Author Topic: New Star Ratings  (Read 4268 times)

Melvil

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9977
  • Eek
Re: New Star Ratings
« Reply #10 on: February 03, 2010, 02:45:28 PM »
It's used on tons of podcasts including the entire TWIT network, which are among the biggest/most popular podcasts in the world.

Most of the time they're recording each person locally and reassembling in post, only using the skype connection to communicate live, not as the final output. It can be done, but it takes a lot of work to do well. Skype on its own is not broadcast quality.

Adam

  • Administrator
  • Elite Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4572
    • Filmspotting
Re: New Star Ratings
« Reply #11 on: February 03, 2010, 02:46:50 PM »
It's used on tons of podcasts including the entire TWIT network, which are among the biggest/most popular podcasts in the world.

Most of the time they're recording each person locally and reassembling in post, only using the skype connection to communicate live, not as the final output. It can be done, but it takes a lot of work to do well. Skype on its own is not broadcast quality.
Right, which is how Sam and I did it... except over the phone instead of Skype.

I don't have any interest in recording a show with someone not sitting across from me though. Sam and I pulled it off OK, but not fun.
Follow Filmspotting on Twitter at http://twitter.com/filmspotting

Listen to Filmspotting at https://www.filmspotting.net/ and on Chicago Public Radio (91.5 FM)

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28785
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: New Star Ratings
« Reply #12 on: February 03, 2010, 02:53:50 PM »
It's used on tons of podcasts including the entire TWIT network, which are among the biggest/most popular podcasts in the world.

Most of the time they're recording each person locally and reassembling in post, only using the skype connection to communicate live, not as the final output. It can be done, but it takes a lot of work to do well. Skype on its own is not broadcast quality.
Right, which is how Sam and I did it... except over the phone instead of Skype.

I don't have any interest in recording a show with someone not sitting across from me though. Sam and I pulled it off OK, but not fun.

Seems more personal this way as well, that's one of the draws for the Giantbombcast for me as well, face to face casts seem more natural.

Tim

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Be excellent to each other
Re: New Star Ratings
« Reply #13 on: February 03, 2010, 07:41:13 PM »
I like the idea of using full stars only. It will indeed force you to make some hard decisions. It will however make it harder to decide for Top 5s which 4 star movie was better than another 4 star movie. At least that will force you to add longevity to the equation.

I personally use a percentage system with three decimal places ;)

"Only cinema narrows its concern down to its content, that is to its story. It should, instead, concern itself with its form, its structure." Peter Greenaway

Sergey

  • Junior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12
Re: New Star Ratings
« Reply #14 on: March 25, 2010, 11:32:41 AM »
I was curious as to why Adam gave an equal amount of stars to every film in the Lubitsch marathon so far, whereas Matty took a stand to which he preferred. Now I see why this is the case. Personally, I would be more curious as to which films Adam preferred rather than having the 'general overview' as it is pretty obvious to me that all of the films have been well-liked.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Adam

  • Administrator
  • Elite Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4572
    • Filmspotting
Re: New Star Ratings
« Reply #15 on: March 25, 2010, 11:54:39 AM »
I was curious as to why Adam gave an equal amount of stars to every film in the Lubitsch marathon so far, whereas Matty took a stand to which he preferred. Now I see why this is the case. Personally, I would be more curious as to which films Adam preferred rather than having the 'general overview' as it is pretty obvious to me that all of the films have been well-liked.
Not using star ratings generally though forces you to take much more of a stand on movies - you can't just lump everything in together. For example, I could easily give passes to OK movies like Green Zone and Ghost Writer (3 stars) or I can just admit they were disappointments and not that good (2 stars). Would be so much easier to just give all movies like this 2.5 stars like I used to!

In the Marathon context though, my preference will have to come out during our awards, or of course during the discussions themselves - usually comes up which movie has impressed the most so far. Honestly, right now, after seeing all 4 films, I'm not even sure I know which one I like best. I can make cases for all of them.
Follow Filmspotting on Twitter at http://twitter.com/filmspotting

Listen to Filmspotting at https://www.filmspotting.net/ and on Chicago Public Radio (91.5 FM)

oldkid

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 19044
  • Hi there! Feed me worlds!
Re: New Star Ratings
« Reply #16 on: March 26, 2010, 11:47:58 AM »
I tried using a five star, but it was too limiting, so I ended up with half stars.  I just couldn't decide between 3 or 4 too often.  I understand that this is really a 1-10 rating, but I don't care.  Half stars are for people who are more discerning.  :P

But Adam, if you can keep to full stars, more power to you.  You have more will power than I.
"It's not art unless it has the potential to be a disaster." Bansky

Adam

  • Administrator
  • Elite Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4572
    • Filmspotting
Re: New Star Ratings
« Reply #17 on: March 26, 2010, 02:31:56 PM »
I tried using a five star, but it was too limiting, so I ended up with half stars.  I just couldn't decide between 3 or 4 too often.  I understand that this is really a 1-10 rating, but I don't care.  Half stars are for people who are more discerning.  :P
Ha ha... yeah, that's where I disagree though... half stars are a cop out. You don't have to take a stand.
Follow Filmspotting on Twitter at http://twitter.com/filmspotting

Listen to Filmspotting at https://www.filmspotting.net/ and on Chicago Public Radio (91.5 FM)

oldkid

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 19044
  • Hi there! Feed me worlds!
Re: New Star Ratings
« Reply #18 on: March 26, 2010, 06:37:03 PM »
I tried using a five star, but it was too limiting, so I ended up with half stars.  I just couldn't decide between 3 or 4 too often.  I understand that this is really a 1-10 rating, but I don't care.  Half stars are for people who are more discerning.  :P
Ha ha... yeah, that's where I disagree though... half stars are a cop out. You don't have to take a stand.

I stand very firmly between three and four!  Very decisively!   :)
"It's not art unless it has the potential to be a disaster." Bansky

Dave the Necrobumper

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 12730
  • If I keep digging maybe I will get out of this hol
Re: New Star Ratings
« Reply #19 on: March 26, 2010, 08:03:29 PM »
For me I have trouble giving a star rating at all, so I go with the more positive approach of why you should see a movie. Just because everyone might give 'Saw' and 'Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang' 4 out of 4 they are very different movies and each has a very different audience, so it is more useful to say see 'Saw' because it is one of the greatest horror films, or see 'Nanny McPhee and the Bag Bang' for great entertainment for the kids.

Stars are handy for a quick gauge, if you tend to agree with the reviewer's views generally, I just can not give them any more.

PS I have never seen Saw, all ratings are just for demonstration

 

love