h a l f b a k e r yIf you can read this you are not following too closely.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
"Number of stars" as a movie rating doesn't tell the whole story. Take a B-grade comedy like "National Lampoon's Vacation" -- it might only deserve 2 stars for greatness, but that movie is infinitely watchable. I've probably seen it over 100 times and could easily watch it again. Whereas "The Horrible
Looking People With Gross Diseases" might be a masterful, heart-wrenching documentary worthy of an Oscar, but I wouldn't want to watch it more than once.
A more complete picture (*wink*) could be told using ratings combining eyes and stars. For example, the infinitely watchable B-grade comedy would be rated
star star eye eye eye
(imagine icons, of course, like @ @ <o> <o> <o> )
essentially superimposing one linear scale onto another. This is 2 stars and 5 eyes. E.g. the watchability exceeds the quality. Whereas the heartwrenching but Oscar-worthy documentary would be rated
eye star star star star
indicating one eye and 5 stars. I.e. the quality exceeds the repeatability.
In the case where the stars and eyes are equal (say 4 eyes and 4 stars) there is a choice between writing "star star star star" or "eye eye eye eye". Both are equivalent.
Note that there is no chance of confusing this with a "0-star, 4-eye movie" because the lowest allowable movie rating is 1 star, not zero.
Since there must always be at least one eye and at least one star, the rating of "star star star star" or "eye eye eye eye" is unambiguous.
Obviously, lesser movies which deserve few eyes or stars would have fewer icons altogether, like "eye star" or "star star eye".
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
Here is a hit: READ THE ACTUAL REVIEW! The 1-5 ratings are often put on by the editor, rather than the reviewer, and may be more influenced by advertising purchase than the actual film. |
|
| |
can you get "The Horrible Looking People With Gross Diseases" at Amazon? |
|
| |
Surely a scale of 1 to 5 stars AND a scale of 1 to 5 eyes, with each scale on a separate line, would be significantly less brain-boggling than the syntax proposed. |
|
| |
[-] "Infinitely watchable" and "National Lampoon's Vacation" don't belong in the same article. |
|
| |
As nuclear hobo has made clear, so-called watchability is even more subjective than quality. A study of quality can at least be framed in comparative terms: acting skill, story "flow", dialogue believability, story cohesiveness, etc. What you consider "watchable" is more subjective than all of that, though. As evidence, I offer the Evil Dead series. The first movie was my favorite, because everyone involved really thought they were making a serious film and it's fun to watch them fail miserably. But you might like Army of Darkness better, because by that time the cast and crew were intentionally trying to recreate the trainwreck comedy of the original. Which one is more watchable? I say rotten tomato, you say rotten tomato. [-] |
|
| |