20th Century Fox Uses ML to Predict a Movie Audience

Re:20th Century Fox Uses ML to Predict a Movie Audience by tombert on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @01:59PM (#19210846)

I cannot remember who said this, but I mostly agree with the sentiment of "there are no good or bad movies, only boring or interesting movies". I watch a ton of low-budget crap-films, because I find them funny, and I watch a lot of movies that are really interesting (either directly or intellectually). A movie that is boring is the worst kind of movie to me.

A boring movie is something that I genuinely felt wasted my time. I got nothing out of it, and I couldn't even get a lot of enjoyment out of making fun of it. The perfect example of a movie in this category is the 2009 movie "9" (sorry if that's your favorite movie).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:20th Century Fox Uses ML to Predict a Movie Audience by taneq on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @06:58PM (#19213306)

> "there are no good or bad movies, only boring or interesting movies"

I appreciate the sentiment but in this case, wouldn't that make boring movies bad and interesting movies good? (Assuming, of course, you don't want to be bored...)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:20th Century Fox Uses ML to Predict a Movie Audience by dragonsngoblins on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @08:48PM (#19213852)

Not really. Jurassic Park is a good movie, the framing, editing, script, fx work, performances, music all come together really well.

Birdemic is a bad movie, in that none of the individual components are good and they don't complement each other well at all.

I'd argue that both are interesting

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:20th Century Fox Uses ML to Predict a Movie Audience by taneq on Wednesday February 20, 2019 @11:57PM (#19214662)

So there are good and bad movies, and orthogonally, boring and interesting movies. :)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:20th Century Fox Uses ML to Predict a Movie Audience by tombert on Thursday February 21, 2019 @11:05AM (#19217739)

Yeah, maybe I should clarify; there are "good" and "bad" movies from a theoretical level. My enjoyment largely rests on how interesting I find them. Objectively terrible movies like "The Happening" or "The Room" or "Samurai Cop" or "Troll 2" or "Angry Red Planet" are "bad" because whomever made them seems to have no understanding of film-theory, or what it would take to make a "good" movie, but I find them endlessly entertaining...like watching a trainwreck

The irony of it is that if they had tried to make those moves "bad" on purpose, they wouldn't be interesting at all (at least not to me), and they would just be "bad" on every level for me.

In fact, even when there is sincerity, it's not a truly deterministic system. I think that the first Troll movie is technically objectively worse than Troll 2, but I find Troll 1 to be pretty boring, in addition to being incompetent, while Troll 2 is silly and an utter blast to watch.

[ Parent | on HN ]