1 00:00:00,280 --> 00:00:03,880 Speaker 1: I'm Manny, I'm Noah, and this is no such thing. 2 00:00:04,080 --> 00:00:06,520 Speaker 1: The show where we answer our dumb questions and yours 3 00:00:06,640 --> 00:00:09,840 Speaker 1: by actually doing the research. Today we're talking about letterboxed 4 00:00:10,000 --> 00:00:12,400 Speaker 1: and how it's changed the ways we watch movies, possibly 5 00:00:12,440 --> 00:00:13,000 Speaker 1: for the worst. 6 00:00:13,800 --> 00:00:15,560 Speaker 2: The part that freaks people out is. 7 00:00:15,520 --> 00:00:17,800 Speaker 1: That, uh, maybe it's for people who are like staring 8 00:00:17,840 --> 00:00:18,800 Speaker 1: at TikTok or something. 9 00:00:19,120 --> 00:00:21,919 Speaker 3: My god, everyone is so hot in this very. 10 00:00:21,720 --> 00:00:22,800 Speaker 4: True that creeps me out. 11 00:00:25,440 --> 00:00:31,320 Speaker 2: There's no no such thing, such thing, such thing. 12 00:00:39,240 --> 00:00:41,959 Speaker 5: All right, so we all love movies, that's right. 13 00:00:42,040 --> 00:00:45,639 Speaker 1: Yeah, yes, accurate, and letterbox has many great uses. But 14 00:00:45,680 --> 00:00:48,560 Speaker 1: my concern is that turning movie watching into social media 15 00:00:49,120 --> 00:00:50,720 Speaker 1: data logging might hinder our. 16 00:00:50,600 --> 00:00:52,040 Speaker 5: Engagement with the movies themselves. 17 00:00:53,040 --> 00:00:55,080 Speaker 1: So on this episode, I want to dig into how 18 00:00:55,120 --> 00:00:57,240 Speaker 1: we use letterboxed and try to find out what, if 19 00:00:57,280 --> 00:00:59,840 Speaker 1: any impact this has on our movie watching experience. Do 20 00:00:59,880 --> 00:01:02,560 Speaker 1: we like movies more or less by committing to this 21 00:01:02,680 --> 00:01:07,760 Speaker 1: cataloging and rating system. But first, let's back up in 22 00:01:07,800 --> 00:01:10,119 Speaker 1: case you have no idea what we're talking about. Letterbox 23 00:01:10,200 --> 00:01:12,319 Speaker 1: is a social media app for logging movies. It was 24 00:01:12,319 --> 00:01:14,520 Speaker 1: started by a couple of red designers in New Zealand. 25 00:01:14,560 --> 00:01:16,640 Speaker 1: Back in twenty eleven, but it saw a massive boost 26 00:01:16,680 --> 00:01:19,399 Speaker 1: in popularity during COVID, going from about one point eight 27 00:01:19,440 --> 00:01:22,679 Speaker 1: million users in March twenty twenty to roughly thirteen million today. 28 00:01:22,840 --> 00:01:25,080 Speaker 1: Over a billion movies have been logged on the app. 29 00:01:25,360 --> 00:01:28,440 Speaker 1: Users SKW younger, the largest age group on the app 30 00:01:28,520 --> 00:01:31,319 Speaker 1: being eighteen to twenty four, followed by the coveted twenty 31 00:01:31,319 --> 00:01:31,759 Speaker 1: five to. 32 00:01:31,680 --> 00:01:33,720 Speaker 5: Thirty five set, of which we're proud members. 33 00:01:34,560 --> 00:01:37,880 Speaker 1: Still In twenty twenty three, when a majority stake was 34 00:01:37,880 --> 00:01:40,880 Speaker 1: sold to a Canadian company called Tiny, Letterbox was valued 35 00:01:40,920 --> 00:01:44,600 Speaker 1: at over fifty million dollars. The reputation Letterbox carries is 36 00:01:44,600 --> 00:01:46,240 Speaker 1: that ski is a little bit more indie or art 37 00:01:46,240 --> 00:01:48,320 Speaker 1: house versus something that's kind of more. 38 00:01:48,160 --> 00:01:49,240 Speaker 5: Broad like IMDb. 39 00:01:50,920 --> 00:01:53,760 Speaker 1: Our former colleague Graham was the inspiration for this episode 40 00:01:53,800 --> 00:01:57,680 Speaker 1: because his ratings are insane insane. 41 00:01:57,200 --> 00:01:57,880 Speaker 5: They kind of lean. 42 00:01:58,360 --> 00:02:00,880 Speaker 1: He leans pretty heavily on like the five are rating 43 00:02:01,480 --> 00:02:03,080 Speaker 1: versus something a little more modest. 44 00:02:03,400 --> 00:02:06,640 Speaker 6: Yes, I love movies. I love to watch them. I'm 45 00:02:06,640 --> 00:02:10,960 Speaker 6: happy when I'm watching them. Sometimes, yes, they're disappointing, but thankfully, 46 00:02:11,240 --> 00:02:13,040 Speaker 6: for the most part of the movies that I choose 47 00:02:13,040 --> 00:02:16,640 Speaker 6: to watch usually make me very happy. And I'm sorry 48 00:02:17,360 --> 00:02:21,040 Speaker 6: if that offends people, but thank you so much for 49 00:02:21,080 --> 00:02:24,359 Speaker 6: having me and good luck, good luck. 50 00:02:25,720 --> 00:02:27,519 Speaker 2: Thank you Graham. Yeah, thank you Graham. 51 00:02:27,840 --> 00:02:30,360 Speaker 1: So to start off, how do you guys each use letterbox? 52 00:02:30,639 --> 00:02:33,520 Speaker 7: I have some sympathy for Graham because I also have 53 00:02:33,560 --> 00:02:36,520 Speaker 7: a rating system that people think is crazy. I'm pretty 54 00:02:36,560 --> 00:02:40,400 Speaker 7: much grading the movie on how well it was made, 55 00:02:40,639 --> 00:02:44,040 Speaker 7: like the production quality of it, and also screenplay, apply 56 00:02:44,240 --> 00:02:46,760 Speaker 7: all that stuff. But then it does mean that like 57 00:02:47,440 --> 00:02:49,760 Speaker 7: a movie I didn't like that much will get a 58 00:02:49,840 --> 00:02:52,400 Speaker 7: high rating because I thought that they did they had 59 00:02:52,400 --> 00:02:52,840 Speaker 7: a vision. 60 00:02:52,919 --> 00:02:55,240 Speaker 1: Yeah, so you're not rating on your personal enjoyment as 61 00:02:55,320 --> 00:02:58,959 Speaker 1: much as the technical side. Yeah, Like I can acknowledge 62 00:02:58,960 --> 00:03:02,240 Speaker 1: that a movie was good without liking it, without having. 63 00:03:02,080 --> 00:03:04,120 Speaker 3: To like it, But that's what your rating system is 64 00:03:04,160 --> 00:03:04,560 Speaker 3: based on. 65 00:03:04,800 --> 00:03:08,240 Speaker 7: Yeah, Because then the part that freaks people out is 66 00:03:08,280 --> 00:03:11,160 Speaker 7: that that means some of my favorite movies end up 67 00:03:11,160 --> 00:03:12,080 Speaker 7: being like two. 68 00:03:12,040 --> 00:03:13,160 Speaker 5: Star three stars. 69 00:03:13,200 --> 00:03:15,840 Speaker 7: An example one of my favorite movies ever is the 70 00:03:15,919 --> 00:03:18,280 Speaker 7: second rush Hour movie Rush Hour Too. 71 00:03:19,160 --> 00:03:20,120 Speaker 4: I don't even know why the hell. 72 00:03:20,160 --> 00:03:21,519 Speaker 5: I mean, I ain't need chiny. 73 00:03:22,720 --> 00:03:25,799 Speaker 7: I think it's hilarious, it's got good action sequences, But 74 00:03:26,280 --> 00:03:28,639 Speaker 7: you want me to grade the screenplay on that one's 75 00:03:28,760 --> 00:03:30,720 Speaker 7: like not good, it's like so that. So I'm like, 76 00:03:30,720 --> 00:03:33,440 Speaker 7: all right, as a movie, this movie's whatever. It's fine, 77 00:03:33,480 --> 00:03:34,520 Speaker 7: it's a two or three star. 78 00:03:35,080 --> 00:03:37,720 Speaker 3: But so in your letterbox, you're giving your favorite movie 79 00:03:37,720 --> 00:03:39,080 Speaker 3: a two, two or three stars. 