Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
Polls: Directors (Results), 2019 (Feb 16th), 2009 awards (Feb 21st), Mini-series (Feb 29th)
Challenges: Academy Awards, Africa, African American/Blaxploitation
Film of the Week: The Good Fairy, March nominations (Feb 28th)
World Cup S4: Round 1 schedule, 1D: Australia vs Hungary vs Portugal vs Tajikistan (Mar 1st)

iCM Favorite Underrated Movies - Discussion topic

500<400, Favourite 1001 movies, Doubling the Canon, Film World Cup and many other votes
User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 8322
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

iCM Favorite Underrated Movies - Discussion topic

#1

Post by Lonewolf2003 » November 21st, 2019, 2:15 pm

For December our Favorite Underrated Movies (or is it the Most Underrated Movies?) poll is scheduled. But before the nominations topic is started, it's useful to discuss if and how we're going to define "Underrated".

Firstly we should decide if we're going to set some criteria for it or leave it completely open for everyone to decide for themselves what criteria they use to nominate movies. Setting no criteria is the most easy way to organize the poll and maybe also to make lists. Besides it is how we run many polls. On the other side setting no criteria could lead to a very divers list with a lot of disagreement and dissatisfaction about the results.

Secondly if we do set criteria, we should decide what criteria to use. They should be concrete criteria that are easy to use when making a list and to check for the organizer. Examples for criteria we could use (we could also use multiple ones combined):
- Lower than a IMDb rating (which rating? 6?)
- Not included on all or some specific official lists? (F.e. TSPDT, S&S list and/or own 1001 Favourite Movies list)
- Lower than a rating on Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes.
(Of course if necessary I will set up a poll to decide ;) )

In the topic for setting up the 2019 schedule there was also a lot of discussion about setting criteria for not turning this into another hidden gems poll. (F.e. not on the <400 list, above >400 checks or number of IMDb ratings.


Honestly, we could also decide that this idea doesn't work or isn't that interesting after all and do only the Directors poll in December. Or move on 0 official list up from next year to December.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3313
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#2

Post by Onderhond » November 21st, 2019, 2:41 pm

I think, if you want to use criteria, it should be a difference between one's own rating and the general rating on IMDb (or whatever reference platform you want to use). In the end, that's what "underrated" means (in contrast to "low ratings").

For example, a minimum difference of three points.
- For films you rate 10/10, IMDb rating should be lower than 7/10
- For films you rate 9/10, IMDb rating should be lower than 6/10
- For films you rate 8/10, IMDb rating should be lower than 5/10

Shouldn't be much harder than that imo.

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 3850
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#3

Post by OldAle1 » November 21st, 2019, 2:43 pm

I just looked at the scheduling thread and I'm happy enough with my own comments there, won't repost them, but I really liked jvv's comment which is more about the spirit of the poll rather than getting into numbers -

Guys, underrated is not the same as 'bad movies we love' or 'guilty pleasures.' It's movies you feel that you like more than the consensus or conventional wisdom. There's already an ICM list of films with the most favorites and IMDb rating under 6.0 and it's garbage. I am thinking more about stuff like Robert De Niro's The Good Shepherd, which I think is a brilliant psychological history of an organization, but which most people (if they saw it all) shrugged at and thought was flabby or boring. Or the 1932 A Farewell to Arms, which upset people expecting a faithful Hemingway adaption who got a feverishly romantic Borzage film instead. Those movies are rated 6.7 and 6.5, respectively. A good recent example might be Spike Lee's Chi-Raq, which I found audacious and bracingly funny, but pulls a meager 5.7.

Think films that didn't seem to get a fair shake on initial release. Underappreciated gems from auteurs who were after their fashionable sell-by date. Films that resonate with you on a personal level that aren't easily grokked by the custodians of film culture. The reason the poll appeals to me is because I'm curious if there are any commonalities --does this particular coterie of cinephiles treasure certain films that were unjusly maligned outside its community? Are there great films hidden in plain sight, maybe skipped over due to bad word of mouth, but as worthy of ardency as any canonized classic or Official ICM Mafia film?


