WEBVTT - Is Letterboxd ruining movies? 0:00:00.280 --> 0:00:03.880 I'm Manny, I'm Noah, and this is no such thing. 0:00:04.080 --> 0:00:06.520 The show where we answer our dumb questions and yours 0:00:06.640 --> 0:00:09.840 by actually doing the research. Today we're talking about letterboxed 0:00:10.000 --> 0:00:12.400 and how it's changed the ways we watch movies, possibly 0:00:12.440 --> 0:00:13.000 for the worst. 0:00:13.800 --> 0:00:15.560 The part that freaks people out is. 0:00:15.520 --> 0:00:17.800 That, uh, maybe it's for people who are like staring 0:00:17.840 --> 0:00:18.800 at TikTok or something. 0:00:19.120 --> 0:00:21.919 My god, everyone is so hot in this very. 0:00:21.720 --> 0:00:22.800 True that creeps me out. 0:00:25.440 --> 0:00:31.320 There's no no such thing, such thing, such thing. 0:00:39.240 --> 0:00:41.959 All right, so we all love movies, that's right. 0:00:42.040 --> 0:00:45.639 Yeah, yes, accurate, and letterbox has many great uses. But 0:00:45.680 --> 0:00:48.560 my concern is that turning movie watching into social media 0:00:49.120 --> 0:00:50.720 data logging might hinder our. 0:00:50.600 --> 0:00:52.040 Engagement with the movies themselves. 0:00:53.040 --> 0:00:55.080 So on this episode, I want to dig into how 0:00:55.120 --> 0:00:57.240 we use letterboxed and try to find out what, if 0:00:57.280 --> 0:00:59.840 any impact this has on our movie watching experience. Do 0:00:59.880 --> 0:01:02.560 we like movies more or less by committing to this 0:01:02.680 --> 0:01:07.760 cataloging and rating system. But first, let's back up in 0:01:07.800 --> 0:01:10.119 case you have no idea what we're talking about. Letterbox 0:01:10.200 --> 0:01:12.319 is a social media app for logging movies. It was 0:01:12.319 --> 0:01:14.520 started by a couple of red designers in New Zealand. 0:01:14.560 --> 0:01:16.640 Back in twenty eleven, but it saw a massive boost 0:01:16.680 --> 0:01:19.399 in popularity during COVID, going from about one point eight 0:01:19.440 --> 0:01:22.679 million users in March twenty twenty to roughly thirteen million today. 0:01:22.840 --> 0:01:25.080 Over a billion movies have been logged on the app. 0:01:25.360 --> 0:01:28.440 Users SKW younger, the largest age group on the app 0:01:28.520 --> 0:01:31.319 being eighteen to twenty four, followed by the coveted twenty 0:01:31.319 --> 0:01:31.759 five to. 0:01:31.680 --> 0:01:33.720 Thirty five set, of which we're proud members. 0:01:34.560 --> 0:01:37.880 Still In twenty twenty three, when a majority stake was 0:01:37.880 --> 0:01:40.880 sold to a Canadian company called Tiny, Letterbox was valued 0:01:40.920 --> 0:01:44.600 at over fifty million dollars. The reputation Letterbox carries is 0:01:44.600 --> 0:01:46.240 that ski is a little bit more indie or art 0:01:46.240 --> 0:01:48.320 house versus something that's kind of more. 0:01:48.160 --> 0:01:49.240 Broad like IMDb. 0:01:50.920 --> 0:01:53.760 Our former colleague Graham was the inspiration for this episode 0:01:53.800 --> 0:01:57.680 because his ratings are insane insane. 0:01:57.200 --> 0:01:57.880 They kind of lean. 0:01:58.360 --> 0:02:00.880 He leans pretty heavily on like the five are rating 0:02:01.480 --> 0:02:03.080 versus something a little more modest. 0:02:03.400 --> 0:02:06.640 Yes, I love movies. I love to watch them. I'm 0:02:06.640 --> 0:02:10.960 happy when I'm watching them. Sometimes, yes, they're disappointing, but thankfully, 0:02:11.240 --> 0:02:13.040 for the most part of the movies that I choose 0:02:13.040 --> 0:02:16.640 to watch usually make me very happy. And I'm sorry 0:02:17.360 --> 0:02:21.040 if that offends people, but thank you so much for 0:02:21.080 --> 0:02:24.359 having me and good luck, good luck. 0:02:25.720 --> 0:02:27.519 Thank you Graham. Yeah, thank you Graham. 