Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Triceron]

It's probably worth starting another thread entirely to rant about the credibility (or lack thereof) of review scores.

I mean it might as well be this one considering how there's literally nothing noteworthy in the plot to talk about :P

[kenn9530]

Even the Expanse which I loved (especially the 3 first seasons), I would give 8/10 (because no show is perfect). 10/10 or 9/10 is nonsensical.

There is plenty ppl that dont care in the slightest about anything they just want to chill and watch something, most ppl dont care about the worlds lore or acting or stories/plots, if you really like a show then you can give it a 10/10 regardless of issues that may or may not be present. If you hate the show thats fine but anything less than a 3-4/10 is just a troll review in reality.

If a tv series like stargate becomes your favourite show then you can easily give it a 10/10 regardless of its possible many issues because enjoyment trumps anything bad about it.

[Triceron]

There is plenty ppl that dont care in the slightest about anything they just want to chill and watch something, most ppl dont care about the worlds lore or acting or stories/plots, if you really like a show then you can give it a 10/10 regardless of issues that may or may not be present. If you hate the show thats fine but anything less than a 3-4/10 is just a troll review in reality.

If a tv series like stargate becomes your favourite show then you can easily give it a 10/10 regardless of its possible many issues because enjoyment trumps anything bad about it.

You're not using a full 'out of 10' scale if you're disregarding the last two digits entirely.

[Biomega]

If doesnt work the other way around, ppl can like the show as it is with no problems at all, but to claim a show is a 1/10 is completely false because everything about the show is nowhere near 1/10.

I could quite happily rate the whole stargate series a 10/10 with no issues because i like it regardless of any issues it might have.

If you think 10/10 could be a legit rating for this show, you have to think that 1/10 could be, too.

If you don't, that's called bias. You're deliberately skewing the data based on personal preconceptions.

A 1-10 point scale is not a binary like/dislike system. "I give it 10/10 because I like it" is gross misuse of the scale - but even if you were to misuse it like that, it would be just as legitimate as "I give it 1/10 because I DON'T like it". If you claim that one is always legit while the other always isn't, that's bias.

If you want to sanitize extremes, fine - but if you do it selectively, that's a problem.

[kenn9530]

You're not using a full 'out of 10' scale if you're disregarding the last two digits entirely.

And if you are giving a show thats clearly not a 1-2/10 that sort of rating your personal integrity is lacking because you cant give an honest judgement because of personal bias, no show/film is ever liked by everyone, there is always going to be someone that hates it for no good reason.

- - - Updated - - -

If you think 10/10 could be a legit rating for this show, you have to think that 1/10 could be, too.

If you don't, that's called bias. You're deliberately skewing the data based on personal preconceptions.

A 1-10 point scale is not a binary like/dislike system. "I give it 10/10 because I like it" is gross misuse of the scale - but even if you were to misuse it like that, it would be just as legitimate as "I give it 1/10 because I DON'T like it". If you claim that one is always legit while the other always isn't, that's bias.

If you want to sanitize extremes, fine - but if you do it selectively, that's a problem.

A 1/10 rating is never a real rating, there is virtually no situation where something deserves that low a rating no matter how bad you think a show is. Thats not bias thats simple logic of actually watching the show, if you believe otherwise you are just lying to yourself and thats the plain simple truth. You have nothing to back you up at all.

A 1/10 rating is done only for spite because you got upset about something, it has nothing to do with anything else about the show.

[Triceron]

And if you are giving a show thats clearly not a 1-2/10

Aren't we clear that these numbers are purely subjective to the individual? You also said it's fine for someone who really likes a show to give a 10/10, even if it clearly doesn't deserve a 10/10, right?

Why the double standard if someone really doesn't like a show and chooses to give it a low score? They have to settle with a 3 or 4 instead?

Like, Battlefield Earth is one of the worst movies I've ever seen or came across in my lifetime, and I would easily put it at a 1/10 score on a personal level because of how much I don't like that movie. You're saying that it should actually be a 3/10 instead, why? Because no movie deserves to be 1 or 2?

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/battlefield_earth

3% critic rating, 12% audience rating. And you think this should automatically be a 3/10, 30% fresh rating?


Like I said, you're not using a full 'out of 10' scale if this is the logic you're implying.

[Biomega]

A 1/10 rating is never a real rating, there is virtually no situation where something deserves that low a rating no matter how bad you think a show is.

If that's your position, the reverse HAS to be true, too - that 10/10 is never a real rating, because no matter how good you think a show is it can't deserve a perfect rating.

If you think that 1/10 can never exist, but 10/10 totally can, then you're biased. Plain and simple.

Thats not bias thats simple logic of actually watching the show

By that exact same token, 10/10 must be equally impossible, for the same reason.

A 1/10 rating is done only for spite because you got upset about something, it has nothing to do with anything else about the show.

And a 10/10 rating is done only for blind adoration because you're oblivious to the shows mistakes, it has nothing to do with anything objective about the show.

QED, really.

