NOTE: these posts were originally moved from The Shoutbox. Please forgive their sudden nature.
Originally Posted by The Next Big Thing
People are very touchy about me repping them down, but I never do so without reason and I'm always happy to explain via PM if people would stop bringing it up in the actually topic.
:( Either way, I figure if people can hand out the rep, then they shouldn't be bothered by people knowing about it. Why does it bother you that people say so? |
Originally Posted by Ðèstîñy
Originally Posted by The Next Big Thing
People are very touchy about me repping them down, but I never do so without reason and I'm always happy to explain via PM if people would stop bringing it up in the actually topic.
:( Either way, I figure if people can hand out the rep, then they shouldn't be bothered by people knowing about it. Why does it bother you that people say so? Obviously the user should know about it, I'm just saying the topic shouldn't then change to "why the **** did you just rep me down?'. Generally, where possible, you stay on topic. If people have an issue they should PM me and I'll be more than happy to explain myself and provide apologies if I've been too harsh. It bothers me because I don't want comments on my profile asking "what the hell is your problem exactly?" for using the sites features such as rep. Hopefully you'll understand my sentiments Des. |
Originally Posted by The Next Big Thing
It was a concept that I not only completely disagreed with, but felt it was illogical and for lack of a better word stupid, so I repped it down. |
Originally Posted by Miss Vicky
Originally Posted by The Next Big Thing
It was a concept that I not only completely disagreed with, but felt it was illogical and for lack of a better word stupid, so I repped it down. |
Originally Posted by Ðèstîñy
Originally Posted by The Next Big Thing
A while back in the shout box I claimed I only thumbed down Spam, and people were like huh, thats not what the negative rep thing is for. I now use thumbing down as a way of saying I disagree, but apparently thats unbeliavable offencive and warrants comments on my profile demmanding to know what my problem is.
C'mon, they could be a little nicer about it is all I'm saying. |
Originally Posted by The Next Big Thing
Originally Posted by Miss Vicky
Originally Posted by The Next Big Thing
It was a concept that I not only completely disagreed with, but felt it was illogical and for lack of a better word stupid, so I repped it down. What a joke, thank God your not a member of the academy. I'd cancel all commercialisation just to keep your expectations from damaging the film, you'd have to watch with no prior knowledge what so ever. |
Originally Posted by The Next Big Thing
Baring in mind of course were talking about comparing movies (what the debate stemmed from), so if two movie were exactly equal in terms of on screen quality (just for example), one could triumph over the other because you thought it would/should have been better?
What a joke, thank God your not a member of the academy. I'd cancel all commercialisation just to keep your expectations from damaging the film, you'd have to watch with no prior knowledge what so ever. Secondly, yes, when determining which movie I prefer in terms of personal preference, how closely a film met my expectations of it is a big factor. I'd be willing to bet that's true for a lot of people. |
Originally Posted by The Next Big Thing
C'mon, they could be a little nicer about it is all I'm saying.
Originally Posted by The Next Big Thing
I don't, it doesn't change the art form what so ever, its ridiculously stupid and unfair.
|
Originally Posted by Ðèstîñy
Originally Posted by The Next Big Thing
C'mon, they could be a little nicer about it is all I'm saying.
Originally Posted by The Next Big Thing
I don't, it doesn't change the art form what so ever, its ridiculously stupid and unfair.
|
Originally Posted by Miss Vicky
Originally Posted by The Next Big Thing
Baring in mind of course were talking about comparing movies (what the debate stemmed from), so if two movie were exactly equal in terms of on screen quality (just for example), one could triumph over the other because you thought it would/should have been better?
What a joke, thank God your not a member of the academy. I'd cancel all commercialisation just to keep your expectations from damaging the film, you'd have to watch with no prior knowledge what so ever. Secondly, yes, when determining which movie I prefer in terms of personal preference, who closely a film met my expectations of it is a big factor. I'd be willing to bet that's true for a lot of people. No, I think your alone on that, or atleast part of a very foolish minority that believe the quality of say, a 90 minute feature can be degraded further because it didn't match up to your expectations. Once again the movie is as bad or as good as it it. It surely cant be worse than bad because you thought it was going to be good. Of course disappointment is a very strong emotion, but it should get affiliated to the QUALITY of the film. Just the film itself. Aliens vs Predator was disappointing because it was ****, not more **** because I was disappointed. This is bloody obvious. You have little respect for the academies opinion? I have to say even with the academy, rife with politics and bullshit, nothing as ridiculous has ever emerged as "that films sucks really bad cause I thought it was gona be good. You clearly have too many friends on this board who are unwilling to tell you how silly your opinion is. I cant change it, and you can take it to bed with you at night, but F88k its silly. |
Originally Posted by The Next Big Thing
Saying someones opinion is foolish and unfair in a comparison is about as timid and you can get.
That said, I don't think you've properly considered this issue from all angles. You're talking about a person's expectation in a vacuum, but it doesn't exist that way. Usually, if we have high expectations for a film, it's because it appears to have a great deal of potential. And giving a film a lower rating because it didn't do as much with its potential or concept as it could have is an entirely reasonable thing to judge it for. Thus, it can be reasonable to give a film a lower rating based at least partially on expectation, provided that expectation is based in something else, like potential. |
Originally Posted by Yoda
Originally Posted by The Next Big Thing
Saying someones opinion is foolish and unfair in a comparison is about as timid and you can get.
