Nothing is Overated

[Fox12]

There is no objective measurement of quality. It's all subjective. Something cannot be overrated or underrated. It just IS. It has exactly as much success as it deserves. And since success isn't a measurement of quality anyway, the point is moot.

Discuss.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Just so you know I was merely curious when making that movie thread because well I don't see Overrated movies being discussed as often as overrated games (and people target the most popular games that have been cherished childhood memories)

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

So...is this just a passive aggressive call-out thread?

 

[Fox12]

Nothing is Overated
Sharks are Overrated though
Jaws are alright

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Except Jaws, which has a shark in it.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Except Jaws, which has a shark in it.

Are you guys quite finished?

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

The value of meta-critic is overrated.

 

[Drathnoxis]

But what if most of something's renown comes from something that most of the people never experienced, and it's fame is based off of hearsay? Sometimes works become so big that people will assume that they are good, sight unseen, and spread that assumption as if they know it to be true.

How many people believe that Moby Dick is an epic tale of revenge that has been held up through the ages by it's quality, rather than a dry textbook on whaling with some actiony revenge bits stitched on. Moby Dick is overrated because most people have not read Moby Dick and yet still believe it to be a classic, regardless. It's overrated on almost a subconscious level. If everyone who has heard of Moby Dick were to read it, without a doubt the public perception of it would be a lot lower.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

The value of meta-critic is overrated.

As in the website Metacritic?

http://www.metacritic.com/

 

[Marter]

This is a good topic. Thank you for it.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

"X Is Overrated" threads almost always boil down to "stop liking what I don't like".

 

[Trunkage]

But what if most of something's renown comes from something that most of the people never experienced, and it's fame is based off of hearsay? Sometimes works become so big that people will assume that they are good, sight unseen, and spread that assumption as if they know it to be true.

How many people believe that Moby Dick is an epic tale of revenge that has been held up through the ages by it's quality, rather than a dry textbook on whaling with some actiony revenge bits stitched on. Moby Dick is overrated because most people have not read Moby Dick and yet still believe it to be a classic, regardless. It's overrated on almost a subconscious level. If everyone who has heard of Moby Dick were to read it, without a doubt the public perception of it would be a lot lower.

Moby Dick, like the Mona Lisa, was not well regard when first created. It was an event in history that elevated it into the limelight. Moby Dick connected with the soldiers in the trenches of WW1 as it seem to protray the sense of hopelessness they felt. The revenge part wasn't their fascination. Similarly, the Mona Lisa was forgotten until it was stolen, giving it value based on the fact that someone WANTED to steal it.

But most cultural things are like that. Elvis is famous as the best of that era, and historically takes credit for all, not just the song he made. See also, Guardian of the Galaxy soundtracks. Most people only remember a few bands from that time and are suprised to hear songs in the movie they remember as being awesome. They are likely to attribute that feeling to those few bands the remember. Think of punk and how many bands you might remember from then. It's the way history works. Famous people are made famous by riding on other coat tails (unintentionally by the famous person usually.) Think of generals in wars over the millennia, but we can't name any foot soldiers. Think of Justinian and the laws he created (or collated) when most of the work was done by scribes and lawyers. Or even a modern one: Steve Jobs and how little he did to make Apple succeed.

 

[Squilookle]

Agree with OP for the most part, but I don't think everything 'gets exactly as much success as it deserves" Considering how many contributing factors can come into play (both good and bad) that aren't the doing of the creators, I'd argue that plenty of things got disproportionate success.

 

[Squilookle]

I try not to contribute to those kinds of topics much. Always disappointing to see great works, masterpieces, like Vertigo shat on.

There's a difference between actively discussing the components of a work and why they make it good or bad, and just shitting on everything by saying everything is 'boring'. A distinction you in particular could get a lot of use out of understanding.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Except Jaws, which has a shark in it.

It does? Well shit, I actually kinda liked that movie. Bummer.

Things can be overrated, but the problem is that those types of forum discussions always feel rather pointless. Where because it's about what's overrated, there's no real counter arguments to be made, since the person in question already made up their mind about not liking it. It just results in a bunch of shit on the walls.

You could make the same argument that nothing is underrated, but we know some things are. And those discussions tend to be a lot more possitive.

The term 'overrated' brings out the ugliness in the geek community.

 

[Catfood220]

Oxygen is over rated, sure I like it fine, but people start acting like they are going to die if they can't get any. I'm like get a grip sheeple, jeez.

 

[wizzy555]

There is no objective measurement of quality. It's all subjective. Something cannot be overrated or underrated. It just IS. It has exactly as much success as it deserves. And since success isn't a measurement of quality anyway, the point is moot.

Discuss.

Things are overrated in a person's opinion. That's it, not more no less.

 

[maninahat]

I agree. When something gets a really positive buzz, people look at the response in a generalised sort of way and complain about that thing being over-rated. What they are actually doing is implicitly suggesting that each of those individual critics must have had wrong opinions, or that they secretly didn't think the work was great and lied in their reviews. Either is insane.

The only circumstance in which something is over-rated is when it is selected for accolades or awards for reasons other than the actual merits of the movie. Academy awards, for instance, are super political in how they are given out to actors and movies. They give out supporting actor awards to the leading actors in movies, because they don't want to use up the best actor award they've already decided to give to someone (who in turn, is being rewarded for one of their weaker movies, as they're overdue at least some award). It's one of the many reasons Academy awards aren't worth a damn.