|
Post by Vercetti on Aug 8, 2006 5:32:06 GMT
You know, considering we were talking to me in AIM, you didn't have to tell me that again here.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Sept 29, 2006 15:19:44 GMT
I'm intending on revising my star system a little bit, but it won't affect most films anyway. Checking the director threads will be the quickest way to see any changes; but I will let you know when I've edited everything.
No stars: Ordinary or worse. One star: Good. Recommended. Two stars: Great. Highly recommended. Three stars: Excellent. Essential viewing. Four stars: Personal favourite.
Not much between three and four star films besides several viewings and a development in "depth" each time.
I've also been considering scrapping stars altogether and simply having a colour code:
One colour for missable films or worse. One colour for recommended films. One colour for essential films.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Oct 1, 2006 14:46:50 GMT
I've updated, where necessary, the director threads. Though the index lists are a little out of date, so I may have missed some.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Oct 18, 2006 2:15:04 GMT
I've updated, where necessary, the director threads. Though the index lists are a little out of date, so I may have missed some. I updated the index.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Oct 18, 2006 19:06:37 GMT
I had noticed. Only, I didn't thank you because you're a fascist.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Oct 25, 2006 15:36:28 GMT
I had missed a few: John Sayles, Tom Tykwer, Todd Phillips, James Foley and Andrew Niccol.
There's still one truant thread.
There's 258 threads on the board, 2 of which are indexes, and only 255 threads are indexed.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Oct 25, 2006 15:45:23 GMT
Got it: Ken Loach, that sneaky Socialist.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 2, 2006 20:23:44 GMT
When I switched over to this rating system I had said this of it. It's pretty much the same as my previous system, I just gave myself the added ability to distinguish between worthless films and films with some kind of worth, even if it doesn't quite validate the whole thing. I've since decided, however, that I'd rather have more scope to differentiate between good films than between not so good films. I think this is a better approach, and allows me to spend more time thinking about films I actually like. I still hold that a film is bad because of what it lacks, not because of what it has. It's the absence of any good qualities, not the presence of bad qualities, that makes a bad film. Bad qualities could be overlooked if those absent good qualities were sufficiently present. In this sense there's nothing worse than mediocrity, except for the fact that we're conditioned to not only expect it but to accept it, and I think an increased intolerance towards this can only be healthy. No stars still means the film is of no significant interest. Mediocre. One star means the film is of some significant interest. Worth watching. Two stars means the film is good. Three stars means the film is excellent. Four stars means the film is great. Superlatives abound. Five stars is a special rating reserved for short-listing the best films ever made. These films are the reason I watch films.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Dec 2, 2006 21:07:57 GMT
I like your rating system, and more recently have been wondering whether or not to adapt to it myself, since I've seen a few films which were half-way between "missable" and "watchable", which is where your one-star rating comes in handy.
For now, I'm going to keep my system, but I want to go through my database re-addressing a lot of films. Basically, I've refrained against this in the past because I don't like changing ratings before revisiting; but now I'm of the mindset whereby if the film doesn't stick with me, it loses marks. I shall, wherever possible, allow for personal moods at the time of watching, such as being tired - the main reason why I can only remember a few scenes in Broken Flowers, for instance.
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
Post by Boz on Dec 3, 2006 0:23:44 GMT
I'm teetering on the edge of switching over to a half star system, which I really don't want to do just because it makes things so much more complicated, but at the same time I feel like my current system lumps things together unfairly.
Either that or I'm gonna start being a lot stricter with 3 star ratings.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 3, 2006 0:49:01 GMT
Could you explain what your ratings currently mean? I don't get why you give Tokyo Story one star yet claim you hated it, and claim you're "thoroughly unimpressed" with Bunuel's films yet give two of them two stars.
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
Post by Boz on Dec 3, 2006 1:05:25 GMT
I don't have any real verbose, clear-cut explanation for my system but I generally say that when I sit down to watch a film I assume it will be a 2 star film, and then from there I add stars if my expectations are exceeded, and subtract them if they're not met. In the case of Tokyo Story, my expectations were a bit higher considering its reputation, and I found little to nothing I like about the film, so I gave it 1 star. I reserve 0 stars for films of completely no worth, a description I've only given to maybe 5 or 6 films, so I wasn't going to be that harsh.