0:02:27.840 --> 0:02:30.360 So to start off, how do you guys each use letterbox? 0:02:30.639 --> 0:02:33.520 I have some sympathy for Graham because I also have 0:02:33.560 --> 0:02:36.520 a rating system that people think is crazy. I'm pretty 0:02:36.560 --> 0:02:40.400 much grading the movie on how well it was made, 0:02:40.639 --> 0:02:44.040 like the production quality of it, and also screenplay, apply 0:02:44.240 --> 0:02:46.760 all that stuff. But then it does mean that like 0:02:47.440 --> 0:02:49.760 a movie I didn't like that much will get a 0:02:49.840 --> 0:02:52.400 high rating because I thought that they did they had 0:02:52.400 --> 0:02:52.840 a vision. 0:02:52.919 --> 0:02:55.240 Yeah, so you're not rating on your personal enjoyment as 0:02:55.320 --> 0:02:58.959 much as the technical side. Yeah, Like I can acknowledge 0:02:58.960 --> 0:03:02.240 that a movie was good without liking it, without having. 0:03:02.080 --> 0:03:04.120 To like it, But that's what your rating system is 0:03:04.160 --> 0:03:04.560 based on. 0:03:04.800 --> 0:03:08.240 Yeah, Because then the part that freaks people out is 0:03:08.280 --> 0:03:11.160 that that means some of my favorite movies end up 0:03:11.160 --> 0:03:12.080 being like two. 0:03:12.040 --> 0:03:13.160 Star three stars. 0:03:13.200 --> 0:03:15.840 An example one of my favorite movies ever is the 0:03:15.919 --> 0:03:18.280 second rush Hour movie Rush Hour Too. 0:03:19.160 --> 0:03:20.120 I don't even know why the hell. 0:03:20.160 --> 0:03:21.519 I mean, I ain't need chiny. 0:03:22.720 --> 0:03:25.799 I think it's hilarious, it's got good action sequences, But 0:03:26.280 --> 0:03:28.639 you want me to grade the screenplay on that one's 0:03:28.760 --> 0:03:30.720 like not good, it's like so that. So I'm like, 0:03:30.720 --> 0:03:33.440 all right, as a movie, this movie's whatever. It's fine, 0:03:33.480 --> 0:03:34.520 it's a two or three star. 0:03:35.080 --> 0:03:37.720 But so in your letterbox, you're giving your favorite movie 0:03:37.720 --> 0:03:39.080 a two, two or three stars. 0:03:39.800 --> 0:03:42.440 In this instance, it would probably be like a three 0:03:42.520 --> 0:03:45.240 star movie, two and a half three stars. It's not 0:03:45.600 --> 0:03:47.920 a five star like bet one of the best movies 0:03:47.920 --> 0:03:48.960 ever produced. 0:03:49.160 --> 0:03:54.760 Okay, so I have I have the opposite rating system, 0:03:54.760 --> 0:03:57.640 which is this is my letterbox. If we just rating 0:03:57.720 --> 0:04:00.839 the quality of the movie, that's when you go read 0:04:00.840 --> 0:04:02.880 the New York Times or some shit. I am not 0:04:03.200 --> 0:04:07.960 rating the movie based on how beautiful it is or 0:04:08.000 --> 0:04:10.320 what the sound makes is, or only in so far 0:04:10.360 --> 0:04:13.120 as it connects with you exactly, because there's movies that 0:04:13.160 --> 0:04:15.080 do all that stuff really well that I do not 0:04:15.160 --> 0:04:17.920 find entertaining, and I actually think those movies are worse 0:04:18.800 --> 0:04:21.200 than something that has tons of flaws or like that 0:04:21.279 --> 0:04:24.039 plotline doesn't really make sense or whatever. But like I 0:04:24.080 --> 0:04:27.240 don't know, connects emotionally for me. My rating system is 0:04:27.279 --> 0:04:30.839 based on how much did I enjoy this movie? Yeah, 0:04:30.880 --> 0:04:33.360 but there's two extremes to that too, right, I gave 0:04:33.360 --> 0:04:36.080 Trapped five stars. I had a really good time this 0:04:36.160 --> 0:04:42.520 whole concept to Trap, watching all the exits, checking everyone 0:04:42.560 --> 0:04:47.560 that leaves. There's no way to get out of here. 0:04:47.680 --> 0:04:49.080 It is not a five star movie. There are a 0:04:49.120 --> 0:04:52.360 lot of issues with that movie. I also saw Cuckoo. 