80 00:03:39,800 --> 00:03:42,440 Speaker 7: In this instance, it would probably be like a three 81 00:03:42,520 --> 00:03:45,240 Speaker 7: star movie, two and a half three stars. It's not 82 00:03:45,600 --> 00:03:47,920 Speaker 7: a five star like bet one of the best movies 83 00:03:47,920 --> 00:03:48,960 Speaker 7: ever produced. 84 00:03:49,160 --> 00:03:54,760 Speaker 3: Okay, so I have I have the opposite rating system, 85 00:03:54,760 --> 00:03:57,640 Speaker 3: which is this is my letterbox. If we just rating 86 00:03:57,720 --> 00:04:00,839 Speaker 3: the quality of the movie, that's when you go read 87 00:04:00,840 --> 00:04:02,880 Speaker 3: the New York Times or some shit. I am not 88 00:04:03,200 --> 00:04:07,960 Speaker 3: rating the movie based on how beautiful it is or 89 00:04:08,000 --> 00:04:10,320 Speaker 3: what the sound makes is, or only in so far 90 00:04:10,360 --> 00:04:13,120 Speaker 3: as it connects with you exactly, because there's movies that 91 00:04:13,160 --> 00:04:15,080 Speaker 3: do all that stuff really well that I do not 92 00:04:15,160 --> 00:04:17,920 Speaker 3: find entertaining, and I actually think those movies are worse 93 00:04:18,800 --> 00:04:21,200 Speaker 3: than something that has tons of flaws or like that 94 00:04:21,279 --> 00:04:24,039 Speaker 3: plotline doesn't really make sense or whatever. But like I 95 00:04:24,080 --> 00:04:27,240 Speaker 3: don't know, connects emotionally for me. My rating system is 96 00:04:27,279 --> 00:04:30,839 Speaker 3: based on how much did I enjoy this movie? Yeah, 97 00:04:30,880 --> 00:04:33,360 Speaker 3: but there's two extremes to that too, right, I gave 98 00:04:33,360 --> 00:04:36,080 Speaker 3: Trapped five stars. I had a really good time this 99 00:04:36,160 --> 00:04:42,520 Speaker 3: whole concept to Trap, watching all the exits, checking everyone 100 00:04:42,560 --> 00:04:47,560 Speaker 3: that leaves. There's no way to get out of here. 101 00:04:47,680 --> 00:04:49,080 Speaker 3: It is not a five star movie. There are a 102 00:04:49,120 --> 00:04:52,360 Speaker 3: lot of issues with that movie. I also saw Cuckoo. 103 00:04:52,800 --> 00:04:55,159 Speaker 3: It was a horrible movie, and I was annoyed in 104 00:04:55,600 --> 00:04:58,839 Speaker 3: not having a good time, so that got like star 105 00:04:58,920 --> 00:05:01,400 Speaker 3: and a half. You could have a bad movie, like 106 00:05:01,440 --> 00:05:04,599 Speaker 3: the media movies. I'm giving those fives. That is the 107 00:05:04,640 --> 00:05:07,680 Speaker 3: most fun our twenty minutes I've had. 108 00:05:07,560 --> 00:05:09,760 Speaker 1: You know, in my life. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. 109 00:05:09,960 --> 00:05:10,800 Speaker 5: And then there's. 110 00:05:10,640 --> 00:05:12,840 Speaker 3: Stuff that is just really bad that you're like, oh 111 00:05:12,880 --> 00:05:14,400 Speaker 3: my god, what is just gonna be finished? At the 112 00:05:14,480 --> 00:05:16,640 Speaker 3: end of the year, I may have four or five 113 00:05:16,720 --> 00:05:19,680 Speaker 3: movies at the top level that I've given fives to. 114 00:05:20,839 --> 00:05:22,840 Speaker 3: Most of the movies I see are not getting fives. 115 00:05:23,040 --> 00:05:24,720 Speaker 3: But I also think most of the movies that I'm 116 00:05:24,720 --> 00:05:27,520 Speaker 3: seeing are just not three. 117 00:05:27,720 --> 00:05:29,880 Speaker 7: I think when I look at ratings, maybe this is 118 00:05:29,880 --> 00:05:32,560 Speaker 7: because I'm a good citizen. I feel like my rating 119 00:05:32,640 --> 00:05:38,360 Speaker 7: system is in service of other people. Perhaps your review, 120 00:05:38,480 --> 00:05:41,000 Speaker 7: your five star review is Trap does not help me 121 00:05:41,560 --> 00:05:43,560 Speaker 7: at all. But that's okay. I don't think it needs 122 00:05:43,600 --> 00:05:45,359 Speaker 7: to do that. But that's what I try to do 123 00:05:45,440 --> 00:05:48,279 Speaker 7: with my ratings. But I'm not a critic on. 124 00:05:50,240 --> 00:05:53,039 Speaker 3: Read my ring because if you see me give Trap 125 00:05:53,120 --> 00:05:55,800 Speaker 3: five stars, you got to click in and Rew, Yeah. 126 00:05:55,720 --> 00:05:56,599 Speaker 2: Yeah, but I know. 127 00:05:56,839 --> 00:05:58,280 Speaker 5: Yeah, so what did you write for this? 128 00:05:59,120 --> 00:06:01,880 Speaker 2: My first line is, and there's a heart on this one? 129 00:06:02,120 --> 00:06:02,479 Speaker 7: Is a heart? 130 00:06:03,000 --> 00:06:04,440 Speaker 2: Do you do hearts? I don't do hearts. I don't 131 00:06:04,440 --> 00:06:04,920 Speaker 2: know what they are. 132 00:06:04,960 --> 00:06:07,839 Speaker 3: Really hearts will actually be helpful for you? Yeah, I 133 00:06:07,920 --> 00:06:11,279 Speaker 3: wrote this is the stupidest thing I've ever seen. No notes. 134 00:06:11,920 --> 00:06:14,240 Speaker 3: Then I talk about specifics from the movie that don't 135 00:06:14,240 --> 00:06:17,000 Speaker 3: actually make sense. But yeah, it's very dumb. 136 00:06:17,240 --> 00:06:20,239 Speaker 1: My system is I don't put a number rating on things. 137 00:06:20,480 --> 00:06:23,279 Speaker 1: I'll just heart something. There's no point in that. I 138 00:06:23,400 --> 00:06:25,159 Speaker 1: keep a watch list, which helps me if I just 139 00:06:25,160 --> 00:06:25,960 Speaker 1: want to throw a movie on. 140 00:06:26,040 --> 00:06:27,200 Speaker 5: That's mainly how I use it. 141 00:06:27,240 --> 00:06:29,119 Speaker 1: I don't look at other people's things so much, except 142 00:06:29,120 --> 00:06:30,520 Speaker 1: for like what pops up when I open it. If 143 00:06:30,520 --> 00:06:33,320 Speaker 1: I see Devin's reviewed something or I've had after I've 144 00:06:33,360 --> 00:06:35,719 Speaker 1: seen something, I'm curious, like, oh, I wonder you know 145 00:06:35,760 --> 00:06:37,640 Speaker 1: if my friends have seen this, or what they think 146 00:06:37,760 --> 00:06:39,120 Speaker 1: or that sort of thing. 147 00:06:39,160 --> 00:06:40,240 Speaker 5: Aside from what I'm just. 148 00:06:40,360 --> 00:06:42,920 Speaker 2: Curious, like what the worst reviews of something? 149 00:06:43,000 --> 00:06:45,880 Speaker 1: Or I'm not reading other random people's reviews really, so yeah, 150 00:06:45,880 --> 00:06:47,560 Speaker 1: I'll throw a heart on something if I like and 151 00:06:47,600 --> 00:06:50,200 Speaker 1: then otherwise I just if I didn't love it, then 152 00:06:50,279 --> 00:06:50,880 Speaker 1: there's no heart. 153 00:06:50,920 --> 00:06:51,760 Speaker 5: And that's all. 154 00:06:57,760 --> 00:07:00,359 Speaker 7: Here's a fun experiment because many of the movie we 155 00:07:00,480 --> 00:07:03,720 Speaker 7: log on letterbox, the three of us have seen together. 156 00:07:04,040 --> 00:07:05,640 Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm seeing the Killer here. 157 00:07:07,680 --> 00:07:12,679 Speaker 5: If I'm effective, it's because of one simple fact. 158 00:07:14,160 --> 00:07:16,680 Speaker 3: I don't give. 159 00:07:19,600 --> 00:07:23,280 Speaker 7: What are your guys's reviews are rankings of the Killer? 