Ratings systems

Thumbs down

Can't go wrong with a letter grade. The real question is do you stop at A+ or go all the way to S?

>a perfect movie does not and can never exist
nigga are you aware there is a movie in which jennifer connelly rubs her sweaty ass against another woman's sweaty ass?

All shit, objectivity is bound in raitings.
Three point system is better.
X for not recommended.
Check for recommend
Heart for excellence

Being vague opens up possibilities in fair ratings, rather than 9.5,9.6,8.4,8.1 which are far too specific and objectively bound to the rater

Attached: rate.png (800x600, 9K)

too basic
1-5 is too tight, it becomes personal
1-10 works better the more people you have, anything averaging over a 6 is likely worth a watch.

Being basic is the whole point.
Say 10 retards that rate capeshit as 8-10s while rate art house films around 2-5.
Now say we have 5 open minded people that rate capeshit around 4-6, and arthouse films around 6-8. It is impossible to change the opinion of entrants in the survery, and selectism helps no one in a fair survery.
So you really want the mean of a decent film brought down by short attention span retards? Or would you prefer a basic, simple system that wont get clogged up with bad ratings?

1 - Good
2 - Great
3 - Awesome
4 - Outstanding
5 - Amazing
No half points.

This is based

Using .5 is a 10 point scale dumb.
If youre using shit like 5.5 its a 20 point scale.

I form a nuanced opinion that I express in words. Rating systems are for faggots.

>decimals

Linear ratings are ridiculous, like anyone can actually spell out the difference between a 9.2 or 9.3. Why not rate out of 100 or 1000?

Use a logarithmic scale like

* = crap art
** = bad art
*** = mediocre art
****= great art
*****=enduring masterpiece

I think 4 would be better, adding in a option for dogshit movies would be good. 4 is also even, meaning there's no middle ground, so even if you're iffy about a film, you have to recommend it or not

i'd rather have a system that let's people give their opinion on why they think it's a bad film
if somebody rates a film 4 on a 1-10 scale i'm more interested in why that is, rather than somebody clicking the ''recommend'' button. why do you recommend it? because you think you should or because you actually liked it?
i don't mind ''bad'' reviews dude half of my favourite movies got mixed reception when they hit the cinema.

Great explanation, but the reason I find fault in such a specific system is the endless objectivity. Like typed here, what's the difference between 9.2 and 9.3? Films, art, books, video games, aren't linear, what would make my movie a 9 instead of a 8.9?
In short, I'd prefer a rating system with few options, so the reasoning behind such a score is better explained in the review. Anyone can rate a film a 6.7, and procced to not explain why. What's a 3 out of 4 compared to a 5.1 out of 10 scale?

>t. semantics
Why are you retards arguing arguing about this, it's not hard. Someone likes something, theyll say they liked it. If they dont, they dont. Whats so fucking hard to understand?

.5 is what i'd stretch to and i tend to think of it as 'not quite good enough' to reach the next rating, on a system of 1-5. so it basically becomes a scale of 1-10. 6.7 5.5 3.8 etc is totally useless, over fussy bullshit.

what about the video game grading scale?

Attached: kj3gFME.jpg (1786x919, 104K)

Same as the women rating men scale. Massive influx of video games over the years, what was great back then is only now good. Either be better than nearly every else or fall.

>5.5
on a ten point scale i mean.
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 with 1-5 star scale gives some wriggle room
adding .5 to 1-10 is pointless, might as well make it 1-15.
.1 .2 .3 .4 .6 .7 .8 .9 on a 1-10 scale what the fuck is the point, now you've got a hundred numbers, ooh the costume design is not accurate i'm going to knock off .3 from my score of 7.8

just give it a solid number you've got ten of them

>5.5 of a 1-5 scale
no what the fuck is wrong with me, my brain is melting with numbers

when it comes to ratings i've notived I score on average 2 points lower on IMDb and 1 star lower on Letterboxd than the average user rating. Almost never give a 9 or 10 score and believe an 8 is among the best movies ever made. Considering only 2 movies are rated above a 9.0 on IMDb it goes to show people that throw 8+/10 around like candy and haven't refined their rating system properly.

pic related is my kino bellcurve

Attached: bell.png (304x167, 4K)

Infinity War is a 8.5 on imdb so I don't hold much stock in that but also what are you 9s-10s

I mostly agree with your system and do similarly myself but
>Almost never give a 9 or 10 score and believe an 8 is among the best movies ever made.
I don't quite agree with this.

I can understand reluctance to assign any 10s because it'd imply a work is flawless, but I don't think it makes sense for 9s to be as rare as 10s. In my system, the difference between scores is not linear: there's much more "distance" between a 9 and a 10 than a 5 and a 6. So I don't have any 10s in my system, but I do have a few 9s.

To contrast, those best movies ever made that you mention and rate 8s would likely be classified as 9s in my system, which makes more sense to me: 10 is perfect, 9 is excellent, 8 is great. With your system, if 8s are the best movies ever made, what's the point of 9s and 10s?

I'd rather not list them since i'm still trying to refine it but put to put it into perspective, I believe Kubrick's streak of 2001, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon and The Shining is the best 4 movie run in terms of consistently high ratings and out of those only The Shining I gave a 9 (although I've had it at a 10 for sometime as well), 9 and 10's are basically interchangable since the difference between a 9.9 and 10.0 is negligible.

>Barry Lyndon
Based

i wish this was the standard

Attached: 1548070744449.jpg (720x569, 105K)

>9 and 10's are basically interchangable since the difference between a 9.9 and 10.0 is negligible.
Is the difference between 9.0 and 10.0 also negligible? It makes no sense to have two different ratings communicate one opinion.

no, because 9 would encompass a score of 9.1 - 9.9 and 10 only covers 10.0, i don't include any .0, like 6.0, 7.0, etc, each score starts from .1, besides anything under 2.1 and 10 itself

>Being vague opens up possibilities in fair ratings, rather than 9.5,9.6,8.4,8.1 which are far too specific and objectively bound to the rater
>implying it's possible to rate media """""objectively""""" independent of your years of personal experience
d e l u s i o n a l
p s e u d

Attached: 1536199984689.png (621x702, 56K)

I think the only difference between our systems then would lie in our "ceiling" for the maximum score, as long as there is over 1 movie i've given 9 and 10 it shows there's still a margin between the 8's, an 8 may be amongst the best, a 9+ would be a masterpiece of cinema, given only a few times in a lifetime or a personal favourite for whatever reason. In your case, what would be required to give a movie a 10?

I go from 1-5 with decimals. So for example Dunkirk is a 3.5/5. Killing of a Sacred Deer is a 3.7/5 and so on. I've seen a little over 1500 films, yet I've given only 5 of them a 5/5. A rating without decimals doesn't work, because a film rated 3.1 and another for 3.9 are not the same at all. There are so many factors to account for.

>5.0 = Masterpiece
Film is flawlessly acted, has enduring characters, a narrative with complimentary strong thematic elements, a prominent soundtrack and a distinct visual style utilizing strong compositions which are everlasting

>4.5 = Excellent
Film is well extremely well acted, has dimensional characters, a narrative with competent thematic elements, an interesting soundtrack and a good visual style utilizing excellent compositions

>4.5 = Great
Film features great acting, has well-rounded characters, a narrative with one or less thematic elements, a competent soundtrack and a visual style utilizing great compositions

>4.0 = Very Good
Film features good acting, has one or two characters with flaws, a narrative with at least one thematic element, a decent soundtrack and a visual style utilizing very good compositions

>3.0 - 3.5 = Good
Film features decent acting, has at least one dimensional character, a narrative with no thematic elements, an original soundtrack and a visual style utilizing basic compositions

>2.0 - 2.5 = Average
Film features acting which at times is flawed or unbelievable, has characters lacking in dimension, a narrative with no thematic elements and plot holes and/or gimmicks, a soundtrack using in-vogue music, and a visual style lacking in basic compositions

>1.0 - 1.5 = Poor
Film features amateurish acting which is devoid of substance, has characters with zero dimension and may feature mary sue's, a narrative with countless errors, plot holes and reliance on gimmicks/tropes, a soundtrack which clashes with the film, and zero sense of a visual style with no attempt at creating competent compositions

Attached: five-star-rating-icon-isolated-on-white-background-vector-21356395.jpg (1000x1080, 111K)

>as long as there is over 1 movie i've given 9 and 10 it shows there's still a margin between the 8's
True.
>In your case, what would be required to give a movie a 10?
I would have to consider the movie essentially flawless and have effectively no criticism against it. Of course, as I'm certain you can relate, this sort of criteria is an extremely high bar and though masterpieces are exceedingly rare, they are also NOT inherently flawless.
>an 8 may be amongst the best, a 9+ would be a masterpiece of cinema, given only a few times in a lifetime or a personal favourite for whatever reason.
Well, I personally dislike imposing restrictions that tight on 9s, but I can see why you choose to do so. It's perfectly valid to reserve 9s for the reason you do, I just find more utility in classifying media with 9s a little bit more liberally.

At the end of the day, the number is simply shorthand for an opinion, and articulating opinions is more important than how numbers are calculate. That being said, people who go out of their way to refine their rating systems often have also gone out of their way to reflect on media more deeply than the average consumer, so I'm always more eager to hear their opinions.

I don't assign number ratings, but I do write short blurbs about almost every movie/television episode I've ever seen

>5 stars
It was okay
>4 stars
Kind of boring
>3 stars
Boring
>2 stars
Couldn't finish it
>1 star
Couldn't get past the opening credits

based
honestly numbers without any writing is pretty retarded

have sex

brainlet