Go Back   Home > SciFlicks SQUAD! Forums > Administrative Nexus > Suggestions and problems

Welcome to the SciFlicks SQUAD! Forums.

You are currently viewing our community boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free and open-minded sci-fi community you will be able to start and reply to forum discussions, write movie reviews, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or with your account please contact support here.

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 25, 2006, 04:48 AM   #16
Nexus
Psycho Teddy Sausage
Nexus's Avatar
3,648 flights since Dec 2001
Location: Seraph's pocket
Re: Rebuilding main sciflicks site, can users help Ramses?

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I don't really like that rating system much. I don't think it matters if the science is believable or not - not every film here has to be Hard SF. Could we just "rate" the films on an enjoyment level, instead of rating certain different aspects and rounding them up?
Nexus is offline Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2006, 04:53 AM   #17
Splendiferous
Old One Pikeman
Splendiferous's Avatar
3,132 flights since Mar 2002
Location: Dreaming in plush R'lyeh
Re: Rebuilding main sciflicks site, can users help Ramses?

In a film like Cube 2, for example, the science was ... well ... it was bit over my head, actually, but it didn't sound very plausible to me - but I don't really think it fair that it would suffer on that count. although, if the effects and acting and tilt (which still throws me as I've never heard of it before now) are all very high (which they are for that film) then I suppose it wouldn't matter.

But otherwise I quite like the idea of rating films based on individual ratings for a higher accuracy.
Splendiferous is offline Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2006, 04:58 AM   #18
Nexus
Psycho Teddy Sausage
Nexus's Avatar
3,648 flights since Dec 2001
Location: Seraph's pocket
Re: Rebuilding main sciflicks site, can users help Ramses?

While I don't like biased reviews, it would seem a bit weird - blasphemy, even - that, say, a non-prequel Star Wars film got a mediocre rating just because of the occasional dodgy acting and dialogue.
Nexus is offline Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2006, 05:08 AM   #19
Seraph
....
Seraph's Avatar
2,121 flights since Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere between Lucifer and Limbo
Re: Rebuilding main sciflicks site, can users help Ramses?

True...but it gives people a better idea of what a film is. Just because one area lets it down it maybe they don't care about that area anyway and would want to watch it for the other parts that far outstrip it.

Bear in mind that the hokey acting would have caused some people to rate it on IMDB as quite low - with more options to be clearer about what you mean it gives a fairer picture.

edit: However when I rate stuff I try and bear in mind it's context - what the film was trying to achieve. Godfather and Star Wars are incomparable - this rating system would be far fairer in that respect.

Er but happens if there's no effects?
Seraph is offline Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2006, 05:13 AM   #20
Ivan
formerly known as Ivanhoe
Ivan's Avatar
1,574 flights since Nov 2000
Location: Europe - Balkans
Re: Rebuilding main sciflicks site, can users help Ramses?

Ok lets try this:

Engaging Story/script:

Here I would stick to the quality of script and not how engaging it is. Because one can be uninterested by the subject and say it is not engaging even thou the dialogue , plot and characters were well developed.

Credible Science:

This would basically mean, the closer a movie is to fantasy it will recive a lower rating.

Cast & Directing:

Well this is ok. No comment on this.

Audio & Visuals:

No comment.

Viewers' Tilt:

I wouldn't consider using this factor as fun factor because there are quality films that are not fun to watch but still exremely informative, educationall, revealing ets.. and that is not allways fun even thou it is quality expirience . I would rather use something like - Overall satisfaction. Where both extremely fun and inteligently informative movies could get high rating.

So to conclude, after reviewing these options It is my opinion that these categories would not adequately represent the quality of a movie.

These categories are informative , and it would be good to know how accurate science is, or what is a fun factor of the movie but i don't think it should effect the overall rating of the movie.

So I suggest that these categories should be kept for informative purposes only but that the overall rating quality remains a separate rating category and not an average value of the above mentioned.
Ivan is offline Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2006, 05:15 AM   #21
Seraph
....
Seraph's Avatar
2,121 flights since Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere between Lucifer and Limbo
Re: Rebuilding main sciflicks site, can users help Ramses?

