MovieChat Forums > Blue Caprice (2015) Discussion > Films with BLACK LEADS gets rated with p...

Films with BLACK LEADS gets rated with prejudice on imdb

posted 11 years ago by Xtremegt2
26 replies | jump to latest

It's something I've noticed for quite some time. And before you bring anecdotal evidence of the contrary, those tend to be films that have crossed over like Fruitvale Station or Django Unchained or anything with Denzel in it.

But films with black leads gets rated...with prejudice.

With most movies, you can kinda predict what it'll be rated by how good you thought it was. You might be off a little bit, but generally people give a great film an 8-10 rating. They give a good film a 7 or 8. And a they'll give a mediocre film a 5 or 6. A 3 or 4 at the worst. Sure you'll get a few people who only rate things in 1s or 10s, but that's mostly how it goes.

With black films, there is no basement. People instantly rate them a 1, just because there are black people front and center. And I see this CONSTANTLY. Now I understand that effect on Madea films. They're atrocious. But I've seen it everywhere.

I've seen so many awful white films with much better ratings than good black ones. And all you need to do is click on the number of users who have rated to find your answer:

Generally ratings look like a bell curve. A lot of votes in the middle, less at the top and bottom. With black films it's the same, except there'll be a huge spike in 1-star ratings.

That's prejudice. It can't be anything different. And this isn't the only film like it.

This is a GOOD film. Not the greatest. But it has a nice cast, good acting all around, good direction, good script, compelling story and it pulls you through the whole film. Not to mention it has a 91% on rottentomatoes.

But look at that rating.

13% of people gave it 1-star. I wonder why...

[–] Raxivace 11 years ago

How many films truly deserve a 1-star rating anyways? Even crap like The Room deserves a 2 or 3 at least.

I haven't seen Blue Caprice yet, and the 6-star average rating had me a little worried. But you bring up many good points about the flaws of IMDb's rating system. Gonna check out the film now and see for myself.

[–] k57 11 years ago

1/10

I would have given it a 0/10. Sickening.

---
I haven't slept for ten days, because that would be too long

[–] dan-859 11 years ago

Yes, we've seen why you rate this so low in another post. But your rating is exactly the point the OP was trying to make about films unnecessarily getting low ratings due to factors beyond the scope of the film itself.

"Sickening" is letting a person like your have influence in the rating of this movie because you're not rating the movie -- you're rating your own feelings about the events and issues surrounding the subject matter, and projecting those on the film.

[–] WhoisThePrisoner1 11 years ago

"With black films, there is no basement. People instantly rate them a 1..."

Wrong. There is no statistical difference in ratings that correlate to the race of the actors.

It is just your racist paranoia and racism projecting on others.

If you DO want to find an actual correlation to race, look at ticket/streaming/DVD sales demographics, and you will find that blacks no only will avoid this movie like the plague, but they generally don't support black film. They will be packed in to see Insidious: Chapter 2, and other white schlock, rather than this, any day.

[–] Xtremegt2 11 years ago

Why don't you stay within the confines of my argument. On imdb, there is direct source evidence to look at.

If you look at most films on imdb, the ratings breakdown looks like a curve. A lot of people voting in the middle. And a lot less voting very low. A few hyperbolic people giving it a 1. And with a film like this that has a 90% on RT, a good amount of people giving it a 10.

That's how it normally looks for most films, except extremely bad movies like Tyler Perry movies, The Room, Troll 2 or Uwe Boll films. But black films on imdb that aren't crossover hits, look like that normal curve...and then a massive spike in 1-star ratings.

Here's this film's breakdown:

10 -- 16.5%
9 -- 5.9%
8 -- 9.7%
7 -- 20.1%
6 -- 16.7%
5 -- 8.1%
4 -- 6.1%
3 -- 3.8%
2 -- 2.0%
1 -- 11.1%

And when I say that "people" rate it like that, I don't mean all people, obviously. I just mean, a constant and consistent type of person does this.

[–] WhoisThePrisoner1 11 years ago

This movie doesn't even have an audience.....446 people have rated it. The few that went to a theater or will watch it later will be white, as blacks won't have any interest in it, nor support it in any way whatsoever, as they don't with black film in general.

Any controversial topic, especially one that sympathizes with terrorists or serial killers (such as this), and doesn't have an audience (like this one) will have lots of "1's", from people that haven't even seen it, but don't like the content (like tons of other box office flops).