160 00:07:23,320 --> 00:07:25,559 Speaker 7: I think we all had. We all came out thinking 161 00:07:25,600 --> 00:07:28,120 Speaker 7: pretty much the same thing, so it'd be interesting to 162 00:07:28,120 --> 00:07:30,520 Speaker 7: see how the reviews vary. I'm pretty sure that that 163 00:07:30,600 --> 00:07:33,160 Speaker 7: was a no heart from me because my immediate reaction 164 00:07:33,320 --> 00:07:36,360 Speaker 7: was low, but certain friends had such positive reactions. And 165 00:07:36,400 --> 00:07:40,200 Speaker 7: then afterwards I haven't rewatched it, but I then softened 166 00:07:40,200 --> 00:07:40,920 Speaker 7: on it in my mind. 167 00:07:40,960 --> 00:07:41,320 Speaker 5: At least. 168 00:07:41,440 --> 00:07:43,480 Speaker 3: Yeah, I gave it a higher reviewed than I remember. 169 00:07:43,800 --> 00:07:44,840 Speaker 3: I gave it three stars. 170 00:07:44,960 --> 00:07:45,280 Speaker 2: Okay. 171 00:07:45,720 --> 00:07:48,800 Speaker 3: One issue I had was just the way the viewing 172 00:07:48,840 --> 00:07:50,040 Speaker 3: experience of seeing this movie. 173 00:07:50,160 --> 00:07:54,400 Speaker 2: You saw the para theater, horrible theater. Everyone's big ass head. 174 00:07:54,600 --> 00:07:56,760 Speaker 3: Yeah, It's like I didn't even notice was still a thing. 175 00:07:56,800 --> 00:07:58,440 Speaker 3: You go to movie theater and if you have to 176 00:07:58,440 --> 00:08:00,200 Speaker 3: be worried about the person sitting in front. 177 00:08:00,760 --> 00:08:01,720 Speaker 5: Because you can't see. 178 00:08:01,920 --> 00:08:04,280 Speaker 3: That's to say I gave it a higher rating because 179 00:08:04,280 --> 00:08:05,800 Speaker 3: I was like, part of the reason why I was 180 00:08:05,800 --> 00:08:09,080 Speaker 3: frustrated by this movie is just the way I was 181 00:08:09,120 --> 00:08:12,360 Speaker 3: watching it. But I thought it was like, Okay, yeah, 182 00:08:12,800 --> 00:08:15,040 Speaker 3: not probably not something I'm gonna watch again or even 183 00:08:15,120 --> 00:08:15,800 Speaker 3: really think about. 184 00:08:15,960 --> 00:08:17,680 Speaker 2: Our reviews weren't that far off. You had three. 185 00:08:17,720 --> 00:08:19,560 Speaker 7: I had two and a half, and my review was 186 00:08:19,600 --> 00:08:22,800 Speaker 7: that it was really well made and underscores the value 187 00:08:22,800 --> 00:08:26,600 Speaker 7: of simplicity, but it didn't leave much of an emotional impression. Yeah, 188 00:08:26,680 --> 00:08:28,680 Speaker 7: the first twenty minutes or so would have been an 189 00:08:28,680 --> 00:08:29,840 Speaker 7: incredible short film. 190 00:08:29,960 --> 00:08:31,120 Speaker 2: Yeap, Yeah, that's fair enough. 191 00:08:36,720 --> 00:08:39,440 Speaker 1: With these things in mind, do you think it changes 192 00:08:39,440 --> 00:08:42,360 Speaker 1: how you watch movies knowing you're gonna put a number 193 00:08:42,720 --> 00:08:43,719 Speaker 1: or a star rating on it. 194 00:08:44,640 --> 00:08:44,840 Speaker 4: Yeah. 195 00:08:44,880 --> 00:08:48,800 Speaker 7: I think the letterbox has become such a staple in 196 00:08:48,880 --> 00:08:51,600 Speaker 7: social media that like, when I go into a movie, 197 00:08:52,080 --> 00:08:54,920 Speaker 7: maybe subconsciously I am thinking about what I would say 198 00:08:54,920 --> 00:08:57,880 Speaker 7: in a letterbox review. I think that's been a change 199 00:08:57,880 --> 00:08:59,679 Speaker 7: in the past couple of years, especially when I was 200 00:08:59,679 --> 00:09:03,000 Speaker 7: watching Challengers, all the Challengers reviews, and I was like, Okay, 201 00:09:03,000 --> 00:09:04,600 Speaker 7: what am I going to say when I get. 202 00:09:04,400 --> 00:09:06,280 Speaker 5: Done with this spee? It's like reacting to the hype. 203 00:09:06,480 --> 00:09:09,400 Speaker 3: Yeah, Yeah, I definitely think about it. I think I 204 00:09:09,640 --> 00:09:12,800 Speaker 3: use it as a gauge for how much I'm liking 205 00:09:12,880 --> 00:09:16,400 Speaker 3: the movie. Especially when I don't like a movie, I 206 00:09:16,400 --> 00:09:17,600 Speaker 3: feel like I think about it more. 207 00:09:17,679 --> 00:09:19,640 Speaker 5: I'm like, this is like and like during the movie. 208 00:09:19,720 --> 00:09:21,840 Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's kind of part of what inspired 209 00:09:21,880 --> 00:09:24,560 Speaker 1: me to stop doing the Stars, because it was like, 210 00:09:24,600 --> 00:09:26,360 Speaker 1: why am I thinking about this at all? 211 00:09:26,600 --> 00:09:30,280 Speaker 3: Well, it only happens in movies where yeah, that's good 212 00:09:30,400 --> 00:09:33,079 Speaker 3: because otherwise you're just engrossed in the movie. But it's 213 00:09:33,160 --> 00:09:35,320 Speaker 3: usually when I'm like, okay, this is gone from the 214 00:09:35,400 --> 00:09:39,040 Speaker 3: two to one and a half, We're going to lose 215 00:09:39,040 --> 00:09:43,000 Speaker 3: another star if it keeps going for another twenty minutes. Yeah, 216 00:09:43,040 --> 00:09:46,200 Speaker 3: And especially like these last couple of bad movies I've seen, 217 00:09:46,280 --> 00:09:49,400 Speaker 3: I've like actively been like, all right, what star rating 218 00:09:49,440 --> 00:09:51,440 Speaker 3: are we at? And what did we just lose? Based 219 00:09:51,520 --> 00:09:55,040 Speaker 3: on how bad that scene? A constant yes, or like 220 00:09:55,080 --> 00:09:57,319 Speaker 3: sometimes I'm like, oh, you know what that was? Actually 221 00:09:57,360 --> 00:09:59,679 Speaker 3: pretty interesting. Wait, we had two and a half. Now 222 00:10:00,120 --> 00:10:03,600 Speaker 3: I don't love that. I do that, but it only 223 00:10:03,679 --> 00:10:07,200 Speaker 3: happens in movies where I'm not fully in a movie. 224 00:10:07,280 --> 00:10:08,599 Speaker 1: Yeah, even if you're thinking about it during it, do 225 00:10:08,679 --> 00:10:10,640 Speaker 1: you think it helps you engage with the work knowing 226 00:10:10,679 --> 00:10:12,560 Speaker 1: that you're going to do that versus Okay, you're not 227 00:10:12,600 --> 00:10:14,840 Speaker 1: going to raid anything. You're not going to do anything, 228 00:10:15,280 --> 00:10:17,200 Speaker 1: are you actually then just coming to terms on it 229 00:10:17,240 --> 00:10:18,640 Speaker 1: on its own, because I think part of what I 230 00:10:18,679 --> 00:10:21,439 Speaker 1: don't like is you end up automatically. Then you're doing 231 00:10:21,480 --> 00:10:23,360 Speaker 1: a comparison system where it's like, oh, well that's a 232 00:10:23,360 --> 00:10:25,240 Speaker 1: five star, so I guess this has to be a 233 00:10:25,280 --> 00:10:28,040 Speaker 1: five star, or then if not, and you don't care, 234 00:10:28,080 --> 00:10:30,280 Speaker 1: then it just looks ridiculous sometimes because it's. 235 00:10:30,120 --> 00:10:31,600 Speaker 2: Like, well, why is that five and this is three? 