Reading this makes me more and more inclined to think that there really shouldn't be any set ratings/checks cutoffs - or maybe just a really high cutoff, like no films rated over 8 to weed out anything obviously silly like 2001 IS SOOO UNDERRATED BECAUSE THERE ARE A FEW PEOPLE WHO DON'T THINK IT'S THE BEST WORK OF ART EVER. Not that I think there are too many people on this forum who are likely to make a list that would reflect anything like that, but you never know. In any case there are certainly films with ratings of say 7.3 that were commercial releases, might be familiar to lots of people, but are just totally ignored by the great mass of people or just thought of as "meh", so having a lower ratings cutoff wouldn't allow for these kinds of releases.

The only cutoff that I am absolutely in favor of is a year cutoff - I see it as pointless to allow really recent films that haven't necessarily made the rounds yet, and I'd be in favor of disallowing 2018-19 films.

User avatar
albajos
Posts: 6654
Joined: May 24, 2016
Location: Norway
Contact:

#4

Post by albajos » November 21st, 2019, 2:48 pm

I hate the term, so I probably wont be participating

but to do it completely factual:
Critics score vs Public scrore. Public score has to be at least 25% higher. In logic, critics rated movies when they were released. Public votes constantly.
My score is uninteresting in that regard. One person liking it, doesn't make a movie underrated.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3313
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#5

Post by Onderhond » November 21st, 2019, 2:54 pm

albajos wrote:
November 21st, 2019, 2:48 pm
One person liking it, doesn't make a movie underrated.
I disagree, "underrated" is a purely subjective notion by definition. It is based on the difference between a person's perception (subjective) and the general perception (intersubjective). There is no objective measurement of "underrated", only a subjective one.

User avatar
albajos
Posts: 6654
Joined: May 24, 2016
Location: Norway
Contact:

#6

Post by albajos » November 21st, 2019, 2:58 pm

That's why hate the term. It's more fitting for wannabe Youtube critics.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3313
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#7

Post by Onderhond » November 21st, 2019, 3:05 pm

Mkay ... it's pretty normal consequence of opinions being subjective though. Maybe I'm not into YouTube review videos enough to have grown a dislike for the term, but I think it has plenty of value.

Just not so much if this is going to be a free-for-all where everyone makes up his own mind about what it means exactly. The only additional criteria I see is a minimum amount of votes on IMDb (or whatever) to give weight to the notion of intersubjectivity. So:

- Minimum difference between own vote & IMDb (or whatever) average
- Minimum number of votes on IMDb (or whatever)

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 8322
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#8

Post by Lonewolf2003 » November 21st, 2019, 3:24 pm

Onderhond wrote:
November 21st, 2019, 2:41 pm
I think, if you want to use criteria, it should be a difference between one's own rating and the general rating on IMDb (or whatever reference platform you want to use). In the end, that's what "underrated" means (in contrast to "low ratings").

For example, a minimum difference of three points.
- For films you rate 10/10, IMDb rating should be lower than 7/10
- For films you rate 9/10, IMDb rating should be lower than 6/10
- For films you rate 8/10, IMDb rating should be lower than 5/10

Shouldn't be much harder than that imo.
That's a very interesting criteria. The only problem with that criteria is that it's hard to check for the organizor of the poll for every user and every movie making the final list. We could use those criteria as a guideline and just trust people to use them.

@Oldale: disallowing recent movies is a good idea too.

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 3560
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#9

Post by Fergenaprido » November 21st, 2019, 3:31 pm

I generally agree with OldAle/jvv/Onderhond.

I like Onderhond's suggested criteria, but would lower the difference to two points instead of three. For me, there's a world of difference between an 8 rating and a 6 rating. Yes, it would be impossible to check every user, and I think we just need to trust people to play the game honestly.

I agree with the "no films from 2018 or 2019" rule, as it's consistent with our <400 poll and 0 lists poll.

Also if we're using imdb ratings as a reference point, I think that we should exclude any film with a rating of 8.0 or higher. Yes, I know I said above that the difference should be two points, but given how few films actually achieve an 8.0+ rating, I find it hard to accept that any film rated thus highly by the community could be considered as underrated by any definition barring the trolling example OldAle made.

