What makes a good ratings system?
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 05. 2024
- So here are some of my impeccable thoughts on the many ratings systems I have come across on my Letterboxd ventures. Hope you enjoy!
Twitter : / beneleveniscool
Letterboxd : letterboxd.com/p1np0int - Zábava
I like to watch good movies instead of mid or bad movies, so my rating system is like a staircase going up to a 10/10
same
That's impressive actually how you're able to find that many 10/10 movies to the point where it's the most frequent rating
@@BenEleven1127 it’s been a few weeks since I posted the comment. I changed a few of my ratings after thinking
My rating system for movies/games/music goes like this:
5: Personal favorite
4: I will actively seek it out
3: I wont avoid it, but I wont actively seek it out
2: I will avoid it
1: Personal least favorite
Sounds pretty water tight, so would you say 1s and 5s are pretty rare for you because "personal least favorite" and "personal favorite" sound like they wouldn't be seen all that often
@@BenEleven1127 All of my personal favorites are the movies i grew up with/have nostalgia for, the movies that are special to me. And there are actually quite a few. At least, compared to the amount of movies I've reviewed that aren't personal favorites. But the personal least favorites aren't common at all. Those are only movies that actually offend me or something. I can only think of one movie that I would consider a 1, which is a low budget horror movie I saw on Netflix that I can't even remember the name of.
My ratings are heavily skewed to the positive end cause I like to seek out good and great films
I feel that, sometimes we just wanna say no to subjecting ourselves to the neverending torture of Dear Evan Hansen...
My relationship with film, anime, and manga could pretty much be summed up as: As long as it wasn't a 3 or lower, I probably thought of it positively to some extent.
Huh interesting, so you would say that a 4/10 movie would be something you thought positively of?
@@BenEleven1127 Oh yeah, two examples could be Venom 2 and/or Holes. I am not a fan of the plot and directing of the Venom movies, but the mental hijinks that ensue between Venom and Eddie Brock, always leave me wanting more from that relationship. I acknowledge the (imo) shoddy writing while accepting that there is a progression for these characters that I do like, making it into a feature that I somewhat do enjoy despite considering it below average. Same thing with Holes sort of. I'm not all too hyped for that movie but it is still a pretty good story in my book. Tbh, my favorite ratings are probably 4/10s and 6/10s because I have the most nuanced conflicts when rating those movies.
I’m the type that if a movie entertained me even with flaws I just rate it 5 stars. My ratings are all over the place ha ha. I just love movies to much... which is why I would be a terrible critic.
That's great, I'm glad your able to look past the issues you see in a film and enjoy it anyways. And like I said in the video, I don't think there's such thing as a terrible critic, just some people who like to convey their opinions a little differently than others.
Thanks for sharing!
I usually take any of the ratings I see on letterboxd (regardless of the user) with a grain of salt and wait time truly judge something until I actually see it. But that’s just my system I guess. Great video, glad you like yms too.
I think I need more than a grain while browsing Letterboxd sometimes... And I appreciate it man. Also I just checked out some of your stuff and I'm really digging it. You just got yourself another subscriber.
I was randomly searching some letterboxd related videos and got this one.
Editing of this video was really great.keep up the good work 😀
Thank you so much for the kind words! Yeah this video has managed to attract a decent amount of attention so it makes me so happy that people are enjoying it. Hope you enjoy the rest of my content!
Good video!
I usually give a 3.5 stars to most stuff and if don't like something i give it a 2.5 or 2 stars, and if i really like something i give it 4 stars.
1 stars are for the worst of the worst and 5 stars are for the Best of the best
Sounds like a pretty seamless way of looking at it, it's interesting cause 3.5 is around the average for me too. Maybe a combination of us seeking out movies we know we'd like and the fact that movies made nowadays are just overall pretty good? Who knows
when he pulled that rating off the shelf i started dying. not because it's funny...
but because it's never that easy :(
Haha, glad to know I'm not the only one who furiously stares at my letterboxd for hours on end trying to think of what to rate every movie...
Our lives are very difficult :(
@@BenEleven1127 fr
Imagine being able to differentiate the quality of different Marvel films.
Wow great editing and video over all. Nice job.
