How do you guys percieve film ratings? For me, it's pic related...

How do you guys percieve film ratings? For me, it's pic related. I hardly ever give a movie a 10/10 since it is reserved for very special movies.Meanwhile, a 5/10 for me is a good movie while a 2/10 is a mediocre movie. 1/10 and 0/10 are for truly awful movies. How about you guys, how do you rate movies?

Attached: ratings.jpg (824x703, 58.29K)

If it's not worth watching, I would consider it "bad" even if it might be perfectly competent. What should bad mean except not worth your time?

Exactly the same. I don't tend to use numerical ratings for any art, but if I do, 5 means mediocre, 6 means good, 7 means very good, 8/9 are borderline masterpieces, and 10 is reserved for my favourites. Fellowship of the Ring is the only definite 10/10 I can think of right now. Most films I have watched would probably be a 5 or 6, since if a film is truly shit I either turn it off or it's bad enough to be entertaining in which case I will still give it above a 5.

0-4 are reserved for movies that tend to just be boring or full of overused tropes that make the whole thing predictable and redundant. Star Wars Prequels are all a 2, while Disney Wars are all at a 0 for being completely worthless (first one was an ANH rehash but much worse, second was just sidequests and stupid character decisions, third was just nonsensical nostalgia wank)

Honestly, numerical ratings end up being pretty arbitrary most of the time. I prefer a simple hated/disliked/liked/loved. That generally gets people thinking more and you'll get a more honest answer. Ask the average pleb what they thought of the latest X-Men schlock in terms of a score and they will probably say 7 or 8 even if it didn't have much of an impact, ask them whether they liked it or not and you'll likely either get a neutral response or a "it was good, I guess". The numerical scale might have more meaning if people used it like you and me

This. Trying to make an objective number ranking makes no sense. Ratings should simply be categories from “not worth time” to “life changing” with like 1-2 in between.

Then if someone says a movie you like is shit, say either than they are too unintelligent yo understand or pity them for your superior ability to find meaning and enjoyment in things.

>Star Wars Prequels are all a 2
Imagine having such a garbage opinion, it must suck to be you

huh, misread your post OP. Looking at it again it seems we are different. 5 as "good" is sort of acceptable I guess but surely 2/10 should be less than "mediocre". Unless you are like me and you use the word "mediocre" to actually mean boring and terrible, which I think is the truth of the word

How do you mean perceive? Because if you're talking about actually looking at film ratings online you can only use the right chart because critics only use that

I'm sorry but if you are an adult and you still think the Star Wars prequels are redeemable you are mentally a retarded child still and your opinion on film means nothing. You guys are no different to the MLP fandom who were literally trolled into existence by anons who thought it would be funny if grown men were into a franchise made for young girls, full of colourful pony characters and songs about friendships. Liking the prequels is fine as a child with no taste for what a movie should be, but holy fuck move on you ubersperg

left is what i use.

I don't really send the difference between a 8/10 or a 10/10 is an important as people think since their still both. recommendations

The difference between a 4 out of 10 and a 2 out of 10 however does matter because is it big difference between below average and genuinely legitimately unequivocally bad.

0/10 and 10/10 should be virtually unattainable. They're more a baseline or hypothetical standard to hold everything else up against.

>How do you guys percieve film ratings?
I like the 4 star system.
>1: Shit, don't bother
>2: Bad, but if you really like this sort of thing you might like it
>3: Good, but if you don't like this sort of thing it probably wont change your mind
>4: Great, everyone should see this

Numerical ratings are meaningless to me. Everything is so subjective to the individual and even subjective to the time. I consider Mad Max 2 a masterpiece but there was a time when I didn't care much for it, and even now I'm not in the mood to watch it. How could I possible represent that with a flat number?
And if it's a review then someone's 5/10 can be wildly different to another reviewer's 5/10. When it comes to reviews, I end up scanning them to see if the movie sounds interesting to me. If it does, I give it a shot.

Left is what I use.

I haven't rated a Mario game above 6/10 in like 20 years.
Everyone screams their fucking head off and i'm like "6/10 is an ok game stop being autistic."

Based. This is really the only system that is essentially universal and makes people give more accurate scores based on their feelings of the movie. If you want to know whether someone's 4 is "great", or "the best thing ever holy shit this is a masterpiece", you can just have a conversation with them about the film. A numerical score should be kept simple and clear

For me it's
>1: not my thing
>2: mixed bag
>3: good
>4: great
>5: kino

>HAHA WOOHOO BOING BOING ITSA ME WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
user please how can you not see the greatness of those games?

>men rating women vs women rating men

My bad I'll go kill myself now.
MARIO 81: THE GOLDEN STAPON STAR
"10/10 It's ok" - Game Informer

To me a movie is 7/10 if it does exactly what it's supposed to do, if it's just supposed to be a pop corn blockbuster and it manages to be entertaining without big flaws it's a 7

If it does more than that, manages to deliver a message more intelligent than what I expected while keeping nuance, if it's still entertaining and intellectually stimulating and whatever good things it does, then it would be between 8 and 10 depending on my own preference

Between 7 and 5, is the movie failing to do what it was supposed to do without technical mistakes and flaws so big you can't miss them.

Below 5 it's just bad, it's at least wrong on a technical level and below 2 is just completely incompetent, I could hardly consider them movies and as a studio executive I would fire anyone involved

Numerical ratings for things that can't be measured objectively are dumb. It's better to express your opinion in words.

10 - very special in some way, maybe it's just technically perfect or infinitely rewatch able
9 - excellent
8 - very good
7 - good
6 - I don't regret watching this, but it's not very good. or a really entertaining shitty movie
5 - breaks even, exactly worth the run time and price
4 - regret watching, but had some good moments
3 - absolute trainwreck, very bad
2 - used to be a 1
1 - only one of these at a time, the worst movie I've ever seen. current holder is crazy rich asians

10 = movies that made me feel
9 = movies that made me think
8 = movies that were fun
7 = decent movies
6 = passable movies
5 = shit
4 = shit
3 = shit
2 = shit
1 = shit

Attached: 460.jpg (686x514, 69.24K)

fix'd

Attached: 1587001614464.jpg (389x661, 40.52K)

For IMDb I find a lot of 8.0ish are not that great
whilst many 6.9ish are actually really good
I put this down to normies thinking cliched moves are amazing and conversely downgrading kino because of their simp tastes

5 is average

For me, 6 and up is positive, 5 and below is negative. If it gets a 5, it's average and I didn't enjoy it. If it gets a 6, it's average, but I enjoyed it.

Life's too short to waste on mediocre movies. And many of them, far too many, fall at 5 or below.

Attached: champion.jpg (1677x2500, 541.92K)

the dunkey scale

Thanks

Attached: 1587000835107.jpg (648x547, 24.07K)

what about Letterboxd

don't use it
I know I prob should but it screams twitter for movie buffs
ie a lot of showboating

I don't rate films numerically and I don't trust the judgements of those who do.

Attached: Catwoman calls Scarecrow a pretentious hipster.jpg (444x657, 83.18K)