WMN: t3_2ao6r9_t1_cix7iph

[TITLE]

CMV: I really dislike the criticism "overrated." I think it's lazy and discouraging.

[DHCKris]

Hey, guys. So, first of all, I wouldn't go as far as to say that I think the term "overrated" is meaningless. I think I understand exactly what people mean when they say it. I just don't personally find myself using it or thinking of something as being overrated, because of the way that I think about art and media, and I wish more people could see things the way I do. But I'm looking for someone to shed some light on what they think overrated means, because maybe I'm taking it to an extreme that others are not. What I mean is, generally when people say something is "overrated," they mean, "this is critically acclaimed or appreciated by a huge number of people, but I don't like it. Therefore, I don't understand why so many people like it, or I do not think it deserves the praise it gets." I personally do not believe in superlatives or assigning "greatness" to something that is purely subjective. I am a huge movie buff as some of you might know, but I don't have a personal list of "greatest movies" because I don't think you can rank movies based on which is "best," since everyone has different criteria. However, if you asked me what the greatest movie ever is, I might say VERTIGO or CITIZEN KANE, because there is a consensus among critics that it is either one of those two movies. Therefore, when I say "VERTIGO is the greatest," I am NOT stating an opinion, I am referring to the consensus of the canon of film criticism. I think greatest in these sense refers to "most influential" or "most written about" or "most often said to be the best by people who are in the business of saying such things," in which case "greatest film" could be an objective label, because I think influence and popularity are objective qualities, as opposed to the subjective act of enjoying something. I don't think there is necessarily one film that is MOST influential, but it is inarguable that some films are just more influential than others. Let's move on to the Beatles: we all know that time and time again on CMV, it'll come up that someone thinks the Beatles are overrated. I think, based on my criteria for "greatness," the Beatles are certainly great. It is hard to ignore the impact they had on pop culture and pop music, and they are undeniably legendary and well-cited in literature and criticism, and not without reason. When you say "the Beatles are overrated," you're saying either, "I don't like the greatest band of all time, so how can they be the greatest?" or "because I don't like them, they shouldn't have been the greatest band." The former statement is going against my own interpretation of what people mean by greatest, as I said before. You are allowed to dislike the Beatles but still understand that they had this great impact. The second statement, whether they deserved to have had that impact, is prententiously insisting that your sole opinion is the only correct one. Rather than try to do research and understand the impact the Beatles had and figure out why they are called great, you just kind of gave up and decided that you HAD to like them, or they are automatically "overrated." I think the problem is that people see things or listen to things called the greatest and assume it means that it is going to be the thing they enjoy the most. They hear that CITIZEN KANE is the greatest film of all time and think, well, that means that if I watch it I will have the most enjoyable experience I have ever had watching a movie. But CITIZEN KANE is considered great for reasons that are not readily apparent to the average, modern viewer. It's basically the 1941 equivalent of a Chris Nolan film: groundbreaking practical special effects (yes, they're so good that I bet most of you are scratching your heads wondering what effects I'm even referring to), temporally complex narrative, technical innovation, incredible camerawork, makeup, and a young and spirited director at the helm. It's great in its historical context, but its also great because critics "decided" it was great, and it became a sort of cultural meme that everyone just assumes is true. If you wanted to say, "CITIZEN KANE is overrated because I have done extensive research and study and have written a peer-reviewed critical analysis demonstrating how it did not really have the great influence and impact that it had" (something people have done) then you would be going somewhere. But if you said, "CITIZEN KANE is overrated because I didn't like it," you are misunderstanding what is meant by "great" and you are too lazy to do the research to see why it earns that label. Ultimately, you're just missing out on a chance to enrich your cultural understanding and find out why things are beloved in their context, even if you don't personally care for it. Personally, I have never found a single thing to be overrated, because even things I dislike, I understand WHY they are liked and why they are influential, because I am interested and invested in understanding popular culture. I know that not everyone is as into it as I am, but if you're not, why even make the criticism to begin with? And if you're posting to CMV saying something is overrated because you want to understand it, why not say "I don't understand why people like this," rather than make the presumptuous statement that implies other people are wrong for liking it? CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[FruitCalculus]