0:04:52.800 --> 0:04:55.159 It was a horrible movie, and I was annoyed in 0:04:55.600 --> 0:04:58.839 not having a good time, so that got like star 0:04:58.920 --> 0:05:01.400 and a half. You could have a bad movie, like 0:05:01.440 --> 0:05:04.599 the media movies. I'm giving those fives. That is the 0:05:04.640 --> 0:05:07.680 most fun our twenty minutes I've had. 0:05:07.560 --> 0:05:09.760 You know, in my life. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. 0:05:09.960 --> 0:05:10.800 And then there's. 0:05:10.640 --> 0:05:12.840 Stuff that is just really bad that you're like, oh 0:05:12.880 --> 0:05:14.400 my god, what is just gonna be finished? At the 0:05:14.480 --> 0:05:16.640 end of the year, I may have four or five 0:05:16.720 --> 0:05:19.680 movies at the top level that I've given fives to. 0:05:20.839 --> 0:05:22.840 Most of the movies I see are not getting fives. 0:05:23.040 --> 0:05:24.720 But I also think most of the movies that I'm 0:05:24.720 --> 0:05:27.520 seeing are just not three. 0:05:27.720 --> 0:05:29.880 I think when I look at ratings, maybe this is 0:05:29.880 --> 0:05:32.560 because I'm a good citizen. I feel like my rating 0:05:32.640 --> 0:05:38.360 system is in service of other people. Perhaps your review, 0:05:38.480 --> 0:05:41.000 your five star review is Trap does not help me 0:05:41.560 --> 0:05:43.560 at all. But that's okay. I don't think it needs 0:05:43.600 --> 0:05:45.359 to do that. But that's what I try to do 0:05:45.440 --> 0:05:48.279 with my ratings. But I'm not a critic on. 0:05:50.240 --> 0:05:53.039 Read my ring because if you see me give Trap 0:05:53.120 --> 0:05:55.800 five stars, you got to click in and Rew, Yeah. 0:05:55.720 --> 0:05:56.599 Yeah, but I know. 0:05:56.839 --> 0:05:58.280 Yeah, so what did you write for this? 0:05:59.120 --> 0:06:01.880 My first line is, and there's a heart on this one? 0:06:02.120 --> 0:06:02.479 Is a heart? 0:06:03.000 --> 0:06:04.440 Do you do hearts? I don't do hearts. I don't 0:06:04.440 --> 0:06:04.920 know what they are. 0:06:04.960 --> 0:06:07.839 Really hearts will actually be helpful for you? Yeah, I 0:06:07.920 --> 0:06:11.279 wrote this is the stupidest thing I've ever seen. No notes. 0:06:11.920 --> 0:06:14.240 Then I talk about specifics from the movie that don't 0:06:14.240 --> 0:06:17.000 actually make sense. But yeah, it's very dumb. 0:06:17.240 --> 0:06:20.239 My system is I don't put a number rating on things. 0:06:20.480 --> 0:06:23.279 I'll just heart something. There's no point in that. I 0:06:23.400 --> 0:06:25.159 keep a watch list, which helps me if I just 0:06:25.160 --> 0:06:25.960 want to throw a movie on. 0:06:26.040 --> 0:06:27.200 That's mainly how I use it. 0:06:27.240 --> 0:06:29.119 I don't look at other people's things so much, except 0:06:29.120 --> 0:06:30.520 for like what pops up when I open it. If 0:06:30.520 --> 0:06:33.320 I see Devin's reviewed something or I've had after I've 0:06:33.360 --> 0:06:35.719 seen something, I'm curious, like, oh, I wonder you know 0:06:35.760 --> 0:06:37.640 if my friends have seen this, or what they think 0:06:37.760 --> 0:06:39.120 or that sort of thing. 0:06:39.160 --> 0:06:40.240 Aside from what I'm just. 0:06:40.360 --> 0:06:42.920 Curious, like what the worst reviews of something? 0:06:43.000 --> 0:06:45.880 Or I'm not reading other random people's reviews really, so yeah, 0:06:45.880 --> 0:06:47.560 I'll throw a heart on something if I like and 0:06:47.600 --> 0:06:50.200 then otherwise I just if I didn't love it, then 0:06:50.279 --> 0:06:50.880 there's no heart. 