I just realized that I've never gave a movie 3/5 stars.
What the hell.
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
I just realized that I've never gave a movie 3/5 stars. What the hell.
I just realized that I've never gave a movie 3/5 stars.
What the hell.
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
|
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
>less than 300 ratings
I also have 300+ on my watchlist.
It's really sad.
I've seen 2600 and have rated over 2200, don't worry about not having a lot of a particular rating.
Also I've only rated 13 films a half star
anyone with too many 1/2 star ratings is moronic to me. why would you ever spend that much time on finishing 1/2 star movies?
the same goes for those who never use the 5 star rating. you spend all this time watching movies and you dont gravitate towards the good stuff???
Agree, also anyone that autistically worries about muh curve. I've rated 230+ films 5 star
well, after you develop your own taste and watch enough movies youll always end up being more critical and having lower quality stuff to watch
I personally like to keep only movies that truly, truly touched me at 5 stars, the "actual" 5 stars to me are on 4.5.
No serious person has but a few ratings that are extremely low. If it their bars don't look like pic related, a hump just right of the center, they shouldn't be listened to about cinema, or anything else in the world.
>muh curve
All this proves is that you autistically care more about fitting the movies you watch into a moronic bell curve rather than actually determining their quality. Anyone with any sense will naturally gravitate towards movies they prefer and thus will have ratings skewed towards the higher end
In short, you're pathetic
You're mentally-ill and lmao@ you
My ratings look like that because I'm not a stupid c**t is all. All movies are subject to the exact same criteria:
>4 points possible for technical merit
>5 points possible for artistic merit
>1 point based on how I feel about it
It's objective. Most movies are made to a standard of technical competence and so most will be at least a 4/10. Most movies have something going for it as far as the creativity involved, and so the hump is to the right of center. And, as most things are shit, there are fewer 8s than 5s, fewer 9s than 4s, and fewer 10s than 3s.
Please, have another b***h-made breakdown about how my scores are based on a visual chart and not points rationally awarded to thoughtful criteria.
>it's objective
>t. homosexual taht maintains a perfect curve despite the movies he watches
lmao @ your life, keep being an uber autist and doing mental gymnastics to make your moronation seem "rational"
You're having an extreme antibody reaction to someone with a brain and a soul, and it's embarrassing. I'm sorry you're a frothing twat but lashing out at me won't actually make you feel better. Son, you need to meet an abrupt end for that to happen.
>someone with a brain and a soul
>t. autistic homosexual who obsesses over muh curve
You're the one obsessed, schizo. All I did is speak correctly and accurately to the validity of such a curve as it's evidence of someone capable of fair assessment of objective quality.
I get that you throw your crayons at mommy's ipad when you don't like a thing and slam your fists on the table and spill your apple juice when you do, and I get that you're all energized about someone being capable of having reasonable reactions to things, but you have got to settle down.
That curve simply means you're moronic enough to watch the same amount of below average movies as above average movies. A complete skill issue
Cope and seethe more with your paragraphs you autistic homosexual
It means I watch independent, big budget, domestic, and foreign releases of every genre.
>That curve simply means you're moronic enough to watch the same amount of below average movies as above average movies. A complete skill issue
You're extremely stupid, as evidenced by your admission to doing exactly this:
>"I'm going to watch a great movie."
>"Wow, that great movie is great!"
>*rates it as great, like the good boy you are*
Literally an NPC.
>Cope and seethe more with your paragraphs. I'm incapable of cogently and fully expressing a complete thought.
No shit?
>It means I watch independent, big budget, domestic, and foreign releases of every genre.
I do literally the same thing but I don't have a dumb as bricks bell curve because I'm not a moron and find a way to watch things I know I'll like.
Stay moronic, stay autistic, and keep typing up storms your absolute brainlet
>I only watch things I know I'll like because I'm very smart.
>You're a brainlet for challenging yourself.
No one will miss you when you're gone.
>challenging yourself means watching subpar trash
I'm not bothered that I've broken you to the point of this tantrum you're throwing.
>typing out paragraphs in defense of your autistic curve
>not the one who is throwing a tantrum
>i let other people decide what to watch 100% of the time because I'm too stupid to think for myself
Why even bother rating movies? Just post the IMDB top 250, there thats your opinion
>implying I don't watch a lot of movies others call trash that I like for characteristics like plot, producer and other factors I can consider before I watch them
Pic related is one of my favorite watches this year and I've seen over 700 movies in the 10+ months so far. Keep trying homosexual, you're just autistic
>I've seen over 700 movies in the 10+ months so far
>you're just autistic
nononononono
I'm OCD/OCPD which I am man enough to admit. I don't autistically try to fit my ratings into a perfect curve. Learn the difference brainlet
That's just a shade in the autism spectrum senpai....
