I think a lot of veteran movie watchers [i have no word to use for that lol] tend to avoid bad movies. I know I do. Sometimes you can shut your brain off and watch some mindless action or whatever, and that could be considered average, but most of the time movie buffs are watching good movies.
You learn what to look for. The director/writer/actors attached to the project, word of mouth, reviews, etc.
And usually when a movie is really bad, movie people just shut it off or leave the theater. I can't tell you how many movies I've downloaded and tried to watch in the past few months and turned it off like 20-30 minutes in. Easily 50-60 movies. They just stink and there's no reason for me to watch it.
This would be my guess. And if you do watch something that's only kind of lousey, you're probably not running out to write a review of it. Chances are you simply forgot about it. That may explain the 1s and 2s, because it's probably symtematic of people just being wildly disappointed. Most people who care enough to post in here aren't stumbling blindly onto lousey movies.
I think a lot of veteran movie watchers [i have no word to use for that lol] tend to avoid bad movies. I know I do. Sometimes you can shut your brain off and watch some mindless action or whatever, and that could be considered average, but most of the time movie buffs are watching good movies.
You learn what to look for. The director/writer/actors attached to the project, word of mouth, reviews, etc.
And usually when a movie is really bad, movie people just shut it off or leave the theater. I can't tell you how many movies I've downloaded and tried to watch in the past few months and turned it off like 20-30 minutes in. Easily 50-60 movies. They just stink and there's no reason for me to watch it.
Nah I don't want to use a scale of 1-5 because there are definitely various levels of terrible movies. If I happen to see a bad movie it has a wide margin for sucking If there are like 2 cool parts or a neat idea that can give it a 4.5, but if it's beyond unwatchable then it can get like a 1.
Yeah I've never given a 10/10. The closest I can remember in this thread was Eternal Sunshine, which I gave like a 9.1 or 9.2... I know I gave something else a 9+ but I don't remember.
I think I've given some 10s in here. Synecdoche, New york, The White Ribbon and probably Eternal Sunshine, off the top of my head.
Also when people say a movie wasn't good, but still give it like a 7.5
On a scale of one-to-ten....isn't a five considered average?
Pretty much...5.5 actually. White text Pete!
My scale would be something like this:
1. An example of one of the absolute worst pieces of shit I've ever seen with absolutely no redeeming qualities. Every aspect of the movie is a failure. They're so bad, that they skip right over being "so bad they're good" to so bad you wish you had just poked yourself in the eye with a hot fork instead. Something like "The Terminators" might land a 1/10 for me. Wouldn't wish shit like that on people like Premeditarded.
2. Still an absolute piece of shit, but maybe I liked a piece of music or something like that.
3. Pretty bad, but maybe there are hints of competent film-making here and there, or the occasional bit of insightful dialog.
4. Mediocre, but it generally doesn't feel too terribly torturous to sit through these ones and they have some positive aspects amidst the muck.
5. About the middle of the road. Nothing too terribly offensive, but nothing to write home about either. One of those movies you don't dislike watching really, but you pretty much forget all about it as soon as the credits roll.
6. Decent. The balance of power starts to shift towards the positive, but it's still going to be a pretty forgettable affair, even if it holds your attention for an hour and a half. Perhaps there's some rewatch value.
7. Good. I generally enjoyed myself, even if there were some glaring flaws. Alternately, I might have found the movie a bit drab or boring, but the acting, score, or overall quality of the film make up for it.
8. Very good. Movies I score in this range tend to have positives that far outweigh the negatives. Good film-making in almost every regard tends to be par for the course, and there are several redeeming qualities.
9. Great movies that excel in several areas, with engaging, relatively original stories. Flaws are minimal, or the other aspects of the film are so good that the few flaws which might be present are easily relegated to being afterthoughts. Many of these become "all-time favorites."