Appreciate the compliments! So glad you enjoyed it
i've found a perfect way for me to rate movies - I give a movie 2 categories a star rating and then average it out. The two categories are called "Cinema" and "Enjoyment", a little self-explanatory but basically "Cinema" means the artistic quality behind the film so editing, cinematography, script etc, and "Enjoyment" is how I felt watching the movie so like "that was so fucking fun" or "I was so fucking bored". For example - Clueless (1995) - 'Cinema' 2 stars, 'Enjoyment' 4 stars = 2 and a half star average, or 12 Years a Slave (2013) - 'Cinema' 4 stars, 'Enjoyment' 1 star = 3 star average.
I wished more people would do this so that I could really gauge what I'm in for with a movie. Some people want to watch heavy artistic films and others just want a good time
Wow that's a pretty interesting technique. I find it most interesting how you chose to rate 12 years a slave with a 1 in enjoyment, did you rate it this lowly because of how heavy the subject matter was or was it just not your cup of tea overall?
your avg scores should be opposite, also i find your rating philosophy and your conclusion dumb
This is one I actually use, but I call them objective and subjective respectively, and I also use subjective rankings for my lists. Mortal Kombat: Annhilation is an easy 0/10, but I find it really funny and give it a 10/10.
I’m literally the 2nd guy at rating movies. Basically how I rate is “bad” which is 1 star, good which is 3 stars, and great which is straight up 5 stars lol.
Haha, didn't mean to call you out like that. But it's cool to see that a decent amount of people have a similar system to the second dude
The way that you made this video it's so funny and good. great job fella.
Thanks a ton for the compliment! Glad you enjoyed something I made.
I think I have found a really good system that basically works like tier lists. As in, I might personally dislike a two and a half star movie more than a half star, but that doesn't mean that the half star is objectively a better movie. It basically goes like this (keep in mind, the movies I'm going to mention are only examples of movies I consider fit that category to help illustrate my point, you don't have to agree with me):
Starting of, we have the half stars, which means a truly awful film with zero redeeming qualities. That would be a film like Crimes of Grindelwald.
The one star is a movie that is pretty terrible, but there are at least one or two redeeming qualities that stop it from being a half star. So, I hate Joker, but I can't help but concede that the music, cinematography, and acting in that movie are all really strong. Therefore, one star it is.
The defining trait of the one and a half star movie is boredom. Unlike the previous two categories, which are mainly motivated by rage or frustration, a one and a half star is a film that, no matter how many good or even great qualities it has, the main thing that always sticks out about is how unbearably exhausting it was to watch. The 2014 Godzilla, for example, has impeccable cinematography and sound design, but you couldn't pay me to care even slightly about the plot.
The two star is interesting, because technically the one and a half stars are probably "better". But I have it this way because, for me, two stars stands in for a film with a lot of enjoyable or great elements that you can legitimately adore, but it lacks competence for it to be placed any higher. So, Matrix Reloaded is a truly spectacular action film with unbelievable visuals, editing, choreography, and even themes and ideas, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a movie with a messier screenplay.
The two and a half stars movie is the worst type of movie to me, because it means that it's the one that provokes no emotional reaction, neither positive nor negative, and that to me is worse than a film sucking. The two and a half stars is an absolutely functional and inoffensive film that you're going to forget the moment you finish it, because it's that bland. A lot of Netflix Originals fit this category, but for easiness' sake, let's use the film Belfast as an example.
The three star is where we start getting into a bit more personal territory. It's an above average film that is A) functional and B) features something extra to avoid being a two and a half star. That little something extra is usually an aesthetic style, or a neat story choice. Both this and the two stars can qualify as "guilty pleasure movies", with the main difference that the three star functions as a whole. What you classify as a three star can vary for you depending on your tastes, but for me, this is where a film like Flash Gordon would land. Is it a masterfully crafted narrative? No, but the corny aesthetic makes it incredibly entertaining.
Three and a half stars means we can finally start talking about narrative and themes. These are films with actually engaging stories or other such qualities, except there are still some flaws that prevent them from being ranked any higher. This is where I place most films I watch, and it takes a film that can truly knock my socks off to consider placing it higher. So, I absolutely adore the third Pirates movie, and consider it to be a woefully underrated modern masterpiece, but its way too convoluted plot and several structure and pacing issues prevent me from saying it's truly flawless.
Four stars is a good, or even great movie, that fully achieves what it sets out to do, and whatever flaws it might have are so miniscule and insignificant that they're not enough to drop it. This doesn't mean that it has to be a serious drama to get in here. For example, Scott Pilgrim vs the World is an over-the-top action comedy masterpiece, and it deserves to land here.
