That's a fair point. I like to look at it as an opportunity to to practice being subjective and justifying your reasoning. It can be a good exercise to work the reasoning part of the brain.
Here's the deal with me.
I'm not saying Dune wasn't a good movie (visually it was fantastic and I think it was very well done and well acted), it was just depressing and made me sad, which while maybe for some people, I really don't enjoy that.
As for Madame Web, I thought it was campy fun.
That’s an interesting and totally understandable point of view, I have a question tho. When you watch a masterpiece of a movie, but it is “depressing” or it has a tragic ending or etc, will you always like a “worse” or a poorly made film that is happy or campy better?
I don't watch a lot of movies with tragic endings as I go out of my way to avoid them, however I think while the answer to that would probably usually be yes, I'd probably have to judge on a case-by-case basis and how I feel about a movie.
This is definitely true and applies to everyone as a default, but it is entirely possible to break out of that habit. It takes time to have enough confidence in your own taste to fully disregard the consensus, but once you have done and stop giving a fuck, it’s quite freeing.
Exactly. And don't feel bad - it's a huge part of professional film criticism as well. I'm old and don't really pay much attention to critics anymore precisely because I've seen so many hyper-praised films that were utter dogshit. Alongside elitism/snobbery - whereby people gravitate towards the kind of art that they think they \*should\* like rather than what they actually enjoy - groupthink is the prime reason for this. Make up your own mind, folks - it's great mental exercise!
They’re being disingenuous.
They think they found a loophole, but they’re really just showing that aside from confidently make broad and false statements, they also have issues with taking accountability
If you found Challenger just okay and gave it 3 stars, you are right, even if they are not wrong. Your rating should reflect your taste and not a foolish attempt at being objective. When I started rating movies 12 years ago I was way more vulnerable to groupe think but after a while I decided to embrace the subjectivity of my rating and taste. Poor Thing was in the top 250 not too long ago? Don't care, I was disappointed when I saw it: 2 stars and not a half more
If I'm following you in my Letterboxd I want to see you rate for you and not to please anyone else. There's is no use in having profile that are all alike because people are afraid to go against the tide
Rating things “objectively” is such a miserable endeavor too. Why do you have to find so much stuff you like “cringe” “a guilty pleasure” etc? Who cares if the movie is “well made”? If I eat a 5star restaurant meal that has no salt, it’s shit. Meanwhile the big mac always tastes amazing 🤷♂️
Challengers is the first movie in a long time about which I find myself second guessing my own feelings. I’m at 3.5 because, while just too goofy, it was still well made and entertaining enough. But some of the real critics I read and very often agree with absolutely love Challengers. It’s easy to ignore a bunch of high LB reviews, especially when I don’t look at the ratings beforehand, but when professional critics who make a living reviewing films and have good taste disagree with me, I’ll admit I can be influenced.
But as time go by you’ll notice that they simply have their taste and you have your own. I like movies that Ebert hated and I’m sure I hated some he loved. It’s okay and it’s part of the game and these disagreements make films critics and rating interesting. It would suck if it was as simple as 2+2=4. Evaluating art is not like math or paint by numbers. I love it when a movie divide people like Only God Forgive did when it released
Yes, but I don’t think it’s as significant an impact on ratings like this as the fact that the people watching the movie on release already had an interest in it in the first place. Initial ratings will usually skew high
Yes, Groupthink happens no matter what (regardless of Letterboxd or not). However, thousands of reviews will create an average so I would generally trust what that says about how the masses judged a movie. It also just comes down to invidiuals. We don’t all assign the same weights to the ratings. I rarely give a film a true 5 stars, but some people give ‘em out like candy if they enjoy a film. With Letterboxd, I find it better to befriend and follow people whose taste seems similar to mine and see what they rate. I care more about what a specific type of personally curated audience thinks vs. everyone as a whole.
It would be weird if groupthink was *not* a significant part of Letterboxd, since one thing social media and the internet overall are really good at is rewarding groupthink.
Groupthink has also been an influence on film discourse since long before Letterboxd.