Look up any Denzel Washington movie, and your argument is destroyed.

Look up any Kirk Cameron movie, and your argument is destroyed.

Color Purple, rap movies such as Hustle and Flow, etc..etc..etc.., all destroy your lame racist projection.

And btw, only the braindead prop up Rotten Tomatoes as a gauge for anything at all. Critics give a yes or no. Metacritic on the other hand, is closer to gauging critical response.

[–] Xtremegt2 11 years ago

Thanks for not bothering to read the 2nd sentence:

And before you bring anecdotal evidence of the contrary, those tend to be films that have crossed over like Fruitvale Station or Django Unchained or anything with Denzel in it.

I think an Oscar-winning film like Hustle & Flow counts.

And what does the audience being predominantly white have anything to do with it? Nearly every American film's audience is predominantly white. Are you trying to say it deserves those 1s because black people aren't aware of or supporting it?

And Had you watched this film with any type of sensibility, you'd know it doesn't sympathize with the killers. Unless, of course, you think portraying them as anything short of snarling demon caricatures counts as sympathy.

And yes. Every film will have a good amount of people who will hate it and rate it with a 1. But to tell me that somehow, 14% of the people who came across this, thought it was the worst thing possible is ridiculous.

Only the braindead can't see a gulf between a 90% on RT and a 6.2 on imdb. I'll admit, both of these aren't guages of quality, so much as a public thermometer.

But since you mentioned it, Blue Caprice has a 76 on Metacritic.

Other films in theater with ~76 Metacritic score: Enough Said (7.1 imdb), Prince Avalanche (6.5), Ain't Them Bodies Saints (7.1), The Grandmaster (6.6), Rush (8.4), Prisoners (8.4), You're Next (6.9), Blue Jasmine (7.8).

And none of them have more than 3% of 1-star votes on imdb.

Now...off the top of my head, you wanna see some examples of what I'm talking about?

Middle of Nowhere -- 75 on Meta -- 20% 1-star votes
I Will Follow -- 71 on Meta -- 12% 1-star votes
Venus and Serena -- 65 on Meta -- 16% 1-star votes

But I'm crazy right? I'm racist for thinking something prejudiced might be going on. Or were these films "controversial?"

Because these are films I've seen. I DO support black films. And once you've rated enough films on here, you get in tune with the rhythm of imdb scores. And it rings pretty loudly when things are way off from what you expect.

I've seen it so many times, that I've just come to accept that any black film that isn't a crossover hit tends to get at least 1/2 a pt less than makes sense. Unless it's got a big name in front of or behind the camera or it's a well-worn, simple poor black people need to get saved story, then forget about it.

What annoys me about it is, regardless of what you feel about imdb, it DOES have an affect on people. No one expects perfect accuracy, but if I saw something I wasn't sure about have a 6.2 on imdb, I might just put off watching it, thinking it's mediocre. And that's a damn shame.

[–] WhoisThePrisoner1 11 years ago

Then according to your own logic, blacks are the ones not supporting black film, so they must be the ones rating it "1's". Maybe they don't like movies that portray blacks as serial killers, especially movies that sympathize with the black serial killers.

Again, there is no correlation to race and IMDB ratings, but if you want to force it, then you must look to blacks (the ones that do not support black film), not whites. Whites love quality movies with black or white leads.

[–] Xtremegt2 11 years ago

Okay. So reading comprehension is off the table.

Whites love quality movies with black or white leads.

...is the most racist thing posted in this entire thread.

If you can't comprehend that I'm talking about a subset of people, who cause very odd and abnormal rating trends on lower key films with a predominantly black cast, then you're naive, hardheaded, or just angry that anyone would even suggest it.

Did I miss the part where those other movies I mentioned don't involve serial killers? Or did that make the argument too complicated for you, so it's best to just ignore that part?

Are we gonna slide over me dismissing your whole "just look at Denzel movies" thing?

Because a post ago, you were talking how it's black people's fault for not supporting black films, but now suddenly I should blame black people's voting for whatever abberation in the negative bias certain black films get on here.

And it's nice to see that it was so easy to conflate a "certain 'potentially white' people immediately go down to 1-star for black films that don't have a mainstream pass" with, "are you trying to say all white people are racist? then YOU'RE RACIST!"