In summary, I propose:

Code: Select all

- Exclude films from 2018 and 2019
- Exclude films rated 8.0 or higher on imdb
- Each user should vote for films where their rating (on a 10-point scale) is at least 2 points higher than the imdb rating for each film

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3313
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#10

Post by Onderhond » November 21st, 2019, 3:37 pm

Lonewolf2003 wrote:
November 21st, 2019, 3:24 pm
We could use those criteria as a guideline and just trust people to use them.
Well yes, I wouldn't expect the organizer to check it for every list :D
Unless a list looks iffy, then it would be easy to sample a few entries.
Fergenaprido wrote:
November 21st, 2019, 3:31 pm
I like Onderhond's suggested criteria, but would lower the difference to two points instead of three. For me, there's a world of difference between an 8 rating and a 6 rating.
It doesn't have to be a linear scale of course, could be bigger slightly bigger for higher personal ratings (Shawshank Redemption scores 9.2 on IMDb, so every personal 10 has at least a 0.8 difference). The 3 point difference was only an example :)

jeff_v
Posts: 962
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Another Place
Contact:

#11

Post by jeff_v » November 21st, 2019, 3:46 pm

I really liked jvv's comment which is more about the spirit of the poll rather than getting into numbers -
Not sure who jvv is, but that's my writing, and I agree with him/me. :D

I think the suggestions made around score differential are good guidelines, but shouldn't be hard and fast rules. Leaving out 2018/2019 makes sense.

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 3850
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#12

Post by OldAle1 » November 21st, 2019, 3:49 pm

jeff_v wrote:
November 21st, 2019, 3:46 pm
I really liked jvv's comment which is more about the spirit of the poll rather than getting into numbers -
Not sure who jvv is, but that's my writing, and I agree with him/me. :D

I think the suggestions made around score differential are good guidelines, but shouldn't be hard and fast rules. Leaving out 2018/2019 makes sense.
Guess it's too early in the morning, sorry... :lol:

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 3560
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#13

Post by Fergenaprido » November 21st, 2019, 4:37 pm

Haha, this is the original post from jeff_v: viewtopic.php?p=551052#p551052

And this is jvv: memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=126

:p

User avatar
Ivan0716
Posts: 1192
Joined: Feb 05, 2012
Contact:

#14

Post by Ivan0716 » November 21st, 2019, 4:45 pm

Lonewolf2003 wrote:
November 21st, 2019, 2:15 pm
Honestly, we could also decide that this idea doesn't work or isn't that interesting after all and do only the Directors poll in December. Or move on 0 official list up from next year to December.
I'm going to be a party pooper and say I'm in favour of doing 0 official list instead. There just isn't a good metric to measure how "underrated" a film is, the problem with using IMDb ratings is that we have to assume lowly rated = underrated, which is just not true: I don't want to see a list titled underrated films with things like Salo, Spring Breakers, The Room etc. on it, that's just wrong.

On the other hand, if we don't set any criteria, there's nothing to prevent it from turning into a carbon copy of our 500<400 list, which makes the whole thing seem rather pointless. Also, un(der)seen =/= underrated.

User avatar
rnilsson19
Posts: 619
Joined: Dec 01, 2016
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#15

Post by rnilsson19 » November 21st, 2019, 5:04 pm

Ivan0716 wrote:
November 21st, 2019, 4:45 pm
Lonewolf2003 wrote:
November 21st, 2019, 2:15 pm
Honestly, we could also decide that this idea doesn't work or isn't that interesting after all and do only the Directors poll in December. Or move on 0 official list up from next year to December.
I'm going to be a party pooper and say I'm in favour of doing 0 official list instead. There just isn't a good metric to measure how "underrated" a film is, the problem with using IMDb ratings is that we have to assume lowly rated = underrated, which is just not true: I don't want to see a list titled underrated films with things like Salo, Spring Breakers, The Room etc. on it, that's just wrong.

On the other hand, if we don't set any criteria, there's nothing to prevent it from turning into a carbon copy of our 500<400 list, which makes the whole thing seem rather pointless. Also, un(der)seen =/= underrated.
I agree. Films on 0 official lists is the only option that makes proper sense.