236 00:10:31,800 --> 00:10:35,000 Speaker 1: Even though this is great, And then I'm not actually 237 00:10:35,040 --> 00:10:38,960 Speaker 1: I'm just thinking about numbers and I'm turning a piece 238 00:10:39,000 --> 00:10:42,680 Speaker 1: of art into data basically instead of just like, oh, like, 239 00:10:42,720 --> 00:10:46,280 Speaker 1: this was very evocative of some feeling for me as 240 00:10:46,320 --> 00:10:49,160 Speaker 1: an actual thing, and it's like, why does it make 241 00:10:49,200 --> 00:10:49,800 Speaker 1: me feel that way? 242 00:10:49,960 --> 00:10:50,840 Speaker 5: Xyz whatever? 243 00:10:51,080 --> 00:10:51,440 Speaker 2: That's why? 244 00:10:51,559 --> 00:10:53,839 Speaker 1: To me, it's like thinking and talking about it. That's 245 00:10:53,880 --> 00:10:57,880 Speaker 1: where the review part writing can help put that into words. 246 00:10:57,920 --> 00:11:00,280 Speaker 1: And even just like okay, whoever you saw the movie 247 00:11:00,280 --> 00:11:00,839 Speaker 1: with talking with. 248 00:11:00,800 --> 00:11:01,880 Speaker 5: Them out of bar afterwards. 249 00:11:02,120 --> 00:11:03,400 Speaker 1: That's what I love when you can have the fun 250 00:11:03,440 --> 00:11:05,800 Speaker 1: where we're just picking it apart and plot holes or whatever, 251 00:11:06,280 --> 00:11:09,079 Speaker 1: and maybe my friend or someone has some idea and 252 00:11:09,120 --> 00:11:10,839 Speaker 1: so I didn't think about that, but I actually agree 253 00:11:10,920 --> 00:11:15,960 Speaker 1: or yeah, yeah, and so I think that that's kind 254 00:11:15,960 --> 00:11:20,760 Speaker 1: of more helpful for actually like engaging than like, well 255 00:11:20,760 --> 00:11:24,400 Speaker 1: that's three, you know, which is so reductive. But you 256 00:11:24,400 --> 00:11:27,920 Speaker 1: can easily do that and then deduce the number afterwards. 257 00:11:27,920 --> 00:11:29,240 Speaker 1: And I don't think it necessary. I don't think it 258 00:11:29,240 --> 00:11:33,160 Speaker 1: necessarily has to degrade the piece, but I think ultimately 259 00:11:33,240 --> 00:11:36,600 Speaker 1: turning everything into a ranking or a list is pretty harmful. 260 00:11:38,800 --> 00:11:40,360 Speaker 1: All right, So next I want to talk to a 261 00:11:40,440 --> 00:11:43,440 Speaker 1: researcher about how movie reviews and ratings might impact our 262 00:11:43,480 --> 00:11:45,520 Speaker 1: experience of a movie. And then I want to talk 263 00:11:45,559 --> 00:11:48,000 Speaker 1: to a movie critic about how they approach writing reviews, 264 00:11:48,120 --> 00:11:49,199 Speaker 1: assigning ratings, and. 265 00:11:49,160 --> 00:11:50,560 Speaker 5: How they feel about letterboxed. 266 00:11:50,840 --> 00:11:52,680 Speaker 1: And for me, I want to start assigning some star 267 00:11:52,760 --> 00:11:55,960 Speaker 1: ratings some movies I've watched. Finally writing some reviews and 268 00:11:56,000 --> 00:11:57,040 Speaker 1: seeing how I feel about it. 269 00:11:57,080 --> 00:12:01,360 Speaker 3: Welcome to the dark side, Yeah, wish me to like. 270 00:12:05,760 --> 00:12:07,880 Speaker 1: So I talked to a researcher from the Netherlands. His 271 00:12:08,000 --> 00:12:11,400 Speaker 1: name is Rude Jacobs. His master's thesis from twenty twelve 272 00:12:11,480 --> 00:12:15,000 Speaker 1: is titled Everybody's a Critic Influenceability of Motion Picture of 273 00:12:15,040 --> 00:12:18,120 Speaker 1: Valuations from expert and consumer reviews. Of course this was 274 00:12:18,120 --> 00:12:20,680 Speaker 1: a bit before Letterbox became so prominent, but his paper 275 00:12:20,760 --> 00:12:22,000 Speaker 1: looks at a few of the things that we were 276 00:12:22,000 --> 00:12:24,400 Speaker 1: talking about, as far as just how reviews and ratings 277 00:12:24,400 --> 00:12:25,840 Speaker 1: can impact your experience. 278 00:12:26,000 --> 00:12:27,079 Speaker 5: Here's how he explains it. 279 00:12:27,200 --> 00:12:29,280 Speaker 8: So the paper was from quite a long time ago. 280 00:12:29,400 --> 00:12:31,400 Speaker 8: It was my master thesis back in the day actually, 281 00:12:31,480 --> 00:12:34,240 Speaker 8: and it's since been published. The paper was about trying 282 00:12:34,240 --> 00:12:39,319 Speaker 8: to understand if movie reviews create a more or less 283 00:12:39,360 --> 00:12:43,400 Speaker 8: interest in people to actually see those movies, and also 284 00:12:43,440 --> 00:12:46,120 Speaker 8: to change whether or not people are enjoying the movies 285 00:12:46,160 --> 00:12:48,760 Speaker 8: as they're seeing them. So I was trying to see 286 00:12:49,000 --> 00:12:52,280 Speaker 8: if if you read a movie review beforehand and then 287 00:12:52,280 --> 00:12:54,240 Speaker 8: you watch the movie, if you have a worse or 288 00:12:54,320 --> 00:12:56,720 Speaker 8: better time because of it. That was the main goal. 289 00:12:57,280 --> 00:12:59,959 Speaker 1: So the experiment went like this, five groups of people 290 00:13:00,080 --> 00:13:02,720 Speaker 1: or assigned to read either a professional positive review, a 291 00:13:02,760 --> 00:13:06,560 Speaker 1: professional negative review, a consumer positive review, or a consumer 292 00:13:06,600 --> 00:13:09,199 Speaker 1: negative review. And in this case, a consumer review is 293 00:13:09,240 --> 00:13:11,560 Speaker 1: the equivalent to a letterbox review. It's written by a 294 00:13:11,559 --> 00:13:15,719 Speaker 1: normal person, not a professional critic or something. Or they 295 00:13:15,720 --> 00:13:17,880 Speaker 1: were given no review at all. They were just given 296 00:13:17,960 --> 00:13:21,559 Speaker 1: some very basic information about the film without any evaluative statements. 297 00:13:21,920 --> 00:13:28,400 Speaker 8: And we designed those reviews based on a short content 298 00:13:28,440 --> 00:13:31,320 Speaker 8: analysis of reviews that we found online, both on the 299 00:13:31,320 --> 00:13:34,800 Speaker 8: consumer side and on the professional critic side. So there 300 00:13:35,320 --> 00:13:39,360 Speaker 8: they took elements from reviews of that movie, and they 301 00:13:39,400 --> 00:13:41,760 Speaker 8: were kind of matched together in a way that fit 302 00:13:42,040 --> 00:13:47,240 Speaker 8: our manipulation, so that they are identical except for the evaluation, 303 00:13:47,400 --> 00:13:50,560 Speaker 8: and they're identical except for the tone professional or consumer. 304 00:13:50,720 --> 00:13:53,720 Speaker 1: So they were watching this short Spike Jones film I'm here, 305 00:13:54,120 --> 00:13:54,880 Speaker 1: great movie? 306 00:13:55,480 --> 00:13:55,840 Speaker 5: Do you mean? 307 00:13:55,920 --> 00:14:01,240 Speaker 1: Recondryclusey can make it up? Says like it's kind of 308 00:14:01,240 --> 00:14:04,200 Speaker 1: an issue because the movie's just good. So it kind 309 00:14:04,200 --> 00:14:06,280 Speaker 1: of skews the results almost like they need to find 310 00:14:06,280 --> 00:14:07,920 Speaker 1: something maybe more middle of the road. 311 00:14:08,040 --> 00:14:11,240 Speaker 3: But yeah, college staple. 312 00:14:12,040 --> 00:14:14,160 Speaker 1: So that's how they did the experiment, and these are 313 00:14:14,160 --> 00:14:15,280 Speaker 1: the results they found. 