Here in Norway we rate things on a scale from 1-6, represented for some reason by a die. If a film is getting good reviews, you may see posters like this one, with a row of dice across the top....
The blessing of the Little Man system is that it offers a true middle position, like three on a five-star scale. I curse the Satanic force that dreamed up the four-star scale (at the New York Daily News in 1929, I think). It forces a compromise.
Here in Norway we rate things on a scale from 1-6, represented for some reason by a die. If a film is getting good reviews, you may see posters like this one, with a row of dice across the top.
The die scale doesn't allow for half stars, so it forces the reviewers to make a binary choice: Do I recommend this product? That's not always a good thing, but like Ebert points out; it's what readers want. And maybe it results in the average Norwegian critic scoring a film higher than the average international critic, like Ebert did after he stopped handing out 2.5 star ratings.
A die implies randomness. On one hand it doesn't make sense to use dice to grade a product. On the other hand, it kinda does, as there's usually some randomness involved in the result of the final product.
This whole thing sounds a lot like the Newgrounds rating system. IIRC Newgrounds specifically added the faces thing because with just unemotional numbers, people would tend to just mash 0 or 5 as...
IIRC Newgrounds specifically added the faces thing because with just unemotional numbers, people would tend to just mash 0 or 5 as a crude upvote/downvote, which made nuanced reviews statistically useless. And youtube had a similar problem, but responded by instead just replacing the rating system with an explicit like/dislike.
While any rating system is flawed, as any sort of nuance of complexity in a review gets lost when it needs to be reduced to a number, I do prefer fewer options and the Little Man explained here is...
While any rating system is flawed, as any sort of nuance of complexity in a review gets lost when it needs to be reduced to a number, I do prefer fewer options and the Little Man explained here is a good system. For example, IMDb's 10 star system is sort of meaningless in my opinion. In practice, anything below 5 or 6 is likely just crap. What is the difference between a 3 star or a 4 star movie? As Ebert says what it comes down to is whether the movie is worth seeing or not. I understand the need for a little more nuance between good movies and ground breaking masterpieces, but how many levels of "not recommended" is really needed? The most difficult types of movies are those in the middle, or what is 3 stars (the Interested Little Man) here, because it seems very undecided. There is something to be said about rating systems that forces the reviewer to decide whether it is good or not good, no in between option. Though I struggle with that myself with my personal ratings on Letterboxd reviews, where my threshold usually is whether I wished I spent the hours watching a different movie or not.
This is where Rotten Tomatoes scores work: The percentage of people that recommend a movie. You can make your own decision based on that score. But then again, what is the threshold? Is it 50%,...
This is where Rotten Tomatoes scores work: The percentage of people that recommend a movie. You can make your own decision based on that score.
But then again, what is the threshold? Is it 50%, 60% or even higher?
Still, it’s easier than a 10-star rating. If 95% of people say “go see this movie” and it’s only 7 stars on IMDb, do you go? Of course, because you’ll have a good time with an alright movie! Not all movies have to be excellent! We watch them for fun, to make us think or to relax!
Yes and Ebert ends with here "Have you considered actually reading the review?" Ratings can be a good rough filter, as I don't think there are many hidden masterpieces with a sub 50% or 5 star...
Yes and Ebert ends with here "Have you considered actually reading the review?"
Ratings can be a good rough filter, as I don't think there are many hidden masterpieces with a sub 50% or 5 star rating. But ratings alone can only say so much. Some of my favorite movies are at around 7.5 on IMDb, but so is a bunch of mediocre stuff too. The most interesting movies are often those that tend to be a bit divisive or controversial. A movie like "The Shawshank Redemption" is great and it is highly rated for a reason, but in my opinion also somewhat "non-dangerous" - as in it is a movie most people would agree to being pretty good and few people will outright hate. The stuff everyone agrees on also tend to be not that groundbreaking, provoking or something that changes someones life. But of course, highly rated movies do have a pretty good hitrate in being worth watching.
(This reply is kinda rambling and scattered, not sure if there's a point buried in here.) I find reviews really interesting; they're a fine line between prose and Consumer Reports, and the finesse...
(This reply is kinda rambling and scattered, not sure if there's a point buried in here.)
I find reviews really interesting; they're a fine line between prose and Consumer Reports, and the finesse is writing something that shows your understanding of it, gives your opinion to take away from it, and responsibly doesn't inject too much to the reader. Movie reviews are art, whatever Consumer Reports is doing is art, and some random comment on Amazon Basics AA Batteries is art.