User avatar
beavis
Posts: 2039
Joined: Jun 20, 2011
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

#16

Post by beavis » November 21st, 2019, 5:15 pm

I don't use imdb, but can set some criteria in the search engine on MovieMeter.nl where i have my ratings.
For instance i can select all my 5 star rankings where the userbase voted an avarage of 2.9 or lower and get these 7 hits

Conan the Barbarian (1982)
Een Dagje naar het Strand (1984)
Attenberg (2010)
Hors Satan (2011)
Salò o Le 120 Giornate di Sodoma (1975)
Terrorama! (2001)
Cosmopolis (2012)

Not sure how interesting these results are. My taste is clearly coming through and i don't expect a general audience to love or even like these movies. But this would be the only way for me to be able to join, i'm not going to check all titles that roll out of such a search against imdb...
Last edited by beavis on November 21st, 2019, 5:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Teproc
Posts: 437
Joined: Sep 23, 2015
Contact:

#17

Post by Teproc » November 21st, 2019, 5:16 pm

I don't believe there is a way to have this list be interesting at all. Without limitations, this would just be a hodgepodge of lists using very different definitions of the term (I'm perpetually surprised by the number of people who seem unable to grasp the difference between "underrated" and "underseen" for example), and as such it would result in a meaningless list. The term has proven to lead to the least interesting conversations about art, in my experience, with the main issue that "underrated" depends mostly on who you consider to be "rating". If we did this list with a limit set by IMDB rating for example, it would be filled with acclaimed arthouse films that had the misfortune of being seen by a large audience. Would it make sense to qualify a film like Under the Skin underrated because it has a lower than 6.5 rating on IMDB ? Maybe in some contexts, but not really in that of a poll conducted on a forum that placed that same film at #8 for the 2010s poll. This is just an example, but I think it illustrates how hard it would be to have a clear enough definition which would result in a meaningful list. I guess I'd support the 0 official lists poll being done instead, because at least that has a pretty clear definition of terms, even though it's rather ephemeral in nature.

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 3560
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#18

Post by Fergenaprido » November 21st, 2019, 5:21 pm

Ivan0716 wrote:
November 21st, 2019, 4:45 pm
I'm going to be a party pooper and say I'm in favour of doing 0 official list instead. There just isn't a good metric to measure how "underrated" a film is, the problem with using IMDb ratings is that we have to assume lowly rated = underrated, which is just not true: I don't want to see a list titled underrated films with things like Salo, Spring Breakers, The Room etc. on it, that's just wrong.
Why is it "just wrong"? I take it you don't like those films? Well, if enough people on the forum do like them, and think they are better than their average rating on imdb, then those are exactly the type of films that should be on this list.

In every list we do, there are almost always a bunch of films that I show up that I think are pure crap. But they're like on the forum, so they belong on the list, regardless of how I personally feel. Perhaps I'm misreading your words, but the way your last sentence comes across to me is "I don't like these films and don't think they're underrated, so if they show up on the list then it's obviously a terrible list". It sounds like your projecting your personal subjective opinion as an objective truth.

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 3560
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#19

Post by Fergenaprido » November 21st, 2019, 5:28 pm

Teproc wrote:
November 21st, 2019, 5:16 pm
I don't believe there is a way to have this list be interesting at all. Without limitations, this would just be a hodgepodge of lists using very different definitions of the term (I'm perpetually surprised by the number of people who seem unable to grasp the difference between "underrated" and "underseen" for example), and as such it would result in a meaningless list. The term has proven to lead to the least interesting conversations about art, in my experience, with the main issue that "underrated" depends mostly on who you consider to be "rating". If we did this list with a limit set by IMDB rating for example, it would be filled with acclaimed arthouse films that had the misfortune of being seen by a large audience. Would it make sense to qualify a film like Under the Skin underrated because it has a lower than 6.5 rating on IMDB ? Maybe in some contexts, but not really in that of a poll conducted on a forum that placed that same film at #8 for the 2010s poll. This is just an example, but I think it illustrates how hard it would be to have a clear enough definition which would result in a meaningful list. I guess I'd support the 0 official lists poll being done instead, because at least that has a pretty clear definition of terms, even though it's rather ephemeral in nature.
Replying to the parts in your post that I've bolded above.

1. Maybe you didn't mean on the forum specifically, but I don't get the sense that people here are confusing those two terms. For me at least, they're clear and distinct in their definitions, and I get the sense that most others here understand them the same way I do (i.e. underseen = few people have seen it & underrated = the people who've seen it don't like it/appreciate it as much as I think they should/it deserves).

2. Yes, it would make sense. It may not be underrated on this forum, but it would be underrated by the general population. That's what I find interesting about this poll... we often talk about how this forum is different from other places, and how our tastes differ as well; this poll gives us a chance to actually compile which films our collective opinion differs the most from the general consensus.