314 00:14:15,440 --> 00:14:18,240 Speaker 8: So the only effect that we found was of a 315 00:14:18,360 --> 00:14:21,960 Speaker 8: negative consumer review. Those were the ones where the grade 316 00:14:22,000 --> 00:14:24,480 Speaker 8: went down from what we found in a control condition 317 00:14:24,600 --> 00:14:27,080 Speaker 8: to I think at one point out of ten lower 318 00:14:27,200 --> 00:14:29,600 Speaker 8: or something or zero point seven points out of ten lower. 319 00:14:29,640 --> 00:14:34,680 Speaker 8: And that was mostly because of the emotional engagement that 320 00:14:34,720 --> 00:14:38,720 Speaker 8: people had with the movie after reading the review, because 321 00:14:38,760 --> 00:14:42,880 Speaker 8: if they read a negative emotional review, they distanced themselves 322 00:14:42,920 --> 00:14:45,560 Speaker 8: from the movie. They did not allow themselves to be 323 00:14:45,600 --> 00:14:48,320 Speaker 8: engaged in the movie. And they were quite good at 324 00:14:48,560 --> 00:14:51,240 Speaker 8: seeing which of the reviews were kind of emotional and 325 00:14:51,280 --> 00:14:53,400 Speaker 8: which weren't. And they were also pretty good at guessing 326 00:14:53,440 --> 00:14:56,080 Speaker 8: what the grade was that the reviewer would have given 327 00:14:56,120 --> 00:14:59,280 Speaker 8: the movie based on just the narrative review without the 328 00:14:59,320 --> 00:15:00,000 Speaker 8: actual grade. 329 00:15:00,160 --> 00:15:04,880 Speaker 7: So there's pretty clear evidence that reading a review paints 330 00:15:05,240 --> 00:15:07,120 Speaker 7: what your experience what the movie is going to be 331 00:15:07,400 --> 00:15:08,440 Speaker 7: if you read it beforehand. 332 00:15:08,600 --> 00:15:11,440 Speaker 1: And as you heard, he says, these negative, more emotional 333 00:15:11,560 --> 00:15:14,120 Speaker 1: reviews which are going to skew towards the consumer side, 334 00:15:14,120 --> 00:15:16,360 Speaker 1: So letterbox and other things are going to have more 335 00:15:16,400 --> 00:15:20,520 Speaker 1: impact than the more distant, sort of straight writing style 336 00:15:20,600 --> 00:15:23,480 Speaker 1: from a professional who's not going to probably try to 337 00:15:23,520 --> 00:15:26,400 Speaker 1: engage you on that yeah, intense level, as like this sucks, 338 00:15:26,440 --> 00:15:29,560 Speaker 1: you're wasting your time and money, Like a newspaper review 339 00:15:29,600 --> 00:15:31,480 Speaker 1: probably isn't going to talk about like the money you're 340 00:15:31,520 --> 00:15:33,800 Speaker 1: spending right to see a movie or something. 341 00:15:33,520 --> 00:15:37,480 Speaker 3: You know when he's talking about there. Basically reading a 342 00:15:37,520 --> 00:15:40,640 Speaker 3: negative review makes it so that you go into the 343 00:15:40,680 --> 00:15:42,560 Speaker 3: movie not like already. 344 00:15:42,200 --> 00:15:46,000 Speaker 9: Not invested, right, Yeah, like standoffish exactly, that you already 345 00:15:46,000 --> 00:15:49,800 Speaker 9: create a distance which rings true to me, right, Like 346 00:15:49,840 --> 00:15:52,840 Speaker 9: there are movies that if you hear about ahead of 347 00:15:52,880 --> 00:15:55,400 Speaker 9: time being particularly bad. 348 00:15:55,200 --> 00:15:57,080 Speaker 3: You go in with the let me see what this 349 00:15:57,200 --> 00:15:59,320 Speaker 3: dumb ass movie is going to be, and like you 350 00:15:59,320 --> 00:16:01,360 Speaker 3: don't give it a ants to be sucked in. 351 00:16:01,560 --> 00:16:05,800 Speaker 7: Yeah, a recent examples like I heard how people thought 352 00:16:05,960 --> 00:16:08,360 Speaker 7: Megalopolis was bad, and then I went to go see 353 00:16:08,360 --> 00:16:09,880 Speaker 7: it and I was like, yeah, that was bad. 354 00:16:10,360 --> 00:16:12,240 Speaker 1: It's funny because for me, I feel like it goes 355 00:16:12,280 --> 00:16:15,480 Speaker 1: both ways, where in some level I hear something's trash 356 00:16:15,520 --> 00:16:18,480 Speaker 1: and then I'm like, oh, it can't be that bad, almost. 357 00:16:18,200 --> 00:16:19,360 Speaker 5: The contrarian thing. 358 00:16:19,520 --> 00:16:22,840 Speaker 1: Yeah, So like Megalopolis and Joker Too are to both 359 00:16:22,880 --> 00:16:27,400 Speaker 1: movies that were totally disparaged by critics and normal people. Yeah, 360 00:16:27,800 --> 00:16:30,480 Speaker 1: I was like France for Coppola's a legend he can't 361 00:16:30,480 --> 00:16:31,680 Speaker 1: be totally worthless. 362 00:16:31,760 --> 00:16:35,200 Speaker 6: Yeah, and you think one year of medical school entitles 363 00:16:35,240 --> 00:16:37,760 Speaker 6: you to plow through the riches of my Amersonian mind. 364 00:16:37,960 --> 00:16:40,760 Speaker 1: And then Joker not a movie I was that interested in, 365 00:16:40,840 --> 00:16:43,640 Speaker 1: but I saw and also did terribly box office wise 366 00:16:43,680 --> 00:16:47,040 Speaker 1: and critically, and I was like, well, this isn't as 367 00:16:47,080 --> 00:16:48,080 Speaker 1: horrible as you would think. 368 00:16:48,120 --> 00:16:48,920 Speaker 5: Maybe he did. 369 00:16:48,800 --> 00:16:52,040 Speaker 1: Mention that reading reviews afterwards can also impact your opinion, 370 00:16:52,080 --> 00:16:53,880 Speaker 1: even if you don't think so. So this is about 371 00:16:53,880 --> 00:16:55,440 Speaker 1: something called the third person effect. 372 00:16:58,960 --> 00:17:01,720 Speaker 8: One of the things that I see is that people 373 00:17:01,720 --> 00:17:04,760 Speaker 8: who read reviews after watching a movie, they tend to 374 00:17:04,760 --> 00:17:08,520 Speaker 8: think that those reviews do not change what they thought 375 00:17:08,560 --> 00:17:11,160 Speaker 8: of the movie. So they feel like there other people 376 00:17:11,240 --> 00:17:14,320 Speaker 8: might be affected these by reading these reviews, but not 377 00:17:14,480 --> 00:17:17,880 Speaker 8: they themselves. This is called the third person effect. It's 378 00:17:18,080 --> 00:17:20,840 Speaker 8: very broadly found when you're looking at advertising research, that 379 00:17:20,880 --> 00:17:23,040 Speaker 8: kind of stuff, but I think it's also there a 380 00:17:23,040 --> 00:17:26,320 Speaker 8: lot for reviews. Many people in my friend group as well, 381 00:17:26,440 --> 00:17:28,479 Speaker 8: we had long discussions about whether or not people are 382 00:17:28,480 --> 00:17:32,200 Speaker 8: impacted by reviews, and they say, maybe the grade, maybe 383 00:17:32,200 --> 00:17:34,440 Speaker 8: the rating is what does it for me. But I 384 00:17:34,800 --> 00:17:38,359 Speaker 8: think it's actually even if you're reading a review before 385 00:17:38,480 --> 00:17:41,400 Speaker 8: or after that you change the way you think about 386 00:17:41,440 --> 00:17:43,560 Speaker 8: a movie if the review is compelling or if the 387 00:17:43,600 --> 00:17:47,879 Speaker 8: reviews has good arguments. But we are very bad at 388 00:17:47,920 --> 00:17:51,240 Speaker 8: admitting for ourselves when that is happening, and we tend 389 00:17:51,280 --> 00:17:53,119 Speaker 8: to say, oh, it's always been like that. I actually 390 00:17:53,160 --> 00:17:55,680 Speaker 8: always hated that movie, even though it came out of 391 00:17:55,720 --> 00:17:57,200 Speaker 8: it thinking that it's a really good movie. 