Post by mslo79 on Mar 3, 2018 7:35:42 GMT
Nora
In this case... your 'entertainment level' is your true feelings for a movie overall.
because since no one can truly be "objective" on trying to judge the technical aspects as one is best off just doing the usual, which is, base it on ones overall enjoyment.
That I NEVER do it as will artificially inflate a movies score if a movie scores well in a genre, like it beats most of the genre, but fails to be just a great movie straight up then it's not getting a high score from me which is the score I am going to give it on IMDb's 1 through 10 rating scale.
with that said... if one wanted to say as a side note sort of thing that, 'Movie A is one of the better movies for it's genre' that would be fine but to boost what you personally rate it on IMDb because of that just skews the rating system as rating movies based on your overall enjoyment of them straight up in comparison to ALL movies you have seen it the overall best way to rate movies hands down because it's a more true picture of what your thoughts/feelings are on a movie.
This is a great point which further confirms Dunkirk is ultimately crap for you.
hell, I also found it very boring as I could not even finish the movie. movies like this default to a 2/10 from me if I can't finish them due to boredom (I would go lower but I reserve 1/10's for movies I basically hate which almost nothing lands on a 1/10 for me).
so sure, I recognize it's well made as you can tell it's professional level etc but at the end of the day if a movie is boring it's damn sure not getting a positive score in my book as boring is pretty much the worst crime a film can commit.
NOTE: when I say the word 'boring', I actually mean it. because some people will say 'boring' but they might say that causally if something gets slightly uninteresting here and there, or if a movie is slow paced etc, but when I say a movie is boring, I actually mean that literally, as that's a big negative for it and if I say a movie is boring it's very likely I could not even finish watching the movie due to boredom.
That's hard to comprehend as it makes no sense to say 'almost hated watching it' and then not long after those words you say, 'I love it'.
you surely must think it's either more positive than negative or negative than positive in a basic sense, right? ; hence, this is your true opinion of it.
sure, there are cases where ill finish a movie and was not sure if I liked or disliked it but usually in cases like this, which don't happen much for me, ill probably give the movie the benefit of the doubt and see it again in the future as then it might shift more towards the positive or negative side and my score gets adjusted accordingly etc. you get the gist
Sure, I can see how people say 'bad movies' or 'guilty pleasures' etc and I think I get the gist of it but at the end of the day if you enjoy watching a movie overall then ultimately it's more positive than negative and pretty much a good movie for you if you enjoyed it.
p.s. for the record.. I thought that movie was pretty weak as I gave it a 4/10 which is a 'below average' score for me and not outright failure as 3/10 is basically failure and 2/10 is my usual boring score and 1/10's are for movies I greatly dislike/hate. also, I am not one of those people who disses Adam Sandler like many do around here on IMDB2 forums. Sandler's best comedy is Happy Gilmore (1996) (7.5-8/10) hands down as that's within my Top 105 movies straight up.
It does not really do much because if they wanted that "objective" type of thing they can just stick to those typical critics for that stuff as I feel critics tend not to judge movies much on their personal opinion but what they 'think' the public might like etc(?). or those critics who make those 'Top 100 movies of all-time' types of lists seem to be mostly pointless because they seem more concerned with a movie being 'ahead of it's time' (and the like) more than it just being a interesting movie to watch to this day.
a persons real opinion of a movie is based around whether they enjoyed watching it overall or not. that's the core of whether movies are ultimately good or not. I would have to assume most people see things this way in a basic sense.
For some people who are all messed up on their rating system, I would agree with you. but for the rest of us who have a pretty stable rating system there is no way my comments will reflect differently from what I score it as my score very accurately conveys my overall thoughts/feelings about a movie.
but I think I see what you mean that some people will say type up some text to where it almost looks like they did not like it that much but then say score it a 8/10 or something like this. but I think some people just don't use the rating system properly as in my mind the vast majority of movies should be scored around a 5/10 (i.e. middle-of-the-road/average) because they just tend not to be that good and tend to be movies I won't re-watch(and as you may already know I ultimately judge movies based on whether I want to re-watch them or not). that's why I think my rating system, which don't seem to be too much different from many others on IMDb from what I have noticed, is best which is, in a very basic sense...
