web
counter
 

Movies Were Not Better When You Were A Child

By Steven Lloyd Wilson | Posted Under Think Pieces | Comments (15)



children-at-play.jpg

Everybody knows that everything was better when they were kids. Movies, television, breakfast cereal, it’s all better when you’re eight. It has absolutely nothing to do with remembering things as better than they were at the time, right? Well, thanks to a little database work and some graphs, we can test out that theory on the movies of our childhoods. As long as by childhood you mean after the eighties, because that’s how far back the data goes.

The raw data here is from Box Office Mojo, and is composed of each movie in their database back to 1982, along with the genre of the film and what its average grade is among users. For ease of calculating averages, I’ve just converted the grades into a standard 4 point scale (where 4 is an A, 3 is a B, etc.).

The first graph we’ve got is the average grade of all movies in the database broken down by year. A couple things pop out. First, 2010 is ludicrously inflated, and I doubt that is because films released this year are massively better than the year before, but because movies probably accumulate most of their median reviews over a year or two period after the film leaves theaters. The early voters are most likely those who were most excited to see it, or are just rating it as an A sight unseen. Check out The Fighter, it hasn’t been released yet (and will only be released in 4 theaters nationwide this weekend) yet it already has two A’s for a perfect 4.0.

movie_gpa_all.png

The second thing we notice is that movies from the early 1980s have a slightly higher rating than those up to the last few years. But I almost find that suspicious. Those films were not rated on Box Office Mojo in real time, rather they were rated over the last decade, with ten to twenty years of nostalgia backing them. If all years had exactly the same quality movies, we would expect the early eighties to have much higher ratings than the other years simply because of the nostalgia factor. Since the early eighties are only slightly better than contemporary figures, that suggests that either nostalgia is not as strong a force as we think (and there are entire cable networks running successful businesses contrary to that assertion) or that those early eighties films we remember so fondly in general just do not hold up to the test of time when rated individually.

Also, 2002 to 2006 is just a wasteland of film in aggregate, with an average film rating of less than 1.9, which is barely good for a C-. Those are the community college years of the film industry.

But what about drilling down a bit into different genres. Take comedy for example, which one might expect to basically mirror the overall ratings since films tagged with the “comedy” tag in the database represent the single largest group overall.

movie_gpa_comedy.png

Interestingly, the trends for comedy don’t exactly mirror the overall trend. We still see a slightly above average early-eighties and the contemporary spike, but we also see that the best sustained period of comedy was the 1980s, with the worst year of the decade (1988) bested only by 2 of the 17 years following the 1980s.

Horror films are a bit more interesting, with a lot more year to year variation. We see a fantastic period in the early eighties, followed by an abysmal eleven years from 1986 to 1996, in which only two years managed to get their heads above a 2.0. Horror surged back in 1997 and with a couple of low years, has managed to stay relatively higher through the last couple of years.

movie_gpa_horror.png

Science fiction films are even more interesting, because they have some of the most extreme swings in variation (also note that all the graphs are on the same scales so that they can be compared more easily and accurately). When science fiction is good, it’s really good, with higher scores than any other genres. When science fiction is bad though, it’s really bad, with lows as low as the worst years in any other genres.

movie_gpa_scifi.png

So what about action movies? They tend to be the most particularly nostalgic genre, in that many people swear by the great action movies of the past and how the transformation of the entire genre into a watered down PG-13 shadow of its former glory has destroyed it. In light of that nostalgia, how do action movies fare?

movie_gpa_action.png

Pretty bad actually, especially compared to the other genres we’ve looked at. If anything, other than a couple of good years in the early eighties, it looks like a genre that meandered through mediocre quality until the late nineties when it gradually experienced an uptick. Okay, but what about R-rated action?

movie_gpa_r_action.png

The story actually looks even worse when we restrict attention to action films with an R-rated. Nostalgia factor be damned, the last fifteen years beat the first fifteen years hands down.

Last up, I thought it would be interesting to see what genres the industry has been partial to making over the few decades. So below is a bar graph that shows the percent of each year’s movies that are in each of the labeled genres. This is really interesting because we see the explosion of documentaries over the last decade, while science fiction films (despite their renaissance of quality over the decade in terms of user ratings) have dwindled quite substantially compared to the proportions we saw during the eighties.

movie_genres.png


* Note: I do not claim that these findings even remotely hold up to statistical or scientific rigor. Any attempt to hold them up to such standards will be roundly ridiculed.

Steven Lloyd Wilson is a hopeless romantic and the last scion of Norse warriors and the forbidden elder gods. His novel, ramblings, and assorted fictions coalesce at www.burningviolin.com. You can email him here.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



"Jack Bauer The Athlete" | Pajiba Sports and the "24" Viewing Marathon | Julian Assange: Hero or Asshole? | Pajiba Debates









Comments

Maths....brain hurts...must switch over to funny video....

Posted by: Fredo at December 8, 2010 2:04 PM

...of dogs...surfing....

Posted by: Fredo at December 8, 2010 2:08 PM

That last one...the one with all the stripey colors...? That one reminds me that drugs were better when I was a kid. They were. Never thought twice about biting into that sugar cube. Now? No way, man. Not even a plain ol C&H sugar cube.

That stripey graph is trying to tell me something. I just know it.

Posted by: klingonfree at December 8, 2010 2:17 PM

This is a conversation I have with my friends, constantly. For instance, one thinks that anybody who claims that the original Star Wars trilogy is objectively good isn't actually being objective, but is being purely nostalgic.

I roundly disagree with him on this. Yes, nostalgia exists and we might have an affinity for certain movies or TV shows (or Saturday morning cartoons) that we grew up with. Yes, they become part of our "happy places" and our comfort food. But that doesn't mean one can't also be objective about a favorite film's quality.