But the 'fun' factor is helpfull because it tells you whether a film is more of an 'experience' or is just pop corn - I understand the confusion with negative conotations though (plus pulling a movie down when it may in fact be better due to it not being a blockbuster type is even more confusing).
Seraph is offline Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2006, 05:18 AM   #22
Nexus
Psycho Teddy Sausage
Nexus's Avatar
3,648 flights since Dec 2001
Location: Seraph's pocket
Re: Rebuilding main sciflicks site, can users help Ramses?

I don't think the rating should be lower if it's closer to Fantasy; sometimes that's all what the film wants to be. The list Ramses has posted here doesn't include Effects, but the other one does, so I don't know if we're going to have them or not. But I don't think we should - like Seraph said, an SF film can have no effects (like Gattaca). Would giving a film 0 for at least one aspect bring it down a little? I don't think a film should be "less good" than certain others just because it has 0 effects.

IMO, if we have to rate certain aspects, we rate things that all films have - such as, directing, acting, ect.
Nexus is offline Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2006, 05:20 AM   #23
Seraph
....
Seraph's Avatar
2,121 flights since Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere between Lucifer and Limbo
Re: Rebuilding main sciflicks site, can users help Ramses?

There are effects in Gattaca they're just more subtle - it would be easier if "Effects" were placed under (and included in) Audio/Visual.

If effects are bad, you don't exactly think the cinematography is amazing.
Seraph is offline Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2006, 05:24 AM   #24
Nexus
Psycho Teddy Sausage
Nexus's Avatar
3,648 flights since Dec 2001
Location: Seraph's pocket
Re: Rebuilding main sciflicks site, can users help Ramses?

Yeah, we should keep Audio/Visual. That, and Directing and Acting and all the other things a film has. Maybe not "Plot", because some films aren't really plot-driven (though no SF examples come to mind)...
Nexus is offline Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2006, 05:26 AM   #25
Ivan
formerly known as Ivanhoe
Ivan's Avatar
1,574 flights since Nov 2000
Location: Europe - Balkans
Re: Rebuilding main sciflicks site, can users help Ramses?

Quote:
Originally posted by Seraph
But the 'fun' factor is helpfull because it tells you whether a film is more of an 'experience' or is just pop corn - I understand the confusion with negative conotations though (plus pulling a movie down when it may in fact be better due to it not being a blockbuster type is even more confusing).

We could have both "Pop Corn Fun Factor" and "Brain Food factor"

But once again I don't think that these specific rating should effect how good a movie actually is.

Example

2001

Script: 10
Acting: 8
Cast Direction: 10
Belivable Science: 10
Audio Visual: 9
Popcorn Fun : 1
Brain Food Factor: 10

Overal : 10 (opossed to 8.2 average)

Killer Klowns from outer Space

Script: 5
Acting: 4
Cast Direction: 6
Audio Visual: 7
Belivable Science: 3
Popcorn Fun : 10
Brain Food Factor: 1

Overal : 6 (opposed to average 5.1)

What do you thing about this?

Last edited by Ivan : May 25, 2006 at 05:33 AM.
Ivan is offline Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2006, 05:31 AM   #26
Splendiferous
Old One Pikeman
Splendiferous's Avatar
3,132 flights since Mar 2002
Location: Dreaming in plush R'lyeh
Re: Rebuilding main sciflicks site, can users help Ramses?

See, my problem when it comes to things like these is I like it a bit OTT. As in instead of a 5 option rating system, I'd have 10, just to cover every little thing

I think a 'Fun' rating is essential, but then that's because I personally believe that a film should be entertainment first and education/art/life-changing-experience second. If you can get a satisfactory mix of any of those then fine, but for me a film must be entertaining above all else, otherwise I'll just end up turing it off or doing something else while it's on and not really p-aying attention. There's a reason it's called "the entertainment industry" But I think something like "Overall Satisfaction" might cover it adequately.

And what if a film has superb directing buty lacklustre acting, or vice-versa?

But I like Audio/Visuals a lot - it's nice to be able to rate a film based on use of sound AND visual effects.