That said, I don't think you've properly considered this issue from all angles. You're talking about a person's expectation in a vacuum, but it doesn't exist that way. Usually, if we have high expectations for a film, it's because it appears to have a great deal of potential. And giving a film a lower rating because it didn't do as much with its potential or concept as it could have is an entirely reasonable thing to judge it for. Thus, it can be reasonable to give a film a lower rating based at least partially on expectation, provided that expectation is based in something else, like potential. I agree, I'll can it slightly, it just get frustrating when a certain moderator .... what ever. Back to the debate, thats what I'm here for, everything else is bullshit. 'Potential' is defined by you and can lead to disappointment that a film does not fulfil its potential. Like I said, disappointment is a powerful emotion, especially when you love cinema as much as the users of this forum do, it should not however be affiliated with the quality of the feature, this is insane dude. When comparing a film with another (what this debate is actually about) you need to establish global variables that can be applied to all films. It isn't fair that non-commercialised films are made safe from your expectations (Possibly). |
Originally Posted by The Next Big Thing
'Potential' is defined by you and can lead to disappointment that a film does not fulfil its potential. Like I said, disappointment is a powerful emotion, especially when you love cinema as much as the users of this forum do, it should not however be affiliated with the quality of the feature, this is insane dude. When comparing a film with another (what this debate is actually about) you need to establish global variables that can be applied to all films. It isn't fair that non-commercialised films are made safe from your expectations (Possibly).
I'm not going to argue that people don't judge movies for silly or emotional reasons. They absolutely do, all the time, and it can be pretty annoying to someone who tries to take a more analytical approach. But technically speaking, I think it's reasonable to judge a film a bit more harshly because it had a great idea, and didn't live up to it. I also wonder if the debate really is about comparing one film to another. Wasn't Vicky just talking about being disappointed in a single movie? I could be wrong, but I think you introduced the idea of comparison. I don't know if this even matters, but I think you guys might be talking about slightly different things. |
Re: Should disappointment factor into your ratings?
How this whole kerfuffle got started was , somebody asked " how do you compare films"
I said, Expectation plays into it. I used the Recent Russell Crowe and Ridley Scott Robin Hood. I mean, take King Arthur, another movie stripping away the legend, to make the story "realistically believable". When this came out on DVD, and i saw that Mr. Fantastic was cast as Sir Lancelot, with the chick from Pirates of teh Carribean , i had no expectation whatsoever. imo Robin Hood King Arthur |
Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 673939)
Well, sure, I define "potential." I also define good acting and good effects and any other number of things used to judge a film. That can't be avoided.
I'm not going to argue that people don't judge movies for silly or emotional reasons. They absolutely do, all the time, and it can be pretty annoying to someone who tries to take a more analytical approach. But technically speaking, I think it's reasonable to judge a film a bit more harshly because it had a great idea, and didn't live up to it. I also wonder if the debate really is about comparing one film to another. Wasn't Vicky just talking about being disappointed in a single movie? I could be wrong, but I think you introduced the idea of comparison. I don't know if this even matters, but I think you guys might be talking about slightly different things.
Originally Posted by DexterRiley (Post 673532)
Reasonable expectation plays a role for me.
its a weighted system. For example: I expect more from Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe than what Robin Hood was. A movies is rated from 00:00:00 to 01:30:00 (for example) in my opinion. Failed expectations and unfulfilled potential can leave a bitter taste in the mouth of any movie goer, especially if you feel strongly about the art, but does not affect the quality of the feature. That is the content captured on the 35mm film stock. Like I keep saying, commercialisation is 90% of the reason we become hopeful. When I saw the trailer for avp 7 years ago now, I though it looked awesome. The movie sucked, because the feature sucked, my disappointment was just something I had to deal with personally as I exited the cinema. My original argument remains, and you can see this if you go back to the original thread 'how do you compare movies' and then go to the Ridley scott thread for my response (because bizarrely that where Dexter decided to confront me about why I gave him negative rep for his claim, which led to me explaining).
Originally Posted by TNBT
I would never involve commercialisation with my overall enjoyment of a feature, especially since some films don't have hollywood backing their cause or any sort of commercialisation atoll. Its just not a good variable to consider in my opinion as its not compatible with all films, its like when I raised my eyebrow at the guy that said action and stunts. If your going to compare different movies, presumably you need to establish global variables to do so.
|
Re: Should disappointment factor into your ratings?
there wasnt a debate.
you negged me. wtg sport |
All topics are open for discussion. If you post a response your allowing/giving people the freedom to disagree with you and discuss, its a forum for goodness sake. If you don't want any debate on an issue and your happy with your own beliefs and don't need others weighting their opinions against your, don't post on a public forum. I 'negged you' as a way of saying I disagree and until specific rules are implemented on reping thats what I'm going to continue to do. I should have explained myself there and then, but didn't have time. Thats the only thing I apologise for and this is a rare occurrence as I normally post rite away, but I had to go for a bite to eat. Anyway, I'm happy to explain to anyway why I've reped them down if they ask..... nicely.
|
Re: Should disappointment factor into your ratings?
Disappointment can factor into a rating sometimes, but I think after repeat viewings of the film disappointment becomes less and less of a factor than the actual true quality of a film.
|
Re: Should disappointment factor into your ratings?
I'm with Next Big Thing on this one, your personal expectations don't change what you're watching at all. Disappointed or not, I think you saw the same movie.
|
Re: Should disappointment factor into your ratings?
I'm not talking about Commercialization.
I could care less how much a movie makes. popularity doesnt allways = quality it rarely does actually. The only films i care about the financial return, are the ones I've invested in. |
All times are GMT -3. The time now is 08:22 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright, ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Movie Forums