0:06:50.920 --> 0:06:51.760 And that's all. 0:06:57.760 --> 0:07:00.359 Here's a fun experiment because many of the movie we 0:07:00.480 --> 0:07:03.720 log on letterbox, the three of us have seen together. 0:07:04.040 --> 0:07:05.640 Yeah, I'm seeing the Killer here. 0:07:07.680 --> 0:07:12.679 If I'm effective, it's because of one simple fact. 0:07:14.160 --> 0:07:16.680 I don't give. 0:07:19.600 --> 0:07:23.280 What are your guys's reviews are rankings of the Killer? 0:07:23.320 --> 0:07:25.559 I think we all had. We all came out thinking 0:07:25.600 --> 0:07:28.120 pretty much the same thing, so it'd be interesting to 0:07:28.120 --> 0:07:30.520 see how the reviews vary. I'm pretty sure that that 0:07:30.600 --> 0:07:33.160 was a no heart from me because my immediate reaction 0:07:33.320 --> 0:07:36.360 was low, but certain friends had such positive reactions. And 0:07:36.400 --> 0:07:40.200 then afterwards I haven't rewatched it, but I then softened 0:07:40.200 --> 0:07:40.920 on it in my mind. 0:07:40.960 --> 0:07:41.320 At least. 0:07:41.440 --> 0:07:43.480 Yeah, I gave it a higher reviewed than I remember. 0:07:43.800 --> 0:07:44.840 I gave it three stars. 0:07:44.960 --> 0:07:45.280 Okay. 0:07:45.720 --> 0:07:48.800 One issue I had was just the way the viewing 0:07:48.840 --> 0:07:50.040 experience of seeing this movie. 0:07:50.160 --> 0:07:54.400 You saw the para theater, horrible theater. Everyone's big ass head. 0:07:54.600 --> 0:07:56.760 Yeah, It's like I didn't even notice was still a thing. 0:07:56.800 --> 0:07:58.440 You go to movie theater and if you have to 0:07:58.440 --> 0:08:00.200 be worried about the person sitting in front. 0:08:00.760 --> 0:08:01.720 Because you can't see. 0:08:01.920 --> 0:08:04.280 That's to say I gave it a higher rating because 0:08:04.280 --> 0:08:05.800 I was like, part of the reason why I was 0:08:05.800 --> 0:08:09.080 frustrated by this movie is just the way I was 0:08:09.120 --> 0:08:12.360 watching it. But I thought it was like, Okay, yeah, 0:08:12.800 --> 0:08:15.040 not probably not something I'm gonna watch again or even 0:08:15.120 --> 0:08:15.800 really think about. 0:08:15.960 --> 0:08:17.680 Our reviews weren't that far off. You had three. 0:08:17.720 --> 0:08:19.560 I had two and a half, and my review was 0:08:19.600 --> 0:08:22.800 that it was really well made and underscores the value 0:08:22.800 --> 0:08:26.600 of simplicity, but it didn't leave much of an emotional impression. Yeah, 0:08:26.680 --> 0:08:28.680 the first twenty minutes or so would have been an 0:08:28.680 --> 0:08:29.840 incredible short film. 0:08:29.960 --> 0:08:31.120 Yeap, Yeah, that's fair enough. 0:08:36.720 --> 0:08:39.440 With these things in mind, do you think it changes 0:08:39.440 --> 0:08:42.360 how you watch movies knowing you're gonna put a number 0:08:42.720 --> 0:08:43.719 or a star rating on it. 0:08:44.640 --> 0:08:44.840 Yeah. 0:08:44.880 --> 0:08:48.800 I think the letterbox has become such a staple in 0:08:48.880 --> 0:08:51.600 social media that like, when I go into a movie, 0:08:52.080 --> 0:08:54.920 maybe subconsciously I am thinking about what I would say 0:08:54.920 --> 0:08:57.880 in a letterbox review. I think that's been a change 0:08:57.880 --> 0:08:59.679 in the past couple of years, especially when I was 0:08:59.679 --> 0:09:03.000 watching Challengers, all the Challengers reviews, and I was like, Okay, 0:09:03.000 --> 0:09:04.600 what am I going to say when I get. 0:09:04.400 --> 0:09:06.280 Done with this spee? It's like reacting to the hype. 0:09:06.480 --> 0:09:09.400 Yeah, Yeah, I definitely think about it. I think I 0:09:09.640 --> 0:09:12.800 use it as a gauge for how much I'm liking 0:09:12.880 --> 0:09:16.400 the movie. Especially when I don't like a movie, I 0:09:16.400 --> 0:09:17.600 feel like I think about it more. 0:09:17.679 --> 0:09:19.640 I'm like, this is like and like during the movie. 