Skyline

Looking at it subjectively, if you take a film as an entity which is considered good or bad depending upon how it's viewed by others, then it's fair to say that the ratings given to films in something like imdb.com are indicative of how good a film is (given a large enough sample of voters anyway).

Skyline - 4.7/10 - obviously not well received by voters.
Inception - 9/10 - very well received
Moon - 8/10 0 again well received

I get what you're saying about opinions etc dmpoole, but at the end of the day if the majority of people think a film is good and rate it as such, it can be classified (relatively) as a "good film", outside of individual opinions. However something being "good" can be very subjective.

I think you skew the ratings a bit too much though on your scores, the overall score out of 10 should be made up of multiple aspects. How good the acting is, story line, visuals, script etc. Replayability is only a part of what makes up the score a film should receive. Being able to watch a film many times, even one you like watching a lot, shouldn't make it an automatic 10. Likewise something you watched but didn't enjoy for several reason shouldn't be 0/10 automatically.

I really like a lot of films but to get 10/10 you're basically saying the film is perfect and couldn't be any better. I can count on one hand the number of films i'd actually, honestly, give 10/10 to. In fact i'd say the only thing I can think of right now where this is true is Shawshank Redemption.

Equally I wouldn't give even a film I didn't enjoy 0/10 just because I didn't like it, a bad film I might say is only a 2 or 3 out of 10, but normally they have some kind of redeeming features meaning the film scores above a 0.
 
Eulogy said:
Looking at it subjectively, if you take a film as an entity which is considered good or bad depending upon how it's viewed by others, then it's fair to say that the ratings given to films in something like imdb.com are indicative of how good a film is (given a large enough sample of voters anyway).

Skyline - 4.7/10 - obviously not well received by voters.
Inception - 9/10 - very well received
Moon - 8/10 0 again well received

I get what you're saying about opinions etc dmpoole, but at the end of the day if the majority of people think a film is good and rate it as such, it can be classified (relatively) as a "good film", outside of individual opinions. However something being "good" can be very subjective.

I think you skew the ratings a bit too much though on your scores, the overall score out of 10 should be made up of multiple aspects. How good the acting is, story line, visuals, script etc. Replayability is only a part of what makes up the score a film should receive. Being able to watch a film many times, even one you like watching a lot, shouldn't make it an automatic 10. Likewise something you watched but didn't enjoy for several reason shouldn't be 0/10 automatically.

I really like a lot of films but to get 10/10 you're basically saying the film is perfect and couldn't be any better. I can count on one hand the number of films i'd actually, honestly, give 10/10 to. In fact i'd say the only thing I can think of right now where this is true is Shawshank Redemption.

Equally I wouldn't give even a film I didn't enjoy 0/10 just because I didn't like it, a bad film I might say is only a 2 or 3 out of 10, but normally they have some kind of redeeming features meaning the film scores above a 0.
Click to expand...

Eulogy, if I were in the room I would give you a sloppy kiss on the cheek. Far, far more eloquently put than I could be arsed to write... and 100% spot on.
 
Eulogy said:
the overall score out of 10 should be made up of multiple aspects. How good the acting is, story line, visuals, script etc..
Click to expand...

Not really because there have been some films made on a shoe string with awful acting that have been great eg Made In England, Dead mans Shoes (in my opinion).
Just because a film has won 20 Oscars for acting, effects and music score does not automatically make it a film I would want to watch.
The only score I'm going to give is how much I enjoyed the film.
On your scoring I would give something like Inception:
Effects : 10
Storyline : 8
Music Score : 8
Acting : 8
Enjoyment : 0

That would be an average of 6.8 but the most important part for me is how much I enjoyed the film.

Once again we use that scoring for Skyline:
Effects : 10
Storyline : 7
Music Score : 5
Acting : 7
Enjoyment : 0

That would come in at 5.8 which would be a farce.

I'd prefer to keep to my scoring if you don't mind because I think it's more accurate.

Oh and Shawshank Redemption bored the hell out of me but I give it 3/10.
 
dmpoole said:
Not really because there have been some films made on a shoe string with awful acting that have been great eg Made In England, Dead mans Shoes (in my opinion).
Just because a film has won 20 Oscars for acting, effects and music score does not automatically make it a film I would want to watch.
The only score I'm going to give is how much I enjoyed the film.
On your scoring I would give something like Inception:
Effects : 10
Storyline : 8
Music Score : 8
Acting : 8
Enjoyment : 0

That would be an average of 6.8 but the most important part for me is how much I enjoyed the film.

Once again we use that scoring for Skyline:
Effects : 10
Storyline : 7
Music Score : 5
Acting : 7
Enjoyment : 0

That would come in at 5.8 which would be a farce.

I'd prefer to keep to my scoring if you don't mind because I think it's more accurate.

Oh and Shawshank Redemption bored the hell out of me but I give it 3/10.
Click to expand...

So enjoyment trumps all then? I enjoy some films more than others and obviously that impacts the score I give a film, but it's not the be all and end all by any means.

It's also not as cut and dry as add the components together and divide by the number of components present. You can have great films that don't even use effects for example.

The fact is you appear to be missing the point of a 0-10 rating system, if you are rating films you don't like as 0 and ones you do as 10, you may as well just say you don't like them or do like them rather than arbitrarily scoring films in this way.

