Why do TV shows get better ratings than films on IMDb?

[Participant]

Top ten films by rating, average rating of 8.96, average initial release year of 1986:



Top ten TV shows by rating, average rating of 9.37, average initial release year of 2004:



Are TV show producers that much better than movie producers, or does different market, different audiences, different economics explain it all?

Is Breaking Bad really 0.4 points better than The Shawshank Redemption, the greatest movie ever made? Or is my point moot since movies cannot be compared to TV shows?

Of course this all assumes that IMDb ratings represent public opinion, but it's hard to pick a better metric so let's go with it, for argument's sake if nothing else.

 

[Janesy B]

Metacritic seems to give a fairer reflection. TV series do seem to be over rated on IMDB for whatever reason.

 

[Glaucus]

People generally don't watch TV shows they don't like, and are unlikely to sit through a hole series or 8 if they don't like it and thus unlikely to rate it, where films its only a couple of hours and even if you dislike it the chances are you'll stay to the end.

As reflected in the number of ratings. Over 1.1million for shawshank and under 500k for breaking bad.

 

[Kenai]

As Glaucus says, more people will sit and watch a film and then decide afterwards they didn't like it much and rate it as such. Not many people will go and rate a TV series they only watched an episode or two of and subsequently didn't bother with...

 

[Toadem]

Its because movie goers are never home to vote but us couch potatoes are never far from the pc so can nip on and give a little rating

 

[Glaucus]

Its because movie goers are never home to vote but us couch potatoes are never far from the pc so can nip on and give a little rating

Despite the figures showing the exact opposite.

 

[BSmith]

People generally don't watch TV shows they don't like, and are unlikely to sit through a hole series or 8 if they don't like it and thus unlikely to rate it, where films its only a couple of hours and even if you dislike it the chances are you'll stay to the end.

As reflected in the number of ratings. Over 1.1million for shawshank and under 500k for breaking bad.

Yeah, I agree. I just think the demographics are different between the two ultimately causing the difference in voting.

 

[Meridian]

People generally don't watch TV shows they don't like, and are unlikely to sit through a hole series or 8 if they don't like it and thus unlikely to rate it, where films its only a couple of hours and even if you dislike it the chances are you'll stay to the end.

As reflected in the number of ratings. Over 1.1million for shawshank and under 500k for breaking bad.

Mostly this, with a little of another factor: money. Until recently, people watched TV as part of a bundle, with a fixed cost. Films were generally seen at the cinema, with a one-off payment. If a TV series was bad, so what; if a film was bad, "I want my money back". Watching series via Netflix etc may start to change this.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Firefly at 9.2? Hilarious.

I also think Sherlock is overrated, once you factor in series 3. The Wire probably deserves its position. I don't think Breaking Bad does, but then I'm of the admittedly controversial opinion that it is a massively overrated program.

 

[Werewolf]

People generally don't watch TV shows they don't like, and are unlikely to sit through a hole series or 8 if they don't like it and thus unlikely to rate it, where films its only a couple of hours and even if you dislike it the chances are you'll stay to the end.

As reflected in the number of ratings. Over 1.1million for shawshank and under 500k for breaking bad.

Pretty much it I think.

You can watch a film and not like it, and it's only a couple of hours (or less if it's really bad and you walk out), but if you're watching a TV series it generally has to be good to keep you watching.

Also a TV series tends to have time to get really good (you just have to look how ropey many series are for the first season or so whilst the actors get used to their roles), whilst a film only has you for a few hours at best.


I'll give almost any film a go, especially if it's either on TV, cheap, or recommended - I've bought some real turkeys (Iron Sky, Police Academy, Sharktopus), and some odd ones because they were cheap and had an actor/director whose other work I liked, but I generally don't try TV series at random, I'll either watch something that sounds interesting, or that has been recommended.

One thing I would say, it's probably better to look at episode and season ratings for TV stuff, rather than a headline rating for the whole thing, as there are some TV series that started off great (and thus get a great rating), but descended into utter tripe - Sons of Anarchy being one that I started watching and enjoyed the first few seasons, but S4 was poor, and I think it was about half way through S5 I basically said "urgh I can't stand this rubbish any more", so if I'd rated it in S1 or 2 it would have been quite highly rated, but if I rated it in S4 or 5 it would probably have barely got 4/10.

 

[Meoricin]

Another aspect to consider is that because of the time spent with a TV series, you feel a closer attachment to the characters and story compared to a film - and so it's easier to mentally gloss over the bad, and remember the good.

The amount of time between starting a series and rating it is that much greater than with films as well, which would have a similar effect.