As for Bunuel's 2 star films, both had some interesting ideas and techniques being thrown around but ultimately I came away with nothing really. I didn't hate Bunuel's films, per say, but I didn't really enjoy them much either. Add in their reputation, and I settled on a 2 star ranking for both.
Land Without Bread got 1 because it not only didn't interest me, but it also disgusted me, something relatively rare.
I think for the time being I'm gonna start moving weaker 2 star films down to 1 star rankings, weaker 3 star films down to 2 star rankings, and make an effort to rarely reward a film with 3 stars upon a first viewing.
Although it hasn't been reflected on the board, I've also started using a 5 star ranking as well, which I've avoided switching to on the boards simply because there isn't a 5 star graphic under Capo's star system, which I prefer to yours.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 3, 2006 1:33:38 GMT
Okay, thanks.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Dec 4, 2006 0:11:38 GMT
As I revise my ratings for films, questions are suffocating me.
Is it possible to rate or view a film without bias for or against the director?
Should you try and view a film objectively, ie. discard director, or should you be fully biased where possible?
Am I making sense here?
How far is a film of interest simply because of the director? Should I embrace the knowledge of a director, or try and remove it from the equation.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Dec 4, 2006 0:15:01 GMT
Use your knowledge of the director as you would any other kind of knowledge in rating the film as objectively as you can.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Dec 4, 2006 3:49:39 GMT
As or should you be fully biased where possible? Yes. Film viewing and rating is subjective. Hence all biases should be encouraged
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Dec 4, 2006 14:37:45 GMT
Where possible*, I've updated directors A-K. Check the threads to see. * - for whatever reason, all directors threads posted since October, or in October, can't be modified. EDIT: Actually, this thread was made in August, but I can't touch it for some reason. Wet Dog seems to have modified his post as recent as 1st December.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Dec 5, 2006 3:19:28 GMT
Okay, those threads are back in business, and so I've just finished revising my ratings. According to my Excel database, I've cut my list of three star films from 357 to 185, and a lot have been reduced to no stars altogether.
So, no stars indicates a film of little to no significance to my appreciation of Cinema or the way I go about my own personal expressions. One star indicates a film of lasting significance. Two stars means the film is excellent, highly influential to me, and highly recommended viewing. Three stars means the film is as powerful now as it was when I first saw it, perhaps more so. I think this rating will be given more retrospectively, as films gain impressions over time, and/or upon revisits, when they "prove" their excellence. Four stars are those which I wish I myself had made, those which are actively influencing me right now, in life, in Cinema, in personal expression.
What I'm trying to do here is to cater more and more towards my own aesthetic, my own way of approaching things, be it life in general or Cinema in particular. The more stars a film gets the more it is influencing me. Obviously, it means it is more difficult for films to remain intact in my memory as time passes, which obviously requires rewatches in order to give fair ratings. But a lot of films will naturally lose stars over time as my memories of them fade. So keep in mind that no stars in the directors threads simply means I either failed to connect with the film at the time of viewing, or years have passed and I no longer connect to it...which is not of course disallowing the prospect of a revisit.
One more thing to note: since my stars are now more catered to how the film leaves an impression on my mind, I won't be Proviewing films until days later. Not to the extremity of Wet Dog's monthly updates, but certainly more reflective, to give my mind a chance to dwell on the film, and thus get as much as possible from it. I'm all for giving films a good chance at flooring me.
|
|
jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Dec 7, 2006 7:29:50 GMT
Im much more likely to see or skip a movie based on what is actually said about it. Stars dont really interest me much, considering everyones rating system and overall opinions of a movie change every month. Usually the 3 or 4 things that are written in a proview are the only opinions that will stay consistent, so those are what I typically go off when deciding what to add to my Netflix queue
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Dec 7, 2006 12:49:25 GMT
Glad you said that, Jrod, because sometimes I feel inclined to add more stars just to get people to see it, then months later I'll remember about it and knock it down to where it should be. Ideally, I'd like others to read my thoughts and then see the film, regardless of star rating, because you just never know what will float your boat.
|
|