This is just something I've noticed, and I provided examples of what I'm talking about. That's all.

[–] WhoisThePrisoner1 11 years ago

Another example that destroys your argument (along with the tons of others I supplied): Twilight movies

"but now suddenly I should blame black people's voting "

You are dying to blame someone. So blacks are closest thing, since they are the only ones averse to watching black film.

"You're racist!"

And you prove your desperation with that comment. According to you: Truth = Racism.

"black films that don't have a mainstream pass"

LOL! So according to you, black audiences are less racist when a black film is more popular.

[–] Xtremegt2 11 years ago

Another example that destroys your argument (along with the tons of others I supplied): Twilight movies

Who taught you to read?

That's how it normally looks for most films, except extremely bad movies like Tyler Perry movies, The Room, Troll 2 or Uwe Boll films.

Bad films exist. They're real things. And it's not out of the ordinary for films popular for being terrible to get a ton of 1-star ratings.

This isn't one of those. By every measure, it's at least a decent film. At the very least, it doesn't deserve 1/8 of the people watching it to give it the worst rating possible.

LOL! So according to you, black audiences are less racist when a black film is more popular.

So what you're trying to say is...if a film has mostly black people in it, only black people watch it? Because there are so many more black people in America than any other race. And then only black people rate it on imdb? So you're positive all of those 1-star ratings must be black people, because why would anyone non-black bother to watch or rate this, right?

Wait.

So this shouldn't be a conversation, since...(I'm assuming here), you couldn't POSSIBLY be anything except black. Otherwise, what are you doing on this film's message board? According to you, only black people should be here, since the rating is their fault.

...

Oh, and you wanna hear something funny. Blue Caprice...that has a 75 on Metacritic and a 90% on RT, has 11% 1-star ratings.

The last Twilight movie, that YOU brought up...has a 52 on Metacritic and 24% on RT.

That got 14% 1-star ratings.

You're right. This is about as bad as Twilight, right?

Cuz it's just me, right?

[–] WhoisThePrisoner1 11 years ago

"By every measure, it's at least a decent film."

According to you. Most of us don't have time for movies sympathetic to serial killers. Just the plot summary is sickening enough.

"only black people should be here, since the rating is their fault. "

No, many (or most) people rate movies and don't hang around message boards.

So anyway, you have been provided with tons of examples of white movies with tons of "1's", and tons of black movies without tons of "1's".

Your argument has been destroyed and there is no correlation.

If you are still desperate to find racism somewhere, ask blacks why they are so averse to black film, and the few times they go to the theater, they primarily watch white blockbusters. (While at the same time, whites are almost the only ones supporting black film).

[–] Xtremegt2 11 years ago

So anyway, you have been provided with tons of examples of white movies with tons of "1's", and tons of black movies without tons of "1's".

Your argument has been destroyed and there is no correlation.

I wish you would've warned me early on, that you were too simpleminded for this conversation.

[–] WhoisThePrisoner1 11 years ago

Blaming whitey for everything, including something as insignificant as IMDB ratings, is "simpleminded".

At this point, people like you are just crying wolf, and no one takes you seriously.

[–] mr-mike883-964-885762 11 years ago

Most of us don't have time for movies sympathetic to serial killers. Just the plot summary is sickening enough.

So you didn't see this movie, huh? It does not sympathize with them. It's a film that attempts to penetrate the minds of two evil people, to understand their nonsensical motivations, but we don't root for them. We don't feel sorry for them. I mean, have you read the Rotten Tomatoes consensus?

Smart, sobering, and quietly chilling, Blue Caprice uses its horrible true-life story -- and some solid performances -- to underscore the dreadful banality of evil

Please note the use of the word evil. This is a disturbing film. This is not a film about a couple black guys committing serial murders because they were oppressed by the man or some crap like that. It's the extremely upsetting tale of a man turning a decent kid into a cold blooded murderer. There's no sympathy for Muhammad. There's sympathy for the kid Malvo once was, but not for the kid he becomes.

Please watch the movie before assuming what it is.

[–] WhoisThePrisoner1 11 years ago

It does not sympathize with them. It's a film that attempts to..

Doesn't matter how you subjectively feel about it. We were discussing the low turnout due to perception of most about the subject matter.