[Shadowferal]

Even the Expanse which I loved (especially the 3 first seasons), I would give 8/10 (because no show is perfect). 10/10 or 9/10 is nonsensical.

As said earlier, if it agrees with his opinion it's valid. If it doesn't agree with his opinion it's invalid.
Logic was never his forte.

[kenn9530]

Aren't we clear that these numbers are purely subjective to the individual? You also said it's fine for someone who really likes a show to give a 10/10, even if it clearly doesn't deserve a 10/10, right?

Why the double standard if someone really doesn't like a show and chooses to give it a low score? They have to settle with a 3 or 4 instead?

Like, Battlefield Earth is one of the worst movies I've ever seen or came across in my lifetime, and I would easily put it at a 1/10 score on a personal level because of how much I don't like that movie. You're saying that it should actually be a 3/10 instead, why? Because no movie deserves to be 1 or 2?

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/battlefield_earth

3% critic rating, 12% audience rating. And you think this should automatically be a 3/10, 30% fresh rating?


Like I said, you're not using a full 'out of 10' scale if this is the logic you're implying.

The numbers are not subjective, you cant just claim a show is a 1/10 when you can clearly see it isnt, that is just a completely biased BS review, there is an odd cases for things that are actually bad and those are fairly rare especially these days, but RoP is nowhere near a bad show.

[Triceron]

The numbers are not subjective, you cant just claim a show is a 1/10 when you can clearly see it isnt, that is just a completely biased BS review, there is an odd cases for things that are actually bad and those are fairly rare especially these days, but RoP is nowhere near a bad show.

The numbers are subjective. You literally said you're okay with handing out 10/10's if you really like a show, regardless of its flaws. Is that just BS then?

And what do you mean 'clearly see it isn't'? If you can give an example of a 10/10 show that clearly doesn't deserve 10/10 because it does have flaws, then give some examples of the worst movie/show you ever seen and why it doesn't deserve a 1/10.

[kenn9530]

If that's your position, the reverse HAS to be true, too - that 10/10 is never a real rating, because no matter how good you think a show is it can't deserve a perfect rating.

If you think that 1/10 can never exist, but 10/10 totally can, then you're biased. Plain and simple.

That is not the case, most ppl can just completely enjoy something without any issues whatsoever, that is not bias its simple logic where many ppl just enjoy things as they are with no expectations or anything. All the things you say you hate about the tv show can be purely subjective and many can like everything about all the things you hate about it.

You however cant just claim a show is bad based on your own hate, if you gave an honest review noone would rate RoP a 1-2/10, but most ppl on the internet are far from honest about thier intentions.

You are never going to win this argument so you are better just accepting that, the show has been proven without any doubt its a good show and that isnt going to change.

[hulkgor]

This whole 1/10 \ 10/10 argument is just silly, and it's been for the past couple of pages.

People really need to look up what 'subjective' or 'opinion' means.

Personally, i very easily give 10s for stuff i really enjoy, even with some flaws, whereas i don't think i've ever given anything lower than a 3 or 4 for something i didn't like. Particular aspects of the media or its performers can redeem itself a couple of points. Music, CGI, acting, particular quote, the main idea even if not properly implemented, etc etc etc.

So yea, there's that. Everyone has their way of rating. *shocker*, i know.

[kenn9530]

The numbers are subjective. You literally said you're okay with handing out 10/10's if you really like a show, regardless of its flaws. Is that just BS then?

And what do you mean 'clearly see it isn't'? If you can give an example of a 10/10 show that clearly doesn't deserve 10/10 because it does have flaws, then give some examples of the worst movie/show you ever seen and why it doesn't deserve a 1/10.

To me there is nothing wrong with RoP so i could happily give it a 10/10, i wouldnt give any show regardless of how bad it is a 1/10 though, anything i would want to watch more than once i would consider giving a 10/10 because wanting to watch it more than a few times makes it worthy.

Subjective flaws mean very little if you enjoy it anyway.

If you are being honest with yourself you know the show is at the very least a good show, the hate its getting is because they wanted tolkien and since he is dead that was never going to happen anyway.

[Syegfryed]

Critics give a fair assesment without bias

ayyyyyyyy lmao

[Biomega]

That is not the case, most ppl can just completely enjoy something without any issues whatsoever

And people can take irredeemable issue with something, too.

To say one is possible but the other is not, that's basically a textbook definition of bias.

All the things you say you hate about the tv show can be purely subjective and many can like everything about all the things you hate about it.

And... vice versa.

This goes in both directions.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and going "nuh-uh, it only works for the positives!" is not a position, it's a temper tantrum.

[Rennadrel]

That is not the case, most ppl can just completely enjoy something without any issues whatsoever, that is not bias its simple logic where many ppl just enjoy things as they are with no expectations or anything. All the things you say you hate about the tv show can be purely subjective and many can like everything about all the things you hate about it.

You however cant just claim a show is bad based on your own hate, if you gave an honest review noone would rate RoP a 1-2/10, but most ppl on the internet are far from honest about thier intentions.

