Kenny McBride Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 I'm as much about the "just enjoy it for what it is" attitude as anyone, but there are some really, really stupid arguments about star ratings going on here. Do you think a film reviewer in a newspaper is an idiot for giving a film 3 1/2 stars? Shouldn't he just say "it was a good film. I enjoyed it. But you're entitled to your own opinion"? No. His job is to review films thoroughly and give people some sort of standardised measure of their overall quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vamp Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 I'm as much about the "just enjoy it for what it is" attitude as anyone, but there are some really, really stupid arguments about star ratings going on here. Do you think a film reviewer in a newspaper is an idiot for giving a film 3 1/2 stars? Shouldn't he just say "it was a good film. I enjoyed it. But you're entitled to your own opinion"? No. His job is to review films thoroughly and give people some sort of standardised measure of their overall quality. Â That's his job though. That's what he's paid to do, that's why he does it. Same with Meltzer, it makes sense for him to do it because he can get money out of it, I was more getting at the fans who are so focused on it that they can't switch off and watch what is, quite honestly, mindless entertainment at its best. Â Equally your example supposes that there arn't people who have the same criticisms about film reviewers, which isn't true. Plenty of people criticise film reviewers, often for their star systems and often for showing a particular bias to certain types of film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikeymike83 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 I'm as much about the "just enjoy it for what it is" attitude as anyone, but there are some really, really stupid arguments about star ratings going on here. Do you think a film reviewer in a newspaper is an idiot for giving a film 3 1/2 stars? Shouldn't he just say "it was a good film. I enjoyed it. But you're entitled to your own opinion"? No. His job is to review films thoroughly and give people some sort of standardised measure of their overall quality. Â That's his job though. That's what he's paid to do, that's why he does it. Same with Meltzer, it makes sense for him to do it because he can get money out of it, I was more getting at the fans who are so focused on it that they can't switch off and watch what is, quite honestly, mindless entertainment at its best. Â Equally your example supposes that there arn't people who have the same criticisms about film reviewers, which isn't true. Plenty of people criticise film reviewers, often for their star systems and often for showing a particular bias to certain types of film. Â Exctly, again if your post was aimed at me Kenny then I think we're getting lost in translation somewhere. That is his job, all I was merely trying to point out is that it is but one person's opinion. If anything it's those that take the time to read his synopsis and argue til they're blue in the face. Why waste you're time trying to tell somebody that their opinion is wrong, they aren't going to budge. The only thing you can argue is fact. If Michael Fish told me the sky was green, through fact I can obviously challenge his statement. Now if Mr Fish were to say his favourite kind of weather was snow, I can hardly tell him he is wrong because my opinion is that sunshine is the best, now can I? Â And to be pedantic but just because someone has the forum to have their opinions aired on tv, the internet or in a magazine it doesn't make that opinion more valid than your average Joe on the street. Equally nor does it because someone is getting paid to form an opinion. Sure you might have more respect for a journo who shares similar opinions to your own, but you'd still surely be a bit daft to believe that someone who has been fortunate enough to get paid to do it is the one true voice of that vocation/hobby/activity than yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted June 17, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted June 17, 2011 Most of the debate over the ratings to the nearest quarter-star comes from people reacting to the rating, not the person making the rating. If you think about his work schedule, Meltzer's clearly not going to be sitting there thinking "Ok, good crowd heat, gain 3/4*, mis-sold the leg, lose 1/4*" because he wouldn't have time for that. At this stage, having rated thousands of matches over nearly 30 years, he's clearly just watching the match and coming up with a gut reaction. Â Most of the bones I'd pick with his ratings would be about WWE ones at ****3/4 vs ROH ones at *****, but that's really not something you should spend a lot of time getting het up about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.