When they call something overrated, they are referring to it receiving far more acclaim than it is worth. While the word is often misused as you put it, in its correct sense it is a legitimate argument

[Trimestrial]

[STA-CITE]> What I mean is, generally when people say something is "overrated," they mean, "this is critically acclaimed or appreciated by a huge number of people, but I don't like it. Therefore, I don't understand why so many people like it, or I do not think it deserves the praise it gets." [END-CITE]For me, "overrated" means simply held in too much esteem... While I think Descartes, did some pretty damn good work. I find "cogito ergo sum." overrated.... Edit fixed my grammar.

[MrMagicalCakeMan]

Isn't overrated an opinion, not criticism?

[setsumaeu]

It seems like your argument really boils down to lazy explanations vs. thought out explanations.

[fizzix_is_fun]

I don't think your definition of overrated is correct. Let me give you an example of a case where it's easy to determine whether something is underrated or overrated. At the beginning of each sporting event season, various publications rank each team from first to last based on how well they think they'll do. At the end of the year, you can look at the final standings and see which teams were overrated and which were underrated. A team that was predicted to come in 3rd but actually came in 10th was overrated. In other words, overrating is only relevant based on future performance. You argue that whatever ranking is given now is incorrect based on what results will say in the future. Do you agree with this definition, at least for sports team rankings? Now, things get muddier when you don't have a clear ranking system. There's no final results for which movies or bands are best, instead what we have is a bunch of rating systems that change over time. So in these cases, I would take overrated to mean, "this band is ranked highly in x system now, but in 20 years, it will be ranked much lower." X can mean popular opinion polls, or rolling stones top lists or whatever you choose. Saying the Beatles are overrated means that while they consistently appear at the top of "best bands" lists in various media, in the future they will drop in popularity relative to other bands. You are making a prediction about the future. While I'm sure people do use overrated to mean, "Everyone thinks this is good but I don't" that's not a good use for this word. The word has "rate" in it which means that it only makes sense in the context of a rating scheme.

[DHCKris]

[STA-CITE]>While I'm sure people do use overrated to mean, "Everyone thinks this is good but I don't" that's not a good use for this word. The word has "rate" in it which means that it only makes sense in the context of a rating scheme. [END-CITE]This is exactly the instance of "overrated" that I am speaking out against, so we are in agreement. However, I never considered the implication of the "rating" aspect, so I am going to give you a ∆. I never denied there were specific cases where "overrated" would be appropriate, but you suggested one that I hadn't thought of.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/fizzix_is_fun. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/fizzix_is_fun)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[fizzix_is_fun]

[STA-CITE]>This is exactly the instance of "overrated" that I am speaking out against, so we are in agreement. [END-CITE]I understand, but I think even in this case, the word has the implication that "sometime in the future everyone will realize that this is not as good relative to these other things." This is different than just saying, I don't like it. Of course, someone should have to *defend* why something is overrated.

[AlexanderStanislaw]

If overrated is a prediction: "X is overrated means X will decline in popularity faster than things that enjoy a similar level of popularity right now" then I'm going to guess that almost no one uses the word that way. If they did then I could say "Oh interesting, lets make a bet on whether X is overrated or not". However, I think most people would not take kindly to that.

[fizzix_is_fun]

But I think that's precisely what people mean. They essentially mean that other things that are rated lower are actually better. And in my opinion there's the implicit notion that after enough time has passed, most people will realize this.

[AlexanderStanislaw]

Actually better? As in there is an objective aesthetic standard that humans eventually converge on? Then I oppose it even more.