10. Best of the best, brilliant works of art which often transcend the medium and effect me on a profound, or intellectual level, and become one of the shining beacons of their genre. These movies become personal classics, are masterful in every department, and any flaws which may be present either make sense contextually, or I'm nitpicking just by bringing them up.
I think a lot of veteran movie watchers [i have no word to use for that lol] tend to avoid bad movies. I know I do. Sometimes you can shut your brain off and watch some mindless action or whatever, and that could be considered average, but most of the time movie buffs are watching good movies.
You learn what to look for. The director/writer/actors attached to the project, word of mouth, reviews, etc.
And usually when a movie is really bad, movie people just shut it off or leave the theater. I can't tell you how many movies I've downloaded and tried to watch in the past few months and turned it off like 20-30 minutes in. Easily 50-60 movies. They just stink and there's no reason for me to watch it.
I understand that people get good at spotting what is good and what is bad in advance, but if they are so good at predicting what would be good, then then that doesn't really explain 1s and 2s. More often than not, I will go into a movie that I expect to be good and if it disappoints, it doesn't suddenly become one of the worst movies ever, it usually turns out to be mediocre. It just doesn't make sense to see a trailer, expect it to be worthy of a 10, and have the movie be so different from the trailer/director/actors/etc that it is a 1. I'll use the movie the Social Network as a personal example. I love the director, the reviews were great, and it was getting compared to Godfather and Citizen Cane. So I went into it expecting to rate it very high. I found it disappointing so I gave it a score in the 5-6 territory, but it would have been a huge overreaction to give it a 1 just because I was disappointed.
You also mentioned turning off movies and giving them low scores. I can understand that, but surely there are some movies that keep you engaged for most of the film and the ending is a big disappointment. Does a movie that entertains you for an hour and a half but has a disappointing warrant a score that is comparable to the worst movies ever (1 or 2) or a score that is comparable to the best movies ever (9 or 10). I certainly don't think so. It seems to me that such a movie should land a score somewhere in between. Yet, some people never seem to have scores in between. It is only a huge overreaction saying the movie is great, or a huge overreaction saying it is complete crap.
I understand that people get good at spotting what is good and what is bad in advance, but if they are so good at predicting what would be good, then then that doesn't really explain 1s and 2s. More often than not, I will go into a movie that I expect to be good and if it disappoints, it doesn't suddenly become one of the worst movies ever, it usually turns out to be mediocre. It just doesn't make sense to see a trailer, expect it to be worthy of a 10, and have the movie be so different from the trailer/director/actors/etc that it is a 1. I'll use the movie the Social Network as a personal example. I love the director, the reviews were great, and it was getting compared to Godfather and Citizen Cane. So I went into it expecting to rate it very high. I found it disappointing so I gave it a score in the 5-6 territory, but it would have been a huge overreaction to give it a 1 just because I was disappointed.
You also mentioned turning off movies and giving them low scores. I can understand that, but surely there are some movies that keep you engaged for most of the film and the ending is a big disappointment. Does a movie that entertains you for an hour and a half but has a disappointing warrant a score that is comparable to the worst movies ever (1 or 2) or a score that is comparable to the best movies ever (9 or 10). I certainly don't think so. It seems to me that such a movie should land a score somewhere in between. Yet, some people never seem to have scores in between. It is only a huge overreaction saying the movie is great, or a huge overreaction saying it is complete crap.
I think you described perfectly how most movie goers think, but I don't think I've ever seen a legit ISH movie buff do that. It's usually someone who never posts in here, or posts very rarely in here that does something like that.
Thorpe said earlier that he thinks most of the buffs who watch a bad movie don't even bother to finish it, let alone take the time to review it. Sometimes you feel compelled if you think it was an all time awful movie [take my review for Eagle Eye for example], but I know for a fact that many of the regular movie watching guys from this thread usually never think about it again.
The recent discussion of Salt is a prime example. I believe me and RBA both said we had seen a bit of it and thought it was terrible so we turned it off, never reviewed it, but it was brought up so we offered an opinion.
