My goals for Film Ratings

HomeForumsGovernmental ForumsCitizensMy goals for Film Ratings

This topic has 1 voice, contains 93 replies, and was last updated by Avatar of Ladon Ladon 2736 days ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 94 total)
Author Posts
Author Posts
January 8, 2007 at 6:48 am #250910
Avatar of Ladon
Ladon

“Smeagol Studios” wrote: I would strongly oppose merging effects and visuals as one category. Currently the category is labeled as effects, though what it tends to represent in most cases right now is more precisely visual effects, meaning effects that are created in post-production. I believe I understand the reasoning behind the idea of merging effects with general visuals, but I think that visual effects are being used increasingly in brickfilms and warrant a category of their own. I would support the idea of adding a “overall visual” rating or something in a similar vein, but I do not like the idea of removing the effects category or putting it in a composite category. It might seem that I’m just saying this because my own films tend to be heavy in special effects, but I honestly think that this would be a change for the worse and would take away from the potential informative value of the ratings system. A number of people on this site have put a great deal of time and effort to creating amazing, realistic visual effects for their films, and it would be an injustice to have no difference in ratings between something like Out of Time and Jay’s Rise of the Empire trailer. Both have tremendous visual clarity and quality, but there is obviously a difference between them and it should be reflected by their ratings.

-Smeagol

Yes, this is also a problem. As I’m still working on the final categories, I’ll take this into consideration. I’m now leaning more towards pairing visual ‘elements’ with cinematography, where it really should be. I’m not sure about films that have no effects, but I’m still working all of this out.

January 11, 2007 at 1:43 am #251731
Avatar of Watson
Watson

I am in favor of the proposed rating guidelines (rubric). That is not to say that it doesn’t have potential problems that we’d need to try to fix before it’s put into position.

The guidelines, at their heart, are about turning quantitative feedback into qualitative feedback. Right now, when two people go to rate a film, they may find themselves agreeing completely on the animation quality. Perhaps, for the sake of this example, they both feel that it’s very smooth, and there are some complex scenes that are done really well. In their minds, they have exactly the same opinion of the film. Despite this, when they go to actually provide a numerical rating, they could (and people often do) provide completely different numbers. This shouldn’t have to happen, and the guidelines help to fix the problem, because I believe that the problem often lies in the process of translating that qualitative information into quantitative information.

And really, what is 5 or a 7 or a 9? What do they mean? What level of quality do they represent? It’s not that having these guidelines will take away raters’ freedom to voice their opinions on quality — you can still disagree with someone else about how good a movie’s animation or cinematography is — except that now, if you do agree, you’re numbers will also agree. This wasn’t happening before.

So that is the benefit, but there are issues that can arise that might frustrate raters: What happens when a category includes several skills?

For example, A story could be judged on the quality of the dialog, the creativity of the story, or the excellent character development, among other things. What if, as a reviewer, I feel that the creativity of the story is the most important factor, and that I feel film’s that excel in that area should be rated higher? In this case, the rubric impedes my ability to voice my opinion clearly. Similarly, what if a story is really creative and has great character development, but there dialog is poorly written? How do I deal with areas where one part is very good, and another isn’t? The current rubric does not allow that.

A possible solution to the latter problem would be to further break the categories down to their core components. To continue my example, rather than rating the story as a whole, I would rate the creativity of it, the quality of the dialog, and the character development — all separately. This information could then be compiled to create a single score for the category (it might even be possible to later expand it, and view the ratings that people have given the individual components, which could provide further feedback to the director).

This still leaves the other problem, though. What if I value one area of a story over another? I would not be able to truly voice my opinion. On top of that, who would decide how to compile the core components into the total “Story” rating? This would mean having to decide on everyone’s behalf which components are more important, less important, or equal.

Provided that we can come to an equitable solution to that issue, this kind of an approach would improve the ratings, although it also leads to further complexity.

Finally, some thoughts regarding the effects category: Some people want to drop it because a lot of films don’t have effects, and deciding what to rate a film that doesn’t have effects has always been a bit of problem. I think Ladon was correct in his rubric to rate a film with no effects 0. This makes a search in the directory that is ranked by effects more meaningful. To conclude, I like our current set of categories, and I don’t think they need to be changed.

January 11, 2007 at 3:31 am #251761
Avatar of brianfast
brianfast

“Ladon” wrote:
One more thing:
Brianfast, how do you rate films, and why do you feel that your own scale is better than an averaged ratings scale?

I go from my gut. My gut tells me that a rubric is unneeded. I also would like to ask why you are so firmly against having decimal ratings?

January 11, 2007 at 3:55 am #251768
Avatar of Ferder
Ferder

“Watson” wrote:
For example, A story could be judged on the quality of the dialog, the creativity of the story, or the excellent character development, among other things. What if, as a reviewer, I feel that the creativity of the story is the most important factor, and that I feel film’s that excel in that area should be rated higher? In this case, the rubric impedes my ability to voice my opinion clearly. Similarly, what if a story is really creative and has great character development, but there dialog is poorly written? How do I deal with areas where one part is very good, and another isn’t? The current rubric does not allow that.

.