I still love the original Star Wars trilogy, but I'll be damned if I ever say they're "perfect" or that Return of the Jedi really isn't just barely above the best of the second trilogy, or that A New Hope* isn't clunky and awkward at times, with some pretty painful dialogue. On Netflix, no matter how much I enjoy them, I still only rate the first and third movies 3 1/2 stars (well, 4 stars for the first and 3 stars for the third, but only because Netflix doesn't do half-point ratings -- get on that, please). But they're still parsecs ahead of the new movies, and Empire really is one of the best science fiction movies ever. Which is why I unabashedly give it 5 stars.

I think I got off point... What I'm saying is, I like this post and I plan on using it to debunk my friend as the overgeneralizing charlatan that he is.**

* I simply used that title for clarity's sake. I agree, it should simply be called Star Wars. But context is key.

** If you ever read this, Jordy TayForge, just know that I looooooooooove yooooooouuuuuuuuu.

Posted by: RobP at December 8, 2010 2:23 PM

As long as by childhood you mean after the eighties, because that’s how far back the data goes.

Obviously.
Because everything was so awesome back in the '70s and '80s that it was beyond quantification.

Posted by: Rykker at December 8, 2010 2:30 PM

Excuse me, SLW, but you're stepping on my brain.

*looks away from charts*

Ahhh, that's better.

*looks at charts again*

How embarrassing. It seems you've stepped on my brain again, my good man.

Posted by: Kballs at December 8, 2010 2:40 PM

So basically you just wanted to kick Star Wars in the nuts.

Any thoughts on Superman?

everything was better when they were kids.

I've got that beat. My uncle believes things were better fifty years before he was born...but he talks (and acts) like he lived there...and never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER takes inflation into account when talking about what prices used to be. He is excruciating. And insane.

Posted by: Jay at December 8, 2010 2:43 PM

The key question is when were the movies rated, only at their release or anytime since their release. It makes a big difference.

There are just too many factors that change over the years that affect how we appreciate movies to make this kind of definitive comparison over time. Just to name a few: filming technology, clothes , social opinions, ethics, demographics. To rate movies without regard to these changes over time introduces so much bias (or nostalgia if you prefer).

It's hard not to downgrade older movies based on their fx. But in twenty years today's movies will be downgraded for the same reasons. Does that make today's movies worse twenty years from now? And at some point the fx become so dated that they become nostalgic.

I could go on and on about this but I'm boring myself. Suffice it to say that this data/analysis should only be used to line birdcages.

Posted by: ed newman at December 8, 2010 2:56 PM

Bah! you can use numbers to prove just about anything.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 8, 2010 3:42 PM

Of course older movies are better, they're the ones w/ our first impressions. Bullet time get cheesy the 5th time, but, hell, if The Matrix isn't the best movie ever to feature it, according to the masses.

Posted by: Ted at December 8, 2010 4:01 PM

Ha ha ha. 2005 aka 'the pit of despair'.

1 Revenge of the Sith $380.271 $115.0 Fox
2 Chronicles of Narnia $291.710 $205.0 Disney
3 Goblet of Fire $290.013 $130.0 Warner Brothers
4 War of the Worlds $234.280 $128.0 Paramount
5 King Kong $218.051 $207.0 Universal
6 Wedding Crashers $209.218 $40.0 New Line
7 Chocolate Factory $206.459 $150.0 Warner
8 Batman Begins $205.344 $150.0 Warner
9 Madagascar $193.137 $75.0 DreamWorks
10 Mr. and Mrs. Smith $186.336 $110.0 Fox
11 Hitch $178.51 $70.0 Columbia
12 The Longest Yard $158.12 $82.0 Paramount
13 Fantastic 4 $154.70 $100.0 Fox
14 Chicken Little $135.38 $60.0 Disney
15 Robots $128.20 $70.0 Fox
16 Walk the Line $119.52 $28.0 Fox
17 The Pacifier $113.14 $56.0 Disney
18 Dick and Jane $110.50 $100.0 Columbia
19 40 Year Old Virgin $109.33 $26.0 Universal
20 Flightplan $89.71 $55.0 Touchstone
21 Saw 2 $87.03 $4.0 Lions Gate
22 Brokeback Mountain $83.03 $14.0 Focus Features
23 Monster in Law $82.89 $45.0 New Line
24 Cheaper...Dozen 2 $82.57 20th Century Fox
25 Are We There Yet

Posted by: ColostomyBaggins at December 8, 2010 4:02 PM

Interesting data, but I'm not buying the results at all. Claiming, for example, that horror films are now better reviewed than they were twenty years ago is a statistical lie. Thanks to nerds of my kind with sizable blogs, less discriminating horror fans can give everything that comes out with blood in it a very high rating which would skew the results. Whereas, in the early 80s peak, there genuinely was a nice run of positive horror criticism for works from filmmakers like John Carpenter and David Cronenberg. That doesn't mean the vast majority of horror wasn't dismissed immediately by critics; it means that a good horror year in this data means more people were willing to write glowing reviews of a few films rather than a tangible comment on quality.

The same kind of logic can be applied to any of the charts except the last one. That one's too pretty to judge.

Posted by: Robert at December 8, 2010 4:44 PM

Love love love this post, but then, I love stats and math. I'd very much enjoy a long debate on the subject, but I'm supposed to be working right now...perhaps I'll be back later.

Posted by: dsbs at December 8, 2010 4:51 PM

I always say if the kids are slow they shouldn't be playing IN the road. Let the quicker, more athletic kids play in the road. It's just common sense people!

Posted by: logan at December 8, 2010 4:53 PM

I just love making charts in Excel.

Quit laughing.

Posted by: Jerry at December 8, 2010 6:09 PM