Creators (?) Over-Hyping fairly ridiculous film. IMDB allowing it.?
While we might as well get the fact that people have different tastes, and it's precisely why sites such as these exist, out of the way, the fact remains that there is a difference between generally good and generally bad. A hit and a dud.
Time Trap, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4815122/, is a title that is aptly named. It is a time-suck of plot holes galore, and acting, directing and execution so inept, that to see it, is almost mind-altering. And not in a good way.
While the CONCEPT is not a bad one, everything else about it is D-grade. So, one has to ponder as to how it has a 6.5 rating (THINK of other movies that are genuinely 6.5 for a second), and why it is that an overwhelming number of users with only ONE review have opted to review - out of millions of other films - only this ONE film, and to review it so positively, and how they do so every single day. Now, there are several REAL users, in fact, a couple of prolific reviewers, who have given this film a 7 or 8 as well. As I said at the beginning of this post, tastes are far ranging and varied. But the fake ones are overtly obvious and make one wonder if IMDB just looks the other way. The ones which all say the exact same thing, such as: "we need a sequel", "where's the sequel?"; "when is the sequel coming out?"; "this film left me wanting more"; "can we get Time Trap 2?"; "this would be best as a series"; "the production team should be given a series"; "I'd watch this as a series"; "I want more"; "give these guys a blank check for a series"; and my repeated favorite in all its guises: 'It could have been better, [this] is bad about it ... but let me give it an 8 or 9 or 10 anyway'.
COME ON, IMDB. Surely you have people who look for titles such as these, amarite?
Col Needham, I imagine, worked tirelessly to get IMDB off the ground. What will IMDB be remembered as?
While we might as well get the fact that people have different tastes, and it's precisely why sites such as these exist, out of the way, the fact remains that there is a difference between generally good and generally bad. A hit and a dud.
Time Trap, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4815122/, is a title that is aptly named. It is a time-suck of plot holes galore, and acting, directing and execution so inept, that to see it, is almost mind-altering. And not in a good way.
While the CONCEPT is not a bad one, everything else about it is D-grade. So, one has to ponder as to how it has a 6.5 rating (THINK of other movies that are genuinely 6.5 for a second), and why it is that an overwhelming number of users with only ONE review have opted to review - out of millions of other films - only this ONE film, and to review it so positively, and how they do so every single day. Now, there are several REAL users, in fact, a couple of prolific reviewers, who have given this film a 7 or 8 as well. As I said at the beginning of this post, tastes are far ranging and varied. But the fake ones are overtly obvious and make one wonder if IMDB just looks the other way. The ones which all say the exact same thing, such as: "we need a sequel", "where's the sequel?"; "when is the sequel coming out?"; "this film left me wanting more"; "can we get Time Trap 2?"; "this would be best as a series"; "the production team should be given a series"; "I'd watch this as a series"; "I want more"; "give these guys a blank check for a series"; and my repeated favorite in all its guises: 'It could have been better, [this] is bad about it ... but let me give it an 8 or 9 or 10 anyway'.
COME ON, IMDB. Surely you have people who look for titles such as these, amarite?
Col Needham, I imagine, worked tirelessly to get IMDB off the ground. What will IMDB be remembered as?
Posted 2 months ago
Joel, Official Rep
Ivanka,
Whereas I agree that occasionally we see this issue with some lower-budget films on IMDb, this is not the case with Time Trap (2017).
As a fan of independent Sci-Fi, I enjoyed this title, and rated it a 6 (and I am rather stingy with ratings; I very rarely rate films 8+).
If one looks at the ratings for this title, they show a (discrete) normal distribution, with slight peaks at "1" and "10" as one ordinarily sees for most titles due to people who "really hate" or "really love" the film:
---
For comparison, here are the ratings for Chameleon (2019). I have not seen the film, but this is what "fishy" rating distributions look like:
Whereas I agree that occasionally we see this issue with some lower-budget films on IMDb, this is not the case with Time Trap (2017).
As a fan of independent Sci-Fi, I enjoyed this title, and rated it a 6 (and I am rather stingy with ratings; I very rarely rate films 8+).
If one looks at the ratings for this title, they show a (discrete) normal distribution, with slight peaks at "1" and "10" as one ordinarily sees for most titles due to people who "really hate" or "really love" the film:
---
For comparison, here are the ratings for Chameleon (2019). I have not seen the film, but this is what "fishy" rating distributions look like:
@Siobhan @https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/people/abigail2010
I agree with what you are saying and I believe I prefaced my comment with it. No one "taste" is ever universal. That said, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the 8, 9's and 10's are crazy fake when you have the reviewers themselves admitting that the film: "contains plot holes galore and the acting is pretty bad and the ending feels rushed ... BUT ..." Always that "but" which is somehow supposed to make up for the fact that it is not an 8, or a 9 or a 10, or even a 7.
