4 ms·

The conclusion that runtime correlates with rating is not quite clear to me. It looks to me that the scatter plot gets just more sparse as runtime increases and

by 3rd3 13y ago

The conclusion that runtime correlates with rating is not quite clear to me. It looks to me that the scatter plot gets just more sparse as runtime increases and the rating distribution remains more or less the same. Somehow the number of movies exploded last(?) year.

bugra 13y ago
It is true that as runtime increases, the number of movies decreases. However, if you look at the mainstream runtimes(>80 and <100), generally they get quite a variety of ratings for a given runtime if not uniform. On the other hand, the movies that have higher runtimes generally get higher number of votes. You could also observe the same behavior from rating vs #votes graph; as # votes increases, the number of movies decreases. However, rating and # votes correlate quite strongly.
- _mulder_ 13y ago
  I wonder why long movies are consistently rated higher? My guess would be for two reasons. The first being audience selection. Long films are (IMO) more likely to attract, and retain for the entire length, an audience with a prior interest in the film, and therefore more likely to be an audience who know beforehand if the movie is generally good or not. Secondly, psychology will come into play. The more time an audience invests in a film, the more likely they are to seek a positive reward for their time so they don't feel like they have got a bad deal[1]. Thus, they're more likely to rate the film higher than it perhaps otherwise would be. I also believe this holds true for 'art house' films that are difficult to follow and perhaps less enjoyable than a more mainstream film. Audiences will rate them higher to reassure themselves that they haven't just wasted 2 hours watching something boring that they don't understand. Some links for further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_escalation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_escalation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-purchase_rationalization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-purchase_rationalization
brownbat 13y ago
If you have a movie that was cut down to 80 minutes or shorter, it's sometimes because they just didn't have anything worth while to put in the final print. Maybe it's because everyone working on the film just wanted it to be over as quickly as possible, so they filmed less, kept less for the final, they were phoning it in to satisfy the contract. If a long movie is a real stinker, not just like a five or six, but a 2/10... it's costing tons of money. Someone's going to know and walk off the project or the producers are going to pull in emergency editors... you're not going to distribute a three hour film reel of pure trash.

by 3rd3 13y ago

bugra 13y ago

It is true that as runtime increases, the number of movies decreases. However, if you look at the mainstream runtimes(>80 and <100), generally they get quite a variety of ratings for a given runtime if not uniform. On the other hand, the movies that have higher runtimes generally get higher number of votes. You could also observe the same behavior from rating vs #votes graph; as # votes increases, the number of movies decreases. However, rating and # votes correlate quite strongly.

_mulder_ 13y ago
I wonder why long movies are consistently rated higher? My guess would be for two reasons. The first being audience selection. Long films are (IMO) more likely to attract, and retain for the entire length, an audience with a prior interest in the film, and therefore more likely to be an audience who know beforehand if the movie is generally good or not. Secondly, psychology will come into play. The more time an audience invests in a film, the more likely they are to seek a positive reward for their time so they don't feel like they have got a bad deal[1]. Thus, they're more likely to rate the film higher than it perhaps otherwise would be. I also believe this holds true for 'art house' films that are difficult to follow and perhaps less enjoyable than a more mainstream film. Audiences will rate them higher to reassure themselves that they haven't just wasted 2 hours watching something boring that they don't understand. Some links for further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_escalation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_escalation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-purchase_rationalization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-purchase_rationalization

brownbat 13y ago

If you have a movie that was cut down to 80 minutes or shorter, it's sometimes because they just didn't have anything worth while to put in the final print. Maybe it's because everyone working on the film just wanted it to be over as quickly as possible, so they filmed less, kept less for the final, they were phoning it in to satisfy the contract. If a long movie is a real stinker, not just like a five or six, but a 2/10... it's costing tons of money. Someone's going to know and walk off the project or the producers are going to pull in emergency editors... you're not going to distribute a three hour film reel of pure trash.