[fizzix_is_fun]

Only rarely is an objective standard implied. This is usually when there's some rating system being used. For example, "They voted *that* the best song ever? That song is so overrated" Usually, it's just referring to where it fits in public opinion. "Breaking Bad is overrated" means that in a few years when people talk about the best TV shows of this era, Breaking Bad will be considered worse than some other shows that maybe aren't considered so great now.

[looseleaf]

[STA-CITE]>What I mean is, generally when people say something is "overrated," they mean, "this is critically acclaimed or appreciated by a huge number of people, but I don't like it. Therefore, I don't understand why so many people like it, or I do not think it deserves the praise it gets." [END-CITE]People who are not professional critics can certainly have valid criticisms about film that are not dependent on their enjoyment. I understand and agree with the sentiment that one should examine art more critically than simply "like" and "dislike". However, basing judgement purely on the consensus of professional thought doesn't encourage this, it merely appeals to authority. Critics are not always in agreement, the opinion on artwork changes over time: one could certainly find a current critic's darling overrated, and consensus may agree with me them in a decade. For example, John Updike was widely celebrated as great novelist during his lifetime, yet more recent critics have found him to be [lacking](http://www.themillions.com/2013/10/metronomic-virtuosity-on-the-collected-stories-of-john-updike.html). One reading him during his heyday could have found the same issues as current critics do, and yet they would (according to your metric) be unjustified in their judgement until enough critics shared the same viewpoint. One of the major issues that the modern establishment has with Updike is his narcissistic, misogynist viewpoint and yet you'll note the linked article only quotes male critics from any generation. I don't believe one needs to be a woman to note this issues in his writing, however, it does speak to another point: critics are not a perfect representation of the populous. The critical establishment has been very white, male, and upper-class for a long time, and celebrated and promoted authors of a similar mindset. Film critics skew Western. While this doesn't invalidate their opinions, it means the critical consensus is often based on the perspectives of a small-subset of the the population. Thus novelists artists like Updike are often hailed as great American novelists, when their perspective is as narrow and singularly focused as the authors who get labeled as great "African-American novelists" or "women authors", and so forth. Examining the perspective of the critics themselves is as important as examining their views.

[DHCKris]

I think I can get behind "overrated" in a critical context but not in a "some guy complaining online" context, which may be a difficult view to change, since I think most people here agree with me. Your point is well taken, of course critics can be wrong. A good film criticism example is BIRTH OF A NATION, which most people associate with racism and the origin of the KKK, and it is obviously a distasteful and offensive film by today's standards. While it still holds a lofty place in film history, it has become more and more taboo I think to praise it as the historic work that it is; it popularized a huge number of cinematic conventions and devices. It did not INVENT those devices, but *due to the controversy* of its content even at the time, resulting in its immense popularity (it was the most profitable film of all time for two decades) it lead to them being more widely adopted. It's also, really, a very well-made movie in spite of everything. You could definitely argue that it's not as good as people make it out to be because of its content, but that's not WHY it's considered "great." But I think the controversy of BIRTH OF A NATION is well-documented and has always been inextricable from discussions of the film. With someone like John Updike, where critical consensus on the **quality** of his work has changed, as opposed to the historical influence, we could argue against the authority of critics. I guess I'm more saying that it is perfectly alright to think John Updike is a horrible, misogynist writer, but if some aspect of his style was incredibly influential that is not easy to deny. If someone said, "I think BIRTH OF A NATION is overrated because it is not an entertaining film because it is racist" you are missing the point of why it is rated highly. However there is more to criticism than merely charting influence; there is qualitative greatness that is NOT definitive, and that is what is sometimes in dispute when we say things are "overrated." ∆.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/looseleaf. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/looseleaf)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[UnholyAngel]

