FitFortDanga wrote:It would make more sense to do average scores by year rather than # of tier 9 or 10.
Except that there's a selection bias that can skew the results. In the last 20 years I've been a regular movie-goer who's tried to stay on top of current cinema. This means I've often seen upwards of 100 movies in a given year, usually without the benefit of knowing what the critical consensus was going into it. Compare that with films from the 1930s which I've seen almost entirely at home, cherry-picked from what has emerged over the years as the canonical choices. Naturally, my average from the 30s is going to be higher than my average from the 90s or 00s, because I've been more selective with what I've seen from the 30s (not always by choice either --a lot of the average studio product from back then simply isn't available anymore; there's been a Darwinian winnowing down of the menu).
So I think you do want to compare the # of tier 9 or tier 10 films from each year, but only once you've seen an acceptable number of films from each year. It's not perfect, but you're never going to be able see everything, as much as we all try.
Good point. I guess there isn't a really satisfying way to measure film quality by year, at least not if you're going to compare newer years to older years.
As you can see, this doesn't tell me a goddamn thing but it's pretty to look at. Two points I can gather: 2002 wasn't so bad as I thought in comparison to, well, almost every other year of the decade. And second that I'm watching too much bilge. Post-'91 it's only 1993, 1998 and 2004 where the number of tier 10 films is equal to my tier 1s, and only 2009 where they outnumber them.
At least I can take heart in that I'm more discerning now that I'm a postgrad in the middle of nowhere, because my two worst films of 2009 were The Hurt Locker, which everyone else loved, and 2012, where I knew beforehand what I was getting into and got falling-down-drunk.
As you can see, this doesn't tell me a goddamn thing but it's pretty to look at. Two points I can gather: 2002 wasn't so bad as I thought in comparison to, well, almost every other year of the decade. And second that I'm watching too much bilge. Post-'91 it's only 1993, 1998 and 2004 where the number of tier 10 films is equal to my tier 1s, and only 2009 where they outnumber them.
At least I can take heart in that I'm more discerning now that I'm a postgrad in the middle of nowhere, because my two worst films of 2009 were The Hurt Locker, which everyone else loved, and 2012, where I knew beforehand what I was getting into and got falling-down-drunk.
I think it just means you haven't watched many films from the early 90s (God, there were some terrible ones...), and got roped into seeing a lot of crap ever since you became a teenager. Also, from the ratio of Tier 9s and 10s to 1s and 2s, it's obvious that 1999 is the worst year for you among the last 20.
