RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jul 22, 2007 1:21:20 GMT
I guess. More that I don't see the point in being 'strict' anymore, actually.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 22, 2007 1:23:12 GMT
I'm glad. But I need to see red stars in the Godard thread before I make love to you.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jul 22, 2007 1:25:03 GMT
Oh dear... Godard. Yes. We'll see about that fellow. I don't see a rosy future between he and I, I'm afraid. But I have a lot of his films left to see and several I want to rewatch (or feel I should, at least).
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 22, 2007 1:25:45 GMT
loff illz
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jul 22, 2007 1:30:10 GMT
Que?
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jul 22, 2007 1:34:17 GMT
loffles.
LOL.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Jul 22, 2007 1:35:13 GMT
Ah.
lollerskates.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 22, 2007 5:56:24 GMT
Roffles waffles with extra syrup
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Nov 13, 2007 14:04:24 GMT
In the wake of your silent-as-ever switch to the ten-scale system, Wetdog, I've adapted surprisingly well and quickly to it, though may I suggest a colour rating system also? The way I'm looking at your new ratings, they're a translation of your stars but with further increments to evaluate. Say, 7/10 is a top-end three-star film, and 6/10 is a bottom-end three-star film. Or something like that?
Anyway, it might help to mark colours for your grades. 10-9 as red, or something, 8-6 as blue, and so on.
By the way, I was thinking of tweaking my system too. Just so you don't think I'm copying. :-p
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 13, 2007 19:07:31 GMT
Yeah because rating systems are the most important thing in the world.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Nov 13, 2007 19:10:21 GMT
I shared your bitter sarcasm in an internal monologue with myself on the way home from university today. By the time I'd got home, though, I thought, "Nah, fuck it. This makes me happy in life, so why fucking not?"
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Nov 13, 2007 19:12:49 GMT
Yeah I guess. You always look foolish when you do this though. Just sayin'.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Nov 13, 2007 19:23:20 GMT
If Kino or someone said that, I would perhaps listen.
And FWIW, I again thought the same, only to conclude as above.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Nov 14, 2007 16:28:41 GMT
In the wake of your silent-as-ever switch to the ten-scale system, Wetdog, I've adapted surprisingly well and quickly to it, though may I suggest a colour rating system also? The way I'm looking at your new ratings, they're a translation of your stars but with further increments to evaluate. Say, 7/10 is a top-end three-star film, and 6/10 is a bottom-end three-star film. Or something like that? Yeah, that's about right. I don't think I'll be doing the colours, except maybe red and green for 10 and 0. I'd prefer it to be more fluid.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Nov 14, 2007 17:26:09 GMT
I'm thinking of going back to stars...
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Nov 14, 2007 19:37:15 GMT
I'm thinking of going back to stars... Your space ship is ready and waiting
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Nov 26, 2007 20:47:46 GMT
Stars are back, for me. Essentially, any rating system comes down to how much the positives outweigh the negatives. But, for those who care, here's an elaboration on my ratings, to cross-reference with the director threads.
No stars denote a film of little interest, a formulaic effort with little reward. It is conceptually dull and devoid of both intellectual vigour and aesthetic worth. One star denotes an interesting film which isn't necessarily good. It might be conceptually attractive but finally disappointing, or it might have strong individual moments in an otherwise flat and unengaging whole. Two stars signify a film of much interest. As a whole it is of a very high standard, though individual weak moments prevent it from being of further merit. It might be a draft shy, or too long, or its style too intrusive to the overall meaning, and so on. Three stars mean an excellent film with no major faults that detract from the organic whole. Of a consistently high standard, the kind which lingers long after the end credits. Four stars indicate a personal favourite, one of the best films ever seen. It is of much worth, intellectually, aesthetically, philosophically, and so on.
Or: No stars do not reward one viewing. One star merits one viewing but not two, two stars lend themselves to two viewings but not three, and so on.
For the director threads, I've also decided to rank entries for collaboration efforts as stand-alone films, though understand they shouldn't be discussed as such.
|
|
enzo
Runner
Posts: 80
|
Post by enzo on Nov 28, 2007 0:06:42 GMT
Capo's rating system is I use it too.
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Nov 28, 2007 18:39:06 GMT
I keep getting this feeling that my ratings have been hugely inconsistent. Generally my ratings in the proview thread are a little dubious. The ones in director threads are my true rating I guess. I write the proview almost immediately after I finish watching a movie, but usually update the director thread after some days. In addition to that, my ratings always seem to be based on my expectation of the movie. Some otherwise good movies get bad rating because I go in with a high expectation and get disappointed. I have thought of a simple rating system, loosely modeled on capo's. Ideally I want to go with a three star(plus a zero star) rating, but then it would spoil all my earlier ratings. The new star rating is designed to ensure that my old ratings are not too way off. The biggest advantage with my new rating is that I can decide the rating fairly quickly without much uncertainty (usually between 2 and 3 stars). Here it is: No Stars - crap/ludicrous/yawn yawn - More negative aspects* than positive ones - More positive aspects than negative ones - No/negligible negative aspects. - A three star film with a personal influence. * These aspects could be anything - direction, cinematography, acting, script, theme, all of it, some combination of it, whatever.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Dec 9, 2007 18:17:05 GMT
The vague definitions I have for my stars:
* = BOMB - Total failure in everyway. Nothing redeeming about it what so ever. (STRIPTEASE)
*1/2= A failure, but some merit in the size of bread crumbs. Really sub-par (PLUTO NASH)
** = Mediocre/Flat....Perhaps a good idea not utilized at all. (THE SHADOW)
**1/2 = Watchable/Average....if its on TV, I could watch it, but without serious involvement. (RUSH HOUR)
*** = Solid decent picture. (V FOR VENDETTA)
***1/2 = Really good genre exercise. (SIGNS)
**** = Damn great, the best that a purely genre movie can be. (SILENCE OF THE LAMBS)
****1/2 = A great movie that barely escapes genre and just great cinema in general (CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD)
***** = Masterpiece = A film that is beyond genre, perfect in everyway in its execution, the best of the best, they define a genre. (DIE HARD)
|
|