0:09:19.720 --> 0:09:21.840 Yeah, I think that's kind of part of what inspired 0:09:21.880 --> 0:09:24.560 me to stop doing the Stars, because it was like, 0:09:24.600 --> 0:09:26.360 why am I thinking about this at all? 0:09:26.600 --> 0:09:30.280 Well, it only happens in movies where yeah, that's good 0:09:30.400 --> 0:09:33.079 because otherwise you're just engrossed in the movie. But it's 0:09:33.160 --> 0:09:35.320 usually when I'm like, okay, this is gone from the 0:09:35.400 --> 0:09:39.040 two to one and a half, We're going to lose 0:09:39.040 --> 0:09:43.000 another star if it keeps going for another twenty minutes. Yeah, 0:09:43.040 --> 0:09:46.200 And especially like these last couple of bad movies I've seen, 0:09:46.280 --> 0:09:49.400 I've like actively been like, all right, what star rating 0:09:49.440 --> 0:09:51.440 are we at? And what did we just lose? Based 0:09:51.520 --> 0:09:55.040 on how bad that scene? A constant yes, or like 0:09:55.080 --> 0:09:57.319 sometimes I'm like, oh, you know what that was? Actually 0:09:57.360 --> 0:09:59.679 pretty interesting. Wait, we had two and a half. Now 0:10:00.120 --> 0:10:03.600 I don't love that. I do that, but it only 0:10:03.679 --> 0:10:07.200 happens in movies where I'm not fully in a movie. 0:10:07.280 --> 0:10:08.599 Yeah, even if you're thinking about it during it, do 0:10:08.679 --> 0:10:10.640 you think it helps you engage with the work knowing 0:10:10.679 --> 0:10:12.560 that you're going to do that versus Okay, you're not 0:10:12.600 --> 0:10:14.840 going to raid anything. You're not going to do anything, 0:10:15.280 --> 0:10:17.200 are you actually then just coming to terms on it 0:10:17.240 --> 0:10:18.640 on its own, because I think part of what I 0:10:18.679 --> 0:10:21.439 don't like is you end up automatically. Then you're doing 0:10:21.480 --> 0:10:23.360 a comparison system where it's like, oh, well that's a 0:10:23.360 --> 0:10:25.240 five star, so I guess this has to be a 0:10:25.280 --> 0:10:28.040 five star, or then if not, and you don't care, 0:10:28.080 --> 0:10:30.280 then it just looks ridiculous sometimes because it's. 0:10:30.120 --> 0:10:31.600 Like, well, why is that five and this is three? 0:10:31.800 --> 0:10:35.000 Even though this is great, And then I'm not actually 0:10:35.040 --> 0:10:38.960 I'm just thinking about numbers and I'm turning a piece 0:10:39.000 --> 0:10:42.680 of art into data basically instead of just like, oh, like, 0:10:42.720 --> 0:10:46.280 this was very evocative of some feeling for me as 0:10:46.320 --> 0:10:49.160 an actual thing, and it's like, why does it make 0:10:49.200 --> 0:10:49.800 me feel that way? 0:10:49.960 --> 0:10:50.840 Xyz whatever? 0:10:51.080 --> 0:10:51.440 That's why? 0:10:51.559 --> 0:10:53.839 To me, it's like thinking and talking about it. That's 0:10:53.880 --> 0:10:57.880 where the review part writing can help put that into words. 0:10:57.920 --> 0:11:00.280 And even just like okay, whoever you saw the movie 0:11:00.280 --> 0:11:00.839 with talking with. 0:11:00.800 --> 0:11:01.880 Them out of bar afterwards. 0:11:02.120 --> 0:11:03.400 That's what I love when you can have the fun 0:11:03.440 --> 0:11:05.800 where we're just picking it apart and plot holes or whatever, 0:11:06.280 --> 0:11:09.079 and maybe my friend or someone has some idea and 0:11:09.120 --> 0:11:10.839 so I didn't think about that, but I actually agree 0:11:10.920 --> 0:11:15.960 or yeah, yeah, and so I think that that's kind 0:11:15.960 --> 0:11:20.760 of more helpful for actually like engaging than like, well 0:11:20.760 --> 0:11:24.400 that's three, you know, which is so reductive. But you 0:11:24.400 --> 0:11:27.920 can easily do that and then deduce the number afterwards. 