[azryan]

Just a little rant about movie rating methods and seeing if maybe we can get people here using one method?

I rate all the films I see on a 10 point scale . Meaning  1-10 and no half points.

Typically you see a headline on a newspaper (or a post online) calling a film ‘3 Stars’ or 3 ½ Stars’ etc...

And you have to figure out if the person means -out of 4 or out of 5???

What’s a half a ‘star’ anyway?

I know it’s pretty much the stereotypical thing to give a number rating a ‘star’ rating for movies (and other junk like hotels, restaurants, etc..) but I personally feel it’s not needed and just helps confuse things.

No, not ‘cuz turning numbers into stars confuses me. hehe...

How long does it take to write ‘3 and a half stars out of 4 (or 5) stars’?

Not THAT long, but almost no one takes the time to write all that which leaves us guessing what your ‘rating’ really means.

3.5/4 or 3.5/5 would be much faster but still not that easy to figure out for those who don’t get what the slash 4 or slash 5 mean.

If you rate a film 3 and a half stars out of 4, that’s an 8 point scale. You could just type 7 out of 8.

But who ever heard of people calling something a perfect ‘8'? It’s just weird.

Now a 3.5 out of 5 stars is the same as 7 out of 10.

And if you just write ‘7' everyone (I think) will assume you mean ‘out of 10' so you don’t have to write it.

IMO the best, fastest, easiest to understand way to rate a film is a 10 point scale.

I look at 1-10 like this....

Did you like the film or not?

1-5 is NO.
6-10 is YES.

Pretty easy and obvious so far eh?
I don’t the same is true for saying-
1-2.5=NO
3-5=YES

-in a ‘5 star rating’... even though it is the exact same thing as 1-10.

How to describe 1-5 doesn’t really matter too much ‘cuz the bottom line is that you didn’t like the flick and you wouldn’t rec. it to anyone.
I just go by a gut feeling about how much I’d like to kick the director in the nuts after wasting 2 hours of my life (or shaving her head if the director was a chick).

Now if I liked it I consider 6-10....

6 -‘so-so’, ‘passable, but not that good’, ‘some junk that wish were diff.’ etc... A very weak thumbs up.

7- ‘Good’ ‘Not great, but solid’... The minimum to begin going out of my way to recommend it to someone..

8- ‘Very good!’ Easily recommendable and maybe great in several ways though still not without some flaws -for those who are pretty picky about all aspects of film making (which should be people bothering to rate movies IMO).

9- ‘GREAT!’ Still not ‘flawless’ but just about. The type of film you end up telling everyone to see.

10- ‘Flawless’ You can’t find any aspect of the film that you can really criticize -which is very rare IMO.

I personally only have a small handful of films that I call 10's.

I believe ALL films should be a 7 because of the vast amounts of cash and manpower and time spent to put 2 hours or so on film but sadly 6 is by far the most common rating for the hundreds of films I’ve rated.

If you go by this style/method of scale you can easily figure out what other people who’ve seen a film would rate it too without having to ask ‘em to give you a number -which could very well lead to them giving you a number that doesn’t really match what they really thought.... or them thinking you’re a big geek for rating movies! hehe


Well... any thoughts on using a simple 10 point scale for flicks?

We could add polls to any new film and could get a sense of what AC people think of it without having to read any spoilers if you just don’t have the time to read a whole thread about a film, etc...

[mcrespo71]

Sounds like a logical rating system to me.

Michael

[Carlman]

I like it... I always thought there were 5 stars, I didn't even know there was a 4-star method.

So, 10 it is.

Lord of the Rings, Two Towers was a 10 to me.

Most things I've watched are a 6 but every once in a while I see a 1-5 or 7-9.  LOTR is the only one that's gotten a 10... the first was either a 9 or 10 and the last one was an 8 (for me).

10 is good because you can relate other things... like your 'top 10' songs, movies, etc., fairly easily.  Whereas, if you asked someone to pick their top 5, it's really tough... But top 10 allows for various categories to get mixed in.  I like 10.

Go 10!

[Digi-G]

I like your rating system.  I would give it a solid 4-1/2 stars....    Uhh, I mean a 9.    

[wshuff]

Well, Ebert uses the     or down method.

When the movie is really bad I give it the finger.  This is as close as I can get here  

It it's really good, it gets  


I think the Adult Video industry used two, uh, things other than thumbs up.

In the end, the number/star/whatever rating is fine, but it is the why that tells me whether I'll like the movie.

And next on the agenda is King Arthur.  

Hope it's at leat a 7.

[azryan]

Thanks for the input!

Sound like you like the idea of 1-10 rating. Maybe we can get some more people to agree?