Overrated isn't a criticism of media. It doesn't say anything about how good a piece of media is, where it excels or falters, or really anything. But it is a criticism of the public's response to that media. Overrated is saying that most people rate something more highly than it deserves. This can be useful when the critic saying this is someone whose opinion you respect, because it gives you more insight into the public perception and also helps you parse common reactions. To that end calling something overrated can be very useful, especially if there's a solid explanation alongside the claim. For example I'll use the anime Attack on Titan (AoT). AoT was extremely popular among newer fans to the medium and in the very large 13-25 year old male demographic. If you listened to the average criticism you would get the impression that it's an extremely highly acclaimed show - one of the very best. This is where calling something overrated can be useful. If someone was looking for a new show to watch and saw all the great rating AoT gets they might decide to check it. Someone explaining that the show is overrated because it's aimed at a very large demographic (that is also known for severe ratings - "best thing ever!" / "worst thing ever!") can help give some context and perspective. At that point if you like the genre/premise and it still seems interesting you can watch it with more realistic expectations, and if you aren't a huge fan of the genre/premise you can decide not to watch it because it's not actually mindblowingly good. A good contrast to this would be the anime Madoka Magica (Madoka). This is an anime that isn't in a very popular genre and, at first glance, doesn't seem that interesting. However, it recieved incredibly reviews and nearly everyone agreed that it was amazing. Because people agreed that it wasn't overrated, it would be something worth checking out even if you're not a large fan of the genre/premise. In short, overrated as a criticism just helps you understand people's response. It doesn't say anything about a piece of media directly, but it does help you understand it better by giving you a better perspective. It's kind of like looking at a shadow to figure out what something looks like - it's not always correct and it's not the same as looking at it directly, but it's a potentially useful piece of additional information

[Halosar]

Overrated can also be a way of distinguishing degrees of like. It can also be a way of saying people's perceptions are colored by something. The Dark Knight is overrated, as it is good, but Batman Begins is better, and it is bouyed up by Heath Ledger's death. If I say Beatles are overrate, I am saying the fact that they were most popular band when the Baby Boomers were discovering music has a lot more to do with their influence than their talent. Overrate should be followed by a because. Bill Clinton is overrated because he was a president during a good time, and people liked the good time, not him as a president.

[notdomoduro]

Saying something is "overrated" without explanation is generally bad, but so is most criticism without backing and explanation. I can think of a few scenarios off my head where I think the term "overrated" can be used well. 1) Sports: many sports have official or unofficial rankings of teams and players. Saying that that a team is "overrated" is a fair criticism if you can explain why another team should be rated ahead of them or why the team should be ranked lower. This is one of the easiest usages of the term, because it's explicitly clear where teams are rated, and their future play can help determine if that ranking was correct. 2) You reference movies and music in your post. Simply saying that *Citizen Kane* or The Beatles are overrated is lazy, but if you can argue as to why a specific other movie or band should rated higher than them, that's fair. I can't really speak for either of those personally, but if you say "*Citizen Kane* is overrated because people think it was really revolutionary because it invented [x], when actually [x] was done earlier and better by some other movie that I know," I think that's fair. Saying "*Citizen Kane* is overrated because I like *Star Wars* more" is a bad criticism though, you're right on that point.

[DHCKris]

[STA-CITE]>but if you say "Citizen Kane is overrated because people think it was really revolutionary because it invented [x], when actually [x] was done earlier and better by some other movie that I know," I think that's fair. [END-CITE]I agree and address this in my OP: >If you wanted to say, "CITIZEN KANE is overrated because I have done extensive research and study and have written a peer-reviewed critical analysis demonstrating how it did not really have the great influence and impact that it had" (something people have done) then you would be going somewhere.

[notdomoduro]

[STA-CITE]> I have done extensive research and study and have written a peer-reviewed critical analysis [END-CITE]Whether or not I made that point clear, I don't think that a peer-reviewed critical analysis is necessary, just an actual reason.

[DHCKris]

Yeah, I agree I was being extreme.

[hacksoncode]

In all of your examples, you're speaking of cases where there really is a general critical consensus that something is great. How do you feel about Justin Bieber?

