Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[rhorle]

Did you ever read Tolkien's description of the high elves? and the elves in general? Did you understand or can you grasp what sort of a people they are? There are somethings that Tolkien's race of elves would never do or behave like/

So people that steal boats and holy gems are somehow not "sneaky" or "duplicitous"? Didn't they ostracize ex-captives of Morgoth/Sauron? What about Maeglin who turned traitor in exchange for his crush as a "spoil of war"?

It is quite clear that Elves are capable of doing "bad" things for lack of a better all encompassing term and it has nothing to do with "modern politics" or "bubbled societies".

[kenn9530]

Which evidences ? Link plz.

Can you not look at some reviews, imbd for example its rated a 7.1 with far more ppl rating it highly than otherwise, if a large amount of ppl watch a series then its considered good, its pretty simple logic to follow. Some claim some games are bad but then those games with game of the year awards so its not the game that bad is it.

[Berkilak]

So people that steal boats and holy gems are somehow not "sneaky" or "duplicitous"? Didn't they ostracize ex-captives of Morgoth/Sauron? Maeglin turned traitor in exchange for his crush as a "spoil of war"?

It is quite clear that Elves are capable of doing "bad" things for lack of a better all encompassing term and it has nothing to do with "modern politics" or "bubbled societies".

Yep. The whole point of Galadriel "passing the test" when Frodo offers her the One Ring is to display her growth as a character. The Galadriel of the Second Age would have snatched that ring without hesitation in her ambition to rule over others. That moment wouldn't be significant if it didn't show that she was finally content and was able to overcome her prideful, ambitious nature.

[Specialka]

Can you not look at some reviews, imbd for example its rated a 7.1 with far more ppl rating it highly than otherwise, if a large amount of ppl watch a series then its considered good, its pretty simple logic to follow. Some claim some games are bad but then those games with game of the year awards so its not the game that bad is it.

Imdb is owned by Amazon, and they deleted a bunch of reviews (which were mostly review bombing as they were 0/10 and 1/10) but they let the 10/10 reviews (which are non sensical) which inflated the overall score. So do you have better evidences or is it just that ?

[kenn9530]

the critics are not the audience, the audience give a bad review, see RT as an example, its garbage and they are not liking it

Critics give a fair assesment without bias, thier review is the most relevant plus more of the actual audience rate the show highly also than not, RT is known to be the worst and least accurate so thats not going to help your case at all, IMBD has many thousands of actual reviews so you can use the data for a more accurate assesment. Reviews also have no real bearing on the actual show or movie anyway it just gives a rough guideline on how many like or dont like something and thats it.

- - - Updated - - -

Imdb is owned by Amazon, and they deleted a bunch of reviews (which were mostly review bombing as they were 0/10 and 1/10) but they let the 10/10 reviews (which are non sensical) which inflated the overall score. So do you have better evidences or is it just that ?

If you rate something a 1/10 then that is an obvious fake review and no they didnt just remove all of the low reviews, even the worst shows cant be considered a 1/10 so you dont have anything backing you up.

[Specialka]

Critics give a fair assesment without bias, thier review is the most relevant plus more of the actual audience rate the show highly also than not, RT is known to be the worst and least accurate so thats not going to help your case at all, IMBD has many thousands of actual reviews so you can use the data for a more accurate assesment. Reviews also have no real bearing on the actual show or movie anyway it just gives a rough guideline on how many like or dont like something and thats it.

- - - Updated - - -



If you rate something a 1/10 then that is an obvious fake review and no they didnt just remove all of the low reviews, even the worst shows cant be considered a 1/10 so you dont have anything backing you up.

And even the best show can't be a 10/10 or a 9/10

[kenn9530]

And even the best show can't be a 10/10 or a 9/10

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.

[Specialka]

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.

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.

[Berkilak]

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

[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.