For the last two categories, I'm incredibly stingy, because these are the films I consider to be absolutely perfect, and the thing that separates the four and a half from the five star are incredibly minor, downright nitpicky things. So, even an absolutely towering cinematic achievement like Apocalypse Now doesn't crack the five stars for me because it can drag at times and the Extended Cut adds a few unnecessary scenes.
Finally, the five stars are reserved for the highest of high hitters, the films so unequivocally perfect that I could very easily defend them as the greatest of all time. They're incredibly few and far between, but they're these rare landmarks that truly redefine the medium. Films like Lawrence of Arabia, Vertigo, and the Prince of Egypt don't deserve anything lower than five stars.
So, yeah, that's the system. I think it's pretty good and fair, all things considered
wow, joker surprised me
What is your Letterboxd? You seem like a smart person who can articulate his thoughts and know a lot about films
What's the difference between the 1.5 and 2.5 star ratings? You said 1.5 stars mean boredom, and 2.5 means "provoking no positive/negative reaction", which is pretty much the same thing?
@@abeke5523 Boredom is an emotion, it's that dread you're feeling when a boring movie drags on for seemingly forever and you keep checking your watch or your phone. A bland 2.5 star movie can be perfectly serviceable and decently paced and never evoke that frustration you're feeling when stuck on a boring movie, but you forget about it the minute it's over, whereas you remember that boring movie because you remember how unpleasant it was to sit through.
@@niktri8312 ok, in other words, 1.5 is painfully boring and 2.5 is just forgettably boring
Great editing on the video!
Appreciate it!
I ended up having to discover my rating system. When i first made a letterboxd, i was rating things pretty intuitively, without much active comparison. From there, after a couple months, I teased out what it was my natural rating system was from what I had already rated. Now I try to stick to that consistently. 1/10 through 4/10 are just varying degrees of below average. 5/10 is standard fare, the film is no better or worse than the majority of what's on offer in theatres. 6/10 means the film had something of note, it's somehow better than average, whether that be technically or even contextually (like in the case of something like Roar). 7/10 means the film had roughly equal parts good qualities and flaws that actively drag it down. And for me an 8/10 is as high as it goes without subjective considerations. An 8/10 means if the film had any flaws, none that I think are big enough that they make it worse. 9s and 10s represent whether an 8 emotionally and/or intellectually engaged me. If we're talking about a film that has no particularly glaring issues AND it connected with me emotionally AND got me thinking about things beyond the film itself, that's a 10. What more could I ask for from a movie than that.
Love this video
Hey thanks a ton for the kind words, glad you enjoyed it.
When I want to find out opinions from someone who really watched the movie closely, I always read 2-star and 3-star ratings first because they give the most well-rounded picture of what to expect and are often more well-thought-out (two-stars give balanced critiques that aren't emotion-driven and three-stars give praise and highlight accomplishments without overly gushing while also acknowledging flaws), one-star ratings are often trolls and emotionally-driven spite-ratings, while five-star ratings are often fanboys and people being paid to boost the rating, four-star reviews are tricky, many are legit but some are just fanboys or paid raters not wanting to seem too obvious.
My rating system, I calculate adding the stars for different aspects:
0-½ stars for cinematography/0-½ stars for cinematography (sound&music)
1 star for actors (0-½-1) was the acting good? Was the actor charismatic?
1 star for the script (0-½-1)
1 star for engagement (0-½-1) is the movie boring?
1 star for the personal relation (0-½-1) did i cry? Did i find comparing myself to the characters? Is it touching me personally?
It's very convenient for me to use and I've worked a couple of years on it. I tend to watch some mediocre or shitty movies too to know the difference if I see too many high ratings in the last period of time.
My problem with this is that whether it "is boring" or "touches you emotionally" is the direct result of the aspects you already took into consideration above. So you're effectively rating the cinematography/script/acting/etc twice.
@@kuusakat1308 not really. It can be deathly boring for me and still be a classic masterpiece (Ran). Or it can be a trashy tubi movie and i would still feel it in my heart (Sharkanado).
So what makes it boring then? What does it come down to other than the elements of the movie?@@teissi
@@kuusakat1308 My own personal feeling. And nothing else. This is exactly what prevents me from rating classics too low and junk too high. Because everyone feels different about the same element of a movie. E.g. I absolutely acknowledge the brilliance of the cinematography and storytelling of the movie Ran, but that movie just doesn't speak to me at all, at least in this period of my life.