Once I saw someone say that Armand White is a great reviewer because he's consistent - if White doesn't like a movie, they'll probably like it. Ebert says this here, that he consistently liked certain people and genres. I do see him pop up a lot talking about certain genres like noir very fondly when I look at contemporary vs modern reviews of certain movies. His opinion has weight there. We're conditionally entitled to our biases, and Ebert backs up the right caveat that we need to confront and explain those biases to turn them into conversation. Pointing that at media is an important mark he left on the review medium.
BUT, reviews - not critiques or columns, reviews - are ultimately asking a question of whether an object or experience is worth your time and money. I think points 2/4/5 here miss that not everyone has a repertoire to lean back on as they look at reviews for something in particular, nor do they necessarily have the care or love of the review as art, and many don't have the time or energy to read someone consistently enough to suss what their biases are. Through a certain lens it can come across like Ebert is asking people to understand him past any single review to understand his writing and scores, I guess? I love Ebert, and I find that he treated even his obstinate and poorly-founded video game opinions the same way as the rest of his work - he's able to at least convey his feelings well, regardless of whether I find him pretty wildly off-base and hypocritical. But people are going to read multiple reviews of a single thing from dozens of different authors just to see if they should spend their time and money on an experience. Can you give them a good answer that they'll understand? IMO that's kinda what this idea of a numerical rating system should exist to do, and do at a mere glance. I don't see the dreaded 2/4 as a problem here, or at least I don't see it any different from a guy sitting in a chair. It's still apathy.
For Ebert's reviews, I find (and he asserted) that he addresses this by being good at clarifying and labeling his thoughts and feelings... So I personally don't disagree with him when he outright says he's biased to love Kurosawa. I like Kurosawa! But I think there's two functions to address here, and that point just doesn't address the question that begs a review in the first place. Otherwise, if I don't typically like Kurosawa, why should I watch Seven Samurai? It won't answer it if a review leans too hard on point 2 or 5, and I think he's missing just a bit of nuance here.
Anyway - he was still the right guy to talk about this, and his points are salient. When I review media I try to rate it around point 6. A Miata isn't made to do the same thing as a McLaren; a Victorinox Classic isn't meant to be some high-end Japanese custom knife. For me, I think Rock Band 2 did exactly what it looked to do with a rock music sim, with the perfect playlist, more so than any other game in the genre. Perfect. And when Pokemon Sleep turns out to be an active biohazard to my health that wakes me up in the middle of the night, boy howdy do I want to let people know that by slapping the lowest rating that garbage will take on Backloggd.
One of my favorite reviewers of anything nowadays is Demi Adejuyigbe on his Letterboxd account, who unabashedly does not give out ratings for anything below 4/5 on the site. At points he's said that he typically just loves movies. Ebert alludes to this here in point 1, but Demi pulls that to an extreme and proves that it still works when he's able to gush so frequently about movies that he loves, the way he loves so many of them. Something about that enthusiastic outlook makes me eager to watch something he likes.
Here in Norway we rate things on a scale from 1-6, represented for some reason by a die. If a film is getting good reviews, you may see posters like this one, with a row of dice across the top.
The die scale doesn't allow for half stars, so it forces the reviewers to make a binary choice: Do I recommend this product? That's not always a good thing, but like Ebert points out; it's what readers want. And maybe it results in the average Norwegian critic scoring a film higher than the average international critic, like Ebert did after he stopped handing out 2.5 star ratings.
A die implies randomness. On one hand it doesn't make sense to use dice to grade a product. On the other hand, it kinda does, as there's usually some randomness involved in the result of the final product.
This whole thing sounds a lot like the Newgrounds rating system.
IIRC Newgrounds specifically added the faces thing because with just unemotional numbers, people would tend to just mash 0 or 5 as a crude upvote/downvote, which made nuanced reviews statistically useless. And youtube had a similar problem, but responded by instead just replacing the rating system with an explicit like/dislike.
While any rating system is flawed, as any sort of nuance of complexity in a review gets lost when it needs to be reduced to a number, I do prefer fewer options and the Little Man explained here is a good system. For example, IMDb's 10 star system is sort of meaningless in my opinion. In practice, anything below 5 or 6 is likely just crap. What is the difference between a 3 star or a 4 star movie? As Ebert says what it comes down to is whether the movie is worth seeing or not. I understand the need for a little more nuance between good movies and ground breaking masterpieces, but how many levels of "not recommended" is really needed? The most difficult types of movies are those in the middle, or what is 3 stars (the Interested Little Man) here, because it seems very undecided. There is something to be said about rating systems that forces the reviewer to decide whether it is good or not good, no in between option. Though I struggle with that myself with my personal ratings on Letterboxd reviews, where my threshold usually is whether I wished I spent the hours watching a different movie or not.
