But what is the point of rating things if you can only rate them in line with popular opinion? And what is popular opinion but a collective assessment of personal opinions/ratings?
A somewhat black and white either/or position which seems mostly unrelated to my statements.
I'm not arguing "popular opinion" is the only opinion that matters, I did say it's significant when a movie from over 4 decades ago is highly rated in a modern mass rating system and someone downgrades the result by rating it around half the value of the many, it suggests someone probably is/was over egging the pudding.
Sure I/You could rate pink Floyd as equivalent to Daphne and Celest (no one has prevented anyone expressing opinions).
If I do that (and I'd be tempted because they go on and on and are usually dull imho), I suspect some/many would think I was either taking the micky (as I did with nitefly) or being an internet attention seeker.
But don't let my comments stop you, You defend the fast and furious all the way to the grave my good sir. The current mediocre rating from the masses (6.7) is the worst place to be IMHO, if I made a film I'd rather it got 5 or below from the masses than mid 6's, that sort of score is likely a true (in that case deserved) kiss of death.
If you really don't get on with something artistic I'd advise giving it a lowish mediocre score, its the worst thing you could say about a piece of art, I don't hate it I don't love it.
For example, the fast and furious, its a passable movie with some novel actions scenes and standard holywood quality actors and story, it's not awful 6.1/10 from me