EDIT : The best thing about this rating system is that you can actually see what gives the film a high/low overall mark and decide for yourself whether or not it's wirth praising/damning the film based on that factor and subsequently whether or not it's your kind of film. If the individual ratings were hidden and just the overall mark were shown, well, that's rubbish The more I think about it, the more I really really like the individual rating system
Splendiferous is offline Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2006, 05:33 AM   #27
Seraph
....
Seraph's Avatar
2,121 flights since Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere between Lucifer and Limbo
Re: Rebuilding main sciflicks site, can users help Ramses?

Yeah a differentiation between popcorn (given its Popcorn studios) and brain is good. I do still learn towards the combined average - more than anything it's a point of differentiation from every other site that does the same thing. It's a 'true' average.

Plus overall people are more likely to go fanboy (too subjective)but have to be more honest when you break it down into different sections. It shouldn't be a rating of which is the most art house/which should have won the most awards because I think it's the bestest/which was the coolest, it should be a true comparitive average which this system allows - not which did I like better.

edit: Given what Splend said, Cast/Direction should be combined (it is isn't it?) perhaps to give less fields.

Last edited by Seraph : May 25, 2006 at 05:38 AM.
Seraph is offline Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2006, 05:37 AM   #28
Ivan
formerly known as Ivanhoe
Ivan's Avatar
1,574 flights since Nov 2000
Location: Europe - Balkans
Re: Rebuilding main sciflicks site, can users help Ramses?

Agreed but if we are going to have average overal grade then we must have more categories. How fun was watching a movie just doesn't cover it.
Ivan is offline Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2006, 05:39 AM   #29
Nexus
Psycho Teddy Sausage
Nexus's Avatar
3,648 flights since Dec 2001
Location: Seraph's pocket
Re: Rebuilding main sciflicks site, can users help Ramses?

Well, I like that Ivanhoe put "Script" instead of "Story". A film can have a great script, but no story. Not every film is a piece of escapist adventure with a three-act structure, like an "introduction, danger/problem, climax" narrative. Look a European films, for example - such as Besson's La Dernier Combat.

Actually...

Maybe it's because I'm not a mathmatical person, but I'd really rather just give it the rating that feels right. I've been doing that for years. I can't help but think that some of the ratings will turn out weird instead of accurate. Um, sorry.
Nexus is offline Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2006, 05:42 AM   #30
Seraph
....
Seraph's Avatar
2,121 flights since Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere between Lucifer and Limbo
Re: Rebuilding main sciflicks site, can users help Ramses?

Thing is the other system is hardly great - it's so subjective, this is revolutionary by comparison (makes people think more). It won't match up to other places, but that's a good thing, shows we're different. Plus it will be suprising (and fun) to see how films creep up there.
Seraph is offline Reply With Quote
Reply

← Previous Thread | Next Thread → Home > SciFlicks SQUAD! Forums > Administrative Nexus > Suggestions and problems

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
2002: A SciFlicks odyssey! A review of SciFlicks most historic year!
Well 2002 was most definitely the most historic year for SciFlicks. Feel free to add your thoughts to this thread. This thread will detail month...
63
replies
All that time...
Seems to me that some of us just keep hanging on this site hours after hours (that's horrible addiction). How long you usually stay? Do you even lost...
19
replies
NEWS: Colonial Newsletter - 04/03/2003
======================================== The Colonial Newsletter Volume 4 Issue 4 April 2003 Published by: BattlestarGalacticaClub.com
1
reply
NEWS: Colonial Newsletter - 10/07/2003
======================================== The Colonial Newsletter Volume 4 Issue 10 October 2003 Published by: BattlestarGalacticaClub.com
Be the
First to
Reply
NEWS: Colonial Newsletter - 05/01/2003
======================================== The Colonial Newsletter Volume 4 Issue 5 May 2003 Published by: BattlestarGalacticaClub.com
Be the
First to
Reply
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
 

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:10 AM.
SciFlicks cannot be held liable for the opinions expressed in these public forums.
SciFlicks Copyright 1998-2011, Popcorn Studios.
vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.