Lastly (and not in reply to your post Teproc, just a general comment on the thread), I don't think we should replace this with the 0 lists poll; I'd rather keep that for next year. If people don't like the subject of this poll, they don't have to participate, but enough of us liked the idea of it last year when we voted, and I think removing it from the schedule now at the end of the year is undemocratic and shady, and dismissive of the opinions of those of us who do find this topic to be interesting.

User avatar
Ivan0716
Posts: 1192
Joined: Feb 05, 2012
Contact:

#20

Post by Ivan0716 » November 21st, 2019, 6:16 pm

Fergenaprido wrote:
November 21st, 2019, 5:21 pm
Why is it "just wrong"? I take it you don't like those films?
No? Those are just examples of why low IMDb ratings are not an absolute indication of how "underrated" a film is. Salo and Spring Breakers are highly polarising films, you have TONS of people who see them as unparalleled masterpieces, but just as many who think they are worthless trash. I've seen Salo described with just about every adjective under the sun, but never underrated. The Room has enormous popularity for being "so bad it's good", not sure if you can still make a case for it being underrated.

Fergenaprido wrote:
November 21st, 2019, 5:28 pm
Lastly (and not in reply to your post Teproc, just a general comment on the thread), I don't think we should replace this with the 0 lists poll; I'd rather keep that for next year. If people don't like the subject of this poll, they don't have to participate, but enough of us liked the idea of it last year when we voted, and I think removing it from the schedule now at the end of the year is undemocratic and shady, and dismissive of the opinions of those of us who do find this topic to be interesting.
Yeah well, this discussion should have happened before putting this option in the poll. If we can't agree on a way to do this, I see no problem in replacing it with a better option, and it'll free up a slot for next year as well.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3313
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#21

Post by Onderhond » November 21st, 2019, 6:48 pm

Ivan0716 wrote:
November 21st, 2019, 6:16 pm
The Room has enormous popularity for being "so bad it's good", not sure if you can still make a case for it being underrated.
Of course you can. If you think it's worth 10/10 and the average score on IMDb is 3.7/10 with 75.000 votes, I'd say that is the perfect illustration of what "underrated" means.

User avatar
GruesomeTwosome
Donator
Posts: 2913
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Industrial Wasteland, USA
Contact:

#22

Post by GruesomeTwosome » November 21st, 2019, 7:23 pm

For me personally, I can't find much of any value or interest in this poll concept (I agree with a good deal of what Ivan and Teproc say here), so I wouldn't be participating. But no skin off my back if enough people here wanna go ahead with it, I'm happy to sit this one out.
I’m to remember every man I've seen fall into a plate of spaghetti???

My IMDB profile
ICM
Letterboxd

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 8322
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#23

Post by Lonewolf2003 » November 21st, 2019, 8:02 pm

Fergenaprido wrote:
November 21st, 2019, 5:28 pm
Teproc wrote:
November 21st, 2019, 5:16 pm
I don't believe there is a way to have this list be interesting at all. Without limitations, this would just be a hodgepodge of lists using very different definitions of the term (I'm perpetually surprised by the number of people who seem unable to grasp the difference between "underrated" and "underseen" for example), and as such it would result in a meaningless list. The term has proven to lead to the least interesting conversations about art, in my experience, with the main issue that "underrated" depends mostly on who you consider to be "rating". If we did this list with a limit set by IMDB rating for example, it would be filled with acclaimed arthouse films that had the misfortune of being seen by a large audience. Would it make sense to qualify a film like Under the Skin underrated because it has a lower than 6.5 rating on IMDB ? Maybe in some contexts, but not really in that of a poll conducted on a forum that placed that same film at #8 for the 2010s poll. This is just an example, but I think it illustrates how hard it would be to have a clear enough definition which would result in a meaningful list. I guess I'd support the 0 official lists poll being done instead, because at least that has a pretty clear definition of terms, even though it's rather ephemeral in nature.
Replying to the parts in your post that I've bolded above.

1. Maybe you didn't mean on the forum specifically, but I don't get the sense that people here are confusing those two terms. For me at least, they're clear and distinct in their definitions, and I get the sense that most others here understand them the same way I do (i.e. underseen = few people have seen it & underrated = the people who've seen it don't like it/appreciate it as much as I think they should/it deserves).

2. Yes, it would make sense. It may not be underrated on this forum, but it would be underrated by the general population. That's what I find interesting about this poll... we often talk about how this forum is different from other places, and how our tastes differ as well; this poll gives us a chance to actually compile which films our collective opinion differs the most from the general consensus.