So what makes the cinematography and storytelling good then if it doesn't speak to you? The "own personal feeling" is still a feeling towards what you're seeing. The feeling comes from within the movie.@@teissi
Who is the panda guy with a harsh rating system and Konosuba on his best movies of 2019 list?
This video really makes you feel like someone who doesn't appreciate the greatest showman
You make me feel like someone who doesn't appreciate the greatest showman
Having watched the video, here are comments that I'd like to make.
I do agree strongly that whatever your rating system is, you need to be consistent.
I also agree with YMS having one of the best rating systems. Not just because its consistent, but also because he posts thorough reviews. Having those thorough reviews, combined with the ratings he gives, makes it more likely for one to guess what you might give a movie comparing your score to his. And if he posts a score that seems inconsistent, he's likely to post a review depending on the type of movie he posted a score on.
Another example for finding movies to looks for is not just what ratings people give, but what ratings people give to certain genres. For example, I don't care too much for horror films. They rarely have themes (at least, not those that feel thought-provoking), and I generally don't enjoy gore, so an 8+/10 for me is more likely to excite a horror fan than someone that gives an 8+ to 90% of horror movies.
I'm planning on making reviews on Letterboxd at the very least (which is Accountnamehere in case anyone's curious, but I feel like me posting it here is like advertising), and hopefully have an opinion that people can respect at the very least. I can also think of movies that seem inconsistent or surprising to the average person. I gave a 4/10 to Coco for example, and I don't think that I'm the most enthusiastic about Tarantino films.
Another example i can think of is how I rate old movies. I've noticed/felt like movies pre 70's have monotone acting, pretty stiff cinematography, limited editing, more frequent white noise, etc, so the average rating that I give a movie pre 70's is a 3/10. I don't like to hate them, but I find them boring to watch.
Great vid ★★★★★
I just go off of vibes
Damn I’ve been called out I’m the guy who rates a lot of 5 stars but I don’t call a 5 star a 10/10 movie though. It’s weird how is rate movies but I’m comfortable with how I do it.
Haha, didn't mean to shine a spotlight on you like that, but yeah that's awesome how you're comfortable in it cause there's really no reason you shouldn't be
I don’t view stars as /10. I personally think the best/most accurate way to rate films is for ex: 6.3/10. Decimals out of ten is perfect.
Interesting ok, so do write down the decimal rating in letterboxd reviews by chance? Or do you just round up or down for the star rating?
@@BenEleven1127 I still just use Stars, however I view them differently. For examples, I have 1989 Batman as 7.8/10, but not 4 Stars.
I am not a movie critic, I only like or don’t like movies I log on Letterboxd
0:56 I’m not sure if that was sarcasm or a genuine opinion but for a moment I felt heard 😂
The whole movie was agonizing for me 😭every time they started singing I wanted to flee.
Oh don't you worry, The Greatest Showman is one of my most hated movies that's for sure.
Ahem..
NERDDDDDD
I find the apex of YMS curve too high, and the bulk of his ratings falling within one star of each other doesn't utilize the entire spectrum too well. Having a rating curve that's weighted towards the 3-4-5 area devalues the good movies, while a curve weighted towards the negative end really lets the best of the best shine.
My criteria for watching a film is a concept i find interesting and if the film is meant to be good or i know ill enjoy it, so most movies ive seen id give 4 or 5 stars
My thing with the rating system is... a 5 star rating for Home Alone is very different from a 5 star rating for There Will Be Blood. I may think within their respective genres that each is a 5 star, but put them next to each other and my rating would have to change, but if I lower Home Alone a star or 2 to reflect how I feel about them compared, then I'm diminishing it's value to a 3 star rating, which I don't believe it is
Why would you feel like home alone is worse than There Will Be Blood if you rated them the same?
@@kuusakat1308 because as far as movies go I feel (imo) that There Will Be Blood is an objectively better film and better cinema, but Home Alone is not a bad movie because of that. It's a near perfect movie for what it is, so I rate it high.