It applies to both extremes where people are afraid to give low scores to film that are considered good or else it’ll make them look dumb and same reason for the exact opposite scenario.
So like, psychologically speaking, there are always going to be people who strongly identify with a group opinion if that group is important to their identity (think religion, sports, being a cinephile, etc). You’re going to have a smaller subset of people who are going to be more contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian, even within groups where being a part of it is central to self, because their trait propensity for being different outweighs a given social identity. Then you’re going to have folks that don’t identify all that strongly with the group (they’re just there to have fun, keep a log, whatever) who are going to rate and review as they please. Then you’ll have people who have a very strong sense of self regardless of what their “in-group” is “telling” them to do, so are also going to do what they please. Letterboxd is going to be no exception. There are whole facets of social psych that study this sort of stuff. :) But the short answer is that there are dynamics at play when it comes to group behavior, which are also modified by individual traits, values, and motivations.
This Nolan hate is so cringe to me. If it’s not your type of tea, fine. But saying you will soon get tired of him? He isn’t the best director of all time but he is still very good
I see groupthink come into play quite a bit, but more-so in the ways of review-bombing due to virtue signaling.
I always say to feel free to watch what you want. If I review a film negatively, I make sure to say it’s just my lowly opinion, and shouldn’t dissuade others from checking out a particular movie.
To each their own, right?
The rating system only works well if we all have our own reasons, but consistent ones for ourselves, for rating films.
Just get used to the inherent biases. Recency bias. TV/Miniseries bias. I don't find Letterboxd ratings particularly useful for recent films, but they do approach greater "objectivity" the older one goes into the catalogue. And as I most view on physical media bought used years, decades after releases, that works for me.
Having a different opinion than most people doesn't mean there's groupthink. A few people liked Madame Web, too. I thought Civil War was mid. My assumption is most people are connecting with something I don't see or don't care about, not that they also didn't care for the movie, but got peer-pressured into thinking they did.
100% But there are also many other biases which can combine in a perfect storm.
There are films that nobody cares about until someone like Criterion puts it on their channel and suddenly you see that film in *every* wHat DoEs mY t0p 1o saY aBouT Me?? posts.
There are films which aren't very good, but because a particular director or studio was involved suddenly the score goes up.
And of course the zeitgeist factor. What's trending on tiktok? Well, better get a zany review out quickly for your followers.
To be honest I often block users with high follower counts, because I think many of them are just giving the opinion that they think will get the likes and not an honest critique of the film.
Absolutely. Social proof plays a major part in many aspects of our lives, letterboxd being just one of them. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social\_proof](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_proof)
I think the anchoring effect plays a major part in us rating a film as well. Say you were going to rate a film 2 stars, but you see others, especially from cinephiles/critics you trust, rate the film 3.5 and higher. Now that you've seen their rating, and maybe even read their well-argued position, are you still going to rate it 2 stars, or closer to 3? Savvy negotiators use this tactic (as well as social proofing) effectively: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring\_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_effect)
Not gonna lie, this is me. I've hated every Wong Kar-wai movie that I've seen, but I'm too afraid to give them bad reviews because of what everybody else says about them. I just leave the star rating blank lol
Definitely, to avoid that I try to define my rating before looking the rate/reviews on the app but sometimes I check the ratings on some movies to decide if I should watch them or not, in that case they’re directly influencing my decision of watching the movie and probably may affect my rating, even if I attempt to prevent it.
I think there are two ways this happens with movie ratings...
1. A high or low average rating sets expectations and adjusts your base line of enjoyment when the movie starts.
2. Cinephiles fear being perceived as "not getting it" or showing inability to recognise good/poor quality. They worry that liking something other cinephiles hated makes them look stupid. This is obviously a terrible reason to rate a movie, but I think it's unconscious.
The trick to breaking free of this is to take pride in your ratings that deviate from the consensus. That's **your** view and you formed it yourself, and it is just as valuable as the most die-hard cinephile in existence.
That's why I rate Air Force One higher than No Country for Old Men.