-5/10 or less = Thumbs Down (won't re-watch(with rare exception))
-6/10 or higher = Thumbs Up (will re-watch)
but like I mentioned before... a 5/10 is usually what I would say as 'decent enough not to have wasted my time but ultimately has no re-watch appeal for me'.
I guess I sort of get into the math stuff a bit to.
but basically, when I bottom line your rating system... the 'entertainment score' is your true opinion of a movie. the others are just a attempt to guessing what others might like etc.
I might be able to grasp it if I can ask you some questions...
with your shoe example... are you basically saying that you did not enjoy wearing because they were not comfortable or did not look particularly good on you but that the shoe itself looks good? (or something along these lines?)
because if that's true... I don't really think that applies to movies as to me it's different.
The thing is... when I rate movies straight up I look at them in comparison to ALL movies I see as I am not going to hand a movie a high score just because it's one of the better movies of it's genre if it fails to stand out amongst movies in general.
so when I rate a movie a 10/10, you know it's genuine high praise from me and then goes back to a 9/10 and to a 8/10 and so on. basically the lower the score the less I like it overall and the higher the score the more I like it overall.
so basically to get back to your general 'comedy vs drama' (and the like)... to me this is a non-issue as if you enjoy the comedies overall more than the drama, it would be rated higher. if not, then rate it lower. that's what I do. just for me personally... there are not many comedies that can hold up against good drama though but it does happen here and there but is mostly those that blend the comedy/drama as in terms of straight comedies there is not much that stand out to be amongst My Favorite Movies(i.e. my Top 186 movies which is ALL movies I scored a 7/10 or higher).
--------------------------------
bottom line... given what you said, it appears our core disagreement is you 'attempt' to separate 'objective quality' and then your own personal subjective opinion which I simply think it's pointless to try that as I ultimately judge movies based on ones own all around enjoyment of them and the more they do this the higher the score regardless of genre etc. so when I score a movie, people know exactly what I think of it with no confusion whatsoever.
with that said... thanks for giving me the details.
faustus5
Not really because I just broke movies down to there very core for most (if not vast majority/high percentage) of people.
because whatever one see's in art it still ultimately provokes some sort of feeling/emotional response within the person viewing the art. hence, my general overall enjoyment of a movie thing applies perfectly.
do you honestly disagree with me on what I just said here above? ; I don't really see how one could disagree with that looking at things from there own personal opinion of a movie overall.
hell, even those who like to 'think' more about art etc... I think what I said above could still be applied in those cases to because it's something that they like thinking about which comes back to some sort of feeling/emotional response in some form or another.
if you disagree with what I say... instead of flinging the insults, I would like to here your counter argument because I don't think you can counter my general comment on the core of what makes movies work or not for most people in that they provoke some sort of emotional response/feeling in the viewer and those that do this well tend to score higher and those that don't in some form or another score lower. if you even somewhat can counter what I said ill be surprised especially given what I just said likely applies to the easy majority of people if not vast majority or very high percentage.
p.s. please don't tell me your one of those snobs who think they are above the common person (because what I say applies to most people I would assume because not many can watch movies for reasons other than it provokes some sort of feeling/emotional response they like from watching a movie(if there is even other reasons outside of pointless technical crap that barely anyone needs to know unless maybe they are making movies themselves(?))) but it appears that way given your wording there. no one likes a snob. if you disagree with me it would be better to post why instead of the condescending comment and that's it.
I score "entertainment level" which reflects my subjective feelings of enjoying the movie directly when I watch it, and then "quality" level, which is more technical, about the craft behind the movie. Those dont always match.
In this case... your 'entertainment level' is your true feelings for a movie overall.
because since no one can truly be "objective" on trying to judge the technical aspects as one is best off just doing the usual, which is, base it on ones overall enjoyment.
I actually also score the movie within its genre
That I NEVER do it as will artificially inflate a movies score if a movie scores well in a genre, like it beats most of the genre, but fails to be just a great movie straight up then it's not getting a high score from me which is the score I am going to give it on IMDb's 1 through 10 rating scale.
with that said... if one wanted to say as a side note sort of thing that, 'Movie A is one of the better movies for it's genre' that would be fine but to boost what you personally rate it on IMDb because of that just skews the rating system as rating movies based on your overall enjoyment of them straight up in comparison to ALL movies you have seen it the overall best way to rate movies hands down because it's a more true picture of what your thoughts/feelings are on a movie.
but there is plenty of movies I didnt really enjoy watching, but I do recognize they are quality (well made) movies. Dunkirk. Was bored out of my skull, but I see its many qualities. How could you not? I could never rate it an overall 3 per my enjoyment level. It was a good movie. The best or great? Not. But very good? Yes. It just didn't work on me personally.