Lastly (and not in reply to your post Teproc, just a general comment on the thread), I don't think we should replace this with the 0 lists poll; I'd rather keep that for next year. If people don't like the subject of this poll, they don't have to participate, but enough of us liked the idea of it last year when we voted, and I think removing it from the schedule now at the end of the year is undemocratic and shady, and dismissive of the opinions of those of us who do find this topic to be interesting.
If we would come to a consensual decision that the idea doesn’t work after all, I don’t see that as shady, undemocratic or dismissive of anyone’s opinion. Of course before making such a radical decision I will at least but it up to vote. But for now there seems to be enough interest I’m going ahead with it. Tho personally I’m also skeptical about how interesting the results will be.

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 30076
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#24

Post by mightysparks » November 21st, 2019, 11:31 pm

Onderhond wrote:
November 21st, 2019, 6:48 pm
Ivan0716 wrote:
November 21st, 2019, 6:16 pm
The Room has enormous popularity for being "so bad it's good", not sure if you can still make a case for it being underrated.
Of course you can. If you think it's worth 10/10 and the average score on IMDb is 3.7/10 with 75.000 votes, I'd say that is the perfect illustration of what "underrated" means.
But a lot of people who like stuff like The Room will rate it based on its ‘quality’ rather than their experience or enjoyment of it, so the ratings may be skewed. I think that’s where a number of votes limit may be useful, but then we’re stating to get into underseen instead of underrated territory. It’s a hard one to put quantifiable restrictions on, but we could also have a ‘use your own judgment’ thing as well because I wouldn’t vote for The Room in a poll like this and I gave it a 10.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
Opio
Posts: 240
Joined: May 19, 2018
Location: U.S.
Contact:

#25

Post by Opio » November 21st, 2019, 11:46 pm

I'm interested in this poll. I'm more for the well-defined criteria and would be curious to see what films people would pick if we put some rule like IMDB <= 6.0 -- and perhaps something comparable for those who don't use IMDB for their ratings, as Beavis described above. I could also support the difference-in-ratings suggested that relies more on an honor system.

Using ratings would rule out very underseen films that don't have enough votes (5, I think) to have a score on IMDB, but most good films that haven't been widely seen would still have a high rating. These would perhaps show up in DtC, 500<400, or the 0 lists anyway, so this list would be different than those...maybe?

Perhaps it could be thought of as an "Underrated/Polarizing" list to quell concerns about the latter showing up. I'm curious about the "so bad it's good" films as well. "The Room" is an obvious one; I feel like mathias has touted "Cool as Ice" and am curious if there are others that would get multiple votes.

User avatar
maxwelldeux
Donator
Posts: 7639
Joined: Jun 07, 2016
Location: Seattle-ish, WA, USA
Contact:

#26

Post by maxwelldeux » November 22nd, 2019, 12:03 am

I don't mind the topic for a poll at all. I think it'll be interesting to see what comes up, regardless of how "good" the final list is. I'm exactly in line with Fergenaprido's suggestion in post nine. In fact, barring more stringent criteria, that's how I'm going to make my list.

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 30620
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#27

Post by joachimt » November 22nd, 2019, 5:50 am

Difference between IMDb-rating and personal rating is the way to go, if you ask me. Don't make the gap too big. 2 points seems nice, but maybe a little bigger gap for movies you rated 10/10. I wouldn't call a 7.9 on IMDb underrated if I rated it 10/10, but I would if a movie is rated 6.0 on IMDb and I rate it 8/10.

Also, I wouldn't vote for movies I rated 5/10, which have an IMDb-rating below 3.0. Maybe I think such a movie isn't as bad as the consensus, but I wouldn't recommend it. So maybe a minimum personal rating should be made. Problem with that is that a rating doesn't mean the same for everyone.

No matter what you choose, there's always a downside to it. So just make a decision, Lonewolf. Not sure if a poll would help on this.
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 3560
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#28

Post by Fergenaprido » November 22nd, 2019, 11:08 am

joachimt wrote:
November 22nd, 2019, 5:50 am
Difference between IMDb-rating and personal rating is the way to go, if you ask me. Don't make the gap too big. 2 points seems nice, but maybe a little bigger gap for movies you rated 10/10. I wouldn't call a 7.9 on IMDb underrated if I rated it 10/10, but I would if a movie is rated 6.0 on IMDb and I rate it 8/10.

