Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[MCMLXXXII]

Tbf I trust critic score more then audience score. However I don't watch scores much at all or reviews for that matter. I'll just form my own opinion about something.
There is a lot of criticism that's true for RoP. But people saying it's 1/10 are really review bombing, same goes for the 10/10. I'll give it a 6/10, 7/10 if I'm generous. Is it one of the best series ever made? Not even close.
Is it the best Tolkien adaptation? No its just slightly under the Hobbit.
Is it the worst thing ever on television? Nah, it's not a CW show.

[Specialka]

In other words you have no argument and instead turn to insulting. You indicate that you were lying as you have a clear truth on something being good or bad.

Again, you not being able to understand what I said does not mean I have no argument.

[Triceron]

Then why are you and others using User Reviews to determine if this show is good or not?

I'm not using them to determine good or bad anything. I've been adamant to say that quality of the show is based on the individual's subjective opinions. Why are you jumping to this conclusion if you aren't actually following my arguments?

If someone presents the idea that the show is generally favourable because of Critic reviews, then I'm pointing at user reviews as a contrast to that point. I'm not using it to determine anything, I'm debunking the idea that the evidence for the show being favourable is somehow inherrently true just because of critic reviews. That's not a great metric for how receptive this show has been overall.

That being said, User Reviews aren't fool-proof either, but it's not something to be ignored in favour of Critic reviews. I personally don't use it as a metric for anything, since I think the entire way shows are reviewed is ultimately flawed. I'm simply pointing out that there is plenty of evidence to show that the show's reception is mixed at best.

Your example of Bill Cosby is that such. His performances do not change just because he was found out to be a bad person, right? So if his show was good back then wouldn't it be good now?

It impacts people's enjoyment of the material. And that is a real and tangible thing when we're talking about something that is ultimately subjective. It's not so simple to distance the art from the artist always. Ideally, we could all be ideal critics who distance the art from the artist and pretend that it doesn't affect enjoyment of the shows, but that's simply not true. I'll even say that I personally distance Art from the Artist in a way that I still am capable of enjoying Michael Jackson's music no matter how the public wishes to perceive him, but I don't think this is true across the table especially when cancel culture is so apparant in today's world. I'm not a part of it, but I recognize it exists, and it's becoming more and more influential to the point where they're literally defining what should be good and what shouldn't be.

That's the whole point of my argument here. Democracy is a fallible metric for determining 'Good'.

[rhorle]

I'm not using them to determine good or bad anything...

...then I'm pointing at user reviews as a contrast to that point...

And yet you are and have in the past. Others have and you have brought up or defend the use of user reviews as a counter. If they are meaningless then they can't counter anything. Because they have no value to add or subtract.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, you not being able to understand what I said does not mean I have no argument.

Yet you continually fail to make an argument in favor of insults. Strange, right? You say there are no truths while at the same time saying something is idiotic because it doesn't agree with "your truth"? Strange right? If 100 million people watch a show it is objectively good regardless of your viewpoint. Why? Because that will be seen as a success by the broadcaster. It will be seen as good by both a large audience and the network making money off of that audience.

Yet you call that idiotic and have no argument to back it up.

[Fortress of Arrogance]

Tbf I trust critic score more then audience score.

Why?
Critics can(and are being) be bought, along with "their" "opinions"
Audiences can(and are most often) biased one way or another.
I think choosing between sellout and bias is a no-brainer.

[Triceron]

And yet you are and have in the past. Others have and you have brought up or defend the use of user reviews as a counter. If they are meaningless then they can't counter anything. Because they have no value to add or subtract.

I didn't say they're meaningless, I simply said they aren't metrics for determining something to be good or bad.

I'm illustrating the point that there are many people who are voicing that they are unsatisfied by the show and are giving it low review scores legitimately. This is in direct reply to people who are merely dismissing any and all low reviews as 'Review bombing 1/10'.

You're taking this out of context to imply that I'm propping them up as ideal metrics for the show, and that's just fucking bullshit that you're inventing for the sake of arguing. Like I said, why don't you actually take time to read the argument instead of inventing one.

Yet you continually fail to make an argument in favor of insults.

Are you going to conveniently forget that you labelled me as a Galadriel Hater when you had had zero reason to even jump to this conclusion? It's funny how you're quick to attack and insult just as well.

