Ratings categories

HomeForumsGeneral ForumsSite FeedbackRatings categories

This topic has 1 voice, contains 57 replies, and was last updated by Avatar of Brian of Gep Brian of Gep 4060 days ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 58 total)
Author Posts
Author Posts
June 10, 2003 at 7:38 pm #4781
Avatar of RevMen
RevMen

In the new film directory all films will be rated in several categories. This topic is to discuss which categories might be appropriate.

I want to try and avoid any “overall” category, that would cause people to compare films directly which really shouldn’t be compared. Rather, I’d like to try and break the ratings down into a series of categories that would allow a user of the directory to find a film he may be interested in.

For example, my current build has the categories of Animation, Effects, Sound, and Story. Somehow, though, it feels like I’m missing something.

OK, discuss!

June 10, 2003 at 7:43 pm #4782
Avatar of Yolegoman
Yolegoman

Its missing Cheese. Oh, and some Monkeys.

Other then that its fine. :)

I think part of the prob is this, Josh ( I can call you Josh, right?) is this here: Its an even #. Even #’s look odd. (Pun intended). Add another one, and it will be odd, and look right.

I learned that from my Grandma.

So now back to the topic,

What is the other one we should add?

I have to think about that one. Thats tuff. I mean tough.

Yolegoman

June 10, 2003 at 7:45 pm #4783
Avatar of The Janitor
The Janitor

Originality? Image Quality?

June 10, 2003 at 7:46 pm #4784
Avatar of RevMen
RevMen

I’m not saying you should add to what I’ve listed. I’m looking for a Total Ratings Category Solution.

You’re right, though, lists of 3 and 5 just look better than a list of 4.

June 10, 2003 at 7:50 pm #4785
Avatar of Yolegoman
Yolegoman

Hmm. So what is it you want to know? I’m in the dark. Very much so. In fact, I’m so much in the dark that I can’t find the light switch. Oh, here it is. *Flicks* Huh, thats not very bright, its more of a… spark… *reads* A timed switch bomb, eh?

*KABOOM!*

Okay next time don’t leave me in the dark.

Yolegoman

June 10, 2003 at 11:44 pm #4805
Avatar of eventide
eventide

Animation, Effects, Sound, and Story are all measures of technical quality (well, maybe not story so much). You could have a zillion categories in there like lighting, sets, etc.

A bit more subjective category (not that the above are not subjective) would be enjoyability. i.e. Did I like watching it? Would I enjoy it again? It’s certainly possible that the most enjoyable films may not be the highest technical quality. As a search engine user, I’d want to be able to find films others enjoyed in addition to those with high quality. I think there should be a kind of overall category, but worded in a way like above. Sometimes a movie just has a nice “feel” to it and you can’t point at any specific reason. Of course, there’s the possibility that this category could become meaningless because tastes vary so widely, but I think enough voters would smooth that out.

Characters would also be a nice category.

And we should look at what categories other have. I’m not a big fan of Hollywood, but it wouldn’t hurt for someone to list the categories used in, say, the Oscars.

June 11, 2003 at 8:44 am #4871
Avatar of LowweeK
LowweeK

Fun ?
Meaning the pleasure that ou got when watching it !
And I think you should also use an overall rating, on the basis of the other ratings.

June 11, 2003 at 9:00 am #4873
Avatar of Cometgreen
Cometgreen

I agree with eventide. I was thinking of a kind of “tilt” category: “I really liked this movie, but the low effects score drags down its overall rating.” Or “I didn’t like this movie that much, but I must commend it for the great effects, even if they raise the rating.” It’s basically an enjoyment rating, as others said. It may be great technically, but you don’t think that it was a great film.

Another possibility is a “Special Mention” option. You can enter in the aspect of the film you liked the most that isn’t a traditional category. For instance, you liked the cinematography, so it can say “Special Mention: Good cinematography.” If you liked the characters, it can say “Special Mention: Lovable characters.” If it’s a comedy, like a Bluntman or Buxton production (or Revmen production :wink), then it can say “Special Mention: Great jokes.” That last one would be a bit more like general comments, but you get the idea.

Cometgreen

June 11, 2003 at 9:55 am #4876
Avatar of Stefan
Stefan

I don’t know how to put it in terms concise enough to fit in with the other categories, but you might want a measure for “how much would you recommend this film to others” where 5 stars would mean a must-have and 1 star would mean “only if you have broadband and diskspace enough”.

Stefan.

June 11, 2003 at 12:28 pm #4881
Avatar of hali
hali

What has to be taken into account is that the moment you introduce specific ratings categories people will (on the whole) make films to maximise their ratings.

It is what made my job of reviewing films so hard, and why film reviews in respected film magazines are so detailed, they try to cover all aspects of a film.

If you stick to specific categories you will possibly create a situation reduced film orginality.

How do you resolve this situation? I’m not sure…

BUT if you really want to use this kind of system the less categories the better:

-Cinematography (because camera work can make a film)
-Animation (This is a stop mo site at heart)
-Audio (same as above, good audio can help a film immensely)
-Originality (if it is different to everthing thus far it has got to have something going for it)

I have issues with ‘Story’ and ‘Effects’.

