Neowulf wrote:To me it doesn't matter if a movie is technically inferior, zero-budget, made by unskilled people, hated by critics, or if I enjoyed for the opposite reasons that the film-maker had hoped I would. If I enjoyed watching it, it gets a high grade. If I hated watching it and wish I hadn't, it gets a zero. Surely this should work out correctly for PSIs and stuff. If you would say to your friends, or as was cleverly posited, to your former self, "Hey, you have to see this movie, it's hilariously bad, I had a really good time!", how can you then possibly give it a zero? It makes no sense to me.
I do understand you, but notice that even in your quote you made sure that you added "it's hilariously bad". You wouldn't just recommend the movie just by saying "I had a really good time!" – simply because it
matters, whether you had a good time, because the movie was good, or because it was terribly bad. It just is not the same thing. So to put the same number on it, just makes no sense to me.
I don't even know if we are talking about the same type of movie. I am not talking guilty pleasures or movies that are aware of themselves being bad and poking fun at themselves, neither am I talking about movies spoofing other movies, because they need to be bad for the spoof to work.
I am talking about none of these movies.
I am talking about movies like this:
Yeti: Curse of the Snow DemonI once started a "100 things I have learned" thread on IMDb and I think we easily topped 300 or so. It was hilarious.
Measuring how much I laughed, I could easily give this 100 points.
Are you seriously suggesting this movie is on par with the best cinematic masterpieces ever made (even if you take your own personal, subjective cinematic masterpieces) ?
Neowulf wrote:And what do you then give movies that you actually hated to watch?
my rating system is explained here:
RULES that help you decide how to voteNeowulf wrote:livelove wrote:Sometimes, if I am in the mood, I am intentionally seeking a terribly bad movie I can laugh at. And to find such movies on Criticker, I obviously need to search for the lowest possible ranking or TCI, i.e. zero. If people rate such movies 70 or higher, than that obviously defeats this purpose. And that's just one example to illustrate why this harms the ranking system.
But in this scenario, how do you distinguish between movies that are so bad they're funny, and those that are actually just terrible and boring?
you are right, it's technically possible that a movie is just terrible without being funny. In my view, every point has to be deserved, so if a movie has not earned anything, it gets zero points from me.
But since both type of movies are terrible, the 0 vote is correct for both, as the Criticker ranking scale is not meant to be a laugh-o-meter but an appreci-o-meter.