Simple, brief critique buttons

  • 2
  • Idea
  • Updated 4 weeks ago
I think buttons available on each movie/show title used for a more quantifiable and direct indication as to why the movie was disliked or refused to be watched by users, using the same categories you have available to show severeity of a type of content, i.e. a dislike or not watched button due to sex/nudity, or strong language, or violence, etc. I think this would reveal a simpler and quantifiable reason for not consuming certain content, so that movie makers can see a more basic reason why their movies/shows weren’t rated well, or didn’t do as well as expected at the box office. This would give consumers a stronger voice in telling Hollywood what content we don’t like in their product, for those of us whose primary reason for not watching their product is these basic content factors (sex/nudity, violence, strong language, etc.) I understand this may not be the most cost efficient priority for IMDB, but I think it would VERY much benefit IMDB’s users, and movie makers to produce products that their consumers want, not so much what the movie makers want in them (which is good business).
Photo of Tim

Tim

  • 4 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
  • insistent

Posted 1 month ago

  • 2
Photo of Stephen Atwood

Stephen Atwood

  • 1070 Posts
  • 757 Reply Likes
This isn't an appropriate topic for the IMDb Poll. Please refrain from spamming multiple (irrelevant) boards in the future
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 7176 Posts
  • 9299 Reply Likes
Many newcomers seem not to understand how this forum is organized or how it works. You could not be sure that they are doing annoying things on purpose.
Photo of Tim

Tim

  • 4 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
I wasn’t intentionally spamming, I was mainly trying to send this idea to the IMDb website administrators. However, I don’t necessarily think this is an irrelevant topic to IMDb’s users and think it would be a good idea to poll them on this, although it may be under the wrong topic, which I’m not sure I understand as I put it under “Ideas.” Maybe I don’t understand the poll purpose or usual content of the polls, but I don’t see the harm. Unless you PERSONALLY don’t care for the topic....
Photo of Nick Burfle

Nick Burfle

  • 97 Posts
  • 125 Reply Likes
To be balanced, it would need to add buttons for those of us who feel exactly the opposite.  I would want buttons to indicate, for example,

"Shows woman, in relaxed, at home, consensual situation, having sex with her bra still on, thus ruining suspension of disbelief."

"Shows couple having sex in the privacy of their own bedroom -- presumably without people peeping in the windows -- but then they cover themselves as they get out of bed, thus ruining suspension of disbelief."

"Shows massive traffic accident, with vehicles flipped, but makes no mention of the deaths or injuries that would likely occur and fails to show realistic blood and gore."

And so on.

How about buttons for implausible plot, unlikeable characters, jumping ahead in time two years without making that clear to the viewer, etc.?

I'll have to respectfully vote no on your idea.  Plenty of people vent their dislike of the matters you describe in the Reviews section.  But my guess is that producers in Hollywood or anywhere else care most about how we vote with our wallets and pocketbooks, not what's on IMDb.

Photo of Tim

Tim

  • 4 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
I guess I could see that, but your descriptions were far more complex. The idea was simple buttons indicating a more basic, general reason in those categories. Your idea to having a polar vote for these things would be better served by a “not enough nudity” or “to little realistic violence” buttons. Also, people make compromises to things they consume, using a cost/benefit analysis to the products they consume. If money was the only way to show our like or dislike for certain aspects of consumer products, there wouldn’t be billions spent in marketing and product design based on polls, feedback, and critiques of their products. This idea is more easily analyzed and simpler to understand to help them improve their product.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 14351 Posts
  • 16331 Reply Likes
An all inclusive button system would be unfeasible and a Software Nightmare.

Photo of Nick Burfle

Nick Burfle

  • 97 Posts
  • 125 Reply Likes
Hi, Tim,

My point wasn't really to suggest that we vote in favor of more T&A (although I get really tired of presentations that become so cleansed that they don't represent reality).  But your suggestion seems intended to make it easier for people with just one philosophical or theological perspective to have more influence ("help them improve their product"), and that isn't IMDb's place (in my opinion, I don't work here, I'm just a user.)  Other groups would have other concerns, relating to not only sex and violence, but how films present religion, politics, economics, etc.  Their concerns are just as valid as yours or mine, and the only fair way to address it would be Ed's all-inclusive button... unfeasible, of course.

The polar vote you mention exists now: each of the Parents Guide categories can be voted as "none", "mild", "moderate", or "severe".  I look at (and vote on) these, and I'm occasionally surprised at the spectrum of opinions indicated, and how the numbers break down.  This seem to be what you were asking for, isn't it?

I would be astounded if every producer in Hollywood was not already aware of the desire of a sizable minority of viewers to view "clean" fare.  How they decide what to produce would have to be addressed by someone more knowledgeable than myself.  My understanding is that most films lose money, but beyond that, I don't know.

I wish you good viewing!
Photo of Tim

Tim

  • 4 Posts
  • 3 Reply Likes
The idea is to keep the categories as BASIC as possible though. The categories I suggested are already there and are the usual categories people use to decide to watch the movies/shows. Honestly, some more basic categories could FEASIBLY be added such as the ones you mentioned (politics, religion, economics). Getting too much more detailed than that makes it much more difficult to do a quantifiable index for each of these categories. And a “mild,” “moderate,” or “severe” rating doesn’t indicate like or dislike, but rather quantity of these categories. I’m not saying it is IMDb’s Responsibility, as my caveat indicates, but thought it would be beneficial to their users, as well as the movie/TV industry, and there IS a definite profitable business relationship between IMDb and the film industry, not just in ads, but when their whole page is advertising a blockbuster movie with intricate website design, it’s clear their relationship benefits both. And I don’t have statistics on the “sizeable minority” numbers (although I will be searching) but I think it is actually a sizeable majority that have some desire in at least one of these main categories that they want to see decreased, or even increased, but just suffer with what they get because of their heavy interest in seeing the movie, or in some cases, because they wouldn’t be able to watch very many films/shows otherwise. Everybody I think has a point at which they decide the film is TOO MUCH or not enough of something, and often, I would think, they would fall in some of these basic categories. I appreciate the respectful response also, by the way. This is how ideas develop.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 14351 Posts
  • 16331 Reply Likes
Look, there is a rating system in general. That is all that is needed.
To rate every micro section of a movie is the job of the reviews/reviewers.
Adding more ways, means more complaints about your mild/moderate proposal. If you would look at the controversies already with complaints about reviews and ratings, adding another 15 things more for people to complain about is not in the sites best interest.
(Edited)
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 14407 Posts
  • 16454 Reply Likes

Image result for no way button gifs