Story: What about the myriad of films without a story? I’m thinking about shorts mostly, single joke, punchline films… some of these can be great… wouldn’t this category rate against this type of film? I DO understand the need to recognise great storytelling. Could it be worded as ‘Plot Development’? As a plot can be a chain of events that does not necessarily form into a complete ‘story’ as such. This is still problematic for random films…

Effects: What is meant by effects? I personally think the best effects are ones that are seamless, don’t stand out, are clever uses of filming and technology. I can see effects ending up being a measure of how much alamdv was used… NOT a good thing. You might need to be more specific with this one.

Thanks, Revmen,

Hali

June 11, 2003 at 12:41 pm #4885
Avatar of LowweeK
LowweeK

Yeah, I totally agree with Hali.
The “cinematography” is a real good point, because it’s related to the camera work and also to story-telling & timing.

I do also think that an Effect rating is not the best : people will do movies with a lot of SFX only to have a good rating. Anyway, there are zillions of good movies that don’t have any effect.

Perhaps we could find a term that covers both the set & the lighting, someting like “set design” or “photography”…

June 11, 2003 at 4:39 pm #4901
Avatar of RevMen
RevMen

I like where Hali is going with his categories. You’re right about ‘story’ and ‘effects.’ Story is kind of hard to define, especially in the realm of films averaging about 2 minutes in length, and with alamDV out there, effects are easy enough for anyone willing to spend the time.

I was also looking for a way to define a ’tilt’ category without actually using the word “tilt.” I really like Lowweek’s suggestion of ‘fun.’ How much fun was this movie to watch? I think that could be a great equalizer for films that are entertaining without necessarily looking great or sounding great. This sort of accomplishes where I wanted to go with ‘story,’ too.

I think ‘cinematography’ is a good way to cover camera movement, angles, lighting, sets, and can even be extended to editing. I think we can have special effects included in a large category like this, so that they can have a positive impact on the score but won’t overpower it.

‘Sound,’ which would include voices, effects, and music, works pretty good. This might give films with original scores a greater chance to be seen, which I personally feel is very important.

And I do feel that ‘animation’ needs to stand alone, as it is the central focus of our art and the hardest aspect of a film to fake.

OK, so now I like:
Animation
Cinematography
Sound
Fun

I’m not sure I would like ‘originality’ to stand alone. ‘Original’ does not necessarily mean ‘enjoyable.’ I would propose including originality in ‘fun.’

This discussion is going well. What other ideas are there?

June 11, 2003 at 4:55 pm #4905
Avatar of majordirector
majordirector

You could do them with different catergories like
Cinematography,
Set Production,
Animation
Story,
and maybe a last one for Effectiveness, like if it’s an action movie, does it really feel like chaos, or if its a drama, does it really get the point across, but this would probably come under the story/plot catergory, but it could include sound, to see if the sound helps to sell whats happening.

Then you could have the points from each section averaged from all the different reviews into the total for each catergory, and then these could go to a total overall rating.

Slightly off the subject:
And then from each reviewer have quotes from part of there review that sum up what they thought of the film. Like on rottentomatoes. And the Special mention thing sounds good for people who are searching for specially good movies in certain areas.

Just my thoughts. :)

June 11, 2003 at 5:05 pm #4908
Avatar of RevMen
RevMen

As far as reviews go, they will be handled by a different group of people than those doing the numerical ratings. I’ll cover this in more detail when I’m ready, but for now it is sufficient to say that the numerical ratings displayed on the film’s page will be determined by an average of ratings from a poll-like system, and will be a separate entity from the written reviews.

June 11, 2003 at 5:37 pm #4916
Avatar of Shootin Bricks
Shootin Bricks

Sorry, but I have to chime in here.

What’s wrong with story and effects?

Just because a movie doesn’t have them and therefor gets a low or non rating, doesn’t make it a bad film. It just doesn’t shine in those areas.
Some people, myself included, might want to search for a film based on whether it has a good storyline or not. And in my book, a film based on a one liner still counts as a story- it’s all in the timing and execution.
Effects goes beyond Alum DV (or whatever it’s called)- it can be as generic as that, as mindblowing as some of the stuff done with Photoshop, or as basic as using cotton balls for smoke and blue bricks for water- but if it’s done right, it still qualifies as GREAT effects and I think deserves to be recognized. Imagine you were rating Rise of the Empire and there was no option for Effects or Story.
I say they serve a purpose and need to be considered.

And aren’t Cinematography and Animation basically the same thing?

What has to be taken into account is that the moment you introduce specific ratings categories people will (on the whole) make films to maximise their ratings

You say that like it’s a bad thing, Hali :P
Let’s see- If the last film I made got high ratings in everything but story, wouldn’t that tell me either:
A- I need to work on my storytelling/plot development skills
or
B- It’s simply not my strongsuit and maybe I should continue to focus on those areas in which I excel.
Either way, it’s valuable feedback and I thought that was the whole purpose of a review.

Perhaps what is needed is a way to simply not show catagories that don’t apply to a particular film. If no effects were attempted, then theres no need to include Effects when rating it (Either it simply doesn’t show up or is accompanied by an N/A). If, however, they were attempted and done badly, then that’s something that needs to be acknowledged and provided for in terms of feedback.

Theres my opinion, for what it’s worth.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 58 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.