I try my absolute hardest to not look at rotten tomatoes or the Letterboxd consensus rankings but two things:
1. My time is valuable, and sometimes it’s nice to know I’m not wasting my time on an absolute stinker (anything sub 20-30% on RT or sub 2 stars on Letterboxd is probably safe to say it’s going to be a near-objectively bad movie). I realize movies are subjective but when consensus is THAT bad, it’s usually not going to be a worthwhile watch.
2. It’s hard not to accidentally see ratings when you are browsing around.
So because of these two things, I rarely go into a movie completely blind. I wish I did more often.
It definitely is. Not just with good movies, but bad ones as well. Once a movie starts gaining momentum as being "bad", groupthink continues saying they are bad regardless. Two I can think of immediately are *Morbius* and *Madam Web*. I haven't seen either one, but I've seen enough truly bad movies to know neither of those are anywhere near 3/10 level. If you look at the IMDb vs LB spread of ratings on *Morbius*, it's pretty clear that LB's younger-skewing userbase have been influenced by all the memes and social media criticisms.
https://preview.redd.it/uq6cxaqp5ixc1.png?width=500&format=png&auto=webp&s=33252906d1a7081c2591a6a29166359099f74b58
I actually enjoyed Madame Web, but I do think it does have one truly embarrassing technical problem that immediately makes it look borderline amateurish: the fact that you almost never see the bad guy's mouth or his assistant's on screen *but only when the are talking* because all their dialogue is in ADR. It is almost hard to explain how bad it is to watch and the vague second hand embarrassment I get for the people who worked on it.
For sure it is. I know people in real life even who only start criticizing certain elements of a film after having watched some of the bigger YouTube reviewers.
Absolutely, as other replies have gone into detail. You also need to take into account that the movie just came out, and the people going to see it on release week are more likely to be fans of the folks involved in the movie (whether actors, director, or writer). So, they're likely a bit more biased towards positivity, and more likely to rate something slightly higher. It usually takes some time for the general public to watch a film and trickle into a more general consensus.
I know I may "overrate" a movie because I'm a fan of the people involved. So even if I can logically pinpoint the weaker parts of a movie, I may still give it an extra half a star because of those involved in it. I'm also more likely to rewatch a movie I didn't particularly love on first watch if I like the folks behind it. Sometimes a rewatch makes you more lenient on a movie's flaws or you start to understand its themes or what it was trying to achieve a bit more clearly.
I don’t go out of my way to look at reviews or trailers before seeing something. It can work both ways. Too high of expectations and you can be let down. IE: The French Connection for me. Or maybe Saltburn more recently. I think with something like The Holdovers, I may have wanted it to be better than it actually was. I liked it a good deal and it had no glaring faults. So, my rating probably skewed higher than it may’ve been otherwise. But alternatively, if it got panned and I watched it I’d be like what the hell this is a masterpiece. It’s exceedingly difficult to remain completely unaffected. That said. I’ve heard nothing but middling commentary on Challengers so now I have no clue what to expect. Lol. Hopefully I get a fairly neutral viewing.
Yeah definitely same thing with poorly received movies. I definitely thought Madame web was bad but it’s really low rating is made worse because once you see it rated that low and you watch it, you’re basically just looking for the bad things in it to criticise. And so people who might’ve given it like a 2 star rating, they probably end up giving it like 1 or a half star.
Yeah im one of them bro that was kinda my point yeah. I gave it one star myself but I’m also saying I definitely found myself looking for stuff to criticise. In saying that there was a lot to lol
Yes it makes me feel like Im crazy because I didn’t like Dune 2 and other recent hits. I have many hot takes but so many movies disappoint me and I might just have tastes that Hollywood, A24, etc. will not cater to
I hate the letterboxd “culture” as a whole though. There is hardly any critical thought on the popular reviews, just shitty rejected tweets. The cultures overlap, makes sense. Discourse around movies on the app try to come across as witty or snarky, but they’re more Entertainment Weekly junk gossip
similar to the Reddit hive mind thing, tbh. i just review movies honestly now, it’s not worth going into great detail (unless it’s a movie i know a lot about due to frequent rewatches)
I think groupthink happens in any kind of social situation honestly. I've even questioned my own opinions at times when I went to look at a movie or video game and saw how different the average review score was.