>I've seen over 700 movies in the 10+ months so far.
Get a job
Autism, and not even the good kind
autists use the 0-100 scale. they can somehow differentiate between a movie rated 67/100 and 68/100
Mate if you've seen more than two movies a day this year you're most likely brain damaged, never mind autistic. The only reason this would be acceptable is if its your actual full time job to see movies and you just spend like four hours a day watching movies and then the other four hours writing reviews of them for an actual news paper or something.
This samegayging is desperate.
This
You are insanely autistic and your midwit cope about giving “objective” ratings is exactly what makes your opinions on cinema worthless
>No serious person
What of sincere persons?
You're gonna love my curve.
Eh. I just don't really tend to have strong reactions to movies. I rarely love a movie but I rarely hate them either. Mostly I'm just like yeah that was fine/decent but nothing exceptional, 3 stars. I don't think that's autism to not hand out 5 stars like a pez dispenser. That's reserved only for my favourite movies.
>I just don't really tend to have strong reactions to movies.
>t. has a perfect bell curve
pure autism, seek help
>Noo you must give 4 or 5 stars to average Hollywood slop or you are autistic.
>all I watch is average hollywood slop to maintain muh curve
>that means everyone else is the same
Autism
>willingly watching hollywood slop
>thinks he has any ground to stand in a discussion about movies
L
M
A
O
To be clear I don't do it intentionally to maintain a nice curve.
Still I just looked up signs of autism in adults and...well you may be onto something.
Bow to my superiority. A film is either perfect or it is not worth rating.
People who use the lowest and highest rating often simply don't know how to use a scale. No, a movie isn't worth 0.5 stars just because it's stupid, or you were offended by it. People who rate every clasic 5/5 are equally moronic.
>I'm superior for rating less than 10 movies 5/5
this is unrealistic curve to the realistic gentleman
fact is most people don't watch crap
thus people are biased to things that others have recommended or the zeitgeist has said is not complete crap
thus a positive bias is the natural curve
a lot of people just log a bunch of films they've seen as kids or a long time ago. I find that disingenuous. You can't properly rate a film you barely remember.
5 stars = personal favorites
4 stars = great
3 stars = decent
2 stars = bad
1 star = terrible
all that's needed
Same but I end up with a vast majority of 3’s and it rustles my autism that it’s imbalanced
it's perfectly balanced just imagine it as a normal distribution. something like this
t. autist
my Black person
half star users are mentally handicapped
Its literally 1-10 dumbass
Most intelligent letterboxd user
>decent to great
what about just good?
>bad to decent
what about mediocre?
mine goes
5 - my favourites
4 - excellent
3 - good/enjoyable
2 - meh/okay
1 - bad
I don't need more.
yes I know. so if people who use half stars are mentally handicapped, what must that mean of 1 - 10 scale users?
>good movies are your favorite
back to imdb pls
I need the full scale.
5 - personal favorites
4.5 - excellent
4 - great
3.5 - good
3 - decent
2.5 - mediocre
2 - poor
1.5 - bad
1 - terrible
0.5 - hated every single minute of it
>not using a 0.25 rating scale
do you even watch kinos, flicks, films, or movies?
There's no reason to have so many levels of rating. It's Yes/No and then Favorite/Deplorable. One rating based on reason and the other on emotion. Everything else is masturbatory.
i like jerking off
Who are you trying to convince?
just making a statement
There's no reason to have so many levels of communication. It's :)/:( and then :D/:C. One emoticon based on reason and the other on emotion. Everything else is masturbatory.
i like jerking off
People say I rate my movies really low but I don't get it, isn't it subjective? Like, I know Y is a great movie but in my opinion when compared to Z, my favorite movie, it's just alright.
Am I just using it wrong? If I'm not doing that of course all movies would be 4*s and above, I'm not moronic enough to willingly watch schlop.
everyone who watches movies is moronic and autistic, you two are just two different types of the same turd pie
you're welcome, you both may now kiss
>using Letterboxd reviews to prove you have a soul
>using Letterboxd reviews to prove you have a brain
>using Cinemaphile to prove you don't have a brain
>literally over 100k movies ever made
>watch a tiny fraction of those
>somehow have a perfect rating curve
Yes. If you're regularly watching movies you'll eventually end up in positions where you're either watching nothing at all or literal trash. Once you're in your 30s and 40s the amount of genuinely awful trash you've seen simply because the alternative was restless boredom adds up and you'll get these kinds of bell curves with a hump around 7/10 because most of the time you've actually got options. You'd probably shudder at the horror of being stuck at home on a monday as a kid without cable and being forced to watch whatever movie was on the three channels you had because it at least wasn't just reruns of a Matlock or whatever.
guess its time for you to watch sum b***hes lmaooo
I'm in my 30s and less than 20% of what I've seen falls at 2.5 or below. You're just autistic but keep ding mental gymnastics about your curve and writing paragraphs about it
>less than 20% of what I've seen falls at 2.5 or below.
