When I am deep into a well-established television series, I will consult with IMDb to preview the highest-rated episodes. Without looking at plot descriptions, I want to see where on the timeline the show peaks so that I can be hyped or disappointed accordingly.
I watched Lost for the first time last year and IMDb was a vital part of my experience. Given the show’s controversial ending and critiques I had heard on later seasons, I wanted to prepare myself for a sudden drop off in quality. Most of the later seasons had 8-plus stars – not too bad! That is not the drop off I expected so, equipped with this knowledge, I could finish Lost confident that the ride would all be worth it. And it was.
I understand that this is not the purest way to enjoy art, but my time is precious. If I am going to invest 100-plus episodes into a show, it better be greatness worth consuming. Anything less in this Golden Age of television is a waste. And who better to give advice than the masses of viewers before me?
While I believe you must take every review with a grain of salt, there are some undeniable truths. Breaking Bad‘s “Ozymandias,” its third-to-last episode, was the most jaw-dropping hour of television I have ever seen. It has long been the only episode of any show rated 10/10 on IMDb.
Without getting into spoilers, I do not know how any fan of the show could disagree that this episode was in a class of its own. True greatness pierces subjectivity. Several episodes of Breaking Bad probably deserve to be rated 10/10 stars, including the series finale. But if not “Ozymandias,” then the you know the whole rating system is rendered invalid.
Is this the only episode of any show in history that deserves to be 10/10? No. But according to – and despite – fans, there are only three episodes of all the shows with such standing. Two 10-star episodes are from the same show.
And it’s not Breaking Bad.
When Reviews Become Petty
That honor belongs to Attack on Titan, an action anime about an oppressed civilization secluded in fear of giant beings that inhabit their world.
At the time of this writing, one of the episodes from season three and another from season four, each with with tens of thousands of votes, have perfect 10/10 ratings. The season three episode, entitled “Hero,” is ranked No. 1 on IMBd’s all-time list. Given how good television has been, especially over the past 15 years, this is a colossal feat.
Note: I have been monitoring this situation for the past few days and the standings have changed drastically, exemplifying the frustration of all this. I am fascinated.
Breaking Bad fans did not take kindly to some half-hour animated show from Japan taking the top spot over their precious masterclass of television drama, so they unleashed undeserved 1-star ratings on Attack on Titan‘s “Hero” episode. Over the weekend, the episode sat at 9.9/10 and was ranked third on the list. This has mobilized fans from both sides, pumping 1-star or 10-star reviews to alter ratings.
This should seem obvious, but people who have never participated in the subject matter should not review the material. For those who rely on the input of others in a world of infinite decisions, let us keep the pathways to clear-cut analyses open. If you want to help your fellow man, be constructive and honest in your critiques so we do not have to question our choices.
With “Hero” now back on top, it appears that IMDb has removed some of the unwarranted 1-star reviews.
This essay is trivial in nature and, yes, I am talking about the difference of a 10-star rating to a 9.9-star. But this process of “review bombing” can use the online rating system to spite a company, sabotage a legitimate piece of art or sway our purchasing decisions, which has real consequences.
Let the Great Be Great
But I am more interested in a deeper question here: Why are we not lifting art up to its highest potential?
It is so hard to find greatness. Even with subjectivity, both Breaking Bad and Attack on Titan are top-tier television and should lift each other as such. Any competition between the two is artificially made by viewers and stakeholders, which is one reason award shows are a great disservice to the arts. Sports, too, for that matter.
As a viewer of both programs, “Hero” is very much deserving of its perfect rating. As a whole, Attack on Titan is full of tremendous dread and hopelessness, which all built up to the episode’s incredible sequence of events. If you link “Hero” to the previous episode (“Perfect Game,” which is a solid 9.9 on IMDb) to create a single episode, I think it could be on the pantheon of the greatest hours of television ever.
And for whatever this is worth, I do think “Ozymandias” stands alone at the top.
Also worth mentioning: Hajime Isayama, the author the Attack on Titan manga series, loves Western TV. This includes Breaking Bad, which is evident in some of the Easter eggs he has put in the series:
Lift each other up.
Tangent: Star Currency
This post started simple enough but, as is typical for this author, I encountered a whole other subtext that should be addressed: The lesson of false equivalence.
I am a sucker for ratings, but context matters. Some of those who attacked Attack on Titan‘s ratings make some interesting points. In a now-deleted 1-star review, someone said a live-action show takes a lot more effort to be great – it takes camera work and acting and writing and setting all working in unison. This is not to discredit the arduous task of animators and the talent of voice actors, but it is something to consider.
However, sites such as Amazon and IMDb are not set up to care about those individual factors. They care about one catch-all number to avoid discernment: stars. Because of this, I am forced to give The Shawshank Redemption and Superbad the same rating, which seems gross.
But if you had product or service reviews that considered each component of their individuality, you would have more accurate reviews but also fewer of them. Companies know that filling out surveys can be arduous, so they provide an incentive in the form of a gift card drawing for everyone who tells them about their service: from quality to expediency to overall outcome.
The easiest way to deal with that kind of currency: find a common denominator. This is why we no longer live in a bartering economy. If I want to trade my cow for your computer, the value of each would differ by the individual person. It would be difficult to find an even trade since there are no baselines. Need would predicate all value. But when you put a common currency around every product or service, we can all agree on the cost and thereby make trading easier.
I see both sides to this in regards to art:
- The ingredients of a piece of art do not matter in regards to the end result. Something made poorly can have a profound effect while something made with great skill can have no meaning.
- The struggle of the artist, if done honestly, makes their final product that much more impactful. Knowing the background of what you are reviewing should have some bearing.
With these two conflicting ideals in mind, a star-rating system does seem like the most user-friendly way to go, imperfect as it is. Some sites do let you filter for relevant reviews so you can contextualize what people do or don’t like, which is helpful.
The real take away from this whole ordeal can be reduced to a life-long lesson everyone should master: By golly, be useful.