Also, I wouldn't vote for movies I rated 5/10, which have an IMDb-rating below 3.0. Maybe I think such a movie isn't as bad as the consensus, but I wouldn't recommend it. So maybe a minimum personal rating should be made. Problem with that is that a rating doesn't mean the same for everyone.

No matter what you choose, there's always a downside to it. So just make a decision, Lonewolf. Not sure if a poll would help on this.
I think people can come up with their own criteria of which films to vote for, not sure if we should make it too restrictive beyond basic guidelines, since as you mentioned ratings don't mean the same for everyone.

The other thing I'm planning to do is order my list based on greatest difference as opposed to the films I rated the highest. i.e. a film I rated 7 but is only a 3 on imdb (difference of 4) would be higher on my list than a film I rated 8 but is 5 on imdb (difference of 3), since for me the first film is more underrated than the second.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3313
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#29

Post by Onderhond » November 22nd, 2019, 11:29 am

Fergenaprido wrote:
November 22nd, 2019, 11:08 am
I think people can come up with their own criteria of which films to vote for
As they always do. It's going to be problematic though when we can't even define what we're voting on.

User avatar
fori
Posts: 1245
Joined: Aug 24, 2014
Contact:

#30

Post by fori » November 22nd, 2019, 12:54 pm

IMDB score is often not a good way though... would something like The Tree of Life or Wavelength (and really most abstract film) be applicable? I think people will just meet their own definition. Joachimt’s solution would also be useless for those like myself who don’t rate films.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3313
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#31

Post by Onderhond » November 22nd, 2019, 12:56 pm

fori wrote:
November 22nd, 2019, 12:54 pm
would something like The Tree of Life or Wavelength (and really most abstract film) be applicable?
If the difference between your own rating and the general appreciation is big enough, yes. Why wouldn't they be applicable?

User avatar
fori
Posts: 1245
Joined: Aug 24, 2014
Contact:

#32

Post by fori » November 22nd, 2019, 1:27 pm

Because the general consensus has largely moved on from the IMDb rating particularly in the case of the Tree of Life. Certainly if your rating is that much higher, but IMDb doesn’t accurately represent what people in the film community think about a lot of different films. Therefore, something like ToL which is highly rated by a lot of people (just look at end of decade lists, I’m sure it’ll accrue many top placements) could easily be called underrated by someone who doesn’t like it as much as it’s huge contingent of adoring fans because it was divisive (in large part due to reaching an audience outside of the arthouse bubble).

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3313
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#33

Post by Onderhond » November 22nd, 2019, 1:37 pm

fori wrote:
November 22nd, 2019, 1:27 pm
but IMDb doesn’t accurately represent what people in the film community think about a lot of different films.
Of course you can have different contexts and each context will have its own batch of films that are under/overrated. Maybe a certain film can be underrated when pitched against the general public's opinion, but overrated within hardcore film communities.

I personally feel IMDb is still one of the most dominant indicators when it comes to ratings. I don't particularly care about "film communities" myself, but you could pick another rating to compare against. Doesn't really change too much imo.

User avatar
fori
Posts: 1245
Joined: Aug 24, 2014
Contact:

#34

Post by fori » November 22nd, 2019, 1:48 pm

Well as I said, I don’t personally rate films, I think the whole number game is silly, and therefore find the whole idea ludicrous and completely inaccurate as to whether something is or is not underrated.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 3313
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#35

Post by Onderhond » November 22nd, 2019, 2:03 pm

Not sure what better ways there are to gauge the general opinion though. Numbers aren't 100% accurate (of course), but they're the closest we get. Otherwise it's just "where I go and what I've heard", which is a whole lot more inaccurate and ludicrous.

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 3560
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#36

Post by Fergenaprido » November 22nd, 2019, 2:26 pm

fori wrote:
November 22nd, 2019, 1:27 pm
Because the general consensus has largely moved on from the IMDb rating particularly in the case of the Tree of Life. Certainly if your rating is that much higher, but IMDb doesn’t accurately represent what people in the film community think about a lot of different films. Therefore, something like ToL which is highly rated by a lot of people (just look at end of decade lists, I’m sure it’ll accrue many top placements) could easily be called underrated by someone who doesn’t like it as much as it’s huge contingent of adoring fans because it was divisive (in large part due to reaching an audience outside of the arthouse bubble).
How do you define "general consensus"? And where do you draw the line around the "film community"? imdb certainly has many flaws, but from what I can tell, it's still the most widely-used (global) film site when it comes to rating films (perhaps largely due to the fact that it's been around longer), aside from communities which are more geographically concentrated (Douban comes to mind, for example, where most East Asian films have many more ratings on Douban than imdb). There's a reason why most website use imdb as a point of reference for ratings, information etc. Even Letterboxd, while sourcing it's info from tmdb, still links to imdb for each film.