Yes? Can you point to a graph that anyone has posted here that's got 20% with 2.5 movies on it? Can you even read a graph?
Mind you I'm saying 2.5/10, if you've not even seen 20% 2.5/5 movies then you've most likely not seen very many movies or you're not even remotely willing to do things like watch an early works from specific directors and actors. I mean shit Kubrick's first movie is fricking awful. Like so bad I don't remember most of it and so bad that even fans of his never bring it up even as a curiosity, because its just fricking bad. Still I saw it in a theater because it was playing because "Hey it can't be that bad" and it turned out to be forgettable trash.
>Mind you I'm saying 2.5/10
>in a thread where everyone has been using 1-5 ratings
Backpeddling moron
Bell curves have about half at that or under so
But wait
>Mind you I'm saying 2.5/10
Oh you realized how moronic you were and moved the goalposts huh? What a homosexual
I've wanted to have sex with this derpess for nearly 20 years now
If you're watching films at random, that's to be expected. The total number of films in existence is completely meaningless as to whether your sample will be distributed similar to the true population's distribution.
>Heh, I'll strawman your opinion then attach an unrelated cum deposit roastie alongside it, I am very smart.
All me btw
I made the thread just to point out how I seemingly never gave a movie three stars... it was just a fun post....
You guys really don't have to fight over bell curves....
Let's all recommend OP some 3.5 star movies to watch.
>Bullet Train
>The Martian
>The Gentlemen
>Mirrormask
>A Quiet Place
>Hail Caesar
>Cloverfield
He said he never ranked a movie 3, not 3.5. That said A Quiet Place is 3/5 at best
Oh shit my reading comprehension
Bullet Train is 1.5 stars at best
>letterboxd
Leftist homosexual site.
Zeitgeistreviews.com
What a terrible UI, shill your shit elsewhere or at least pay for an ad homosexual
peak chudcorekino
id use it if i could self host, as im quite sure the owner will denounce israel and get the whole website down after a shizo meltdown
i've never given any stars to any movie. do people really waste time on this nonsense?
If you had friends you'd be able to compare and discuss your decisions do theirs.
In your case, yeah, makes sense not to bother with it.
Based
Cringe
I mostly watch acclaimed kinos.
i dont get the curve
can you rate something 3.4/5 or why is are there more lines than stars
sorry for beeing moronic
there's a column for ever half star rating from .5 to 5.
ohh
thank you
The curve was designed by a sub-pagan god order that wants to steal your spirit points. THERE IS NO METHOD TO THE MADNESS. RATE FILMS AT THE RISK OF LOSING YOUR SPIRIT POINTS.
smartest Cinemaphile poster
Why yes, I do in fact do it all by hand and for my own benefit. Also, I want that 0 rating possibility. 517 seen, 1284 to go.
What got the zero?
Tarantino's Death Proof. The bar scene at the start was just so hard to get through, I had to stop watching. I'll go back and give it another chance some day.
It was a gradual process, so not too much time. A SQL database would be more flexible and robust, but less convenient. I store basic identification stuff (year of release, director(s), primary genre, etc.) but also why I watched it (if someone recommended it, was on an industry poll or something), when I last saw it (so I can judge my confidence in the score I gave it), and what it's rated on IMDB (just out of curiosity to look for trends on where my tastes deviate from the average).
I also keep notes about each film, so I can remember why I gave it why I did, but I don't hardly have detailed notes for every movie I've seen. It's a good practice though, really makes me pay more attention to things beyond the superficial experience of watching it.
I don't know that there's a major advantage in doing this by hand versus writing reviews on a site like everyone else, but I enjoy having control of it.
Thanks for replying, and as someone with only a very shallow knowledge of SQL (used to run some p. servers) I'm quite interested on copying your idea as a fun project.
Huh, thanks anon, now I have something to do during in my free time.
Enjoy, I hope it turns out to be a good project. Making charts and having an objective sense of how much your friends' tastes overlap with yours is fun.
It really would be next-level on the autism scale. The main thing is that spreadsheets aren't really useful for 3+ dimensional data. For example, trying to attach multiple directors to a film, or multiple genres, is very clumsy, whereas it's trivial with SQL. But I don't think the merits are worth the overhead for data manipulation and casual browsing. Maybe Acccess is the right middle-ground? I've literally never opened it and have no idea.