Catch my drift? Only certain people do what you described and it sure as shit ain't any of the ISH movie buffs.
I think you described perfectly how most movie goers think, but I don't think I've ever seen a legit ISH movie buff do that. It's usually someone who never posts in here, or posts very rarely in here that does something like that.
Thorpe said earlier that he thinks most of the buffs who watch a bad movie don't even bother to finish it, let alone take the time to review it. Sometimes you feel compelled if you think it was an all time awful movie [take my review for Eagle Eye for example], but I know for a fact that many of the regular movie watching guys from this thread usually never think about it again.
The recent discussion of Salt is a prime example. I believe me and RBA both said we had seen a bit of it and thought it was terrible so we turned it off, never reviewed it, but it was brought up so we offered an opinion.
Catch my drift? Only certain people do what you described and it sure as shit ain't any of the ISH movie buffs.
I understand that most people on ISH do it the way you are describing. My point was simply the few that do it the way I was describing have a ridiculous system.
Also, on a different but similar note, I actually like it when the movie buffs give their scores for mediocre movies. I understand not wasting time giving details of why, but I find it helpful when I'm trying to figure what to watch and not watch. A recent example would be Thor. It had high ratings for weeks leading up to its release, but it turned out to be mediocre IMO. Had I saw posters in here consistently listing it at about 6/10, then maybe I would have asked what held it back and I may have saved my $10 and waited for DVD. I personally rank a majority of the movies I watch on here (I go in phases where I forget about the thread and don't post), but only give reasons why I ranked it as such if there was a compelling reason to do so (such as disappointment, exceeding expectations, being amazing, being utter crap, or if somebody asks what my justification was). The mediocre movies I just score in about a second and move on, unless somebody asks. I guess ultimately, I come to this thread hoping get movie ideas or learn what movies to avoid, and I think rating all movies seen (good, bad, and mediocre) helps that process.
Btw, I remember the Salt discussion too. Draz has horrible tastes in movies (Salt, that one where Triple H goes on a field trip, and many straight to DVD American Pie rip offs all ranked 9 and above)
Btw, I remember the Salt discussion too. Draz has horrible tastes in movies (Salt, that one where Triple H goes on a field trip, and many straight to DVD American Pie rip offs all ranked 9 and above)
I understand that most people on ISH do it the way you are describing. My point was simply the few that do it the way I was describing have a ridiculous system.
Also, on a different but similar note, I actually like it when the movie buffs give their scores for mediocre movies. I understand not wasting time giving details of why, but I find it helpful when I'm trying to figure what to watch and not watch. A recent example would be Thor. It had high ratings for weeks leading up to its release, but it turned out to be mediocre IMO. Had I saw posters in here consistently listing it at about 6/10, then maybe I would have asked what held it back and I may have saved my $10 and waited for DVD. I personally rank a majority of the movies I watch on here (I go in phases where I forget about the thread and don't post), but only give reasons why I ranked it as such if there was a compelling reason to do so (such as disappointment, exceeding expectations, being amazing, being utter crap, or if somebody asks what my justification was). The mediocre movies I just score in about a second and move on, unless somebody asks. I guess ultimately, I come to this thread hoping get movie ideas or learn what movies to avoid, and I think rating all movies seen (good, bad, and mediocre) helps that process.
Good point, but I think It's gonna stay the way it is. When you see a bad movie, you really don't want to even think about it.
My review for Salt would've been:
Salt: 11%
sucked, stabbed ******** with no. 2 pencil for relief
the rating scale is just so pointless. the point of the rating is to summarize how much you like the movie, and if you're writing multiple paragraphs you probably shouldn't even put a number on it.
the rating scale is just so pointless. the point of the rating is to summarize how much you like the movie, and if you're writing multiple paragraphs you probably shouldn't even put a number on it.
Re: Rate the last movie you watched.
This is serious business.