392 00:17:57,240 --> 00:18:03,240 Speaker 1: Actually, certainly my feelings on movies have changed after reading 393 00:18:03,240 --> 00:18:04,400 Speaker 1: a review or talking to people. 394 00:18:04,720 --> 00:18:06,440 Speaker 5: Oh, for sure, have you had the opposite happen? 395 00:18:06,520 --> 00:18:08,080 Speaker 1: Do you think you come out of a movie thinking 396 00:18:08,119 --> 00:18:10,119 Speaker 1: you really like it and then someone's like, oh, this sucked, 397 00:18:10,280 --> 00:18:12,719 Speaker 1: and then you're like, oh, yeah, okay, it wasn't actually 398 00:18:12,720 --> 00:18:13,200 Speaker 1: that good. 399 00:18:14,320 --> 00:18:17,640 Speaker 7: Yeah, because I'll be like, I won't fully flip my opinion, 400 00:18:17,640 --> 00:18:19,320 Speaker 7: but I'll be like, yeah, I can see how some 401 00:18:19,359 --> 00:18:22,640 Speaker 7: people think that's dumb. It's also subjective, yeah, of course, 402 00:18:22,680 --> 00:18:25,439 Speaker 7: but definitely it feels like your peers can influence how 403 00:18:25,480 --> 00:18:26,359 Speaker 7: you feel about something. 404 00:18:26,560 --> 00:18:29,760 Speaker 3: Yeah, which is why I always write my letterbox review 405 00:18:29,960 --> 00:18:32,400 Speaker 3: first before I look at other people's reviews. 406 00:18:32,520 --> 00:18:35,760 Speaker 1: Oh interesting, you want a peer review? 407 00:18:35,880 --> 00:18:39,800 Speaker 7: Yeah, I read reviews before I write mine. But like, 408 00:18:39,960 --> 00:18:42,480 Speaker 7: I don't think I've ever changed my mind, Like I'll 409 00:18:42,520 --> 00:18:44,199 Speaker 7: go into it knowing what I want to say, but 410 00:18:44,240 --> 00:18:45,360 Speaker 7: I just want I'm curious. 411 00:18:45,520 --> 00:18:50,680 Speaker 1: We need to do run a study on Manny's reviews. 412 00:18:54,280 --> 00:18:56,560 Speaker 1: So I also talked to a movie critic as I 413 00:18:56,680 --> 00:18:59,480 Speaker 1: was myself planning on writing some ratings and reviews, so 414 00:18:59,520 --> 00:19:02,320 Speaker 1: I talked to it Tasha Robinson. She's written and edited 415 00:19:02,320 --> 00:19:04,760 Speaker 1: at a bunch of outlets. Currently, she's the entertainment editor 416 00:19:04,760 --> 00:19:07,240 Speaker 1: at Polygon. She and some other critics have a great 417 00:19:07,280 --> 00:19:09,800 Speaker 1: movie podcast called The Next Picture Show. I asked as 418 00:19:09,840 --> 00:19:12,560 Speaker 1: far as her approach to star ratings. Here's what she 419 00:19:12,600 --> 00:19:13,320 Speaker 1: had to say about that. 420 00:19:16,200 --> 00:19:19,200 Speaker 4: The rubric that I've always used and tried to get 421 00:19:19,200 --> 00:19:22,160 Speaker 4: other people to use is what was this movie doing, 422 00:19:22,840 --> 00:19:25,040 Speaker 4: Does it do it well? And is it worth doing? 423 00:19:25,480 --> 00:19:27,919 Speaker 4: And you know, if what the movie was trying to 424 00:19:27,920 --> 00:19:31,080 Speaker 4: do is sell toys and sells the toys pretty well, 425 00:19:31,200 --> 00:19:33,600 Speaker 4: that's probably a two and a half star review. If 426 00:19:33,720 --> 00:19:35,600 Speaker 4: all the movies trying to do is sell toys and 427 00:19:35,640 --> 00:19:38,600 Speaker 4: it does it badly, then we're probably looking at. 428 00:19:38,480 --> 00:19:39,280 Speaker 5: Like a star. 429 00:19:39,880 --> 00:19:41,880 Speaker 4: If the movie makes you feel not only that you've 430 00:19:41,880 --> 00:19:45,639 Speaker 4: wasted your time, but then everybody who touched it in 431 00:19:45,680 --> 00:19:48,040 Speaker 4: any way is wasting their time. Then you can go 432 00:19:48,119 --> 00:19:51,040 Speaker 4: lower than that, But that kind of well I added 433 00:19:51,080 --> 00:19:52,960 Speaker 4: half a star for this and subtracted half a star 434 00:19:53,040 --> 00:19:55,879 Speaker 4: for this. That creeps me out. That just sounds like 435 00:19:55,920 --> 00:19:58,959 Speaker 4: the kind of person that walks into a restaurant and 436 00:19:59,240 --> 00:20:02,120 Speaker 4: puts ten dollars and ones on the table and looks 437 00:20:02,119 --> 00:20:04,200 Speaker 4: at the waitress and says, every time you make a mistake, 438 00:20:04,240 --> 00:20:06,920 Speaker 4: I'm taking a dollar off your tip. You get whatever's 439 00:20:07,000 --> 00:20:08,200 Speaker 4: left over at the end of the night. 440 00:20:08,880 --> 00:20:11,600 Speaker 1: Tasha mentioned a similar issue to me as far as 441 00:20:11,920 --> 00:20:14,600 Speaker 1: once you're reducing movies to a number grade, you kind 442 00:20:14,600 --> 00:20:17,199 Speaker 1: of end up with some weird, unfair comparisons that can 443 00:20:17,280 --> 00:20:18,400 Speaker 1: kind of paint you in a corner. 444 00:20:18,480 --> 00:20:21,720 Speaker 4: I certainly think a lot in terms of, well if 445 00:20:21,720 --> 00:20:24,639 Speaker 4: I if I give this three stars, what are people 446 00:20:24,680 --> 00:20:27,040 Speaker 4: immediately going to pull up from my past that I 447 00:20:27,080 --> 00:20:29,119 Speaker 4: gave two and a half stars too and say you 448 00:20:29,240 --> 00:20:30,320 Speaker 4: think that's just better of them? 449 00:20:30,320 --> 00:20:30,480 Speaker 7: There. 450 00:20:30,680 --> 00:20:33,480 Speaker 4: If somebody made me sit down in a locked room 451 00:20:33,680 --> 00:20:37,080 Speaker 4: with every movie rating that I've ever made and told 452 00:20:37,080 --> 00:20:39,760 Speaker 4: me to reorder the rankings until I found they were perfect, 453 00:20:39,800 --> 00:20:42,680 Speaker 4: I'd probably be in there for ten years and wouldn't 454 00:20:42,680 --> 00:20:44,760 Speaker 4: come out any happier than I am right now. 455 00:20:45,600 --> 00:20:49,720 Speaker 3: I have definitely had the issue where I've rated something 456 00:20:50,000 --> 00:20:53,560 Speaker 3: after watching it immediately, and then a couple days later 457 00:20:53,640 --> 00:20:55,720 Speaker 3: look at my letterbox and look at like the last 458 00:20:55,720 --> 00:20:57,840 Speaker 3: movies that I've watched, and I'm like, this movie was 459 00:20:57,880 --> 00:21:00,800 Speaker 3: definitely better than this movie. Yeah, have the same rating 460 00:21:00,960 --> 00:21:03,879 Speaker 3: or house is higher. I hate to admit it, but 461 00:21:03,920 --> 00:21:04,920 Speaker 3: I have changed ratings. 462 00:21:05,000 --> 00:21:07,840 Speaker 7: You've edited them, yeah, yes, wow, retroactively. 463 00:21:07,920 --> 00:21:11,680 Speaker 3: Retroactively. It's not like I go back six months later. 