This is a great point which further confirms Dunkirk is ultimately crap for you.
hell, I also found it very boring as I could not even finish the movie. movies like this default to a 2/10 from me if I can't finish them due to boredom (I would go lower but I reserve 1/10's for movies I basically hate which almost nothing lands on a 1/10 for me).
so sure, I recognize it's well made as you can tell it's professional level etc but at the end of the day if a movie is boring it's damn sure not getting a positive score in my book as boring is pretty much the worst crime a film can commit.
NOTE: when I say the word 'boring', I actually mean it. because some people will say 'boring' but they might say that causally if something gets slightly uninteresting here and there, or if a movie is slow paced etc, but when I say a movie is boring, I actually mean that literally, as that's a big negative for it and if I say a movie is boring it's very likely I could not even finish watching the movie due to boredom.
Florida Project - I almost hated watching it, but I think its one of the best movies of last year. And I love it.
That's hard to comprehend as it makes no sense to say 'almost hated watching it' and then not long after those words you say, 'I love it'.
you surely must think it's either more positive than negative or negative than positive in a basic sense, right? ; hence, this is your true opinion of it.
sure, there are cases where ill finish a movie and was not sure if I liked or disliked it but usually in cases like this, which don't happen much for me, ill probably give the movie the benefit of the doubt and see it again in the future as then it might shift more towards the positive or negative side and my score gets adjusted accordingly etc. you get the gist
or there are movies that I loved when watching it but they are simply bad movies. Adam Sandlers Jack and Jill comes to mind. That was one bad movie. for many reasons. but I thoroughly enjoyed watching it.
Sure, I can see how people say 'bad movies' or 'guilty pleasures' etc and I think I get the gist of it but at the end of the day if you enjoy watching a movie overall then ultimately it's more positive than negative and pretty much a good movie for you if you enjoyed it.
p.s. for the record.. I thought that movie was pretty weak as I gave it a 4/10 which is a 'below average' score for me and not outright failure as 3/10 is basically failure and 2/10 is my usual boring score and 1/10's are for movies I greatly dislike/hate. also, I am not one of those people who disses Adam Sandler like many do around here on IMDB2 forums. Sandler's best comedy is Happy Gilmore (1996) (7.5-8/10) hands down as that's within my Top 105 movies straight up.
what this system does is that because it transparently lets the readers know all 3 categories, they can determine more precisely if they are going to enjoy the movie themselves, or not.
It does not really do much because if they wanted that "objective" type of thing they can just stick to those typical critics for that stuff as I feel critics tend not to judge movies much on their personal opinion but what they 'think' the public might like etc(?). or those critics who make those 'Top 100 movies of all-time' types of lists seem to be mostly pointless because they seem more concerned with a movie being 'ahead of it's time' (and the like) more than it just being a interesting movie to watch to this day.
a persons real opinion of a movie is based around whether they enjoyed watching it overall or not. that's the core of whether movies are ultimately good or not. I would have to assume most people see things this way in a basic sense.
Sometimes the numbers seem just random, sometimes the number doesnt reflect the text too much etc. So I do it differently.
For some people who are all messed up on their rating system, I would agree with you. but for the rest of us who have a pretty stable rating system there is no way my comments will reflect differently from what I score it as my score very accurately conveys my overall thoughts/feelings about a movie.
but I think I see what you mean that some people will say type up some text to where it almost looks like they did not like it that much but then say score it a 8/10 or something like this. but I think some people just don't use the rating system properly as in my mind the vast majority of movies should be scored around a 5/10 (i.e. middle-of-the-road/average) because they just tend not to be that good and tend to be movies I won't re-watch(and as you may already know I ultimately judge movies based on whether I want to re-watch them or not). that's why I think my rating system, which don't seem to be too much different from many others on IMDb from what I have noticed, is best which is, in a very basic sense...
-5/10 or less = Thumbs Down (won't re-watch(with rare exception))
-6/10 or higher = Thumbs Up (will re-watch)
but like I mentioned before... a 5/10 is usually what I would say as 'decent enough not to have wasted my time but ultimately has no re-watch appeal for me'.