If only a few of your criteria for a good story are reached (good idea but bad dialogue and script, for example), then just give that category a lower rating. Sure, it won’t explain exactly why you gave it a lower rating, but that’s what the Discussion boards are for.

January 11, 2007 at 7:46 am #251809
Avatar of Ladon
Ladon

“Watson” wrote:
For example, A story could be judged on the quality of the dialog, the creativity of the story, or the excellent character development, among other things. What if, as a reviewer, I feel that the creativity of the story is the most important factor, and that I feel film’s that excel in that area should be rated higher? In this case, the rubric impedes my ability to voice my opinion clearly. Similarly, what if a story is really creative and has great character development, but there dialog is poorly written? How do I deal with areas where one part is very good, and another isn’t? The current rubric does not allow that.

Indeed, and these are the kinds of problems that I’m going to try and sort out in the next version of the rubric. It’s a work in progress, and I’m positive that the final product will fix all of these issues. It may just be a case of adding separate categories to the rubric, and then having the rater indicate which they value the most in a film. Seeing as I want the ‘Story’ and ‘Enjoyment’ ratings to be the most prominent (as they’re the most valuable to a browser of the directory and to the director themselves) I will be sure that those two ratings are the most accurate of all.

January 11, 2007 at 7:52 am #251810
Avatar of Ladon
Ladon

“brianfast” wrote: [quote="Ladon"]
One more thing:
Brianfast, how do you rate films, and why do you feel that your own scale is better than an averaged ratings scale?

I go from my gut. My gut tells me that a rubric is unneeded. I also would like to ask why you are so firmly against having decimal ratings?[/quote]
I’m not against decimal ratings as an outcome. I just don’t see any reason for people to be rating anything more definite than an integer. People wanting to rate ‘A 7.2 for this fine chappy!’ don’t realise how confusing that is for a director. Sure, right now there’s a .1 difference between some films at the top of the directory, but right now those ratings barely even mean anything.

January 12, 2007 at 4:00 am #252031
Avatar of brianfast
brianfast

“Ladon” wrote: [quote="brianfast"][quote="Ladon"]
One more thing:
Brianfast, how do you rate films, and why do you feel that your own scale is better than an averaged ratings scale?

I go from my gut. My gut tells me that a rubric is unneeded. I also would like to ask why you are so firmly against having decimal ratings?[/quote]
I’m not against decimal ratings as an outcome. I just don’t see any reason for people to be rating anything more definite than an integer. People wanting to rate ‘A 7.2 for this fine chappy!’ don’t realise how confusing that is for a director. Sure, right now there’s a .1 difference between some films at the top of the directory, but right now those ratings barely even mean anything.[/quote]
Because a film may be very close to being a 8 but it has some quality’s that make it a 7, hence the need for a decimal to do it justice.

January 12, 2007 at 4:14 am #252033
Avatar of Cometgreen
Cometgreen

Then you’ll have to grow some cojones and make a choice: 7 or 8.

Cometgreen

January 12, 2007 at 9:20 am #252072
Avatar of Ladon
Ladon

The rubric is meant to clear up that sort of confusion. I may end up putting a button between the integers to allow for a .5, but I see no reason to divide up ratings even more. As I said before, too many choices ruin the outcome. I see no need for 99 different rating choices.

January 12, 2007 at 10:56 am #252076
Avatar of Ladon
Ladon

I’m going to be away for a week, so I thought I might post an updated version of what I think the ratings section on the film page should look like.

There’s no image for ‘Enjoyment’, and I’m not sure ‘Interest Rating’ is the right title for the top category, but hopefully you’ll all get the idea of what I want to do. The division of technical ratings and interest ratings I think will help to identify what films are really worth watching. Still, this isn’t a final version, so if there’s anything that stands out as being wrong, just mention it helpfully instead of confusing it with the final product :)

I’ll answer any more qestions and confusion when I get back, or if I’m not too busy perhaps I’ll find some sort of wireless hotspot to tap into.

-Ladon

January 12, 2007 at 3:55 pm #252113
Avatar of Legoman182182
Legoman182182

I think that Ladon even bothering to read the whole of this thread shows some serious commitment. :lol:

I think this is a brilliant idea, and it definitely gets my vote.

January 12, 2007 at 7:43 pm #252165
Avatar of Ferder
Ferder

“Ladon” wrote: There’s no image for ‘Enjoyment’,

Why not keep the smilling mouth?

January 12, 2007 at 8:14 pm #252170
Avatar of Ladon
Ladon

“Ferder” wrote: [quote="Ladon"]There’s no image for ‘Enjoyment’,

Why not keep the smilling mouth?[/quote]

Well that was my problem. A smiling mouth implies that the film is happy. I’m sure that a number years ago there was a limited amount of films with serious subject matter, but with more and more films that aren’t exactly smile-provoking being submitted to the directory, I thought it would be a bit strange to put a smile next to them.

January 12, 2007 at 8:16 pm #252171
Avatar of Littlebrick
Littlebrick

Use a thumbs up sign.

January 12, 2007 at 9:51 pm #252205
Avatar of Schlaeps
Schlaeps

IMO, you don’t need the word “rating” in there quite as many times as you have it in that image (it seems a bit redundant). But that’s just me being nitpicky.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 94 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.