464 00:21:11,920 --> 00:21:14,000 Speaker 3: It has to be within the same week for me. Yeah, 465 00:21:14,920 --> 00:21:17,040 Speaker 3: and after that it is what it is. Yeah, I'm 466 00:21:17,080 --> 00:21:19,919 Speaker 3: not like changing the older rating, I'm adjusting the new one. 467 00:21:20,200 --> 00:21:23,439 Speaker 1: I think a pro for consumer or letterbox reviews is 468 00:21:23,920 --> 00:21:25,800 Speaker 1: you're not in this promotional bind, even if you, as 469 00:21:25,840 --> 00:21:27,760 Speaker 1: a professional critic, don't want to be. It's like you 470 00:21:27,760 --> 00:21:30,520 Speaker 1: don't want to be punished quote unquote by studios or 471 00:21:30,520 --> 00:21:33,200 Speaker 1: whoever who are getting access to previews or other things. 472 00:21:33,240 --> 00:21:36,280 Speaker 1: Like there's obviously like a political element to how a 473 00:21:36,800 --> 00:21:40,520 Speaker 1: major website or publisher reviews things. 474 00:21:40,600 --> 00:21:43,040 Speaker 3: Yeah, but I think there is also just the weight 475 00:21:43,160 --> 00:21:49,440 Speaker 3: to studio pressure aside, like there's a weight to writing something. 476 00:21:50,359 --> 00:21:51,879 Speaker 3: Don't at the end of the day's it's all art, 477 00:21:51,920 --> 00:21:56,639 Speaker 3: and if you're writing a review that could actively stop 478 00:21:56,680 --> 00:22:00,440 Speaker 3: people from experiencing this piece of like she says, art 479 00:22:00,520 --> 00:22:03,000 Speaker 3: for yourself. There's a lot of weight to that. Yeah, 480 00:22:03,040 --> 00:22:05,760 Speaker 3: there are obviously movies that we all seen that are 481 00:22:05,800 --> 00:22:09,720 Speaker 3: just like this is just despicable from beginning to end, 482 00:22:09,920 --> 00:22:12,600 Speaker 3: Like everyone involved should be ashamed. I think a lot 483 00:22:12,680 --> 00:22:14,879 Speaker 3: of people are putting in a good faith effort to 484 00:22:14,880 --> 00:22:17,560 Speaker 3: make something good and sometimes it just doesn't work out. 485 00:22:17,640 --> 00:22:20,600 Speaker 3: So it's like, like dunking on a movie could really 486 00:22:21,760 --> 00:22:24,679 Speaker 3: have a negative effect on something in a way that 487 00:22:24,960 --> 00:22:26,040 Speaker 3: us writing about it doesn't. 488 00:22:32,400 --> 00:22:35,000 Speaker 1: So after taking in all this research and talking to 489 00:22:35,280 --> 00:22:38,080 Speaker 1: professional critic, I wanted to kind of do some reflection 490 00:22:38,160 --> 00:22:39,680 Speaker 1: on the movies I've seen recently. 491 00:22:40,080 --> 00:22:42,520 Speaker 2: I work without caring what happens to either of us. 492 00:22:42,760 --> 00:22:46,080 Speaker 2: So go back to the club, bear it all, and 493 00:22:46,160 --> 00:22:47,440 Speaker 2: stock the kind of people that you. 494 00:22:47,520 --> 00:22:50,840 Speaker 1: Enjoy Megalopolis, I found, is probably the movie I've wrestled 495 00:22:50,840 --> 00:22:52,960 Speaker 1: with the most as far as thinking about it, probably 496 00:22:53,000 --> 00:22:54,800 Speaker 1: because of all the lore I know he's been working 497 00:22:54,800 --> 00:22:57,399 Speaker 1: on this in different form since the eighties. I really 498 00:22:57,400 --> 00:23:00,640 Speaker 1: wanted to love it, but I for a movie that's 499 00:23:00,640 --> 00:23:03,240 Speaker 1: about grand ideas. I found it didn't really have many 500 00:23:03,720 --> 00:23:06,239 Speaker 1: great ones to back it up with. And there's some 501 00:23:06,280 --> 00:23:09,000 Speaker 1: really cool expressionistic stuff and some cool visuals, but a 502 00:23:09,000 --> 00:23:11,280 Speaker 1: lot of it is pretty hideous to me. I hope 503 00:23:11,280 --> 00:23:13,600 Speaker 1: to revisit it in a few years and maybe I'll 504 00:23:13,600 --> 00:23:15,080 Speaker 1: be able to get something more out of it. But 505 00:23:15,960 --> 00:23:17,399 Speaker 1: right now I've got to give it I think a 506 00:23:17,440 --> 00:23:18,160 Speaker 1: one point five. 507 00:23:18,600 --> 00:23:19,119 Speaker 5: Damn. 508 00:23:19,680 --> 00:23:21,760 Speaker 3: Yeah, he said a lot of it is pretty hideous 509 00:23:21,800 --> 00:23:23,440 Speaker 3: to me. That's crazy. 510 00:23:23,600 --> 00:23:26,160 Speaker 7: I mean some of it was like green screen in 511 00:23:26,200 --> 00:23:29,080 Speaker 7: the basement quality, Like really. 512 00:23:28,920 --> 00:23:30,520 Speaker 3: I haven't seen him, boy ad him. 513 00:23:31,000 --> 00:23:33,240 Speaker 5: He's great. I mean, the performances are great. 514 00:23:33,320 --> 00:23:35,760 Speaker 1: Everyone's doing what they're asked to do, but it just 515 00:23:35,800 --> 00:23:38,280 Speaker 1: doesn't come together to me. Yeah. Yeah, And then when 516 00:23:38,320 --> 00:23:40,440 Speaker 1: you add in he's been working on it for fifty years, 517 00:23:40,440 --> 00:23:42,800 Speaker 1: it's like, this is this is your masterpick, you know 518 00:23:42,840 --> 00:23:45,000 Speaker 1: what I mean? And like then everyone throws out, oh, 519 00:23:45,040 --> 00:23:46,280 Speaker 1: it's one hundred and twenty million dollars. 520 00:23:46,320 --> 00:23:47,359 Speaker 5: It's like it doesn't. 521 00:23:47,240 --> 00:23:47,840 Speaker 3: Doesn't look great. 522 00:23:47,960 --> 00:23:48,960 Speaker 5: Look like that. 523 00:23:53,359 --> 00:23:55,440 Speaker 7: Yeah, let's hear a joker too, because that was one 524 00:23:55,480 --> 00:23:56,639 Speaker 7: that a lot of people hated. 525 00:23:56,840 --> 00:23:59,919 Speaker 1: So this is for joker. Fully, I'd do my life. 526 00:24:00,520 --> 00:24:02,280 Speaker 5: I feel so alone anymore. 527 00:24:02,400 --> 00:24:05,080 Speaker 1: I'm not a big superhero guy. I thought the first 528 00:24:05,160 --> 00:24:08,400 Speaker 1: Joker movie was totally fine. This one I was actually surprised, 529 00:24:08,440 --> 00:24:10,919 Speaker 1: based on maybe all the bad reactions. I thought it 530 00:24:10,960 --> 00:24:13,200 Speaker 1: was actually pretty thoroughly entertaining and interesting. 531 00:24:13,280 --> 00:24:14,240 Speaker 3: I heard it was boring. 532 00:24:14,600 --> 00:24:16,560 Speaker 1: A lot of it is rehashing the first movie and 533 00:24:16,600 --> 00:24:18,640 Speaker 1: a core ram sort of thing. And then I think 534 00:24:18,640 --> 00:24:21,320 Speaker 1: they underused Lady Gaga, who I think is a great 535 00:24:21,359 --> 00:24:23,040 Speaker 1: actor obviously a great singer. 536 00:24:23,400 --> 00:24:26,000 Speaker 5: They don't do as much of the musical stuff as I. 537 00:24:25,960 --> 00:24:28,520 Speaker 1: Expected, honestly, and I wish they leaned in even further, 538 00:24:28,720 --> 00:24:29,840 Speaker 1: like if you're gonna do it, do it. 539 00:24:29,920 --> 00:24:30,160 Speaker 2: Yeah. 540 00:24:30,280 --> 00:24:32,640 Speaker 1: Instead it felt like one one foot out sort of thing. 541 00:24:32,720 --> 00:24:35,240 Speaker 1: And yeah, they do some bold choice as far as 542 00:24:35,320 --> 00:24:40,560 Speaker 1: the arc of Joker and what the Joker means to society. 543 00:24:40,800 --> 00:24:42,040 Speaker 5: Not gonna be one I revisit. 