This is where Rotten Tomatoes scores work: The percentage of people that recommend a movie. You can make your own decision based on that score.
But then again, what is the threshold? Is it 50%, 60% or even higher?
Still, it’s easier than a 10-star rating. If 95% of people say “go see this movie” and it’s only 7 stars on IMDb, do you go? Of course, because you’ll have a good time with an alright movie! Not all movies have to be excellent! We watch them for fun, to make us think or to relax!
Yes and Ebert ends with here "Have you considered actually reading the review?"
Ratings can be a good rough filter, as I don't think there are many hidden masterpieces with a sub 50% or 5 star rating. But ratings alone can only say so much. Some of my favorite movies are at around 7.5 on IMDb, but so is a bunch of mediocre stuff too. The most interesting movies are often those that tend to be a bit divisive or controversial. A movie like "The Shawshank Redemption" is great and it is highly rated for a reason, but in my opinion also somewhat "non-dangerous" - as in it is a movie most people would agree to being pretty good and few people will outright hate. The stuff everyone agrees on also tend to be not that groundbreaking, provoking or something that changes someones life. But of course, highly rated movies do have a pretty good hitrate in being worth watching.
(This reply is kinda rambling and scattered, not sure if there's a point buried in here.)
I find reviews really interesting; they're a fine line between prose and Consumer Reports, and the finesse is writing something that shows your understanding of it, gives your opinion to take away from it, and responsibly doesn't inject too much to the reader. Movie reviews are art, whatever Consumer Reports is doing is art, and some random comment on Amazon Basics AA Batteries is art.
Once I saw someone say that Armand White is a great reviewer because he's consistent - if White doesn't like a movie, they'll probably like it. Ebert says this here, that he consistently liked certain people and genres. I do see him pop up a lot talking about certain genres like noir very fondly when I look at contemporary vs modern reviews of certain movies. His opinion has weight there. We're conditionally entitled to our biases, and Ebert backs up the right caveat that we need to confront and explain those biases to turn them into conversation. Pointing that at media is an important mark he left on the review medium.
BUT, reviews - not critiques or columns, reviews - are ultimately asking a question of whether an object or experience is worth your time and money. I think points 2/4/5 here miss that not everyone has a repertoire to lean back on as they look at reviews for something in particular, nor do they necessarily have the care or love of the review as art, and many don't have the time or energy to read someone consistently enough to suss what their biases are. Through a certain lens it can come across like Ebert is asking people to understand him past any single review to understand his writing and scores, I guess? I love Ebert, and I find that he treated even his obstinate and poorly-founded video game opinions the same way as the rest of his work - he's able to at least convey his feelings well, regardless of whether I find him pretty wildly off-base and hypocritical. But people are going to read multiple reviews of a single thing from dozens of different authors just to see if they should spend their time and money on an experience. Can you give them a good answer that they'll understand? IMO that's kinda what this idea of a numerical rating system should exist to do, and do at a mere glance. I don't see the dreaded 2/4 as a problem here, or at least I don't see it any different from a guy sitting in a chair. It's still apathy.
For Ebert's reviews, I find (and he asserted) that he addresses this by being good at clarifying and labeling his thoughts and feelings... So I personally don't disagree with him when he outright says he's biased to love Kurosawa. I like Kurosawa! But I think there's two functions to address here, and that point just doesn't address the question that begs a review in the first place. Otherwise, if I don't typically like Kurosawa, why should I watch Seven Samurai? It won't answer it if a review leans too hard on point 2 or 5, and I think he's missing just a bit of nuance here.
Anyway - he was still the right guy to talk about this, and his points are salient. When I review media I try to rate it around point 6. A Miata isn't made to do the same thing as a McLaren; a Victorinox Classic isn't meant to be some high-end Japanese custom knife. For me, I think Rock Band 2 did exactly what it looked to do with a rock music sim, with the perfect playlist, more so than any other game in the genre. Perfect. And when Pokemon Sleep turns out to be an active biohazard to my health that wakes me up in the middle of the night, boy howdy do I want to let people know that by slapping the lowest rating that garbage will take on Backloggd.
One of my favorite reviewers of anything nowadays is Demi Adejuyigbe on his Letterboxd account, who unabashedly does not give out ratings for anything below 4/5 on the site. At points he's said that he typically just loves movies. Ebert alludes to this here in point 1, but Demi pulls that to an extreme and proves that it still works when he's able to gush so frequently about movies that he loves, the way he loves so many of them. Something about that enthusiastic outlook makes me eager to watch something he likes.