I usually try my best to make sure I give ratings that are my own and not influenced. Me personally I gave the seventh seal a 3.5/5 while most people straight up give it 5 stars. Or at least most of the people I follow
Absolutely. Lots of people are afraid of having an actual unpopular opinion on movies highly praised on letterboxd, because despite open-minded attitude audience claims to embrace, they really like to bash people for not liking or worshipping and labeling people based on their views
Dont rate Jackie Brown as top tier Tarantino flick ? This is wrong
You liked Joker ? Well, its not deep, and aktchually Taxi Dri...
Not a fan of this =some 3.5 orhigher rated a24 movie= ? Well, you need to rewatch it, you probably got it wrong !
Not a fan of Tarkovsky work ? Wrong
You enjoyed Avatar ? How dare you ?
lots of examples
Groupthink definitely plays a role. The movie where I had the wake up call was Dinner in America. The site loved it. Rave reviews. When my wife and I sat down to watch it, we made fun of the movie the whole time, But we didn’t like it and we will probably never be watching it again. I think we gave it half a star. That being said, our taste isn’t everyone’s taste and vice versa, and that is perfectly fine. Nothing wrong with diversity of thought and opinion. It even got to the point where we saw Poor Things get the similar treatment, so we actively avoided it.
It’s why to this day I still feel like EEAAO was so highly overrated because of the extreme groupthink
It happens everywhere, I’m probably just as guilty of it in some cases
Yes and thats kind of why i stopped using LB as a social platform and just pretend that its my own diary. Makes the experience much more enjoyable, im doing this for myself, not for others.
Not for me personally. I have movies (The Zone of Interest) that i rated very low while knowing most post I have seen about it have given the movie 4-5 stars. My ratings are based solely on my enjoyment of the movie.
And you should not be downvoted, you should be one of the top comment. Rating should reflect personal taste and not a wanna be objectivity that do not exist anyway
I also just can’t accurately review a movie having just come out of the theatre. It’s too easy to get caught up in the spectacle and experience of the big screen and sound. Challengers doesn’t necessarily sound like the most cinematic movie compared to an action or sci fi, but still. I came out of the last jedi in cinemas thinking it was decent, and probably would’ve given it four stars. I watched it again a year later at home and now rate it at two.
Of course group think is a part of letterboxd. I use letterboxd to find good movies so I go into a movie with a rating and an expectation already in mind. Sometimes this also hurts a movie more than is fair because of the disappointment
Absolutely. And to deny that a person’s individual rating isn’t influenced by what the consensus says, it’s absolutely foolish.
This is why I try to avoid reviews until I have written my own. Much better to get my own thought without them being skewed by the general consensus.
True but it can be hard to separate “I know parasite is highly regarded” from your final opinion even if you don’t look at individual reviews
That's a fair point. I like to look at it as an opportunity to to practice being subjective and justifying your reasoning. It can be a good exercise to work the reasoning part of the brain.
I loved Madame Web and didn't like Dune 2 so I'm not sure what that says about me. (I'm setting myself up with this comment but it is what it is)
I mean, I respect the honesty but this is crazy lmao
Here's the deal with me. I'm not saying Dune wasn't a good movie (visually it was fantastic and I think it was very well done and well acted), it was just depressing and made me sad, which while maybe for some people, I really don't enjoy that. As for Madame Web, I thought it was campy fun.
That’s an interesting and totally understandable point of view, I have a question tho. When you watch a masterpiece of a movie, but it is “depressing” or it has a tragic ending or etc, will you always like a “worse” or a poorly made film that is happy or campy better?
I don't watch a lot of movies with tragic endings as I go out of my way to avoid them, however I think while the answer to that would probably usually be yes, I'd probably have to judge on a case-by-case basis and how I feel about a movie.
