Return To: Board Index | General Discussion

Do you rate ridiculously bad movies 0 or >0 ?

Introduce yourself to the community or chat with other users about whatever is on your mind
livelove
Posts: 622
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:36 pm

Re: How do you rate ridiculously bad movies: 0 or >0 ?

Postby livelove » Sat Sep 21, 2019 10:52 pm

ribcage wrote:
livelove wrote:The ranking system can only work if all users reply (by way of their ratings) to the same question.

To put it in the simplest possible terms, I'd say the question is
"How good/bad did you find the movie?"

Now if users use their vote to reply to different questions, e.g.
"How much did you laugh?"
"How much did your partner like the movie?"
"How much did it help you improve your foreign language skills?"

... then the film's aggregate score doesn't reflect anything.

But if you're over there rating like some kind of textbook and I'm over here rating like a hooligan, my PSIs are gonna fall in line with the hooligans and yours the textbooks, we'll hardly need to cross paths. So we can both keep doing what we're doing and never know the difference.

Bartbaard wrote:Exactly. That's what the TCI is for, ain't it?

I think I disagree.

• First of all, it would be nice if not only the TCI but also the movie's average percentile also were a meaningful number/measurement. And if half of users translate "so-bad-that-it's-good" to 0 and the other half of users to 100, then that gives an average of 50, which is hardly a meaningful to either group.

• Second of all, the TCI is calculated based on your movie rankings. The TCI is just a mathematical formula. It doesn't know whether the number 70 refers to an "excellent movie" or "so-bad-that-it's-good movie". That's my whole point. If the same voting range is used for both excellent movies and so-bad-that-it's-good movies, then that falsifies the TCI calculations and harms the ranking system.



PS: I don't know exactly what you mean by textbook and hooligan.

livelove
Posts: 622
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:36 pm

Re: How do you rate ridiculously bad movies: 0 or >0 ?

Postby livelove » Sat Sep 21, 2019 11:03 pm

Anomaly1 wrote:Why would "so bad it's good" be the ultimate in badness? At least if you're laughing at a film, you're still feeling SOMETHING positive. Emotion is how we respond to the outside world, and fiction is built on deliberately inciting those same emotions. A film in which the only emotion engaged is a profoundly negative boredom, or even no emotion at all, would be worse by this metric. That, in my opinion, would have a much better claim at "ultimate badness."

My ratings are (roughly) a measure of my positive emotional engagement with the film in question. Something which I laugh at will be ranked higher than something which profoundly bores me, even if the laughter was unintended. For example, I'd be much more willing to rewatch The Room than Manos, because at least I can get some positive experience out of the former, and my ratings reflect this.


I am in general agreement with your position, except that I have to say there is a huge difference between laughing about / enjoying a good movie and laughing because the movie is so bad. It's a bit like laughing with someone or at someone.

But I don't draw the same conclusions as you, because yes, I agree that we can enjoy a movie because it's so bad, but I think there should be a numerical distinction between enjoying a good movie and enjoying an incredibly terrible movie. Otherwise the ranking system loses it's meaning.

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.

ribcage
Posts: 180
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:13 pm

Re: How do you rate ridiculously bad movies: 0 or >0 ?

Postby ribcage » Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:17 am

livelove wrote:I mean, what is a voting system good for, if a number like 65 can either mean
"pretty good film"
"extremely bad film"
?


Because if you aren't trying to rank, quantify the highly subjective quality of the film itself, but rather the highly subjective quality of the viewing experience, these numbers can make more sense and support the seemingly contradictory nature of a "bad" film that still holds merit as enjoyable entrainment.

And if you're worried about harming rankings or not being able to sift through quality...I mean, PSIs should help but look at this realistically. Imagine this: I see two movies, each with an 80 PSI. I will like both of these movies. But one of them is "so bad it's good", one is not. How can I know the difference? Well, even if I avoid looking at mini-reviews for help, I'm seasoned enough to catch the red flags in cast, crew and definitely the synopsis. So the distinction can be found, even if it can't be found numerically, since the number is reflecting pure enjoyment level. If I love watching Miami Connection as much as Raiders of the Lost Ark, I had better give them both the same score otherwise my whole rating system will indeed fall apart.

I will agree that finding the fun bad movies is hard, as it's a very elusive sweet spot, and as you move away from established cult films it begins to vary wildly on personal taste. But getting a number to this would hardly help, it's again gonna take knowing what and who you like and getting into the details of who made the movie and what it's about and maybe even when it was made.

ribcage
Posts: 180
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:13 pm

Re: How do you rate ridiculously bad movies: 0 or >0 ?

Postby ribcage » Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:30 am

By textbook I meant rating movies strictly on a "how good is it" way, as if they were being ranked for a study of film.

And by hooligan I meant reckless punks, jokers like me, firing off rankings straight from the gut, watching movies exclusively for fun and entertainment.

livelove
Posts: 622
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:36 pm

Re: How do you rate ridiculously bad movies: 0 or >0 ?

Postby livelove » Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:34 am

ribcage wrote:By textbook I meant rating movies strictly on a "how good is it" way, as if they were being ranked for a study of film.

And by hooligan I meant reckless punks, jokers like me, firing off rankings straight from the gut, watching movies exclusively for fun and entertainment.
well, then I'm actually in your camp ;)

livelove
Posts: 622
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:36 pm

Re: How do you rate ridiculously bad movies: 0 or >0 ?

