Agreed, although I know a LOT of people who really do watch what's on Dish based on those stars. Can't tell you how often I have disagreed with those stars.
Who does the reviews and star ratings for Dish?
- Thread starter Ronald_Jeremy
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 31
- Views 13K
Agreed, although I know a LOT of people who really do watch what's on Dish based on those stars. Can't tell you how often I have disagreed with those stars.
You make a good point, as I have often been frustrated with the 4 stars maximum on Dish/Tribune although they do have HALF--stars, so there are more than 4 steps. However, Yes, I have preferred for a long time more steps and stars go give a more accurate rating for material on Dish. Sometimes that is the primary frustration I have with the rating on Dish as opposed to just disagreeing with the star ratings.
I have about 400 films above 8.0 on IMDb, which would be 4.0 on Tribune, all things being equal--they really are good.
-Ken
-Ken
I use the star rating system and the movie descriptions all the time. As long as I modify my viewing based on my genre preferences, I find that the stars match my tastes quite well. My main complaint is that foreign language films are not specified as such.
What I find important for reviews is to find movie reviewers that are in your camp already. For me, its Kenneth Turran and Manhola Dargis. Go to Rotten Tomatoes, find films that the general public disagreed with you and find a reviewer that agreed with you. Kenneth Turran hit it out of the park with films like Superman Returns while a bunch of other reviewers were all gah gah over it.inazsully said:
Reviews are definitely subjective, so it is best to find a reviewer you agree a bunch of the time. Also, it is good to be able to read between lines in order to get a feel for what the reviewer didn't like about a film.
In general, I think reviews from Tribune are better with TCM and classic films as they've been around long enough to filter into their appropriate categories. I typically won't watch a 2 star or lower film on TCM, unless there is an actor I'm trying to watch.
It works both ways. A four star system allows for a gentler classification of films. 1 is trash, 2 is okay, 3 is very good and 4 is outstanding. The 10 star system splits things up and a subjective reviews can based a film from 6.5 (pretty good) to 3.5 (yak!) where it could be just a 2 star film. IMDB shows what is wrong with the 10 star system. 10 stars is almost impossible to obtain, while garbage films could rate 4 stars, when they should be just 1 of 4. How does one rate Citizen Kane, Gone with the Wind, Network, Missing, Mister Roberts, Shadow of a Doubt, Witness for the Prosecution in a 10 star system? They'd all be 3.5 to 4 stars in a 4 star system. Simply noted, 4 stars is easier to judge on and less subjective. One can still disagree, but there is less room for subjectiveness.dishsubla said:
Last edited:
DVDTALK.com does a very good job on breaking down a film. They discuss the story line, producers and editors performance, the actors performance, Picture quality and sound quality. and end the review with they're final thought. That thought can be "don't bother, "rent it", good", and "outstanding" It's not unusual to see a film reviewed by more than one reviewer so you get a mix of opinions. I only wish they reviewed more movies than they do. By reading the body of the review you can decide what to like or dislike based on your taste.
Wow; this thead started in 2008! OK, since Yah1! resurrected it from 2011, I'll add my 2c. I was always fond of Reptilicus, which would you believe was not made in Japan. It was so God-awful it was good.
Since it has been resurrected:
I would gladly accept the lousy stars IF we could get rid of the subjective descriptions of the movies for OBJECTIVE descriptions, like they were back with Tribune (folded into Gracenote when sold to Tribune, then Tribune sold Gracenote to Nielsen--the TV ratings people, and very shortly after that just about every MVPD dumped Gracenote/Nielsen and went with Rovi), and in the old TV Guide. Also, the CAST info is can be very subjective with negative remarks about an actor or even a fawning description of an actor. Just stick to the facts and objectivity.
I would gladly accept the lousy stars IF we could get rid of the subjective descriptions of the movies for OBJECTIVE descriptions, like they were back with Tribune (folded into Gracenote when sold to Tribune, then Tribune sold Gracenote to Nielsen--the TV ratings people, and very shortly after that just about every MVPD dumped Gracenote/Nielsen and went with Rovi), and in the old TV Guide. Also, the CAST info is can be very subjective with negative remarks about an actor or even a fawning description of an actor. Just stick to the facts and objectivity.
Descriptions can be problematic. On Dish it isn't an issue because it'd be hard to spoil outcomes with the short length available. But television shows that I've known, I've seen flat out spoilers in the description and I'm aghast to that!
Though this does give me a Game Thread idea.
Though this does give me a Game Thread idea.
Seems only fair to plug "Life Itself" which IMDB has rated at 7.8 
www.imdb.com
Life Itself (2014) - IMDb
Directed by Steve James. With Roger Ebert, Chaz Ebert, Gene Siskel, Martin Scorsese. The life and career of the renowned film critic and social commentator, Roger Ebert.
www.imdb.com