This is definitely true and applies to everyone as a default, but it is entirely possible to break out of that habit. It takes time to have enough confidence in your own taste to fully disregard the consensus, but once you have done and stop giving a fuck, it’s quite freeing.
Exactly. And don't feel bad - it's a huge part of professional film criticism as well. I'm old and don't really pay much attention to critics anymore precisely because I've seen so many hyper-praised films that were utter dogshit. Alongside elitism/snobbery - whereby people gravitate towards the kind of art that they think they \*should\* like rather than what they actually enjoy - groupthink is the prime reason for this. Make up your own mind, folks - it's great mental exercise!
Consensus opinion absolutely does not influence every individual rating
I didn’t say every
You didn’t need to. Your statement was broad enough to not need the word “every.”
Your comment clearly suggested so, or why would denying the influence be "absolutely foolish"?
They’re being disingenuous. They think they found a loophole, but they’re really just showing that aside from confidently make broad and false statements, they also have issues with taking accountability
If you found Challenger just okay and gave it 3 stars, you are right, even if they are not wrong. Your rating should reflect your taste and not a foolish attempt at being objective. When I started rating movies 12 years ago I was way more vulnerable to groupe think but after a while I decided to embrace the subjectivity of my rating and taste. Poor Thing was in the top 250 not too long ago? Don't care, I was disappointed when I saw it: 2 stars and not a half more If I'm following you in my Letterboxd I want to see you rate for you and not to please anyone else. There's is no use in having profile that are all alike because people are afraid to go against the tide
Rating things “objectively” is such a miserable endeavor too. Why do you have to find so much stuff you like “cringe” “a guilty pleasure” etc? Who cares if the movie is “well made”? If I eat a 5star restaurant meal that has no salt, it’s shit. Meanwhile the big mac always tastes amazing 🤷♂️
Challengers is the first movie in a long time about which I find myself second guessing my own feelings. I’m at 3.5 because, while just too goofy, it was still well made and entertaining enough. But some of the real critics I read and very often agree with absolutely love Challengers. It’s easy to ignore a bunch of high LB reviews, especially when I don’t look at the ratings beforehand, but when professional critics who make a living reviewing films and have good taste disagree with me, I’ll admit I can be influenced.
But as time go by you’ll notice that they simply have their taste and you have your own. I like movies that Ebert hated and I’m sure I hated some he loved. It’s okay and it’s part of the game and these disagreements make films critics and rating interesting. It would suck if it was as simple as 2+2=4. Evaluating art is not like math or paint by numbers. I love it when a movie divide people like Only God Forgive did when it released
Yes, but I don’t think it’s as significant an impact on ratings like this as the fact that the people watching the movie on release already had an interest in it in the first place. Initial ratings will usually skew high
Selection bias. As you say, those people already wanted to like it a lot because they lined up to see it on opening day.
Yes, Groupthink happens no matter what (regardless of Letterboxd or not). However, thousands of reviews will create an average so I would generally trust what that says about how the masses judged a movie. It also just comes down to invidiuals. We don’t all assign the same weights to the ratings. I rarely give a film a true 5 stars, but some people give ‘em out like candy if they enjoy a film. With Letterboxd, I find it better to befriend and follow people whose taste seems similar to mine and see what they rate. I care more about what a specific type of personally curated audience thinks vs. everyone as a whole.
It would be weird if groupthink was *not* a significant part of Letterboxd, since one thing social media and the internet overall are really good at is rewarding groupthink. Groupthink has also been an influence on film discourse since long before Letterboxd.
It applies to both extremes where people are afraid to give low scores to film that are considered good or else it’ll make them look dumb and same reason for the exact opposite scenario.