“-I like it... I always thought there were 5 stars, I didn't even know there was a 4-star method. -“

Yep. That’s the prob. Sometimes it is 4 stars and they don’t tell you.

If people think it’s out of 5 though, then the reviewer just ruined their own rating and everyone loses out. Might as well not bother giving a rating in that case.

But I think giving a movie a rating is common for almost everyone who reviews a movie.

wshuff,

Certainly a good point about ‘why’ you liked a movie meaning more than a simple number (or the assorted ways things are rated beyond even stars).

I’m not asking people to stop describing why they like a movie though.

Just saying if anyone does want to give it a rating to sum up their own review.... a 1-10 scale I feel is fastest, most logical, and easiest to use/understand.

And if everyone uses it then it’s far easier to get a general sense of what many people thought of it.

If you see many people giving 7's and 8's to a movie you probably wouldn’t have to read the reviews. They’re probably saying a lot of the same things and you would probably have a very good idea if it was good or not.

Also there’s not a whole lot of reviews in these threads here most of the time and/or mixed in with people talking about this or that spoiler which would keep someone who didn’t see the film yet from reading many of the threads.

Also note- some people, even ‘professional reviewers’ think the way to write a review is to describe exactly what happens in the movie thereby ruining it IMO.

A single 1-10 rating lets people see what many people thought of a film -esp. if we could tag a poll to a film title and everyone could just hit 1 to 10.

I really think that’d be good for AC film buff members.

‘Thumbs up, thumbs down’ IMO is as pointless as saying ‘liked it’, ‘didn’t like it’ yet Ebert and Roper always wrap up their show by making sure everyone knows which it is for every film they saw.

If summing up their feeling about the films was all that mattered then they wouldn’t do that.
And you wouldn’t see -‘Thumbs Up!!!’ Roger Ebert- on the cover of countless DVD’s.

It's good business for them though.

Note- that quote I just wrote means Ebert liked the film and Roper DIDN’T... as ‘only’ Ebert’s name is listed, but Ebert has two thumbs of his own so H’Wood writes ‘Thumbs up!!’ which tricks most people into thinking Ebert AND Roper liked it.
And the exclamation points of course trick them into thinking they both freakin’ LOVED it!!! when it might have been a much more tepid endorsement by only one of them.

We don’t want to trick each other like this here of course. Wouldn’t want to accidentally either right?

I believe Ebert’s own reviews in the Chi. Sun Times he gives them a number rating but not sure.

THEN.... if you read Ent. Weekly they turn several diff. reviewers ratings (incl. Ebert’s) into a letter grades like  school!? (Note- I tried to convert this to a 1-10 rating and it’s a mathematical disaster. hehe).
   
Simple and universal seems best to me.

[mcrespo71]

Ok, I'll start....

Harry Potter & the Prisoner of ***** (can't recall).  8
Spider Man 2- 10

Michael

[azryan]

Glad you want to do this.

I didn't mean for this thread to be where people post ratings though.

Thanks for the ratings though. It does show how well/fast/easy/clear the system works IMO.

I was hoping we could get more people to agree to a 1-10 standard rating system here was my main point of this thread (and to explain why I think it's helpful).

[wshuff]

Azryan, I agree that a uniform scale would make sense, and the 1-10 scale should work fine.  After all, that's the scale we already apply to women, right?  Nobody ever says, "I went out with a 3.5 star."  They say, "I went out with a 10!"  

The point I was trying to make (badly) is just that no matter what number or rating the reviewer gives a movie, it rarely corresponds to my opinion of the film, so even if the scale is universal, it doesn't usually mean much to me.  Ebert seems to like everthing these days, while most others seem to think that they can only justify their jobs by being "critical."

Anyway, I'll endorse the 10 point scale and say that I give Spider-Man 2 an 9, Troy a 6, and Shrek a 9.

[Rob Babcock]

Hmmm...I give Troy a 7.25  

[azryan]

wshuff,

Thanks for also endorsing a ten point scale.

Did you mean Shrek 2 though in your ratings?

Between your ‘9' and Michael’s ‘10' it’s pretty clear Spidey 2's a sure thing great film -which not having seen it yet, I’d hoped and didn’t want any long review to ruin any surprises.

Great example how well it works (though again I didn't want this thread to be for rating films in general).

rob,

Just a punchline? For you being the original poster of nearly every thread in this forum, I'd have thought you could have answered the point of my thread (or at least 'also' answered it)?

Or was that 7.25 meant to be deciphered as a 'thumbs down'?

[Rob Babcock]

Yeah, I was (as usual) joking around.  I didn't realize you thought it was such a serious issue.  But you have a point; it can be confusing.  A five star hotel?  A four star movie?  Some game & stereo mags rate on a percentile scale, many use a 1-10.  I guess it's not consistent, but I haven't lay awake nites fretting about it.

