JSeahawks wrote:Doesnt underrated have a different value to each and every one of us? If I think Gigli is the greatest movie in the history of movies, but you think its only the 2nd best movie in the history of movies, then in my eye you have underrated Gigli.
No, it doesn't. Being underrated has a specific meaning that one can demonstrate with box office sales figures, DVD/Blu-ray sales data, number of awards won (and the importance of them), etc.
How good or bad these movies are, on the other hand, is completely subjective, and I agree with you wholeheartedly in regards to that; but not whether they're underrated or not, in my opinion.
tr.v. un·der·rat·ed, un·der·rat·ing, un·der·rates
To rate too low; underestimate.
Actually, J's example fits the definition, not yours. Trying to apply some sort of linear or concrete system to this discussion is impractical and impossible.
Sales figures = concrete but requires funding to advertise so more people know about it, which means it can be influenced by forces not related to the quality of the film. I'm surprised to see that you think that sales are a reflection of quality and/or importance.
And, Awards = arbitrary. And how do you determine the importance of a given award?