0:11:27.920 --> 0:11:29.240 And I don't think it necessary. I don't think it 0:11:29.240 --> 0:11:33.160 necessarily has to degrade the piece, but I think ultimately 0:11:33.240 --> 0:11:36.600 turning everything into a ranking or a list is pretty harmful. 0:11:38.800 --> 0:11:40.360 All right, So next I want to talk to a 0:11:40.440 --> 0:11:43.440 researcher about how movie reviews and ratings might impact our 0:11:43.480 --> 0:11:45.520 experience of a movie. And then I want to talk 0:11:45.559 --> 0:11:48.000 to a movie critic about how they approach writing reviews, 0:11:48.120 --> 0:11:49.199 assigning ratings, and. 0:11:49.160 --> 0:11:50.560 How they feel about letterboxed. 0:11:50.840 --> 0:11:52.680 And for me, I want to start assigning some star 0:11:52.760 --> 0:11:55.960 ratings some movies I've watched. Finally writing some reviews and 0:11:56.000 --> 0:11:57.040 seeing how I feel about it. 0:11:57.080 --> 0:12:01.360 Welcome to the dark side, Yeah, wish me to like. 0:12:05.760 --> 0:12:07.880 So I talked to a researcher from the Netherlands. His 0:12:08.000 --> 0:12:11.400 name is Rude Jacobs. His master's thesis from twenty twelve 0:12:11.480 --> 0:12:15.000 is titled Everybody's a Critic Influenceability of Motion Picture of 0:12:15.040 --> 0:12:18.120 Valuations from expert and consumer reviews. Of course this was 0:12:18.120 --> 0:12:20.680 a bit before Letterbox became so prominent, but his paper 0:12:20.760 --> 0:12:22.000 looks at a few of the things that we were 0:12:22.000 --> 0:12:24.400 talking about, as far as just how reviews and ratings 0:12:24.400 --> 0:12:25.840 can impact your experience. 0:12:26.000 --> 0:12:27.079 Here's how he explains it. 0:12:27.200 --> 0:12:29.280 So the paper was from quite a long time ago. 0:12:29.400 --> 0:12:31.400 It was my master thesis back in the day actually, 0:12:31.480 --> 0:12:34.240 and it's since been published. The paper was about trying 0:12:34.240 --> 0:12:39.319 to understand if movie reviews create a more or less 0:12:39.360 --> 0:12:43.400 interest in people to actually see those movies, and also 0:12:43.440 --> 0:12:46.120 to change whether or not people are enjoying the movies 0:12:46.160 --> 0:12:48.760 as they're seeing them. So I was trying to see 0:12:49.000 --> 0:12:52.280 if if you read a movie review beforehand and then 0:12:52.280 --> 0:12:54.240 you watch the movie, if you have a worse or 0:12:54.320 --> 0:12:56.720 better time because of it. That was the main goal. 0:12:57.280 --> 0:12:59.959 So the experiment went like this, five groups of people 0:13:00.080 --> 0:13:02.720 or assigned to read either a professional positive review, a 0:13:02.760 --> 0:13:06.560 professional negative review, a consumer positive review, or a consumer 0:13:06.600 --> 0:13:09.199 negative review. And in this case, a consumer review is 0:13:09.240 --> 0:13:11.560 the equivalent to a letterbox review. It's written by a 0:13:11.559 --> 0:13:15.719 normal person, not a professional critic or something. Or they 0:13:15.720 --> 0:13:17.880 were given no review at all. They were just given 0:13:17.960 --> 0:13:21.559 some very basic information about the film without any evaluative statements. 0:13:21.920 --> 0:13:28.400 And we designed those reviews based on a short content 0:13:28.440 --> 0:13:31.320 analysis of reviews that we found online, both on the 0:13:31.320 --> 0:13:34.800 consumer side and on the professional critic side. So there 0:13:35.320 --> 0:13:39.360 they took elements from reviews of that movie, and they 0:13:39.400 --> 0:13:41.760 were kind of matched together in a way that fit 0:13:42.040 --> 0:13:47.240 our manipulation, so that they are identical except for the evaluation, 0:13:47.400 --> 0:13:50.560 and they're identical except for the tone professional or consumer. 