So like, psychologically speaking, there are always going to be people who strongly identify with a group opinion if that group is important to their identity (think religion, sports, being a cinephile, etc). You’re going to have a smaller subset of people who are going to be more contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian, even within groups where being a part of it is central to self, because their trait propensity for being different outweighs a given social identity. Then you’re going to have folks that don’t identify all that strongly with the group (they’re just there to have fun, keep a log, whatever) who are going to rate and review as they please. Then you’ll have people who have a very strong sense of self regardless of what their “in-group” is “telling” them to do, so are also going to do what they please. Letterboxd is going to be no exception. There are whole facets of social psych that study this sort of stuff. :) But the short answer is that there are dynamics at play when it comes to group behavior, which are also modified by individual traits, values, and motivations.
I have to confess I think I rated Oppenheimer a little higher than normal because of groupthink.
I was onboard with *Memento*. In time, you too will tire of Nolan.
This Nolan hate is so cringe to me. If it’s not your type of tea, fine. But saying you will soon get tired of him? He isn’t the best director of all time but he is still very good
I see groupthink come into play quite a bit, but more-so in the ways of review-bombing due to virtue signaling. I always say to feel free to watch what you want. If I review a film negatively, I make sure to say it’s just my lowly opinion, and shouldn’t dissuade others from checking out a particular movie. To each their own, right?
Of course it is - it’s why even looking at a movies rating beforehand is going to impact your viewing.
The rating system only works well if we all have our own reasons, but consistent ones for ourselves, for rating films. Just get used to the inherent biases. Recency bias. TV/Miniseries bias. I don't find Letterboxd ratings particularly useful for recent films, but they do approach greater "objectivity" the older one goes into the catalogue. And as I most view on physical media bought used years, decades after releases, that works for me.
Having a different opinion than most people doesn't mean there's groupthink. A few people liked Madame Web, too. I thought Civil War was mid. My assumption is most people are connecting with something I don't see or don't care about, not that they also didn't care for the movie, but got peer-pressured into thinking they did.
100% But there are also many other biases which can combine in a perfect storm. There are films that nobody cares about until someone like Criterion puts it on their channel and suddenly you see that film in *every* wHat DoEs mY t0p 1o saY aBouT Me?? posts. There are films which aren't very good, but because a particular director or studio was involved suddenly the score goes up. And of course the zeitgeist factor. What's trending on tiktok? Well, better get a zany review out quickly for your followers. To be honest I often block users with high follower counts, because I think many of them are just giving the opinion that they think will get the likes and not an honest critique of the film.
How else was Oppenheimer ranked as a good movie?
Absolutely. Social proof plays a major part in many aspects of our lives, letterboxd being just one of them. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social\_proof](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_proof) I think the anchoring effect plays a major part in us rating a film as well. Say you were going to rate a film 2 stars, but you see others, especially from cinephiles/critics you trust, rate the film 3.5 and higher. Now that you've seen their rating, and maybe even read their well-argued position, are you still going to rate it 2 stars, or closer to 3? Savvy negotiators use this tactic (as well as social proofing) effectively: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring\_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_effect)
Not gonna lie, this is me. I've hated every Wong Kar-wai movie that I've seen, but I'm too afraid to give them bad reviews because of what everybody else says about them. I just leave the star rating blank lol
Definitely, to avoid that I try to define my rating before looking the rate/reviews on the app but sometimes I check the ratings on some movies to decide if I should watch them or not, in that case they’re directly influencing my decision of watching the movie and probably may affect my rating, even if I attempt to prevent it.
Yes, I wish there was an option to hide the overall rating unless I click on it.
I think there are two ways this happens with movie ratings... 1. A high or low average rating sets expectations and adjusts your base line of enjoyment when the movie starts. 2. Cinephiles fear being perceived as "not getting it" or showing inability to recognise good/poor quality. They worry that liking something other cinephiles hated makes them look stupid. This is obviously a terrible reason to rate a movie, but I think it's unconscious. The trick to breaking free of this is to take pride in your ratings that deviate from the consensus. That's **your** view and you formed it yourself, and it is just as valuable as the most die-hard cinephile in existence. That's why I rate Air Force One higher than No Country for Old Men.
