June 10, 2003 at 7:38 pm #4781
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
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.
YolegomanJune 10, 2003 at 7:45 pm #4783
Originality? Image Quality?June 10, 2003 at 7:46 pm #4784
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
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?
Okay next time don’t leave me in the dark.
YolegomanJune 10, 2003 at 11:44 pm #4805
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
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
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.
CometgreenJune 11, 2003 at 9:55 am #4876
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
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.