JoBlo making changes.....f**k me!!! (details inside)

[JoBlo]

Okay, okay...there won't be any MAJOR CHANGES to the site, but I am finally "revamping" something that I'd been thinking about for some time now...

My movie ratings!!

Over the next week or so, I will be introducing my "new" rating system, which won't actually be ALL THAT DIFFERENT from the old one, but will be a little "fairer" , "easier to figure out" and will cover the range from 1-10 on a much more reasonable manner.

When I first started writing my reviews, I NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS thought this would eventually turn into what it has (closing in on 500 reviews!! what the f?!?), and I honestly didn't take more than a few minutes to come up with the presently used table of ratings (scroll down this page to see it: /joblo.htm ). I STILL think that for the most part, I like my ratings, but a little tinkering should improve it (I think).

MY ACTUAL REVIEWS OF PAST FILMS WON'T CHANGE, BUT THEIR GRADES WILL LIKELY BE AFFECTED SLIGHTLY, IN ORDER TO ACCOMODATE THE NEWER RATINGS SYSTEM.

Git it?

Anyhoo, here it is. Lemme know what ya'll think or if I should just go suck an egg!

10: Perfecto-mundo
9: Awesome
8: Great
7: Good
6: So-so
5: Not good
4: This movie sucks
3: Crap on a stick
2: Pure garbage
0-1: So bad it hurts to watch

This ain't completely FINALIZED but it'll likely be the basic skeleton. Previous flicks which graded at 6.5 or 7.5, etc... will move up or down to 6 or 7, etc...

Okay, me finished, what think you?

[This message has been edited by JoBlo (edited 02-14-2001).]

[Mike Sampson]

Go for yours, Blo. I think the news system kicks some ass. But does this mean you have to go back to all 500 reviews and change them? That would be a major pain in the ass.

[SirReel]

Jo. I like your idea, but I really think you should maybe, IMHO, reconsider your new ratings...

I'll explain.

First off, I think 5/10 should be your "So-so", middle of the road fare... If you consider your ratings system as being 0/10 to 10/10 you've actually got 11 ratings thus 5/10 is smack dab in the middle.

Secondly, there should really be a rating between Good & So-so like maybe "Above average", "Barely recommendable" - or something to that effect (let's face it, "So-so" is virtually synonymouse with "Don't waste your money").

Thirdly, what's the real difference between "This movie sucks", "Crap on a stick"
& "Pure garbage" - They ALL suck ass, right!? So by shifting the ratings down one by making 5/10 "So-so" and inventing a new 6/10 description you can eliminate one of the seemingly pointless sub-5/10 ratings...

Of course, I could be a bumbling idiot worthy of blunt shot to the head with a cattle prod. Your call.

SirReel.

[Raena]

Good points SirReel.

[doctor drew]

I think within the 0 to 10 system they're should be intervals where you CLEARLY state either 1) go see it in theatres 2) wait for the DVD 3) don't even bother. The 3 tiered system could help clarify people's choices when going to see the movie.

Like 7/10 would be the cut off to go see the movie.

Anything between 5 and 7 would be a rental.

Anything under 5 would qualify as "don't waste your time"

Echoing SirReel's sentiments, those are my suggestions but what the hell do I know about changing rating schemes?

[RBnyc]

I understand how it can be difficult to have to change.
Have you thought of using terms that are somewhat associated witht the site. Let me try to explain; such as, 1 = Rancid Baloney or Not good enough to Blow.
10 = Gourmet Delight.
Maybe I'm just being rediculous. All that matters is that you give great reviews.

[SirReel]

Doc makes a good point...

9/10, 10/10 - "Full Price on a Saturday night at the theatre."

8/10 - "Full Price at the theatre, but don't blow your Saturday night."

7/10 - "Cheap Tuesday at the theatre."

5/10, 6/10 - "Rental only."

3/10, 4/10 - "Warning: rent only if there's absolutely NOTHING else to choose."

2/10, 1/10 - "You're an idiot if you rent this."

0/10 - "I wish I were dead having viewed this pointless shitfest."

[RASHID007]

I like SirReel and Doc's ideas. I like the list that SirReel made.

[PackBacker]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by SirReel:
0/10 - "I wish I were dead having viewed this pointless shitfest."
</font>

You talking about Nic Cage movies again? /ubb/wink.gif

Personally I liked it the way it was/is but the new proposed system seems fine /ubb/smile.gif

[Brock Landers]

Good Luck Bra...it sounds like a lot of f**kin' work to me though...but if anyone can do it...

[Pretentious_Auteur_Here]

Go suck an egg.

