Magb wrote:While we're discussing these things I'd like to talk a bit about something that I've unsuccessfully tried to put into words before, but which I now think I understand better. I think most mathematical representations of subjective taste in film (or anything, for that matter) are going to be somewhat hampered by the fact that there's no practical way to determine how much the score of any given film should count in the total analysis. As I see it there are (at least) two different scores that you can give for a movie you've seen. One is the obvious one: how much do you like the movie, or how good do you think the movie is? The other is more subtle: how much do you care about how much you like the movie? For instance, I've given the Ken Burns documentary "The Civil War" a score of 100 because I think it's virtually flawless, but I'm nowhere near as enthusiastic about that film as I am about a film like "2001: A Space Odyssey" or "Casablanca". On the other end of the scale I've given "Freddy Got Fingered" a 0 because I think it's completely terrible in every way, but I wouldn't really hold it against someone if they loved it the way I would with a film like "The Day After Tomorrow" or "Die Another Day". Finally, in the middle of my ratings list I have both films like "Vacation" that I'm just completely indifferent about and films like "Titanic", which I strongly believe are neither good nor bad but aggressively average and mediocre.
i dunno, i've never really had this attitude, i can't imagine ever giving a movie full marks unless i absolutely unconditionally adored it, or giving something no marks if it's just harmless laughably bad shit. my marks are based solely on my personal response to a film, any notion of objective quality which doesn't correspond to that is irrelevant to me.