I will say I rate women on a ten scale, movies on a 4-star or ten scale (I'm bilingual   ), music only if coerced (and then perhaps on a ten scale).  Although it's customary to do so, I really don't like to try to assign a symbolic or numeric scale to food or music if I can help it. A few masachistic moments aside, I try not to "rate" them at all.  

How can steak be better or worse than Scallops?  How can I rate Bass Ale against Oban?  

I feel the same way with comparing musicians- is Jimi Hendrix better than Joshua Bell?  Even within genres we tend to rate & compare bands and artists like we were comparing engines, in terms of horsepower and torque.  Art isn't like that.  I have favorites, and certainly some musicians are more skilled, but mostly I feel it's subjective and not quantifiable.  I certainly can't say I like Led Zep "1000 like units worth."

To answer your question then, I guess I don't mind all the different scales.  I can let onces exist next to Troy ounces, pounds next to kilo's, and fahrenheit next to celcius.  As long as we're familiar with the metric, you can use numbers, stars, or fully-thru-partially-erect and I'm fine.     But I'll agree, a ten scale (or better yet, IMOHO, a percentage scale of X/100) would be best.

No disrespect was meant, Azryan.  You're probably right- with me "also answered" is sometimes all you get.  I should probably be a bit less flippant sometimes.

[azryan]

"-Yeah, I was (as usual) joking around. I didn't realize you thought it was such a serious issue.-"

I don't think it's that serious. Just that it was the simple only point of this thread I made.

"- But I'll agree, a ten scale (or better yet, IMOHO, a percentage scale of X/100) would be best. -"

That sounds like you give a ten point scale a second to a 100 point scale? Or would you want to see a tenths decimal place which is what... a 1000 point scale?

That's IMO taking the ratings too seriously and makes it much more confusing difficult to make universal.

If you can show how it'd be better I'm all ears, but overall it seems you don't really care anyway right?

I'm also a gamer (though I suck at most of them. hehe) and have seen percent ratings for games. I think it's usually built around taking like 3 sepp. reviewers and their own 10 point ratings on several diff. aspects of the game.

To lump that all together you get a weird percentage.

A 10 point scale is to keep things from being that serious/complex.

Maybe my long posts make it seem like it's a critially important issue to me, but I think it's really very simple and kicked back for everyone to use.

[Rob Babcock]

It's not a huge issue to me, but either a scale of 1-10 or a percentage would be good.  Maybe saying "the movie is an 88 out of 100" is to cumbersome.  Surely an 8/10 works.

[azryan]

Well I think this is unanimous approval for a 10 point scale here so far.

Can we get some more 'sounds good' votes and make this official?

[bubba966]

Make this topic a poll if you'd like. Or I can do it for you (again, if you'd like).

[azryan]

thanks bubba.

[bubba966]

Ok, I just edited this topic to include a Poll. Let the votes begin!

[Tonto Yoder]

Personally, I like the concept of Ebert's Thumbs-rating.  I don't think of movies as being on a continuum from 1 to 10,  but of bad movies and good movies going in OPPOSITE directions. If one wanted a ten point scale,
it'd be -5 to +5 with "0" as some theoretical average movie. Or expand Siskel/Ebert's scale to three thumbs up or three down.

Going to see a bad movie really is a negative experience--wasting your time, wasting your money--somehow a 1 to 10 scale doesn't capture that.

[azryan]

Personally, I like the concept of Ebert's Thumbs-rating.

So you’re saying a 2 point ‘up/down’, ‘good/bad’ is best?

If one wanted a ten point scale, it'd be -5 to +5 with "0" as some theoretical average movie.

That’s an 11 point scale though. There is no ‘0' in a 1-10 ten point scale.

I’ve never seen anyone rate a movie this way so I really feel that it’s not the way to go.

I also think probably everyone who wants to rate a movie can say if they liked it or not so they wouldn't need a '0' midline but could pick from 1-5 (meaning levels of 'bad') or 6-10 (meaning levels of 'good').

Or expand Siskel/Ebert's scale to three thumbs up or three down.

So a 6 point scale? Ahh... I’m really not digging any of this to be totally honest.

Going to see a bad movie really is a negative experience--wasting your time, wasting your money--somehow a 1 to 10 scale doesn't capture that.

I feel the exact opposite.

If you saw a really bad movie and wanted people to know it was just horrible and do NOT go this pile of dung....

I think rating it any number from 1-3 in a clear/simple 10 point scale would do a perfect job of getting that sentiment across with a single number.

If I say flim 'X' was a 2 out of 10. That tells everyone I think it was almost totally worthless. Maybe some Jim Carrey movie where I laughed twice accidentally at something not meant to be funny. hehe