[Fortress of Arrogance]

That's the whole point of my argument here. Democracy is a fallible metric for determining 'Good'.

Don't say such things (c)
It's been well-established that The Democracy is The Ultimate virtue, The absolute truth, The undeniable value of the west.

[Specialka]

And yet you are and have in the past. Others have and you have brought up or defend the use of user reviews as a counter. If they are meaningless then they can't counter anything. Because they have no value to add or subtract.

- - - Updated - - -



Yet you continually fail to make an argument in favor of insults. Strange, right? You say there are no truths while at the same time saying something is idiotic because it doesn't agree with "your truth"? Strange right? If 100 million people watch a show it is objectively good regardless of your viewpoint. Why? Because that will be seen as a success by the broadcaster. It will be seen as good by both a large audience and the network making money off of that audience.

Yet you call that idiotic and have no argument to back it up.

If only it was that simple. See ? You can't understand what I am saying. Something making money or being "successful" business wise is not automatically "good".

[rhorle]

I didn't say they're meaningless, I simply said they aren't metrics for determining something to be good or bad.

Which means they have no meaning. Ratings are solely there to determine if something is good or bad. If they can't do what they exist for then they have no meaning. Lmao.

- - - Updated - - -

If only it was that simple. See ? You can't understand what I am saying. Something making money or being "successful" business wise is not automatically "good".

Isn't it? What is the purpose of entertainment if not to entertain? Wouldn't 100 million being entertained be a good thing? Wouldn't a return on investment be a good thing? It enables more entertainment to be created. The view you are trying to push is often of those unwilling to accept that something that don't like is seen as good by others. Yet instead of putting forth an argument you still turn to insults of ability to understand.

[Specialka]

Which means they have no meaning. Ratings are solely there to determine if something is good or bad. If they can't do what they exist for then they have no meaning. Lmao.

- - - Updated - - -



Isn't it? What is the purpose of entertainment if not to entertain? Wouldn't 100 million being entertained be a good thing? Wouldn't a return on investment be a good thing? It enables more entertainment to be created. The view you are trying to push is often of those unwilling to accept that something that don't like is seen as good by others. Yet instead of putting forth an argument you still turn to insults of ability to understand.

That is a pure capitalist view on things (not surprising from someone I guess is American) but sorry, not everyone thinks as you do. There is something more beyond that.

[Triceron]

Which means they have no meaning. Ratings are solely there to determine if something is good or bad. If they can't do what they exist for then they have no meaning. Lmao.

And I'm not putting any value on the ratings themselves. The numbers are meaningless to me.

I've consistently said look at the written reviews people are posting, particular the ones that are being rated low. The written reviews will give much more clarified insight than the number rating people give. That's how to determine something isn't just a simple review bomb.

I've been pretty clear that I don't stand behind the numbers, I'm merely pointing out that there's more to it than simply a group that should be conveniently ignored for the sake of defending the show. It's not a bad show, but it's not exactly good either. It's mediocre and middling at best, and with people swayed on either side in either liking or not liking it for what it is. For the amount of money they put into this show, there's no excuse for the story and writing to be so much worse than a comparable show that's out there on the market right now, like House of Dragons. And yes, you can argue semantics of 'worse' all you want, but I'm using the term in relative to the general concensus that has spoken out about comparisons of the shows, most of whom say House of Dragons is the superior product. I haven't even started watching HoD yet and I'm literally talking about what's already out there talking about these two shows, critics and users alike.

It's not a matter of whether RoP is a good or bad show. It's a matter of pointing out that the product we have is flawed, and there are expectations that it should be better than what it is. That's why I'm pointing out that there are user reviews that legitimately comment on this that aren't merely '1/10 This show sUx' review bombs. There are people here who are literally arguing that any and all user reviews should be ignored on the basis of 'a few bad eggs spoil the bunch', and I think that's a flawed argument.

[MCMLXXXII]

Why?
Critics can(and are being) be bought, along with "their" "opinions"
Audiences can(and are most often) biased one way or another.
I think choosing between sellout and bias is a no-brainer.

Critics of the bigger news outlets tend to be pretty neutral. But as said in the rest of that quote which you left, I rather form my own opinion.