An annoying fraction of my job is dealing with people storing many-to-many relationships as long strings in excel spreadsheets.
They are blissfully ignorant of the pain they cause. They should teach everyone how to use Access or some sort of RDBMS in school. It's insane how entrenched and abusedExcel is. Nice digits btw.
Kek I was going to make a joke about storing film watch data in a SQL database but it was too autistic for me.
I'm assuming that it's a excel sheet. Pretty long time investment in the beginning but once you're settled it's probably pretty easy.
Do you add anything about the movies other than their names? Mind showing off youd sheets?
That's how mine looks. If a film is below 7/10 on imdb (or below 3.5/5 on lb) I don't bother with it. I respect my time.
The only good films are rated below 7
itt:the reason why rating sites are dogshit and their opinion worthless
How are you two still arguing?
its a thing of honor
you wouldnt get it, kid
>im not like the other autists trust me
3/5 Is a completely useless score. It's basically just saying "I don't have an opinion." If you don't have an opinion, why bother posting at all? All rating scales should be even numbered to force the reviewer to pick a side.
wouldn't that be 2.5?
Only if you go from 0-5. 1-5 makes 3 the middle.
i mean, letterboxd uses decimals....
Letterbox'd is for women and men that want to use social media, but are too self-conscious to use actual social media.
i use it because im too lazy to write down everything myself
do you have any alternatives that wont consume half my life away just to set up?
i want the pretty posters and a watchlist and all the information
>do you have any alternatives that wont consume half my life away just to set up?
A notepad or excel file.
>i want the pretty posters and a watchlist and all the information
I mean, I guess letterboxd is your best option in that case, but, like, why?
to each his own i suppose, i like the commodity of having all the information available the same way you want to frick animals that are too small to fit your dick in
Several f these animals have been large enough.
BigQuery data warehouse.
The median is 2.75
Letterboxd's ratings go from 0.5-5. A 3 isn't the middle
>Letterboxd's ratings go from 0.5-5.
mad men
>0.5 , 5.0
>1.0 , 4.5
>1.5 , 4.0
>2.0 , 3.5
>2.5 , 3.0
2.75 is the average
This is why median is superior. 2.75 isn't an option.
What's the median of that data then if it's so great
2.5. and 3.0 are tied, which is far more useful data.
"2.5 and 3.0" also isn't a option, which was your criticism of 2.75
Oh, so you're a moronic American incapable of considering anything that doesn't fit exactly into a category. That explains everything.
No, that wasn't my criticism, it was yours.
>This is why median is superior. 2.75 isn't an option.
You specifically said median is superior to mean because mean doesn't provide an answer which is selectable on Letterbox'd. That was your rationale, not mine. Are you walking that back?
>No, that wasn't my criticism, it was yours.
No, moron. Are you brain damaged? 2.75 is not a choice, which makes mean's data much less useful than median giving you the answer that 2.5 and 3.0 are equally chosen. Mean provides a theoretical answer that has no practical use without interpretation while median provides information that you can use right now. I don't understand why you're having so much trouble with this. Those aren't contradictory statements.
>Mean provides a theoretical answer that has no practical use without interpretation while median provides information that you can use right now
Neither of those two pieces of data are the average though, which was the original question. Of the three answers given only 2.75 can be called the average in some sense of the word.
Decimals are for cowards.
3/5 is a shit rating tbh, either like it or dislike it. Cut out the middle star and make it a 4 star rating
the only rating i need is a .55 right between my eyes
letterboxd probably probably recommend shooting yourself twice with a .22
mfw
I just use Google search and click Watched and thumb up or down. I can see in my history what I watched/read/listened to and if I liked or not. Good enough.
most pathetic person itt yet
and we had two morons argue about curves for literally three hours straight
You seem to believe that when people see your ratings they think "woah, what a refined critic! he barely gives high scores so they HAVE to be very meaningful and worthy!" but in reality people either think you're a moron who watches shit movies on purpose and don't even get any satisfaction from it or a simple troll who just wants to tank the average rating on every movie.
homosexual alert, whenever I see a profile with ratings like this I report because more than likely they're chuds and they wind up getting banned
rym>>>>
you can rate movies on rate your music??
5 - Great Movie
4 - Good Movie
3 - Ok movie
2 - Bad movie
1 - Awful movie
It has to actually piss me off to get below 3 stars for me. I might be the most generous grader on the site. Half stars are for cowards.
I can respect this as even though it adheres to muh curve it's weighted higher. Anyone that has a curve rooted firmly at the middle of the scale is moronic
There is favorite, good but no rewatch, mediocre, and bad. Nothing else.