 

This is Jason when anyone disagrees with his opinion:



Except you gotta add more emojis and shitty cartoons.

 

Love how we've just decided data science and research and machine learning and experts looking at a subject and showing the results is an "opinion" now. Just love it. That change sure has bit us as a society in the ass.

 

Think some of you guys might want to let this one go...

 

Yeah, I'm done trying with that lol.

 

The arbitrary rating of film never bothered me anyway

 

It's funny, me neither! I never look at film ratings for anything haha.

 

And for those that wanna see where we're going (hint: reviewers are gonna get automated and become even more fringe), there's quite a few research papers on the Netflix Prize. Most are a little outdated now, but the ones from around 2007 are worth a read.

 

Rotten Tomatoes is a great resource. If anybody thinks 70% translates to a 7/10 then it's on them for misusing it. It's an aggregate, and if 80% of critics found something positive in the film, that gives me more incentive to watch it then if absolutely none did. Not assigning a numerical score to a movie is fine, but I don't often sit around reading a bunch of lengthy reviews on every movie I'm curious about, I appreciate the general consensus and because I'm not an idiot I know that consensus may not reflect my opinion - I also enjoy being able to read the concise blurbs from reviewers for a general idea and if I'm intrigued then I'll open it up and read said review. It's really not this big detriment to film and the aggregate shouldn't be blamed for people placing undue importance on it - I don't think RT asked anybody to make them their final say on a film's worth.

 

Just want to point out that these are two different points you've combined here.

 

I'm curious if you would you make the same argument for other things as well.

Let's take something like ... I dunno ... Mozart ... we can look at a piece of music Mozart wrote and say there's a quality to it that is different than how we respond to it and if we like or dislike it, right? Why do you think it's hooey if we do that with writing as well?

I dunno, I personally think this sounds a lot like "reader-response" criticism, which I think has some problems.

(I'm not commenting on the quality of the writing in SP specifically here, just saying as a whole that I think that saying something is "smart writing" can have a quality to it that is entirely divorced from someone's enjoyment and opinion on it. I can think of quite a few authors that I could apply this to, my personal opinion on the text being completely different than the actual quality of the writing.)

 

I'm trying really hard not to keep this going... But damn is it frustrating to see people act like they know better then the vast population. Don't be so arrogant to think that "i don't like this thing, therefore its not good" Just because you don't like the way rating systems work, doesn't mean they don't work.

Anyways, I'm stoked that Baby Driver seems to be getting great reviews, because its one of my most anticipated of the year.

Well said!!

 

This is exactly what I was trying to say. Thank you for putting it more clearly than I was!

 

That is exactly what you did with the "smart writing" discussion.

 

No that's exactly the point I was making with the smart writing thing. The dude was saying he didn't like it, and that it didn't have smart writing. I was saying that just because he didn't like the writing, doesn't mean it isn't smart.

 

But we aren't? We aren't saying we know better or that the population is wrong. We are discussing our opinions on what reviews should be for and it's actually not us being the arrogant ones. The issue here is we do not think the method of reviewing in context here is the most effective way of expressing the quality of a film.
Also yes, if we don't like how something works for us then it doesn't work for us. That's exactly what an opinion is.

 

"Smart writing" is subjective. You tried to tell people their opinion was factually wrong.

 

Smart writing is not subjective.

 

Of course it is. Whether or not something or someone is smart is debated all the time. Any time you are talking about the qualities of something, it is subjective. If you were talking about Scott Pilgrim in objective terms, you could talk about the running time, the aspect ratio, the people who worked on the movie, how much money it made, and so on.

 

If smart writing is objective then is funny? Tense? Exciting? Good? Bad? If not, what differentiates smart from those other terms?