Just kidding. You might want to consider a chart of some kind listing the movie's good points and bad points. Say, a brief synopsis of the pros and cons, kinda like CNET's reviews of games.

For example: Review of "Down to Earth."

PRO: It's Chris Rock.
CON: It's too much of Chris Rock.

Stuff like that.

[JoBlo]

Hey yall ... thanks for the feedback ... seriously ... it's gonna be quite the chore TURNING THE ENTIRE old review section over, but once that's done, it should be smooth sailing once the new system is engraved in my mind!

I probably don't want to change things around TOO MUCH though, cause to be honest, I'm pretty happy with the general style of the reviews and even the ratings as they are (1 through 10 instead of stars and basic nuggets of what each one means next to it), but I do hear what SirReel has to say regarding the 5-6 issue. How'sabout this?

10: Perfecto-mundo
9: Awesome
8: Great
7: Good

6: Average
5: So-so

4: Not a good movie
3: This movie sucks
2: Crap on a stick
0-1: Pure garbage

The last three may be a bit synonymous, but then again, how many "different" levels of "bad" can one describe? /ubb/smile.gif

I guess the basic idea is that a 3 is a little better than a 2 and that is better than a 1, and so forth. The few words next to it are probably just for newbies anyway.

Remember that the ratings are probably more for the "basic idea" of how certain movies rank next to others, but hopefully MOST PEOPLE will actually go ahead and read the entire review whole, in order to get the full story.

I ain't gonna be one of those critics who nixes the ratings altogether, because "reading the reviews is what's most important", but I certainly don't believe that these simple ratings tell the whole story. Anyway, I'm rambling on about nothing again, so allow me to spare you all more caca...

[magicman]

Jo you are the best and I like the new ratings, but my way of rating has been for "is it worth the money"

Maybe you can add a comma after the comments and add how much you would pay for each rating point.


zero= pay me to see it
7=5.50 early show
5=the 2.50 bargin place
10=a million bucks


something like that

[The Arrow]

Jo personnaly I dont see the difference between:

3: This movie sucks
2: Crap on a stick
0-1: Pure garbage

To me all 3 mean that the movie is crappy on the same level. They are interchangeable...

This movie sucks can easily be attached to the 0 rating. Crap on a stick can be number 3...

You see what Im seeing...THEY ALL MEAN THE SAME THING.

Just like 5 and 6 (average and so-so) mean the same thing too!

How about making your rating go from 1 to 5? Then you wouldn't have so many numbers to fill in...numbers that basically mean the same damn thing.

Just my two cents

[HomerSimpson]

How about making 6 "above average" and 5 "below average"?

[SirReel]

Pack, I'm tongue tied - every counter to your jab comes across as a personal attack - and I refuse to go that route... However, to be quite honest, my 0/10 reference was geared more toward NCSU recruitment videos, or more accurately - NCSU football & basketball highlight reels - things of this nature...

[OBzilla]

Hows about:

10: absolute classic
9: film of the year
8: go see this
7: worthy of your attention
6: Slightly flawed
5: Nothing new
4: main element missing
3: very poor, only watch if u love this genre
2: wait for t.v. - then turn over
1: avoid like the plague
0: there was a film on?

or something else that tries to explain the reason for the level of crapness! anyway the score is only a guidline, the review is much more important.

i'll shutup now.

~OB~
1928-1967 , u lived more than most

[SirReel]

Or how about doing like IMDb and not asign any words or descriptions to the ratings...

Simply rate the movies ZERO throough TEN and let the Schmoes call it what they want...

The higher the rating, the better the movie - plain and simple.

Or maybe just classifying your ratings into major groups:
9 & 10 - Excellence
7 & 8 - Above Average
5 & 6 - Average
3 & 4 - Below Average
1 & 2 - Stupid

[JoBlo]

Thanks ya'll...you've helped make this decision about a thousand times more difficult now... /ubb/smile.gif

Seriously though, I think I REALLY like SirReel's last suggestion which is that I NOT specify any kind of description next to any of the ratings, and let them basically speak for themselves.

On the main reviews page, I'll have a basic table for what they all mean, but on the actual review pages in question, I'll follow the IMDB line of thinking, and stick with the 1/10 or 4/10 or 9/10 and etc...

Yeah, yeah...that's it...I kinda like that!! Woo-hoo...SirReel's the mac....

[OBzilla]

are you going to use 10/10 a lot? i think that this should only be reserved for the absolute great films, only used sparingly. maybe at most you should deal one out once a year.

~OB~
He is my Che

[herculeez]

good.

[manutdfan]

I think the funnier the ratings, the better, but just keep them short.