544 00:24:42,119 --> 00:24:43,880 Speaker 1: But I mean I kind of walked out of it like, oh, 545 00:24:43,880 --> 00:24:45,280 Speaker 1: that was actually pretty fun. 546 00:24:45,600 --> 00:24:47,440 Speaker 5: I think I'd give it three stars. 547 00:24:47,720 --> 00:24:51,840 Speaker 7: Wow, that's good care Okay, considering the rest of them, 548 00:24:52,040 --> 00:24:52,280 Speaker 7: I mean. 549 00:24:53,240 --> 00:24:55,800 Speaker 1: Is that choice as good as Megalopolis? I don't really 550 00:24:55,840 --> 00:25:00,120 Speaker 1: know if I can say that, But now I was entertained. 551 00:25:00,040 --> 00:25:02,520 Speaker 7: Interesting, and then it does end up you put a 552 00:25:02,600 --> 00:25:05,800 Speaker 7: number on it that you because they're so limited as 553 00:25:05,800 --> 00:25:08,520 Speaker 7: five options exactly. Yeah, you have to start thinking about 554 00:25:08,560 --> 00:25:10,600 Speaker 7: whether you did think it was twice as good as Meg. 555 00:25:10,640 --> 00:25:12,200 Speaker 5: Yeaholis and I don't. 556 00:25:17,600 --> 00:25:19,760 Speaker 3: All right, let's do what I've seen. Let's do Anura. 557 00:25:19,920 --> 00:25:20,800 Speaker 3: I am coming you. 558 00:25:20,800 --> 00:25:23,879 Speaker 1: You do not annoy this guy Anora Again. I was 559 00:25:23,960 --> 00:25:26,320 Speaker 1: thoroughly engaged throughout. It does a great job of kind 560 00:25:26,320 --> 00:25:27,760 Speaker 1: of it moves really fast in the beginning, and then 561 00:25:27,760 --> 00:25:30,919 Speaker 1: it kind of traps you in one location for a 562 00:25:30,960 --> 00:25:32,520 Speaker 1: long time and then flips some. 563 00:25:32,520 --> 00:25:34,640 Speaker 5: Things on you. I thought the performances were great. 564 00:25:34,680 --> 00:25:37,160 Speaker 1: There's some good actors who've never seen before and things, 565 00:25:37,240 --> 00:25:39,320 Speaker 1: so that was fun. And it has that good kind 566 00:25:39,359 --> 00:25:41,280 Speaker 1: of intensity. So I was kept on my toes in 567 00:25:41,320 --> 00:25:42,840 Speaker 1: that way, and I liked it. And I thought it 568 00:25:42,840 --> 00:25:46,000 Speaker 1: had a very strong, interesting ending that I wasn't necessarily expecting, 569 00:25:46,040 --> 00:25:48,760 Speaker 1: even though looking back it's obvious some of the things 570 00:25:48,800 --> 00:25:51,080 Speaker 1: that happened, but in a not in a bad way, 571 00:25:51,080 --> 00:25:53,480 Speaker 1: in a to me satisfying way that said, I'm not 572 00:25:53,640 --> 00:25:55,080 Speaker 1: dying to watch it. 573 00:25:55,040 --> 00:25:58,040 Speaker 5: Again or I'm not really mulling over it so much. 574 00:25:58,040 --> 00:26:01,280 Speaker 5: In my head. I guess for that reason. 575 00:26:00,960 --> 00:26:03,560 Speaker 1: I'll give it a. 576 00:26:02,640 --> 00:26:03,720 Speaker 5: Three as well. 577 00:26:05,680 --> 00:26:08,120 Speaker 7: Now this is where the rating system gets interesting. 578 00:26:08,480 --> 00:26:10,359 Speaker 2: Yeah, because it's that Joker. 579 00:26:10,000 --> 00:26:13,600 Speaker 7: Too and Noura have the same rating and the Noah 580 00:26:13,720 --> 00:26:14,800 Speaker 7: review system. 581 00:26:14,800 --> 00:26:15,359 Speaker 3: Four and a half. 582 00:26:15,520 --> 00:26:16,080 Speaker 5: Four and a half. 583 00:26:16,119 --> 00:26:18,000 Speaker 3: Yeah, I know, it's pretty good. Yeah, it was really good. 584 00:26:18,240 --> 00:26:19,760 Speaker 1: I think to me, if I think if I had 585 00:26:19,800 --> 00:26:21,560 Speaker 1: rated it right when I walked out, it would have 586 00:26:21,560 --> 00:26:23,959 Speaker 1: been higher. And I think just in the you know, 587 00:26:24,040 --> 00:26:27,040 Speaker 1: two weeks, I'm just not that drawn back to it now. 588 00:26:27,840 --> 00:26:29,240 Speaker 1: If I watched it again, I don't know if I 589 00:26:29,240 --> 00:26:32,560 Speaker 1: would gain so much more necessarily, Which doesn't mean it's 590 00:26:32,560 --> 00:26:34,679 Speaker 1: bad even It's just it's a movie. 591 00:26:34,440 --> 00:26:35,720 Speaker 5: Which is fine most movies are. 592 00:26:35,880 --> 00:26:41,719 Speaker 1: Yeah. So I mean, after doing all this and writing 593 00:26:41,760 --> 00:26:45,080 Speaker 1: these reviews and doing the ratings, I still feel like 594 00:26:45,400 --> 00:26:48,840 Speaker 1: I end up painting myself into a corner of making 595 00:26:48,920 --> 00:26:51,240 Speaker 1: strange comparisons. But at the same time, it's kind of 596 00:26:51,240 --> 00:26:54,719 Speaker 1: like who cares? Is kind of my feeling. It's it's 597 00:26:54,760 --> 00:26:58,320 Speaker 1: it is kind of objectively fun to just say, like, 598 00:26:58,400 --> 00:27:01,680 Speaker 1: fuck it, that's a one point five, and it does 599 00:27:01,720 --> 00:27:05,480 Speaker 1: garner a much more intense reaction than kind of thoughtfully talking. 600 00:27:05,240 --> 00:27:06,400 Speaker 5: Through my feelings on a movie. 601 00:27:06,440 --> 00:27:10,720 Speaker 1: So for that reason, I am maybe leaning towards opening 602 00:27:10,720 --> 00:27:13,479 Speaker 1: it up and let a few reviews and ratings spray. 603 00:27:13,640 --> 00:27:13,960 Speaker 7: Wow. 604 00:27:14,320 --> 00:27:16,159 Speaker 1: Do I think it's, you know, for the better of 605 00:27:16,640 --> 00:27:20,320 Speaker 1: my movie going? Probably not, but it's fine. And I think, 606 00:27:20,400 --> 00:27:22,879 Speaker 1: you know, you kind of need to let things go sometimes. 607 00:27:22,359 --> 00:27:24,040 Speaker 5: And just let it rock. 608 00:27:24,160 --> 00:27:25,040 Speaker 2: Yeah, just let it right. 609 00:27:25,080 --> 00:27:26,800 Speaker 7: And the other thing is like, I'm glad to hear 610 00:27:26,840 --> 00:27:29,560 Speaker 7: this because there is a very tiny community of us 611 00:27:29,600 --> 00:27:33,000 Speaker 7: who have been wanting to see reviews like we get 612 00:27:33,040 --> 00:27:35,400 Speaker 7: them in real life if we want them to see 613 00:27:35,440 --> 00:27:37,200 Speaker 7: them on the app more often. So I don't know, 614 00:27:37,280 --> 00:27:38,159 Speaker 7: I'm happy to hear this. 615 00:27:38,240 --> 00:27:41,840 Speaker 5: I won't be starving you all anymore. So there's that. 616 00:27:41,920 --> 00:27:43,840 Speaker 5: And then we had a few reviews in this. 617 00:27:43,880 --> 00:27:45,760 Speaker 1: If you want to hear a few more reviews, we 618 00:27:45,880 --> 00:27:50,720 Speaker 1: talk about the Substance and Manny's controversial Challengers review and 619 00:27:50,840 --> 00:27:53,240 Speaker 1: Gladiator two. We're gonna throw those up on our substack. 620 00:27:53,440 --> 00:27:55,960 Speaker 1: You already know, but go to www dot No Such 621 00:27:56,040 --> 00:27:58,800 Speaker 1: Thing dot show to subscribe and you can check that out. 622 00:28:00,840 --> 00:28:03,240 Speaker 1: No Such Thing as produced by Manny Fidel, Noah Friedman, 623 00:28:03,280 --> 00:28:06,080 Speaker 1: and Devin Joseph. The theme song is by Manny and 624 00:28:06,160 --> 00:28:09,080 Speaker 1: this song is by nine Inch Nails. Thank you to 625 00:28:09,119 --> 00:28:11,920 Speaker 1: our guests Rude Jacobs and Tasha Robinson.