[DHCKris]

I think that Justin Bieber makes very palatable and by-the-numbers pop music. It is obvious and clear why it is popular, it is basically designed to be. If a teen girl said he was better than Kurt Cobain, obviously that would be crazy, but that would be hyperbole akin to saying Kurt Cobain is overrated which I obviously dislike. I think Bieber's popularity makes sense, and even if I don't care for him as a person or as a musician, that is enough to me that he is not overrated. He's rated exactly as he should be, depending on the context and the person rating him.

[hacksoncode]

You're doing an awful lot of dancing around the point that even you think the fans judgement of him is "crazy". Plenty of teenage fans would say exactly what you dismissed. If your view is that everyone's subjective rating of something is completely valid for the subjective rater, and that popularity is *always* justified by the fact that it's popular, then perhaps there's no more to be said. Personally, I think that it's extremely common for popularity to be completely unjustified by something's artistic merit. Things are manufactured to be popular. It isn't art, it's a science of focus groups and manipulation. The judgement of the masses, reacting in the moment to carefully manufactured fashion, is notoriously flawed. Yes, if something passes the test of time, as have all of your examples, and is acclaimed over decades as a milestone in the art, someone calling it "overrated" is being lazy and probably just trying to score points with their in crowd. But "flash in the pan" mindless fashionable pop that disappears before a decade is out? "Overrated" is exactly the right word for that kind of twaddle.

[AlexanderStanislaw]

I have no clue what you mean by justified. Something is popular or it is not, and we can examine the factors that make it so. We can also evaluate popularity over time, popularity in different contexts etc. In order to apply "justification" to preference you need a realist conception of aesthetics ie. a way of not only describing but evaluating preferences, and that would be a very difficult thing to do.

[Hq3473]

So, are you saying that the use of the word "overrated" is overrated?

[DHCKris]

Hence why I phrased the title in the way I did. *I* dislike the term "overrated," the term "overrated" isn't "wrong" except in my opinion.

[kuury]

But not liking something and it being overrated are different things. I don't dislike Madoka, but it is overrated.

[tmlrule]

I think a big part of people's use of overrated has to do with the fact that people's feelings about anything is heavily determined by their expectations going in. So if I turn on the tv tonight and see an Arnold movie on, I might sit there and enjoy it even despite any glaring plot holes or stilted dialogue. On the other hand, if I watch Citizen Kane, I have completely different expectations. After having heard for my entire life that it's one of the top 5 movies ever made, I'd be expecting it to be fantastic. So if I watch it and think it's just an okay movie, I'd be overall letdown and my impression of the movie might be poor, even if I still recognize that the film was objectively very good. In that sense, I think 'overrated' is an accurate way for people to express that a movie (or band or anything) might be good but still a big letdown to them.

[DHCKris]

That's exactly what I'm saying though. It's a misinterpretation of what "top 5 movies" means. CITIZEN KANE being the greatest movie of all time does not mean you will enjoy it more than any movie you've ever seen. I wouldn't even place it in my top 50 favorites. It's one of the best movies for its technical achievements and for its innovations which are not apparent to a modern viewer when removed from its historical context. Saying it is "overrated" is ignoring context and refusing to make the effort to understand it. The problem is that critics are approaching movies from a different perspective than audiences are, generally. Critics aren't "wrong," you are just failing to see it the way they do. Is that bad? No, but there is no reason to accuse critics of being incorrect just because you see things in a different way, or fail to understand them.

[tmlrule]

I don't think it's necessarily true that critics are always or even generally judging things based on different criteria. I can also appreciate the technical masterpieces as well as fine acting and use it all to form my opinion of a movie. If I still feel the film was only average, I might consider it overrated. Maybe Citizen Kane isn't the best example of this. Let's take something I consider overrated ... House of Cards. I certainly didn't think it was terrible, but I was definitely let down by the second season after hearing about how great it was. Leaving aside why I feel that way, part of my disappointment definitely had to do with feeling a bit let down from my initial impression of how good it would be before I saw it, based on critics' and friends' reviews. Like I said, overrated is a simple way of expressing the feeling of being letdown by something that would otherwise have been okay or even good. I would agree that is inappropriate to use a different criteria for 'rating' something and using the term. While I could see how that could happen to someone seeing Citizen Kane as per your example, I don't think that's necessarily the case, or the predominant use of the term.

