I have made the conscious effort with this little old blog not to assign any sort of number or letter to anything that I try to "review". Cause... you know, the whole system is arbitrary and hole-ridden, and I'd really rather not try to explain why Casablanca has a lower score than Cloverfield (actually, I would... but it'd be needlessly difficult and everyone would hold me in lower regard than they already do). Plus, it's been a standard arguing point that the lack of a score actually forces the reader to read what you're actually saying instead of jumping down to see the star rating so you an immediately start complaining.
Well, now I've decided to screw all that, and put everything on a 1-10 scale. The change in heart comes down to two reasons:
1) It's fun to be arbitrary anyway.
2) No one reads this. So... you know, no harm in having a number overshadow everything else if nothing has a shadow in the first place.
I would, however, like to explain exactly how I rate things, because although it's a silly and arbitrary exercise, my scale has actually been something that I've been crafting very carefully over the years. Which sounds kind of pretentious and everything, but it's a system that actually works pretty well for me. So allow me to indulge myself. Just this once. Please.
1) I rate pretty closely to a 4-star scale... with 8 being the equivalent to **** and being something I'd term "great." 9s and 10s I never use until proper perspective has arrived, and it is determined whether the (film/album/whatever) actually resonates as something I truly admire. So... yeah. There are about 6 films I would say I'd give a 10 out of 10, and I try to keep the number of "perfect" scores to a minimum, so if something else warrants the score, something else might get bumped off.
2) Some supposed classics might get a 2 or a 5 or any number that might make people question whether I truly "get it" or not. This can be explained by the fact that I try to make full use of the 1-10, and that I try not to (watch/listen to/etc) stuff that I know will be bad and unenjoyable. So some movies get lowered down because I feel like it. So there you go.
3) On top of that... say I give Star Wars and From Justin To Kelly the same score. Would this mean that I think that both films are equal in value, that Star Wars is not in fact the "better" of the two and that George Lucas is not more gifted than whoever made From Justin To Kelly? No. It just means that I think Star Wars is kind of fun but not amazingly interesting, and From Justin To Kelly painfully terrible but loaded with uintentional humor... and in the process they even out in terms of enjoyment value. It probably doesn't make sense, but really... no one cares.
4) I try not to rate anything as a "3". Don't ask me why I avoid this and if I have any particular reason, I just do.
5) I'm giving it a name, and it's called the "Slash-o-meter." It is pronounced "slash-oh-meet -ehr". I am doing this because I can.
Essentially, what I am trying to say is that I rate things in a pointless, unreasonable... yet carefully defined manner. And that it only makes sense to me. Which is OK, because I am my only demographic. So yeah! Let's toss out ratings for the hell of it!
Dark Knight - 4
Matrix - 2
Fight Club - 2
Cool Runnings - 8
Lawrence of Arabia - 4
Armageddon - 9
Godfather - 2
Godfather Part II - 4
Marley And Me - 7
(Note: none of those rankings are accurate. Except a few of them...)
No comments:
Post a Comment