Most of audience scores tend to be influenced by youtubers who edit clips from the subject and screech: see how bad it is?
Negativity sells, so I tend to stay away from that.

[rhorle]

That is a pure capitalist view on things (not surprising from someone I guess is American) but sorry, not everyone thinks as you do. There is something more beyond that.

So you have no argument and now deflect into nationality? There is no definition of good or bad that will fit whatever strange use you are using. Because good or bad are measurements of the subject. If something being a success and well loved by millions is not a good measurement then there is nothing that will ever be good. Which boils down to only your viewpoint ever being good or bad and any argument you've made objectively pointless as it isn't based on reason.

- - - Updated - - -

I've consistently said look at the reviews people are writing, particular the ones that are being rated low. The reviews themselves will give much more clarified insight than the actual number people give. That's how to determine something isn't just a simple review bomb.

So you are not putting value on things but low ratings and reviews hold value to determine if something is good or bad? Lmao.

[Specialka]

So you have no argument and now deflect into nationality? There is no definition of good or bad that will fit whatever strange use you are using. Because good or bad are measurements of the subject. If something being success and well loved by millions is not a good measurement then there is nothing that will ever be good. Which boils down to only your viewpoint ever being good or bad and any argument you've made objectively pointless.

What ? I specified your nationality because Americans tend to have to total capitalistic view on everything a.k.a if it makes money, it is good, as you demonstrated earlier. But no sorry, that is not how I view things. Or do you think the last Star Wars trilogy was good (despite being a success money-wise) ?

[Fortress of Arrogance]

Critics of the bigger news outlets tend to be pretty neutral. But as said in the rest of that quote which you left, I rather form my own opinion.

Most of audience scores tend to be influenced by youtubers who edit clips from the subject and screech: see how bad it is?
Negativity sells, so I tend to stay away from that.

We are in agreement, then.
The difference is I tend to form my views myself, and then use whatever scores I see fit to enforcer my views

[Triceron]

So you are not putting value on things but low ratings and reviews hold value to determine if something is good or bad? Lmao.

The only one implying anything would determine good or bad is you, so you're literally arguing with yourself and projecting this back on to me for some odd reason.

Point to one place where I said where it would determine the show is good or bad. You can't, because I never even implied this.

Stop being delusional.

[rhorle]

What ? I specified your nationality because Americans tend to have to total capitalistic view on everything a.k.a if it makes money, it is good, as you demonstrated earlier. But no sorry, that is not how I view things. Or do you think the last Star Wars trilogy was good (despite being a success money-wise) ?

Again you indicate that nothing can ever be good or bad if things can't be measured. It is a meaningless designation that is applied only based on if you like something or not. Things you don't like are always bad. Things you like are always good. That isn't an opinion based on an reasoning at all. It has nothing to do with being Capitalistic, American, or any other thing you want to bring up to deflect.

- - - Updated - - -

The only one implying anything would determine good or bad is you, so you're literally arguing with yourself and projecting this back on to me for some odd reason.

So what is the value of a review if not to determine if something is good or bad? Lmao.

[Triceron]

So what is the value of a review if not to determine if something is good or bad? Lmao.

You don't find there being any value to expressing an opinion of a show unless it's only about determining it to be good or bad?

I mean, are you really that delusional? I thought you were here to discuss good, in depth discussion. Do you somehow think that all boils down to merely determining a show to be good or bad? You fucked your own argument with some blatantly ignorant nonsense here.

[rhorle]

You don't find there being any value to expressing an opinion of a show unless it's only about determining it to be good or bad?

Isn't the value in that it is indicating if the show is good or bad? What other value would it have?

[eschatological]

Why?
Critics can(and are being) be bought, along with "their" "opinions"
Audiences can(and are most often) biased one way or another.
I think choosing between sellout and bias is a no-brainer.

Again, there is no proof of this, and is just something paranoid conspiracy theorists say.

Do some studios try and limit access if you give bad reviews? Maybe, but that's not being bought and paid for - and once you get big enough that studios can't ignore you, you don't need to care about what the studio thinks. Whoever reviews movies for the NY Times doesn't give a shit about the ad buys the movie has made in their paper.

It's kind of like distrusting scientists as "stooges" during the pandemic. It's a disturbing trend among....well, easily duped rubes...who think all authority is suspect.