That this is problematic is exactly my point.ribcage wrote:As Paulo called it, it's a "different flavor of enjoyment" but the rating is still the same.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.
Technically, I would need to resort to negative values. Like 70 for a positively pleasing film and -70 for a SBTAG film. But since 0 is the lowest possible score, everything needs to be accommodated within the 0-100 range.ribcage wrote: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.
good idea, but also defeats the Criticker algorithms, because for 99% of other users 79 and 80 have a different meaning.ribcage wrote: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."
well, before this discussion started, I could not fathom why anybody would want give high scores for bad movies. I admit that I do better understand now where you all are coming from. But I still think it's wrong to give movies like the Yeti movie above and Godfather (or whatever you consider a masterpiece) the same score.ribcage wrote:Really what we're discovering is it just can't be defined by a number because no number can justify the contradiction.
Why can't it be easy?
We give bad movies* bad scores and good movies* good scores. No?
That's easy. Why make it complicated?
(* again: I'm not referring to the technical quality here)