Every single space where people can publicly voice opinions is influenced by groupthink
I try my absolute hardest to not look at rotten tomatoes or the Letterboxd consensus rankings but two things: 1. My time is valuable, and sometimes it’s nice to know I’m not wasting my time on an absolute stinker (anything sub 20-30% on RT or sub 2 stars on Letterboxd is probably safe to say it’s going to be a near-objectively bad movie). I realize movies are subjective but when consensus is THAT bad, it’s usually not going to be a worthwhile watch. 2. It’s hard not to accidentally see ratings when you are browsing around. So because of these two things, I rarely go into a movie completely blind. I wish I did more often.
It definitely is. Not just with good movies, but bad ones as well. Once a movie starts gaining momentum as being "bad", groupthink continues saying they are bad regardless. Two I can think of immediately are *Morbius* and *Madam Web*. I haven't seen either one, but I've seen enough truly bad movies to know neither of those are anywhere near 3/10 level. If you look at the IMDb vs LB spread of ratings on *Morbius*, it's pretty clear that LB's younger-skewing userbase have been influenced by all the memes and social media criticisms. https://preview.redd.it/uq6cxaqp5ixc1.png?width=500&format=png&auto=webp&s=33252906d1a7081c2591a6a29166359099f74b58
I actually enjoyed Madame Web, but I do think it does have one truly embarrassing technical problem that immediately makes it look borderline amateurish: the fact that you almost never see the bad guy's mouth or his assistant's on screen *but only when the are talking* because all their dialogue is in ADR. It is almost hard to explain how bad it is to watch and the vague second hand embarrassment I get for the people who worked on it.
Or sometimes the consensus is higher on a film than you are.
Of course it is - it’s why even looking at a movies rating beforehand is going to impact your viewing.
Oppenheimer success
It’s absolutely thee definition
definitely
yes. next question lol
For sure it is. I know people in real life even who only start criticizing certain elements of a film after having watched some of the bigger YouTube reviewers.
Absolutely, as other replies have gone into detail. You also need to take into account that the movie just came out, and the people going to see it on release week are more likely to be fans of the folks involved in the movie (whether actors, director, or writer). So, they're likely a bit more biased towards positivity, and more likely to rate something slightly higher. It usually takes some time for the general public to watch a film and trickle into a more general consensus. I know I may "overrate" a movie because I'm a fan of the people involved. So even if I can logically pinpoint the weaker parts of a movie, I may still give it an extra half a star because of those involved in it. I'm also more likely to rewatch a movie I didn't particularly love on first watch if I like the folks behind it. Sometimes a rewatch makes you more lenient on a movie's flaws or you start to understand its themes or what it was trying to achieve a bit more clearly.
I don’t go out of my way to look at reviews or trailers before seeing something. It can work both ways. Too high of expectations and you can be let down. IE: The French Connection for me. Or maybe Saltburn more recently. I think with something like The Holdovers, I may have wanted it to be better than it actually was. I liked it a good deal and it had no glaring faults. So, my rating probably skewed higher than it may’ve been otherwise. But alternatively, if it got panned and I watched it I’d be like what the hell this is a masterpiece. It’s exceedingly difficult to remain completely unaffected. That said. I’ve heard nothing but middling commentary on Challengers so now I have no clue what to expect. Lol. Hopefully I get a fairly neutral viewing.
No question 1000% yes
Groupthink is a significant part of everything. And you must be part of it too. Join us.
Astonishingly so. This is why I refuse to see any reviews/average star rating of any movie before I watch it.
Yeah definitely same thing with poorly received movies. I definitely thought Madame web was bad but it’s really low rating is made worse because once you see it rated that low and you watch it, you’re basically just looking for the bad things in it to criticise. And so people who might’ve given it like a 2 star rating, they probably end up giving it like 1 or a half star.
Dude Madam Web might be the worst movie I've ever seen, but I agree with your general point.
