[SamBam]

How does one use an average Rewatchability score to determine whether one should watch a movie?

If I'm trying to pick a movie, I don't care what its score for rewatching is, I care about what its score is for watching it the first time.

And once I've watched a movie, I don't care about whether other people say I should watch it again, I care about whether I want to watch it again.

A movie is different from buying a board game. If I'm shelling out $50 for a game, I'll want to know if it's still fun the twentieth time I play. But that isn't a consideration when picking a new movie to watch, the experience may be worth it even if I never watch it again. And ditto with books. I'm probably not going to read that 800-page book again, but that shouldn't stop me reading it once.

[hiAndrewQuinn]

To present an opposite viewpoint, I try to only engage with media I suspect future me will be able to revisit and pull enjoyment out of at least once. I rarely actually do so, but I've found it to be a remarkably effective quality filter.

It's also a genre independent quality metric. That's not to be underplayed. Some examples of films that successfully passed it for me: Casablanca; Portrait of a Lady on Fire; Hereditary; Under the Skin; My Neighbor Totoro; The Fifth Element. I'm pretty sure most people would agree at least half of these movies are good.

It turns out most of the things I consider worth revisiting at least once are also things other people would consider that way. So for me a Rewatchability rating is a positive signal.

[dghlsakjg]

Have you ever watched a film like Come and See, Schindlers list, Grave of the fireflies, etc…?

These movies are some of the most impactful that I have ever seen, but by no means would I rate them highly rewatchable. They are gut wrenching, and some people can only stand to watch them once, few want to rewatch them, but they are also incredible.

I also gain a lot from a rewatchable piece of content, but you might be shorting yourself by always watching things designed to tickle the dopamine receptors.

[hiAndrewQuinn]

I've seen the latter two, but they are most certainly very rewatchable. I saw Schindler's List again with my wife about a year ago and enjoyed it just as thoroughly as the first time.

>I also gain a lot from a rewatchable piece of content, but you might be shorting yourself by always watching things designed to tickle the dopamine receptors.

Now this I just do not understand. Things designed to be good on primarily the first watch, and allowed to degrade on future experiences, seem much worse for this.

[dghlsakjg]

Ahh.

I think we are coming from different feelings about rewatchability.

If you asked me to rate movies as to their artistic merit, their excellence as films, I would say that those all fall into “instant classic” territory. However, I would not want to rewatch them in the same way that I might want to rewatch a Coen brothers film, for example.

[hiAndrewQuinn]

I agree! I think this is one reason why Rewatchability is an imperfect, though positive, signal - many people mean it in the sense you mean it, and would therefore mark them as not very rewatchable.

That's fine by me, of course. The more signals I have, the better my decision can be made on what to watch next on average.

[baby]

I feel like a movie can be a good time, but I wouldn't rewatch it.

For example, I just watched the Gorge. I enjoyed it, but I wouldn't rewatch it. I don't think it necessarily deserves a bad grade though.

Now, some great movies I wouldn't rewatch. La vita e bella and grave of the firefly are beautiful, I just cannot rewatch them.

It's definitely a limited metric tho.