Thursday, October 01, 2009
"Rated"-ness...
When we say something is "underrated" or "overrated", what is it that we mean? Well, when we rate things, the "rating" we give them is particular to the person doing the rating; Andy hates Jackie Brown, whereas I love it, so I can say that he "underrates" Jackie Brown. But when we just throw out that, say, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is "underrated", who is doing the rating? There's not some sort of independent rating agency that establishes the worth of a piece of entertainment; art isn't baseball. I also don't believe in the "wisdom of crowds" nonsense that's popular these days. Look at Flickchart; I liked The Dark Knight as much as anyone, but can you really say that it's the best movie of all time? Or that The Professional is #20? Crowds are often dumb because people are often dumb; lumping them together doesn't (always) make their choices any smarter or better.
I guess my point is that "-rated" is another meaningless buzzword. Even my example of Andy "underrating" Jackie Brown is bullshit. He rates Jackie Brown exactly correct for him. To me, it seems like he's "underrating" it. (And he is, because he's wrong, but that's another post.)
I guess my point is that "-rated" is another meaningless buzzword. Even my example of Andy "underrating" Jackie Brown is bullshit. He rates Jackie Brown exactly correct for him. To me, it seems like he's "underrating" it. (And he is, because he's wrong, but that's another post.)
Labels: Pointless reflection