Surprisingly, the overall score (you add all 3 values together and divide by 3) usually matches the average critics score from Rotten Tomatoes. Its very rare that it deviates or deviates much. And it does make sense. You get the overall score, and then you get some extra data to it. Whats wrong with that. I love data and knowing how things relate to each other. And this brings more data and potentially adds value to the reader by explaining my rating system and giving them three sub-scores that they can ignore or they can get more info from it. It works.
I guess I sort of get into the math stuff a bit to.
but basically, when I bottom line your rating system... the 'entertainment score' is your true opinion of a movie. the others are just a attempt to guessing what others might like etc.
PS: too bad you are not a woman, if you were, I bet you would understand this rating system very easily if I said "imagine shoes" 
. I believe that every woman has had at least one pair of shoes in their life, that they didnt really enjoy wearing but loved overall and vice-versa.
. I believe that every woman has had at least one pair of shoes in their life, that they didnt really enjoy wearing but loved overall and vice-versa. I might be able to grasp it if I can ask you some questions...
with your shoe example... are you basically saying that you did not enjoy wearing because they were not comfortable or did not look particularly good on you but that the shoe itself looks good? (or something along these lines?)
because if that's true... I don't really think that applies to movies as to me it's different.
Why rate a silly comedy on the same merits as a meditative drama or a heist movie. They deserve consideration within their own genre too. Not "just" that number of course, but "also" that number. When pooled together and then divided by 3 it gives you a good overall number but you can still look up more data about how that number was put together and how enjoyable the movie is or how well it works within its particular genre.
The thing is... when I rate movies straight up I look at them in comparison to ALL movies I see as I am not going to hand a movie a high score just because it's one of the better movies of it's genre if it fails to stand out amongst movies in general.
so when I rate a movie a 10/10, you know it's genuine high praise from me and then goes back to a 9/10 and to a 8/10 and so on. basically the lower the score the less I like it overall and the higher the score the more I like it overall.
so basically to get back to your general 'comedy vs drama' (and the like)... to me this is a non-issue as if you enjoy the comedies overall more than the drama, it would be rated higher. if not, then rate it lower. that's what I do. just for me personally... there are not many comedies that can hold up against good drama though but it does happen here and there but is mostly those that blend the comedy/drama as in terms of straight comedies there is not much that stand out to be amongst My Favorite Movies(i.e. my Top 186 movies which is ALL movies I scored a 7/10 or higher).
--------------------------------
bottom line... given what you said, it appears our core disagreement is you 'attempt' to separate 'objective quality' and then your own personal subjective opinion which I simply think it's pointless to try that as I ultimately judge movies based on ones own all around enjoyment of them and the more they do this the higher the score regardless of genre etc. so when I score a movie, people know exactly what I think of it with no confusion whatsoever.
with that said... thanks for giving me the details.
faustus5
This is a hopelessly naive and simplistic view of art, but not surprising at all coming from you.
Not really because I just broke movies down to there very core for most (if not vast majority/high percentage) of people.
because whatever one see's in art it still ultimately provokes some sort of feeling/emotional response within the person viewing the art. hence, my general overall enjoyment of a movie thing applies perfectly.
do you honestly disagree with me on what I just said here above? ; I don't really see how one could disagree with that looking at things from there own personal opinion of a movie overall.
hell, even those who like to 'think' more about art etc... I think what I said above could still be applied in those cases to because it's something that they like thinking about which comes back to some sort of feeling/emotional response in some form or another.
if you disagree with what I say... instead of flinging the insults, I would like to here your counter argument because I don't think you can counter my general comment on the core of what makes movies work or not for most people in that they provoke some sort of emotional response/feeling in the viewer and those that do this well tend to score higher and those that don't in some form or another score lower. if you even somewhat can counter what I said ill be surprised especially given what I just said likely applies to the easy majority of people if not vast majority or very high percentage.
p.s. please don't tell me your one of those snobs who think they are above the common person (because what I say applies to most people I would assume because not many can watch movies for reasons other than it provokes some sort of feeling/emotional response they like from watching a movie(if there is even other reasons outside of pointless technical crap that barely anyone needs to know unless maybe they are making movies themselves(?))) but it appears that way given your wording there. no one likes a snob. if you disagree with me it would be better to post why instead of the condescending comment and that's it.