[DHCKris]

Interestingly, I didn't end up seeing House of Cards because the critical response that I saw was lukewarm... I didn't become interested until I heard my friends sing its praises, but my understanding was that critics actually did not love it the way audiences did. The first season got a 76 and second a 80 on MetaCritic which is... eh, pretty good. In comparison Breaking Bad got near perfect a 99 for its final season. But as far as critical reception goes, House of Cards does not seem overrated. Maybe there is a difference between "overrated by an audience" and "overrated by critics" that I hadn't considered. But I think the same idea still applies, like, nobody should expect to like everything everybody else likes. Why do we need to use a disparaging word like "overrated" to refer to that very basic and obvious concept?

[tmlrule]

I don't think overrated is intended to be a particularly disparaging word, at least as I understand and use it. I also don't think it has to be an in depth researched review taking into account everyone's opinion. In terms of House of Cards, I can only go off of the few reviews I happened to see online as well as some reports from acquaintances, which were all very positive, hence why I felt somewhat disappointed overall. In that vein, I don't think using the word is inappropriate at all ... I think it's most commonly used to say something was 'pretty good but overrated'. If that's how you feel about something, it's a pretty accurate way of expressing to someone that you enjoyed it, but might consider tempering your expectations based on what everyone's saying about it. Obviously everyone has their own opinions on every different form of art, but it's completely fair to offer your own in saying that something's good but not necessarily as good as others (be they critics or fans) make it out to be.

[DHCKris]

True enough. I'm not saying that "overrated" doesn't have a place in discourse, but I just don't see why it is necessary to compare your opinion to others'. I think it should be pretty obvious that people don't all have the same opinion, and I think adding that something is "overrated" is like saying that those people who love it are somehow wrong. I think "overrated" and similarly "overhyped" have a connotation of not DESERVING the praise or the rating, or that the people who praise and rate it are somehow incorrect. Whereas, you seem to be saying "overrated" is a synonym for "I didn't like it as much as others." I don't agree, I think the prefix "over-" implies "more than it really is" or "more than it should be," (as in "overheat") which are both negative. Then again, I guess this is a semantic argument.

[Glory2Hypnotoad]

At the same time, the term seems to carry a passive judgment that the thing in question was rated wrong, like other people made some mistake in enjoying it as much as they do. I think this points to a larger problem where our vocabulary for criticizing entertainment is too self-congratulatory.

[the-incredible-ape]

"overrated" is a critique of the fans, not the work.

[AlexanderStanislaw]

I don't think this is true, otherwise "X is overrated" would be equivalent to "I don't understand why so many people like X so much". The latter is a much weaker statement.

[the-incredible-ape]

I suppose it's equivalent to "I think people are wrong to like this work SO MUCH" not "I don't understand why people like this work" - you're right that the latter is a weaker statement. I guess it's tantamount to saying the work is not good enough to warrant the praise, but it's ALSO tantamount to saying the fans are not being critical enough of the work.

[DHCKris]

Why do the fans need/deserve to be critiqued?

[durutticolumn]

Why does the work need to be critiqued? EDIT: I know this sounds like a stupid question but I'm serious. What is the value of criticism? I think if you write out why we should critique art, you will find that most of those reasons equally apply to criticism of humans.

[the-incredible-ape]

It's just a matter of opinion, not what's deserved or necessary.