[–] mr-mike883-964-885762 11 years ago

Way to completely ignore your own quote. Let me show it again

Most of us don't have time for movies sympathetic to serial killers. Just the plot summary is sickening enough.

You called a movie sickening, a movie that you clearly have not seen. You claimed it sympathizes with serial killers, with no evidence to back that.

The low turnout can be credited to a few things
1. THe lack of stars (Isaiah Washington is old news)
2. The lack of promotion
3. People not wanting to relive those horrible events (similar to United 93)

THis film is no more pro-serial killer than United 93 is pro-terrorist. You can call the movie "sickening" but anyone who actually thought the film wanted us to feel anything less than contempt for the main characters is either an idiot or refuses to see the movie due to their own ignorant assumptions.

[–] WhoisThePrisoner1 11 years ago

"You called a movie sickening"

No, I called the plot summary sickening, genius.

"You claimed it sympathizes with serial killers"

I said that perception is reason enough for low attendance.

"idiot or refuses to see..."

Anyone that disagrees, or refuses to see what you see is an "idiot".....yeah, right, kid.

[–] mr-mike883-964-885762 11 years ago

No, I called the plot summary sickening, genius.

I said that perception is reason enough for low attendance.

Whatever, your intentions were, there were a lot of strong implications that led to my response.

Most of us don't have time for movies sympathetic to serial killers. Just the plot summary is sickening enough.

When you say things like JUST the plot summary...sickening ENOUGH, it gives the implication that reading the plot summary is so sick and twisted that the movie must be even worse. Perhaps that wasn't your intention, but I read it that way, perhaps incorrectly.

And when you say that it's "sympathetic to serial killers", I don't see anything about perception, nor have I heard anyone else call the film sympathetic besides you. Regardless, the implication I get from the post is a pretty straightforward "This is what the movie's about and this is why I won't see it" not "this is what people THINK the movie is about and why they won't see it". Once again, perhaps not your intention, but that's how I read it.

And I stand by my final statement. There aren't always two sides to every story. Sometimes one side is wrong. Like if one side argues that Shaquille O'Neill is short for a human being and one side argues that he's tall, the person making the short person is simply wrong. They're an idiot to think that. THey don't have to like the movie but if they think it's pro-serial killer, they missed something. I've heard nobody actually call the film pro-serial killer and am baffled at the thought that anyone could possibly see it that way. When/if you see the movie, please tell me if you thought it was pro-serial killer.

[–] WhoisThePrisoner1 11 years ago

Will do, thanks!

[–] activista 11 years ago

@WhosThePrisoner1

The only reason his film dosen't have an audience is because it's gotten virtually no promotion whatsoever---the only reason I even found out about it was when I stumbled across a review of it on another movie site. So it's really nothing to do with the quality of the film, it's simply that most people--not just black people--haven't even heard of it. I also think that it's mainly because of the subject matter,particularly in these post-Newtown times.

And who are YOU to say that black people don't have any interest in black film? I'm black, and trust me when I say that black folks go to see films with people who look like them for a change ALL the time,especially since 99% of most movies made in Hollywood are mainly about white folks anyway. I sure as hell do. And,yes, if you go to ANY board on a film centered on black people, there's always a bunch of posters who have major issues about the fact that a movie is even ABOUT black people in the first place. A lot of them can't conceive of or get their heads around a movie that is NOT centered around white characters---look at the message board of LEE DANIEL'S THE BUTLER,for example, or BAGGAGE CLAIM, or RED TAILS and the recent FRUITVALE STATION. Mainly because we're all been brainwashed by the media to believe that only white people's stories and views matter on anything,no matter what (since they dominate the media,that's no big surprise.)

The problem is that any black film---like the poster said----that dosen't have a main white character to tell the story of a black person through won't get much promotion,especially if they're indie films (look at how little promotion films like NIGHT CATCHES US or MIDDLE OF NOWHERE---both written and directed by black directors got.) And it's not racist to point that out,at all--it's simply the truth.

This is what racism really is,BTW:

http://racismschool.tumblr.com/IntrotoRacism

[–] WhoisThePrisoner1 11 years ago

You claim that this film doesn't have an audience due to:
1) lack of promotion, especially indie films (due to racism)
2) the subject matter (as I already stated)

As far as #1, ...FALSE. The same marketing formulas are used across the board.

As far as #2, learn to read....I've stated this multiple times, ad nauseam.

