Before I begin I want to make a few things clear-
1. This is not about the quality of the movies. I am sure both Rangitaranga and Uppi-2 are amazing movies. I haven't watched either, so I am not in a position to comment about the artistic value value of the movie.
2. This is not a move to defame any language, movie, artist or your beliefs. This is purely a comment on the skewed perspective of the IMDB rating of a movie.
3. This does not question the integrity of IMDB ratings, simply because it is impossible to accurately identify the metrics IMDB uses to rate a movie. Someone who is good at math will be able to explain it better. For more information about it, see here.
It is impossible to measure the success of a creative pursuit because there are no standard units that can accurately gauge the quality of art. It's like measuring the straightness of a line in a world without scales. The only measure of success in such a world would be the popularity of one particular type of line. Then again, popularity does not necessarily mean quality. 50 Shades trilogy is one such example where a piece of crap is extremely popular.
Any metric that used in an attempt to define the success of a movie (the art from in this case) is based on the measure of popularity of the movie. This has been going on for decades now.
Back when theaters were few, a films' success was measured based on how many weeks it was played for. This seemed reasonable at the time. If a movie is popular, people will watch the movie, sometimes more than once. You can keep airing the movie in a theater as long as the theater does good business. If a movie played for 25 weeks in any theater- usually an obscure theater, it was still brandished as a movie that played for 25 weeks. It's like telling people you work in IBM, even if you are just a janitor at the company. It's honest work, you DO work at IBM, but it's not what people perceive it to be. To them IBM is IBM. There are a few exceptions where movies ran for months on end in a main theater, but those examples are few and far beyond.
This weekly system gave way to a measure of days.This was when single screen theaters were still the norm. Same logic as before. 100 came down to 75, came down to 25 and there have been movies which proudly showcased 10 days of successful shows.
This "days" measure was challenged when the multiplexes cropped up. I remember reading an article in the mid 2000's where the author had questioned the integrity of measuring a movie's success by the number of days it ran, because multiplexes allowed for an increase in the number of screenings a movie had over a short period of time.
We adapted, and started associating film revenue with the film's success. Makes sense- people who watch the movie should pay for it. More people watch the movie= more tickets sold= more revenue generated. This was before piracy began eating into the film's profits. This trend still continues to be the only metric to gauge the worthiness of a movie. 100 crore movie? Must be pretty darn good. If you thought peer pressure is a teenage fixation, you though wrong.
The rising trend- which was pioneered by us Sandalwoodians is to assign IMDB ratings to ascertain the credibility of a movie.
It is true that IMDB gives us a credible, real time and transparent measure of the popularity of a movie within a particular demographic. That is the key here.
Look, although IMDB uses weighted average, it does not seem to work for smaller numbers.Besides, IMDB ratings only depend on the people who vote on the site. I have not voted on IMDB. Ever. Pretty sure there are many who haven't either. So, the ratings on IMDB are biased. For good or bad.
Rotten Tomatoes (which many people consider to be better than IMDB in terms of interface and honesty in rating) which works on a similar premise. Nobody is talking about that.
In an ideal world, IMDB ratings should reflect the popularity and the quality of a movie. This is not an ideal world. This is a fucked up world where people are assholes to each other, because jealousy.
Using IMDB ratings to credit the quality of a movie is as fucked up as using the final exam marks to gauge the intelligence of a student.There are a lot of people who sucked at school, but were geniuses. There are a lot of first rankers, who are nothing more than human mugg machines. And it doesn't even take into account the brilliant ones who didn't have the good fortune of attending school.
(Put your pitch forks away for a minute, and read till the end)
What I am trying to say is that, like the marks card, IMDB ratings do not accurately represent the quality of a movie, but it's the best gauge we have. It's a shitty gauge, nevertheless and we should do away with it completely.
I believe we should stick to the old ways of word of mouth- or constant status updates on fb, whatever oils your machines. By actively talking about a movie you have watched, you participate in promoting the movie.
Forget IMDB ratings. Forget newspaper reviews. How a movie affects you is the only thing that matters. You are an amalgamation of the people you associate with. Your friends are the ones with whom you share similar interests in art and culture. When you spread the word about a movie your main audience are your close aids. They will then spread the word about said movie. This chain reaction will grow. This is a far more effective gauge of the credibility of a movie than anything else.
When you think about it, this is how modern cult classics like Lucia, Ulidavaru Kandante and Gombegala Love gained popularity. Of course, this method will have to be replaced in a few years, when the film industry embraces Digital Marketing as a viable marketing platform- which is basically a polite way of saying that they will learn to manipulate the system. They always find a way around it. But until then, trending topics are our best bet to find unbiased recommendations for a movie.
Note: Manipulating the system for greater marketing gains is nothing new. It's been done time and again and is prevalent in ALL industries. Pick up any book by Ryan Holiday for more information on how this is done.
Note 2: Again, this has nothing to do with the movies, the quality of a movie or the industry. This is all about using a fake metric to give something fake credibility. This seems like a good idea in particular cases, like right now where you want to promote deserving movies. But over time, this will become the standard practice in forcibly pushing down shit down our throats.