Postby livelove » Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:45 am

ribcage wrote:I see two movies, each with an 80 PSI. I will like both of these movies. But one of them is "so bad it's good", one is not. How can I know the difference? Well, even if I avoid looking at mini-reviews for help, I'm seasoned enough to catch the red flags in cast, crew and definitely the synopsis. So the distinction can be found, even if it can't be found numerically
It's not that I don't see where you are coming from with this, but I still think there should be a numerical distinction/difference, because I think it's just not the same thing if you enjoy a movie because it's good or because it's incredibly, unbelievably, terribly bad ...

That's just not the same thing at all.
So to me it doesn't make sense to give it the same score.

Imagine someone gives the Godfather a score of 100 because he thinks this is a cinematic masterpiece that is so excellent as if it were not of this world. And then he also gives "Plan 9 from Outher Space" a score of 100, because it is sooooo bad.

I am sorry, but this just doesn't feel right to me.


ribcage wrote:the number is reflecting pure enjoyment level. If I love watching Miami Connection as much as Raiders of the Lost Ark, I had better give them both the same score otherwise my whole rating system will indeed fall apart.
I agree that the numbers should reflect the enjoyment level. But again, it should matter whether we enjoyed the movie because it's good or so bad.

The rule is to vote based upon the enjoyment level, ok.
But enjoying a movie because it's soooo bad, to me is not the rule but the exception.
And in this exception, I'll vote 0 to reflect that.

paulofilmo
Posts: 2227
3 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:40 pm

Re: How do you rate ridiculously bad movies: 0 or >0 ?

Postby paulofilmo » Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:38 am

livelove wrote:I don't think we disagree though, because if it's a movie you appreciate and that you would recommend to your former self, well than it's a good movie in your book, right?


Yeah. I think the confusion for me came from your 'Now if users use their vote to reply to different questions.."How much did you laugh?"... then the film's aggregate score doesn't reflect anything.' comment. I guess you were giving sort of hyperbolic, singular criterion/values for film appreciation (Citizen Kane didn't make me laugh very much, therefore it is a bad movie!). And I just misread you.

However! If someone only really valued laughter, then, yeah, they ought to rate accordingly. And ideally they find people who have the same sense of humour on Criticker. Or Criticker should somehow adapt to this sort of rater.


But I feel there is a difference between enjoying a film, because it is good, or because it is sooooooo bad.
And that should be reflected in the numbers somewhat. Would you disagree ?


I disagree. Not with conviction, though. I'm not the best person to engage with this, because I don't search out/or have seen many of these soooooo bad movies. I gave American Flyers a 'would recommend this to my former self' score. Naive things can have a peculiar charm that I appreciate/value. Yes it's a different flavour of enjoyment, but I value it about the same as Chinatown or The Bridge on the River Kwai. Heck, it's one point below The Godfather.

Because otherwise you can't distinguish a good film from a bad film, and that's certainly not the purpose of a voting system, right ?

I mean, what is a voting system good for, if a number like 65 can either mean
"pretty good film"
"extremely bad film"
?


I don't know what the purpose is exactly. Criticker is a log of my film memories/experiences, roughly ordered. And it's nice to find people who seem to have had similar memories. If they appreciated a 'bad' movie, I think they should rate it alongside other movies they appreciated. I think it's the best option—at least in terms of what Criticker is capable of.

Proximity
Posts: 37
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 2:29 am

Re: How do you rate ridiculously bad movies: 0 or >0 ?

Postby Proximity » Sun Sep 22, 2019 9:30 am

livelove wrote:You are ruining the ratings and TCIs by voting >0.

One of the reasons for that is, that if you rate them at, say, 40, you cannot distinguish anymore between
so bad that it's good = 40
and
ok / decent = 40



Not so sure about that. You can just give the worst films a 1, which is what I do. It hasn't fucked my TCI at all.

Neowulf
Posts: 7
260 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 1:05 am

Re: How do you rate ridiculously bad movies: 0 or >0 ?

Postby Neowulf » Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:11 pm

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. And what do you then give movies that you actually hated to watch?

I want to be recommended movies that I enjoy. If there are 100 clones of me with the exact same tastes out there on Criticker, I want them to rate highly a "textbook bad" movie that they enjoyed, so my PSI of it reflects that.

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? No matter how you turn it, it's not enough to look at only the score to determine why a movie has that score or what type of experience watching it would be - you'll always have to seek out some more information of some kind.

ribcage
Posts: 180
0 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 10:13 pm

Re: How do you rate ridiculously bad movies: 0 or >0 ?

Postby ribcage » Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:23 pm

livelove wrote:The rule is to vote based upon the enjoyment level, ok.
But enjoying a movie because it's soooo bad, to me is not the rule but the exception.
And in this exception, I'll vote 0 to reflect that.


But it's not the exception, it's still the same rule. As Paulo called it, it's a "different flavor of enjoyment" but the rating is still the same.

If you have voted a movie "so bad it's good" a 0, alongside something boring, unredeemable, unwatchable a 0, then you've gone the other way away from being able to identify this elusive "so bad it's good" status. 0 is just bad, no enjoyment. So if it's a 0 as a technical failure, but a 70 for the actual pleasure of watching it, you giving it a 0 implies no value of any kind. So that does the reverse of rating purely on enjoyment value (which gives a higher number) and still can't give a true representation of the film.

I suppose, if someone wanted to, they could rate by, let's say increments of 5 only but reserve scores ending in a 4 or a 9 to indicate a technical failure that still entertains. I.e. 80 is a traditionally "good" film and a 79 is a film of equal enjoyment but not equal in technical skill, not traditionally "good."

Really what we're discovering is it just can't be defined by a number because no number can justify the contradiction.


Return to “General Discussion”