[allnose]

Because, whether justified or not, popularity signals whether something is worth your time. People often think "Well, tons of people like this thing, I might like it too." If you're soliciting information from someone whose opinion you find more valid than the hivemind's (be it a friend, family member, or poster on a certain subreddit), then them saying it's overrated would carry more weight than what the general consensus is. A prime example is the show "The Big Bang Theory." Objectively, it is the most popular comedy on television. It's very well-regarded by the populace on the whole. However, some people can't stand the show. If your views tend to match up with sites like the AV Club or Splitsider, the criticism that the insanely popular show is insanely overrated might save you from having to suffer through a half hour of an unfunny sitcom, just as if they had said something like "the writing is atrocious, and the show as a whole makes me feel bad for Jim Parsons, as his talents are wasted here."

[currytacos]

But why is it overrated is the real question, if you are going to tell somebody not too watch something overrated means nothing.

[fukitol-]

How else would one measure, objectively, the value of art?

[Antonomon]

Because the fans are a testament to what values the art actually holds.

[GnosticGnome]

[STA-CITE]>generally when people say something is "overrated," they mean, "this is critically acclaimed or appreciated by a huge number of people, but I don't like it. Therefore, I don't understand why so many people like it, or I do not think it deserves the praise it gets." [END-CITE]This is perhaps a little unfair. Certainly many people do mean "I like it" when they say something is great or "I don't like it" when they say something is bad or terrible. But as you point out, the terms can mean something much more germane than that. When a thoughtful critic says he enjoyed a movie, he is not saying the same thing as when he calls it great. Just so, many people do in fact merely mean that they didn't like a movie when they call it overrated. But many others use it correctly - they do mean that they've looked at its merit (I don't know that I want to get into the issue of what criteria should be used) and believe others are making a mistake when they rate it highly. In short, I don't think it's reasonable to assume that people calling something "overrated"/"underrated" are any more likely to be lazy than people calling something "bad", great", or any other judgment. If anything, I think the people calling something overrated/underrated are less likely to be lazy. They have at least gone to the trouble of learning what others say about the issue. Admittedly, I don't look at movie reviews so often as product reviews. When I see product reviews calling something overrated or underrated, my experience is that the person making the review has done more research than the average reviewer.

[lenoxus]

[STA-CITE]> When a thoughtful critic says he enjoyed a movie, he is not saying the same thing as when he calls it great. [END-CITE]This may be true, and yet it doesn't necessarily support the view expressed by both you and DHCKris that there is a significant distinction between "this is great" and "I like this". There is *some* distinction, but it's a very muddled area. For example, it's not incoherent to say "greatness is subjective". (EDIT: Which I see DHCKris said in the original post.) This even though a statement like "Rotten Tomatoes gives it a score of 99%" is an entirely objective area of fact, and there's even a degree of objectivity (if fuzziness) to saying "Critics loved it". So they're not quite synonymous and people don't treat them that way. If someone says "That movie, which has a widespread consensus among almost everyone for *being* great, is not *actually* great", are they misusing language? And yet it's true at the other end that "I enjoyed it" and "It's great" aren't synonymous. Then again, "It's sunny outside" isn't synonymous with "I think it's sunny outside," and I think that might close to the distinction at play. It's as if the actual greatness may be a "real" fact that can never be determined to any degree of satisfaction; it hides behind a veil of subjectivity, so all we have is our individual approaches. Moore's paradox is that we can't coherently express a proposition like "It's raining, but I don't think it is raining." There's usually a similar incoherence (I think) to someone saying "That book is really great, truly spectacular, and I absolutely hated it." If they do say it, then they're actively playing with the contradiction, perhaps tongue-in-cheek. It's different from "That shelf is really low to the ground, but it's still taller than me," (i.e., I'm a short person). If someone wants to express the thought without attempting to be witty, they'll say something like "I know I'm *supposed* to like that book, but I don't." It's just not common to draw . There's a similar muddle with beauty — discussed as both objective (or else why the urging that it's "only skin-deep"?) and subjective (it's "in the eyes of the beholder"). One of my favorite lyrics is from the Magnetic Fields: "I don't know if you're beautiful because I love you too much." That might serve as another rare example of the "My genuine subjective experience of X is distinct from what may be the objective reality."