And btw, nothing is stopping blacks from proving everyone wrong. Get wealthy blacks, such as Oprah, to make black films and promote them as much and however they want. But they won't do it. They don't want to lose their a$ses on bad film such as Blue Caprice. 100 million in marketing would have gone down the toilet, and if anything, less people would have watched it.

Stop your crying and blaming whitey. Do something for yourself, like every other minority that has surpassed you in film and by every other indicator, and prove your point. 40 million blacks with 1.2 trillion in spending power, still sitting around, crying on message boards, begging for white table scraps.

[–] Ithilfaen 11 years ago

With most movies, you can kinda predict what it'll be rated by how good you thought it was. You might be off a little bit, but generally people give a great film an 8-10 rating. They give a good film a 7 or 8. And a they'll give a mediocre film a 5 or 6. A 3 or 4 at the worst. Sure you'll get a few people who only rate things in 1s or 10s, but that's mostly how it goes.

And that's where your premise is flawed. You act as if there was any such thing as an objectively "good" or "mediocre" movie. People's perception of art or entertainment vary. Their background, personal tastes, education, quirks, even their mood when they are watching, are different. It doesn't have to be racially prejudiced.

I thought it was an ok film that doesn't live up to its potential. It's not because the leads are black or because they are killers. It's because I felt they didn't try hard enough to go in depth and kept floating at the surface of the events.
My question after watching the movie was: did I know more than if I had read a chronological account of factoids about the killers, where they met and how they killed? Not really. And that's what I was hoping for. It's not racism, I was just not that impressed.

For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco

[–] inthepalemoonlight 11 years ago

This has been the norm for IMDB for the longest time. An independent black film could be released at a small film festival (which makes it eligible for being voted on by IMDB users even before it is released in theaters), get nothing but very good reviews from the handful of reviewers working for newspapers, websites, etc. and get a very complimentary writeup by a user or two on its IMDB page. And yet that film will shortly thereafter have about a 4 to 5 ranking. What gives? Well, you do some checking and see that that a high percentage of the voters end up giving the film a "1" or a "2". Really? So a large section of the audience, who are typically more easy to impress than reviewers, not only go against the grain in terms of reviews but they somehow end up going to IMDB enmasse to vote negatively on this little seen motion picture? These folks likely didn't even see the films in situations like that. All they need to see is the pictures of the black face (faces) on the IMDB page and that's all they need.

Anyway few black films escape this brand of IMDb bias. And I don't mean crappy black films which I have no tolerance for. I'm talking about movies that are critically acclaimed. When the IMDB scores is considerably lower than that of the Rotten Tomatoes and Metascore, something is wrong because typically audiences, as I pointed out, are more lenient in their reviews than critics. I'm shocked that 12 Years a Slave has such a high score (8.7 last time I checked). I would have figured it would have fallen victim to the same pattern. That look to be the case early on when it was released in all those festivals. Despite rave reviews and a few awards it was still below a 7 score on IMDB for a long stretch of time. But when it was released in movie theaters it was fortunate to draw in the type of arthouse movie lovers who must like rating films on IMDB. Those individuals in large numbers were able to overcome those initial "1" votes. A film like Fruitvale, however, never got the rating it deserved. It's 7.6 score is respectable but it isn't near the film's RT score and its Metascore. Then there is a movie like Attack the Block (not a black film but one with a black lead) which has a 94% fresh on RT but a 6.6 ranking on IMDB. Par for the course.

[–] Zerose 11 years ago

There were many other imbd posters, over years, who have noticed and raised this issue.

Like you, they were accused of being 'racist' or trying to 'cause trouble', which usually caused threads to derail. There were many posters who refused to listen, preferring to attack those who just wanted to explore and discuss this issue.

Judging by those discussions before the derailment, it seems clear that there is a group of imdb posters that routinely chooses a 1 for every film with a black lead or a black film, regardless of whether they have seen the film or not. Same with films that feature leading actors of other ethnicities. Asian American, Hispanic and more.

Looking on the bright side, I'm seeing a rise in casting black actors in leading or significant roles, instead of the usual sidekick roles. Perhaps in a decade's time, that group will learn to focus on actors' performances instead of each actor's ethnicity.

And that white won't be the default any more. Unless it's significant to a plot, actors' ethnicity shouldn't be relevant where the casting is concerned.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]