0:13:50.720 --> 0:13:53.720 So they were watching this short Spike Jones film I'm here, 0:13:54.120 --> 0:13:54.880 great movie? 0:13:55.480 --> 0:13:55.840 Do you mean? 0:13:55.920 --> 0:14:01.240 Recondryclusey can make it up? Says like it's kind of 0:14:01.240 --> 0:14:04.200 an issue because the movie's just good. So it kind 0:14:04.200 --> 0:14:06.280 of skews the results almost like they need to find 0:14:06.280 --> 0:14:07.920 something maybe more middle of the road. 0:14:08.040 --> 0:14:11.240 But yeah, college staple. 0:14:12.040 --> 0:14:14.160 So that's how they did the experiment, and these are 0:14:14.160 --> 0:14:15.280 the results they found. 0:14:15.440 --> 0:14:18.240 So the only effect that we found was of a 0:14:18.360 --> 0:14:21.960 negative consumer review. Those were the ones where the grade 0:14:22.000 --> 0:14:24.480 went down from what we found in a control condition 0:14:24.600 --> 0:14:27.080 to I think at one point out of ten lower 0:14:27.200 --> 0:14:29.600 or something or zero point seven points out of ten lower. 0:14:29.640 --> 0:14:34.680 And that was mostly because of the emotional engagement that 0:14:34.720 --> 0:14:38.720 people had with the movie after reading the review, because 0:14:38.760 --> 0:14:42.880 if they read a negative emotional review, they distanced themselves 0:14:42.920 --> 0:14:45.560 from the movie. They did not allow themselves to be 0:14:45.600 --> 0:14:48.320 engaged in the movie. And they were quite good at 0:14:48.560 --> 0:14:51.240 seeing which of the reviews were kind of emotional and 0:14:51.280 --> 0:14:53.400 which weren't. And they were also pretty good at guessing 0:14:53.440 --> 0:14:56.080 what the grade was that the reviewer would have given 0:14:56.120 --> 0:14:59.280 the movie based on just the narrative review without the 0:14:59.320 --> 0:15:00.000 actual grade. 0:15:00.160 --> 0:15:04.880 So there's pretty clear evidence that reading a review paints 0:15:05.240 --> 0:15:07.120 what your experience what the movie is going to be 0:15:07.400 --> 0:15:08.440 if you read it beforehand. 0:15:08.600 --> 0:15:11.440 And as you heard, he says, these negative, more emotional 0:15:11.560 --> 0:15:14.120 reviews which are going to skew towards the consumer side, 0:15:14.120 --> 0:15:16.360 So letterbox and other things are going to have more 0:15:16.400 --> 0:15:20.520 impact than the more distant, sort of straight writing style 0:15:20.600 --> 0:15:23.480 from a professional who's not going to probably try to 0:15:23.520 --> 0:15:26.400 engage you on that yeah, intense level, as like this sucks, 0:15:26.440 --> 0:15:29.560 you're wasting your time and money, Like a newspaper review 0:15:29.600 --> 0:15:31.480 probably isn't going to talk about like the money you're 0:15:31.520 --> 0:15:33.800 spending right to see a movie or something. 0:15:33.520 --> 0:15:37.480 You know when he's talking about there. Basically reading a 0:15:37.520 --> 0:15:40.640 negative review makes it so that you go into the 0:15:40.680 --> 0:15:42.560 movie not like already. 0:15:42.200 --> 0:15:46.000 Not invested, right, Yeah, like standoffish exactly, that you already 0:15:46.000 --> 0:15:49.800 create a distance which rings true to me, right, Like 0:15:49.840 --> 0:15:52.840 there are movies that if you hear about ahead of 0:15:52.880 --> 0:15:55.400 time being particularly bad. 0:15:55.200 --> 0:15:57.080 You go in with the let me see what this 0:15:57.200 --> 0:15:59.320 dumb ass movie is going to be, and like you 0:15:59.320 --> 0:16:01.360 don't give it a ants to be sucked in. 0:16:01.560 --> 0:16:05.800 Yeah, a recent examples like I heard how people thought 0:16:05.960 --> 0:16:08.360 Megalopolis was bad, and then I went to go see 0:16:08.360 --> 0:16:09.880 it and I was like, yeah, that was bad. 0:16:10.360 --> 0:16:12.240 It's funny because for me, I feel like it goes 0:16:12.280 --> 0:16:15.480 both ways, where in some level I hear something's trash 0:16:15.520 --> 0:16:18.480 and then I'm like, oh, it can't be that bad, almost. 