The fact you think that Shawshank Redemption is a 3/10 film also automatically makes your opinion an anomaly, and as such null and void! :)

EDIT - We can probably argue all day about what films you think are good/bad, but in the end, as pointed out there's no way to factually state that a film is a "good film" or a "bad film" as it's subjective. The only measure we have of this is the scoring systems on places like imdb.com, if thousands of people rate things like Shawshank, Inception with high scores, then most people obviously think these films are "good films". You can obviously turn around and say "No, I didn't think it was a good film, i'd give it 0/10", but a large percentage of people would disagree with you on that.
 
Last edited:
dmpoole said:
Oh and Shawshank Redemption bored the hell out of me but I give it 3/10.
Click to expand...

/endthread.


Eulogy said:
So enjoyment trumps all then? I enjoy some films more than others and obviously that impacts the score I give a film, but it's not the be all and end all by any means.

It's also not as cut and dry as add the components together and divide by the number of components present. You can have great films that don't even use effects for example.

The fact is you appear to be missing the point of a 0-10 rating system, if you are rating films you don't like as 0 and ones you do as 10, you may as well just say you don't like them or do like them rather than arbitrarily scoring films in this way.

The fact you think that Shawshank Redemption is a 3/10 film also automatically makes your opinion an anomaly, and as such null and void! :)

EDIT - We can probably argue all day about what films you think are good/bad, but in the end, as pointed out there's no way to factually state that a film is a "good film" or a "bad film" as it's subjective. The only measure we have of this is the scoring systems on places like imdb.com, if thousands of people rate things like Shawshank, Inception with high scores, then most people obviously think these films are "good films". You can obviously turn around and say "No, I didn't think it was a good film, i'd give it 0/10", but a large percentage of people would disagree with you on that.
Click to expand...

<3
 
Eulogy said:
EDIT - We can probably argue all day about what films you think are good/bad, but in the end, as pointed out there's no way to factually state that a film is a "good film" or a "bad film" as it's subjective. The only measure we have of this is the scoring systems on places like imdb.com, if thousands of people rate things like Shawshank, Inception with high scores, then most people obviously think these films are "good films". You can obviously turn around and say "No, I didn't think it was a good film, i'd give it 0/10", but a large percentage of people would disagree with you on that.
Click to expand...

All that arguing back and forth to basically come to the conclusion that we are all saying the same thing. Brilliant.
 
Eulogy said:
So enjoyment trumps all then? .
Click to expand...

YES, what other reason is there to go and watch a film?
Are you one of those people that say "Well I'm not going to enjoy Pride & Prejudice but I'm going for the acting" or "Aliens isn't my thing but I'm going to watch it for the amazing CGI" or "I know Social Network is crap but it's got a great soundtrack by Trent Raznor and I'll pay just for that".
YES ABSOLUTELY, enjoyment of the film is the only thing I'm interested in.
I really don't think my scoring system is flawed.
 
I saw this saturday night. It wasn't exactly bad but it wasn't really good either. Sorta middle of the road for me.

The story seemed interesting but I hated the hole POV from the idiot chars in it. I mean I don't know if it was bad acting or just plain bad chars but I hated all of them. I honestly did not give a dam when one died. If anything I just wanted them to die so the story could go on.

Oh and the ending.... PFFFTT what a crap finish I mean seriously ?!?! the whole thing was rushed and just awful so very very awful.
 
dmpoole said:
YES, what other reason is there to go and watch a film?
Are you one of those people that say "Well I'm not going to enjoy Pride & Prejudice but I'm going for the acting" or "Aliens isn't my thing but I'm going to watch it for the amazing CGI" or "I know Social Network is crap but it's got a great soundtrack by Trent Raznor and I'll pay just for that".
YES ABSOLUTELY, enjoyment of the film is the only thing I'm interested in.
I really don't think my scoring system is flawed.
Click to expand...

Like you have never just watched a film for the norks :p
 
Eulogy said:
L
Equally I wouldn't give even a film I didn't enjoy 0/10 just because I didn't like it, a bad film I might say is only a 2 or 3 out of 10, but normally they have some kind of redeeming features meaning the film scores above a 0.
Click to expand...

Exactly right, however Skyline had absolutely zero redeeming features, thus it's a 0/10.
 
Makunouchi said:
I'm still agreeing with dmpoole, personal enjoyment (in my opinion) is the only criteria which counts.
Click to expand...

Jesus, so every film which you don't enjoy is 0/10 as well then? my whole point here is that some films you can enjoy more than others, and those deserve a higher score, but for a film to truly be deserving of 0/10 it has to be so dire that everything about it is terrible.

Let's put this in perspective, if you were looking to buy a piece of consumer kit, camera, mobile phone, whatever. You might go and check some reviews first, right?. If all the reviewers simply marked the scores down at 0 for every piece of kit they didn't like it would be completely pointless even reviewing them.

Instead a balanced approach is necessary, one which takes into account all the aspects of what is being reviewed.
 
Nothing wrong with dmpoole liking crap films :p

Saying Shawshank is a bad film is a pretty bold statement. Sure he's entitled to his opinion but that doesn't mean that the majority can't conclude his opinion is naff!

I've had massive debates on here about opinion on film. It all comes down to two things

1) People who watch films as a commodity, providing a couple of hours of escapism.

2) People who want to 'expereince' a film and relate it to real life.

The majority (Hollywood) fall in to group 1 and are looking for as entertaining a film as possible.

Nothing wrong with that, but I like to get more than entertainment from a film. For the masses, entertainment is sufficient. They are even often willing to dis-regard bad acting and plot-holes as long as the film maintains high levels of entertainment.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom