What's up with TOP 1000 voters?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Lilya 4-Ever
njumeil — 18 years ago(February 17, 2008 04:48 AM)
There is always about 20-30% of them voting "1" on movies that are powerful like this one for example. Why do you even count their votes as having more weight, than a regular visitors.
Voting "1" on anything is a sign of ignorance and imbecilism. -
vixiki — 18 years ago(March 03, 2008 02:28 AM)
I noticed that too. My theory is the most frequent voters are knee-jerks who vote on anything and everything without discretion and based on hear-say. They don't have the time to think about their vote, or else they would never be able to get to the top 1000. I'd like to hear from anyone who's one of them though.
Also, I'm surprised they would have a higher weight, I take the group-breakdown as an indicator of whether a movie would be worth seeing (like - if IMDB staff and Europeans and my own age and gender group vote high on a movie, I might like it), but I cannot make out the TOP 1000 voter group - they seem non-indicative of anything. -
Mort and Spunky the awesome cat — 18 years ago(March 23, 2008 12:24 AM)
I have a hard time understanding the reasoning for a top 1000 voter group too. I agree about nationality. I've written the IMDb gods that I'd like to see more than "Americans" and "non-Americans". I think it would be neat to be able to see the top five nationalities voting on that particular movie and then others. I can't imagine it would take that much time to create or any to maintain.
I disagree about how one becomes a top 1000 voter. If click on my name, you'll see that I registered eight years ago. I'd guess that, between Netflix and cinema, I average 6-8 per week. I don't really watch television, just DVDs, and 14 hours/week or so in front of television is less than half the American average. I've rated 2937 films over eight years, including a few hundred I'd seen in the couple of years preceeding 2000. I've no doubt that a few people have blagued their way onto the top 1000 list, but to make such generalisations without any evidence is a bit unsavory. One reason our votes might be different: We're probably a little more critical because we like movies more and, because of that, have seen more.
I would also suggest that you take a look at which demographic rated this film most poorly, more so than the top 1000 voters. You might find something of an answer there. -
keta144 — 18 years ago(March 17, 2008 05:14 PM)
You also have to take into consideration that some people can't tolerate rape, violence, and/or anything that is not PG13 or lower. I'm sure there is someone out there that thinks this movie is evil and promotes evil natures.
I haven't seen the movie but I'm sure there are a lot of people out there that don't care about quality as much as they care about content. I mean, look at Harry Potter's acting
Over-dramatic maybe? J/K (kinda). -
Mort and Spunky the awesome cat — 18 years ago(March 23, 2008 12:04 AM)
THIS NOTE CONTAINS SPOILERS CRITICISING THE ENDING**
I've been a top 1000 voter for several years. I just gave this film a 9.
I disagree with you. Some films do deserve a "1". I haven't given that many; just counted 24 out of 2937. That's, in part, because I don't watch films that I anticipate will be horrible. Also, I'll admit to giving a few ones out of disgust at how over-rated they are (Pulp Fiction is one), when I'd have otherwise given something like a 2-4. I also gave ones to both of the Pokemon movies I was forced to endure at the cinemaabout three hours of wanting to rip out my eyeballs and pierce my eardrums. I understood Teletubbies (and can still name them all, their special possession and sing the song). I understood Barney (though if Baby Bop walked into my house, I'd be in prison for murder). I got Blues Clues, Dexter the science boy, even that annoying woman in the Comfy Couch. Pokemon, to me, had no point for existenceand I forked out hundreds, if not over a thousand, on it because it excited a 10-12 year old boy at the same time those two films, my absolute worst movie experiences, were released. While I'd do it again (though I'd take a walkman this time), those films were ones.
What I agree with you about is that very frequently top 1000 voters have the lowest average rating. I think that's because they probably consider themselves purveyors of fine film in some delusional way. I doubt many Americans (assuming you are one), or anyone else (including Swedes) for that matter, who aren't thoughtful and enjoy a good variety of genres watch Swedish films about the sex trade.
I agree with you that this was a powerful film done very well. My reason for not giving it a 10? The issues surrounding an afterlife: the boy coming to help Lilja and then the two together at the end, dead on the roof. As an agnostic, I'm sick to death of being force-fed what I think of as small-minded sentimental rubbish. Not that this was entirely that bad about it, but it had just enough of it for me to knock it down from a 10 (a perfect experience) to a 9 (a very slightly blemished superb experience). This movie was strong and intelligent enough not to have to rely on sappy superstitions for an ending that didn't leave us wanting to slit our wrists. -
amsyco13 — 17 years ago(September 03, 2008 09:45 AM)
Also, I'll admit to giving a few ones out of disgust at how over-rated they are (Pulp Fiction is one), when I'd have otherwise given something like a 2-4.
And this is why the IMDB ratings system is useless.
You are as bad as a Dark Knight fan rating The Godfather a 1 so Dark Knight can beat its rating.
You are also a sheep.rating movies based on others' opinions and not your own.
Are you a bug Bill Murray?
-
idazepam — 17 years ago(September 12, 2008 11:37 AM)
I gotta admit, I'm one of those 1-voters (NO, not in this film). Of course, this also makes me a very frequent 10-voter. It's kind of like a disease. If I've seen a really really good film, you know, a strong 7, but deserves more attention and higher states I immidiatly vote 10. Just to help. And when I see a really average and a little annoying film that I think is bit overrated it's a 1. Like charity. For IMDb.
I know. Incredibly stupid. Just. Can't. Help. It! -
idazepam — 17 years ago(September 24, 2008 02:12 PM)
well, it doesn't really matter does it? i voted 10 on this, and maybe i was thinking a 9. the reason imdb is f-cked up is that 90% of the voting members are american males in their 20's who vote 10 for everything with a war or mafia subject. i vote 10 on small films who's gotten too small audience, and maybe really deserves 8-9.
so sue me!
haha, just couldn't resist the last bit. -
poem — 13 years ago(March 05, 2013 06:42 AM)
Um.
I know plenty of movies with 1 ratings that completely deserve it.
And I think its easy to end up rating Lilya 4-ever if you dont actually have the patience for the movie, or expect one of these usual Hollywood movies with suspense and a romance story and stuff. Thats not what Lilya 4-ever is at all, of course.
A gentleman will not insult me, and no man not a gentleman can insult me.