0:16:18.200 --> 0:16:19.360 The contrarian thing. 0:16:19.520 --> 0:16:22.840 Yeah, So like Megalopolis and Joker Too are to both 0:16:22.880 --> 0:16:27.400 movies that were totally disparaged by critics and normal people. Yeah, 0:16:27.800 --> 0:16:30.480 I was like France for Coppola's a legend he can't 0:16:30.480 --> 0:16:31.680 be totally worthless. 0:16:31.760 --> 0:16:35.200 Yeah, and you think one year of medical school entitles 0:16:35.240 --> 0:16:37.760 you to plow through the riches of my Amersonian mind. 0:16:37.960 --> 0:16:40.760 And then Joker not a movie I was that interested in, 0:16:40.840 --> 0:16:43.640 but I saw and also did terribly box office wise 0:16:43.680 --> 0:16:47.040 and critically, and I was like, well, this isn't as 0:16:47.080 --> 0:16:48.080 horrible as you would think. 0:16:48.120 --> 0:16:48.920 Maybe he did. 0:16:48.800 --> 0:16:52.040 Mention that reading reviews afterwards can also impact your opinion, 0:16:52.080 --> 0:16:53.880 even if you don't think so. So this is about 0:16:53.880 --> 0:16:55.440 something called the third person effect. 0:16:58.960 --> 0:17:01.720 One of the things that I see is that people 0:17:01.720 --> 0:17:04.760 who read reviews after watching a movie, they tend to 0:17:04.760 --> 0:17:08.520 think that those reviews do not change what they thought 0:17:08.560 --> 0:17:11.160 of the movie. So they feel like there other people 0:17:11.240 --> 0:17:14.320 might be affected these by reading these reviews, but not 0:17:14.480 --> 0:17:17.880 they themselves. This is called the third person effect. It's 0:17:18.080 --> 0:17:20.840 very broadly found when you're looking at advertising research, that 0:17:20.880 --> 0:17:23.040 kind of stuff, but I think it's also there a 0:17:23.040 --> 0:17:26.320 lot for reviews. Many people in my friend group as well, 0:17:26.440 --> 0:17:28.479 we had long discussions about whether or not people are 0:17:28.480 --> 0:17:32.200 impacted by reviews, and they say, maybe the grade, maybe 0:17:32.200 --> 0:17:34.440 the rating is what does it for me. But I 0:17:34.800 --> 0:17:38.359 think it's actually even if you're reading a review before 0:17:38.480 --> 0:17:41.400 or after that you change the way you think about 0:17:41.440 --> 0:17:43.560 a movie if the review is compelling or if the 0:17:43.600 --> 0:17:47.879 reviews has good arguments. But we are very bad at 0:17:47.920 --> 0:17:51.240 admitting for ourselves when that is happening, and we tend 0:17:51.280 --> 0:17:53.119 to say, oh, it's always been like that. I actually 0:17:53.160 --> 0:17:55.680 always hated that movie, even though it came out of 0:17:55.720 --> 0:17:57.200 it thinking that it's a really good movie. 0:17:57.240 --> 0:18:03.240 Actually, certainly my feelings on movies have changed after reading 0:18:03.240 --> 0:18:04.400 a review or talking to people. 0:18:04.720 --> 0:18:06.440 Oh, for sure, have you had the opposite happen? 0:18:06.520 --> 0:18:08.080 Do you think you come out of a movie thinking 0:18:08.119 --> 0:18:10.119 you really like it and then someone's like, oh, this sucked, 0:18:10.280 --> 0:18:12.719 and then you're like, oh, yeah, okay, it wasn't actually 0:18:12.720 --> 0:18:13.200 that good. 0:18:14.320 --> 0:18:17.640 Yeah, because I'll be like, I won't fully flip my opinion, 0:18:17.640 --> 0:18:19.320 but I'll be like, yeah, I can see how some 0:18:19.359 --> 0:18:22.640