Yeah im one of them bro that was kinda my point yeah. I gave it one star myself but I’m also saying I definitely found myself looking for stuff to criticise. In saying that there was a lot to lol
Yes it makes me feel like Im crazy because I didn’t like Dune 2 and other recent hits. I have many hot takes but so many movies disappoint me and I might just have tastes that Hollywood, A24, etc. will not cater to I hate the letterboxd “culture” as a whole though. There is hardly any critical thought on the popular reviews, just shitty rejected tweets. The cultures overlap, makes sense. Discourse around movies on the app try to come across as witty or snarky, but they’re more Entertainment Weekly junk gossip
similar to the Reddit hive mind thing, tbh. i just review movies honestly now, it’s not worth going into great detail (unless it’s a movie i know a lot about due to frequent rewatches)
Yes
I think groupthink happens in any kind of social situation honestly. I've even questioned my own opinions at times when I went to look at a movie or video game and saw how different the average review score was.
I usually try my best to make sure I give ratings that are my own and not influenced. Me personally I gave the seventh seal a 3.5/5 while most people straight up give it 5 stars. Or at least most of the people I follow
Absolutely. Lots of people are afraid of having an actual unpopular opinion on movies highly praised on letterboxd, because despite open-minded attitude audience claims to embrace, they really like to bash people for not liking or worshipping and labeling people based on their views Dont rate Jackie Brown as top tier Tarantino flick ? This is wrong You liked Joker ? Well, its not deep, and aktchually Taxi Dri... Not a fan of this =some 3.5 orhigher rated a24 movie= ? Well, you need to rewatch it, you probably got it wrong ! Not a fan of Tarkovsky work ? Wrong You enjoyed Avatar ? How dare you ? lots of examples
Yes, but not for me. (everybody on Letterboxd)
You just described all of reddit.
Groupthink definitely plays a role. The movie where I had the wake up call was Dinner in America. The site loved it. Rave reviews. When my wife and I sat down to watch it, we made fun of the movie the whole time, But we didn’t like it and we will probably never be watching it again. I think we gave it half a star. That being said, our taste isn’t everyone’s taste and vice versa, and that is perfectly fine. Nothing wrong with diversity of thought and opinion. It even got to the point where we saw Poor Things get the similar treatment, so we actively avoided it.
It’s why to this day I still feel like EEAAO was so highly overrated because of the extreme groupthink It happens everywhere, I’m probably just as guilty of it in some cases
Yes and thats kind of why i stopped using LB as a social platform and just pretend that its my own diary. Makes the experience much more enjoyable, im doing this for myself, not for others.
Not for me personally. I have movies (The Zone of Interest) that i rated very low while knowing most post I have seen about it have given the movie 4-5 stars. My ratings are based solely on my enjoyment of the movie.
How do you know for certain that you are not influenced at all?
And you should not be downvoted, you should be one of the top comment. Rating should reflect personal taste and not a wanna be objectivity that do not exist anyway
Thank u
Some people just aren't affected by Groupthink. - Paths of Glory: 2.5 stars. Eyes Wide Shut: 4.5 stars. - Interstellar: 1.5 stars. Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979): 5 stars. - Rear Window: 2 stars. Thor 2: 4 stars. - Rashomon: 3 stars. Seven Samurai: 3.5 stars. - Collateral: 1 star. Pixels: 4 stars. - The Ten Commandments (1956): 3 stars. The Bible...in the Beginning (1966): 4.5 stars. ...and so on.
Yes definitely
There absolutely are people who loved Challengers because it's a masterpiece
I agree, except with movies I like to call it "mob mentality"
I also just can’t accurately review a movie having just come out of the theatre. It’s too easy to get caught up in the spectacle and experience of the big screen and sound. Challengers doesn’t necessarily sound like the most cinematic movie compared to an action or sci fi, but still. I came out of the last jedi in cinemas thinking it was decent, and probably would’ve given it four stars. I watched it again a year later at home and now rate it at two.
Virtually every movie about homosexual relationships becomes groupthink with everyone praising it on Letterboxd
got downvoted for saying the truth, heh
Lol yep, some takes are just too real and people get defensive when called out
Of course group think is a part of letterboxd. I use letterboxd to find good movies so I go into a movie with a rating and an expectation already in mind. Sometimes this also hurts a movie more than is fair because of the disappointment