You are never going to win this argument so you are better just accepting that, the show has been proven without any doubt its a good show and that isnt going to change.

Considering you are an apologist for a broken and garbage mess like Star Citizen, it comes as no surprise that you are also an apologist for this piss ass excuse for an attempt at doing something with Tolkien's work. Here's a thought though. People are allowed to criticize something, especially something that horribly misrepresents characters in existing works. The only thing this show has going for it is pretty visuals and passable music, everything else about it is garbage.

[eschatological]

There is a well known phenomenom in rating things called grading on a curve. It's been especially prevalent in video games, where less than an 8 can be considered a failure for a game. Being a 5/10 game is virtually unheard of - no one would probably be reviewing the shovelware games that would earn those scores. This has become so problematic that sequels have been approved based on their metacritic rating - with anything below an 8/10 or an 80 out of 100 isn't really worthy of it, business wise. 7 out of 10 is pretty much the lowest acceptable "standard" in that industry.

This happens all the time...because of fandom. This is a well-known sociological thing.

In reality, there are very few 10/10s. But people will have a wide swath of 10/10s in their personal opinion. I know someone who says Bloodbourne is a 10/10 video game. Is this true? Is it perfect? Maybe there's some minor bugs and glitches - but for its theme, its gameplay, its story - I can't really argue with her.

Meanwhile I don't know what video games/films deserve a 1/10. Battlefield: Earth, which was mentioned previously, is a good example of a potential "genuine 1/10." Even The Room doesn't qualify, because it's a(n unintentionally) hilarious movie. Even Waterworld wouldn't be a 1/10, imo, simply because of the sheer scale of the production and the technical expertise in pulling off that movie.

Human beings are prone to being positive.

[Triceron]

To me there is nothing wrong with RoP so i could happily give it a 10/10, i wouldnt give any show regardless of how bad it is a 1/10 though,

Right. And that's fine for you if you choose to use it this way. It's fine if you choose to give an artificial handicap to every movie out there, just being clear that this is exactly what it is.

There's a clear double standard in the way you're rating things. If that's how you personally choose to rate things, all the power to you, but no one else is beholden to this method.

1's and 2's will freely be given, and that's something that isn't going to change just because you personally wouldn't give a show a 1/10. Perhaps you've just never seen a movie so bad that it deserves a 1/10, I don't know.

[Shadowferal]

The "Librarians" to me was worth a 0/10. I try to give a new show 3 episodes to win me over. But I couldn't stomach the first 10mins of the 2nd episode.

[Xath]

So awards are meaningless yet your subjective taste in music is the ultimate authority? Vulgar music has been good before so I'm not even sure you understand the point you are trying to make.

Vulgar music can absolutely be good, music that is vulgar for the sake of shock value on the other hand rarely is.

- - - Updated - - -

I think there's a huge paranoia about critics being "bought and paid for" in this forum, not only in regards to cultural critics, but every facet of Western life. It rings hollow to me, it's the paranoia of conspiracy theorists who can't believe someone might just love tv and film so much to do it for near no money, and that they might have an expertise in how film and TV is made, and stories written.

They review thousands of film/shows, so obviously what they think of as "good" and "bad" is skewed.

I always compare it to literature. I know fellow nerds who think The Wheel of Time is the peak of literature. I, as an aspiring writer and avid reader, have read enough to know that that isn't true. Dostoevsky, to me, is the peak of literature. But to many people, Dostoevsky would be incomprehensible and perhaps even boring (a thought I can barely fathom). The same is true for people who only watch anime and think anime is the peak of television....and it's like, the best animated show ever, imo, isn't anime (it's BoJack Horseman, if you're curious).

It's not so much bought and paid for it's that you are rarely going to see a property with one of the big names behind it get a low score from a major outlet. IGN is absolutely infamous for this. This is because it can effect their future earning potential by leading to them no longer recieving invites to early screenings. Pre Covid most large outlets would be given experiences with their review time whether a game movie or show. You would either see it at a red carpet event or under an NDA at a 5 star hotel replete with luxuries. These factors absolutely color reviews without them technically being g bribes. It's the height of ignorance to claim they don't.

- - - Updated - - -

Define "good" (good for you maybe, but you seem to have bad taste and expectations like all can see in the SC thread)? And nope, the masses opinion is still subjective.

In his view literally any TV show is better than the book version of it because it supposedly has more consumers it's utterly idiotic. If you want to be suplexed by stupidity go read his posts in the WoT thread.

- - - Updated - - -

In a technical sense you are correct. However if it is still good to a large group then doesn't that make it good? Take a song for example. You don't like it but 10 million do. Is that song good or is it bad? What are the thresholds for good and bad? Isn't something that is successful good by virtue of being successful? Society even has phrases such as "It is so bad it is good" which further complicates these types of discussions, right?

Because it really is subjective and the technical aspects that can be objectively ruled are often times of little importance.

To take this to it's logical extremes should we start saying certain political groups are good because lots of people like them or is more likely that said groups appeals to the lcd complete with easily chantable slogans that other those not like them.