Sure, ToL may be rated highly by a lot of people, but it's also rated lowly by a lot of people. I wouldn't have a problem if a film like ToL showed up in the final list, because it's sounds exactly like the type of divisive film to be mentioned.

User avatar
Teproc
Posts: 437
Joined: Sep 23, 2015
Contact:

#37

Post by Teproc » November 22nd, 2019, 2:30 pm

IMDB is very flawed as a measure of the general public's taste. It's heavily skewed toward young males: just look at the demographics data they provide themselves. Obviously places like this forum are even less representative, but what I mean is that IMDB is just a specific community (albeit a large one), not a measure of how most people "rate" a movie. I agree there is no better measure available, but to me what this means is that we just don't have any way of agreeing on how films are "rated", which makes it impossible to come to a useful definition of "underrated".

User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 7475
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#38

Post by sol » November 22nd, 2019, 2:31 pm

I like the idea of having a minimum 400 checks criteria. Not only would that reduce overlap with the 500<400 list, it kind of makes sense since it is hard to judge whether something is really under-rated or not if few out there have seen it.
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 600 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 3560
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#39

Post by Fergenaprido » November 22nd, 2019, 4:06 pm

Teproc wrote:
November 22nd, 2019, 2:30 pm
IMDB is very flawed as a measure of the general public's taste. It's heavily skewed toward young males: just look at the demographics data they provide themselves. Obviously places like this forum are even less representative, but what I mean is that IMDB is just a specific community (albeit a large one), not a measure of how most people "rate" a movie. I agree there is no better measure available, but to me what this means is that we just don't have any way of agreeing on how films are "rated", which makes it impossible to come to a useful definition of "underrated".
Cool, thanks for clarifying :)

User avatar
Ivan0716
Posts: 1192
Joined: Feb 05, 2012
Contact:

#40

Post by Ivan0716 » November 22nd, 2019, 7:03 pm

Onderhond wrote:
November 21st, 2019, 6:48 pm
Ivan0716 wrote:
November 21st, 2019, 6:16 pm
The Room has enormous popularity for being "so bad it's good", not sure if you can still make a case for it being underrated.
Of course you can. If you think it's worth 10/10 and the average score on IMDb is 3.7/10 with 75.000 votes, I'd say that is the perfect illustration of what "underrated" means.
I was talking about the "so good it's bad" aspect of it. I'm sure essays have been written about why The Room is a legitimate masterpiece. If you agree, great, vote away. But there are plenty of people who love it precisely because it's bad, do they try to claim The Room is underrated? Will they vote for it in a poll like this simply because they rate it higher than most people? Probably not. It's more than just numbers, I imagine most of us have films that we have rated highly even when we know they're turd, and would never even consider labeling them as underrated.

Fergenaprido wrote:
November 22nd, 2019, 2:26 pm
Sure, ToL may be rated highly by a lot of people, but it's also rated lowly by a lot of people. I wouldn't have a problem if a film like ToL showed up in the final list, because it's sounds exactly like the type of divisive film to be mentioned.
Tree of Life is one of the most acclaimed films of this decade, and has been voted as one of the best American films ever, any attempts to call it underrated is laughable. I don't think anyone will actually vote for it, but you can't really justify its inclusion by saying "Yeah but a bunch of people hate it too": every film has its own share of detractors.

-

An underrated film shouldn't just be something you rate higher than everyone, it should be films that hasn't gotten the attention you think it deserves; one where its qualities and values have been unfairly overlooked by the "whole" rather than a conveniently selected section of the community. It's not always easy to justify, but it should go beyond "because I/my ratings say so". If something is widely regarded as one of the best - like Tree of Life or Salo - then it simply can't be called underrated.

Just to be clear, I'm not against the poll or any of the methods proposed so far, I just think it's worthwhile to discuss why this is such a flawed concept.

Post Reply