1. This is not about the quality of the movies. I am sure both Rangitaranga and Uppi-2 are amazing movies. I haven't watched either, so I am not in a position to comment about the artistic value value of the movie.
2. This is not a move to defame any language, movie, artist or your beliefs. This is purely a comment on the skewed perspective of the IMDB rating of a movie.
3. This does not question the integrity of IMDB ratings, simply because it is impossible to accurately identify the metrics IMDB uses to rate a movie. Someone who is good at math will be able to explain it better. For more information about it, see here.
It is impossible to measure the success of a creative pursuit because there are no standard units that can accurately gauge the quality of art. It's like measuring the straightness of a line in a world without scales. The only measure of success in such a world would be the popularity of one particular type of line. Then again, popularity does not necessarily mean quality. 50 Shades trilogy is one such example where a piece of crap is extremely popular.
Any metric that used in an attempt to define the success of a movie (the art from in this case) is based on the measure of popularity of the movie. This has been going on for decades now.
Back when theaters were few, a films' success was measured based on how many weeks it was played for. This seemed reasonable at the time. If a movie is popular, people will watch the movie, sometimes more than once. You can keep airing the movie in a theater as long as the theater does good business. If a movie played for 25 weeks in any theater- usually an obscure theater, it was still brandished as a movie that played for 25 weeks. It's like telling people you work in IBM, even if you are just a janitor at the company. It's honest work, you DO work at IBM, but it's not what people perceive it to be. To them IBM is IBM. There are a few exceptions where movies ran for months on end in a main theater, but those examples are few and far beyond.
This weekly system gave way to a measure of days.This was when single screen theaters were still the norm. Same logic as before. 100 came down to 75, came down to 25 and there have been movies which proudly showcased 10 days of successful shows.
This "days" measure was challenged when the multiplexes cropped up. I remember reading an article in the mid 2000's where the author had questioned the integrity of measuring a movie's success by the number of days it ran, because multiplexes allowed for an increase in the number of screenings a movie had over a short period of time.
We adapted, and started associating film revenue with the film's success. Makes sense- people who watch the movie should pay for it. More people watch the movie= more tickets sold= more revenue generated. This was before piracy began eating into the film's profits. This trend still continues to be the only metric to gauge the worthiness of a movie. 100 crore movie? Must be pretty darn good. If you thought peer pressure is a teenage fixation, you though wrong.
The rising trend- which was pioneered by us Sandalwoodians is to assign IMDB ratings to ascertain the credibility of a movie.
It is true that IMDB gives us a credible, real time and transparent measure of the popularity of a movie within a particular demographic. That is the key here.
Look, although IMDB uses weighted average, it does not seem to work for smaller numbers.Besides, IMDB ratings only depend on the people who vote on the site. I have not voted on IMDB. Ever. Pretty sure there are many who haven't either. So, the ratings on IMDB are biased. For good or bad.
Rotten Tomatoes (which many people consider to be better than IMDB in terms of interface and honesty in rating) which works on a similar premise. Nobody is talking about that.
In an ideal world, IMDB ratings should reflect the popularity and the quality of a movie. This is not an ideal world. This is a fucked up world where people are assholes to each other, because jealousy.
Using IMDB ratings to credit the quality of a movie is as fucked up as using the final exam marks to gauge the intelligence of a student.There are a lot of people who sucked at school, but were geniuses. There are a lot of first rankers, who are nothing more than human mugg machines. And it doesn't even take into account the brilliant ones who didn't have the good fortune of attending school.
(Put your pitch forks away for a minute, and read till the end)
What I am trying to say is that, like the marks card, IMDB ratings do not accurately represent the quality of a movie, but it's the best gauge we have. It's a shitty gauge, nevertheless and we should do away with it completely.
I believe we should stick to the old ways of word of mouth- or constant status updates on fb, whatever oils your machines. By actively talking about a movie you have watched, you participate in promoting the movie.
Forget IMDB ratings. Forget newspaper reviews. How a movie affects you is the only thing that matters. You are an amalgamation of the people you associate with. Your friends are the ones with whom you share similar interests in art and culture. When you spread the word about a movie your main audience are your close aids. They will then spread the word about said movie. This chain reaction will grow. This is a far more effective gauge of the credibility of a movie than anything else.
When you think about it, this is how modern cult classics like Lucia, Ulidavaru Kandante and Gombegala Love gained popularity. Of course, this method will have to be replaced in a few years, when the film industry embraces Digital Marketing as a viable marketing platform- which is basically a polite way of saying that they will learn to manipulate the system. They always find a way around it. But until then, trending topics are our best bet to find unbiased recommendations for a movie.
Note: Manipulating the system for greater marketing gains is nothing new. It's been done time and again and is prevalent in ALL industries. Pick up any book by Ryan Holiday for more information on how this is done.
Note 2: Again, this has nothing to do with the movies, the quality of a movie or the industry. This is all about using a fake metric to give something fake credibility. This seems like a good idea in particular cases, like right now where you want to promote deserving movies. But over time, this will become the standard practice in forcibly pushing down shit down our throats.
Comments
Post a Comment