[GnosticGnome]

Moore's paradox is a useful concept if we are using a formal system to try to express truth yet nevertheless understand that our formal system is producing incorrect results. It's likewise useful for people using deception. For people expressing their true beliefs without any special processing, if you say it's sunny then you have indeed conveyed the information that you believe it to be sunny. If I say that I enjoy a movie, I am only saying something about my reaction to it. If I say that the movie is great, I am expressing my understanding of the interaction between that movie and human nature. I might well dislike a movie and yet understand that it is enjoyable to others. I need not believe it is enjoyable, incidentally. A great movie can be powerful, impressive, thought-provoking, seminal, and perhaps even awe-inspiring without being enjoyable.

[DHCKris]

I understand where you're coming from, but I have seen people use the phrase "overrated" when they've heard something is amazing, or saw it on IMDB's top 250 or something, and didn't enjoy it. I think it's hard to argue that influence didn't take place. Let's say you heard that Velvet Underground & Nico is one of the greatest albums of all time (it is). You heard it completely removed from its historical context. You might think it sounds like shit (it does), that it is too repetitive, that Lou Reed and Nico have terrible singing voices, etc. But the reason it is great is BECAUSE it sounds like shit. It was basically a big "fuck you" to commercialized, over-produced rock and roll, and showed that you could create something innovative and experimental on a tiny budget with limited recording equipment. The guitars are tuned wrong on purpose to give it a unique sound. I think music is more "stuff that sounds interesting" than "stuff that sounds good and appealing." The grating, dissonant chords of punk rock that VU anticipated might not sound lovely or beautiful, but they create an emotional feeling, they stimulate you aurally in a way pop music hadn't before. That's why people love it. But even after reading all that, you might say, "I don't get it. Music is supposed to sound good, and this doesn't sound good. People like it because it sounds shitty? This is so stupid and overrated!" But that would be making a judgment about other people that is uncalled for. Why can't you just say, "well, okay, this isn't for me, but it was influential, and this is why, but I don't understand why that makes it good. Anybody care to explain?" I guess this could end up becoming a semantic argument. I suppose I'm only talking about when people use "overrated" in this particular way. Basically my argument is: influence is undeniable, and greatness is merely a measure of influence. To successfully accuse something of being "overrated" would mean to prove, through research, that it wasn't actually as influential as critics say it was, which is certainly possible, but not what people on the Internet mean when they say "overrated."

[GnosticGnome]

Do a search for "overrated" on CMV. I am seeing a large number of posts that try to look at standards for greatness, and very few posters who are lazy. I do not share your belief that greatness is merely influence. I think that influence correlates to greatness, but that there are terrible influential works (Rebecca Black's Friday) and great undiscovered works. There are a number of criteria for greatness, including expressive power, thought-provokingness, originality, ability to inspire awe, enjoyability, etc etc. I don't know that we have one standard definition, and I don't expect to convince you to share my precise definition. But at minimum I'd like you to say that people whose understanding of greatness is not simply "influential" are not lazy. If they (like the many posters to this board) are calling something overrated but using criteria different than "lack of influence" then they should look at the criteria they think are relevant to greatness. The need for historical research is particular to your specific definition and is not germane to every definition.

[marnues]

Saying it's overrated isn't just a statement about how I feel. It's saying that other people place too much value on it. It's not likely that I would say something is overrated when I highly rate it, but it is a valid statement. So people can not only weigh in on the band, but also on other's perception of the band. Justin Bieber is overrated because in 10 years the fans that appreciate him now will look back and rate Bieber lower than they do today. It's not a terribly useful statement, but it is valid and verifiable.

[dcxcman]

How would you feel then about "overhyped?" Because I think that might be what people are trying to convey.