When I rate Home Alone, it's generally not in the same category at films like There Will Be Blood, so I can still rate them the same without them necessarily being the same if that makes sense
Objectively? By what objective criteria?@@leogemini312
really funny and interesting video, underrated gem
iMDB >>> Letterboxd tho
Appreciate it vetlemd! Glad you managed to enjoy the video even though it's disagreeing with your wrong opinion :D
But for real though that's very sweet of you to say, hope you enjoy the rest of the channel
I don’t generally like to operate on the like scholastic/academia grading system ideology, where a 60% (or like 6/10, aka 3/5) is bad. For me it’s like, a 2.5 is totally the middle. I was indifferent to it. Didn’t love it didn’t hate it, kinda like “meh”. From there we can work both ways hahaha. If a movie is a 3/5, for me, that means I liked it, and it was good. 3.5 really good, 4 is awesome, 4.5 incredible, and 5 is like an absolute masterpiece or one of my person faves - whatever adjectives you wanna use, but you get the idea I assume ahahahaha. I also stole something from Anthony Fantano that I love, which is giving each individual rating either a “Light”, “Decent”, or “Strong” - so I’ll end up with scores like LIGHT 3*, or STRONG 3*, DECENT 4* etc . Kinda lets me have a little bit more specificity because I could have 2 things at a 3* but like one more than the other obviously. Everyone’s systems are different tho and it’s fascinating to see - great video man! Thanks !
Yeah I'm definitely gonna have to inform Fantano about this theivery...
Haha, yeah I completely agree though that's a great way of looking at it. I've heard some people talk about how they basically start movies at a 10/10 and lower the score based off of any criticisms they have, but that just seems like a pretty weird way of looking at it for me. Anyways yeah thanks a ton! Glad you enjoyed!
Personally I prefer the simplest system of Negative vs Positive. The number systems of rating is too specific and more often than not, people's ratings change on subsequent viewings but rarely change on the binary system
Steam does this perfectly
this channel reminds me a lot of IntroSpecktive
You sound like John Mulaney
Okay boyz
A movie is what you bring to it, and what you can take from it, i feel no need to rate a film, but I'm trying to understand why people do
I’m also the kind of person who would give Ready or Not 5 stars
There are no good rating systems for art. It turns art into a product.
Love the stardew valley music
No one mentioning the stardew music huh? Nice touch
No offense but I think the idea of consistency in criticizing art shows a lack of understanding in art's biggest component: subjectivity. There are objective things that make movies good or bad, but there's a plethora of reasons to rate something in the polar opposite direction for you personally as well. Unfortunately some people put down scores because their bigots or something, but I don't think most people that use this app consistently subscribe to that idea. But there's nothing wrong with rating a movie poorly just because you didn't connect with it as much as other people, or rating it higher because you did. And as much as I love looking at people's little rating chart as well, it's really not a good method of judging someone's consistency or whether they're "good" at rating stuff just because that can look different for different people. I think the best rating system is to get out of your own head and just rate a movie how you want and not how you think you should for some arbitrary reason.
"There are objective things that make movies good or bad"
What would those be?
I just rate everything I like 5 stars, I don't even log anything just rate 5 stars whatever I like and skip what I don't like
Man i laughed so hard 🤣
I rate most movies that I watch 4/5 because I am easy to please. Also I am a raccoon and I like trash.
where do all these letterboxd people watch all these movies
npcs
your ratings should be as perverse as you want it to be, the siting already aggregates your ratings, otherwise it would be like metacritic
it seems you like stardew valley music
Lol, seems as though I've been caught red handed...
💀💀💀
You have so many view but so little subs unacceptable
bro simultaniously says everyone should have their own opinion while shitting on people for their opinion.
What does it mean to have consistency with rating movies that are simular if every movie is its own thing? If I love 1 movie and hate another but their both about horses that doesn't mean I'm inconsistent it means I didn't like one as much as the other
this vid feels like the amalgamation of all the annoying things letterboxd users do and say while also pretending that their ratings mean anything whatsoever
It’s so hard to rate movie out of 5. Like is it how much I enjoyed it? Is t how good it is respective to genre? In that case does a romcom deserve the same rating as movie who dives deep into psychology of human nature
Just how much you like a movie.
Terrible idea, one of the worst ever. I didn't liked the video. But it's nothing personal at all, sorry if i offended you.
don't talk please
Filmaffinity has been out there for the past 20 years. Much better than IMDB, Letterboxd, and your grandma on wheels (combined), but the Anglo World doesn´t know about it.
Its "soulmates" feature is precisely what makes it better than any other site: the algorithm automatically finds people you agree with (rating wise) so it doesn´t even need to find people with good criteria, but with YOUR criteria, which pretty much guarantees YOU are going to like a certain movie... or not.
Try it out, thank me later.
Huh, guess I'm a filthy Anglo cause I don't think I've ever heard of this site. I'd be interested in checking something like that out perhaps but I'm not sure if I would be willing to make the switch from letterboxd. That feature does sound pretty neato though, letterboxd is probably going to copy it at some point like they always do though lol.