Additionally, you have the reviews all asking for a sequel or part two, or television series. Now, on any normal, GOOD film, you'll see reviewers asking for the same seldom, if ever. (I am a huge comment-reader). What are the chances, or where is the graph, showing how incomprehensible it is that for this ONE (bad) film, SO MANY reviewers are asking for the same? I don't know what counts as reality where you're making sense of all this (not meant as a insult) but where I am viewing it from, it seems more like a consistent, concerted and coordinated effort not only to get more views, but to sway any investors toward another film. Why is that a problem? Because who wants more bad films? "No, they'll get it right this time with a decent budget" (part of an actual review). Well, the budget wasn't their main problem the first time around.
Lastly, and really, lastly as it's the last I'll post about it (I really do not care enough one way or another), is that it boils down to IMDB being much too easy to manipulate, and seeing as the film industry truly is a multi-billion-dollar industry which makes their money contingent on sales, rentals, views - all which are driven on whether a film is perceived as "good" or not, there are, most certainly, rating manipulations going on. In fact, let's get off of revenue for a moment. Let's take "The Hunt (2020") www.imdb.com/title/tt8244784/. I've seen supposed "reviews" which are not reviews at all, but rather one side of the political divide on their soapbox and tearing down the 'other side' - with not a word about the film. In fact, there is (or was - who knows if it has been removed) a "review" which read: "I will NEVER watch this film, blah, blah, blah ...". How is that a review and what kind of rating could the author really proffer?
Don't even get me started on the one-review reviewers. I said up there 'lastly'. Even if their account is old (especially if so) and they JUST decided to review ONE (medicore) film? Or the NEW 1 day or 1 week "reviewers" who review 6 or 10 films in one day, including the one in question? Be for real.
In short, IMDB used to be great. Now it is untrustworthy. That is all. It's still a behemoth in regard to film reviews ... because there is really no one else doing the same, and hey, more power to them for knowing and cashing in on that .... "BUT" (:)) the more people fall for fake reviews and high ratings, the less people will use this site for that. There will still be the reviewers who enjoy seeing their usernames on reviews and who up-vote themselves to the top, and those who monetarily or in other ways benefit from planted reviews, but REAL users will be few. For now, whenever I do come to IMDB which is very, VERY rarely anymore, I sort by lowest rating and if I see A LOT of reviews (by actual long-term reviewers) saying that there are fake reviews at the top, then something is up with that title.
I agree with what you are saying and I believe I prefaced my comment with it. No one "taste" is ever universal. That said, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the 8, 9's and 10's are crazy fake when you have the reviewers themselves admitting that the film: "contains plot holes galore and the acting is pretty bad and the ending feels rushed ... BUT ..." Always that "but" which is somehow supposed to make up for the fact that it is not an 8, or a 9 or a 10, or even a 7.
Additionally, you have the reviews all asking for a sequel or part two, or television series. Now, on any normal, GOOD film, you'll see reviewers asking for the same seldom, if ever. (I am a huge comment-reader). What are the chances, or where is the graph, showing how incomprehensible it is that for this ONE (bad) film, SO MANY reviewers are asking for the same? I don't know what counts as reality where you're making sense of all this (not meant as a insult) but where I am viewing it from, it seems more like a consistent, concerted and coordinated effort not only to get more views, but to sway any investors toward another film. Why is that a problem? Because who wants more bad films? "No, they'll get it right this time with a decent budget" (part of an actual review). Well, the budget wasn't their main problem the first time around.
Lastly, and really, lastly as it's the last I'll post about it (I really do not care enough one way or another), is that it boils down to IMDB being much too easy to manipulate, and seeing as the film industry truly is a multi-billion-dollar industry which makes their money contingent on sales, rentals, views - all which are driven on whether a film is perceived as "good" or not, there are, most certainly, rating manipulations going on. In fact, let's get off of revenue for a moment. Let's take "The Hunt (2020") www.imdb.com/title/tt8244784/. I've seen supposed "reviews" which are not reviews at all, but rather one side of the political divide on their soapbox and tearing down the 'other side' - with not a word about the film. In fact, there is (or was - who knows if it has been removed) a "review" which read: "I will NEVER watch this film, blah, blah, blah ...". How is that a review and what kind of rating could the author really proffer?
Don't even get me started on the one-review reviewers. I said up there 'lastly'. Even if their account is old (especially if so) and they JUST decided to review ONE (medicore) film? Or the NEW 1 day or 1 week "reviewers" who review 6 or 10 films in one day, including the one in question? Be for real.
In short, IMDB used to be great. Now it is untrustworthy. That is all. It's still a behemoth in regard to film reviews ... because there is really no one else doing the same, and hey, more power to them for knowing and cashing in on that .... "BUT" (:)) the more people fall for fake reviews and high ratings, the less people will use this site for that. There will still be the reviewers who enjoy seeing their usernames on reviews and who up-vote themselves to the top, and those who monetarily or in other ways benefit from planted reviews, but REAL users will be few. For now, whenever I do come to IMDB which is very, VERY rarely anymore, I sort by lowest rating and if I see A LOT of reviews (by actual long-term reviewers) saying that there are fake reviews at the top, then something is up with that title.
(Edited)
