Release type changes

Ideas to improve Criticker and new feature requests, as well as announcements about new enhancements.
BadCosmonaut
Posts: 355
4400 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 7:08 am

Release type changes

Post by BadCosmonaut »

Under release type, should Films, TV Movies, and Straight-to-Video be combined into one category? It could be called something like "Feature film," "Full length film," or just "Film." I'm not sure what purpose or function is served by having these separated into three categories. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Also, I think "Web release" should be a release type. Let's look at the page for Mike Stoklasa. The Phantom Menace Review (2009), Attack of the Clones Review (2010), and Revenge of the Sith Review (2010) are all listed as Films, yet they aren't films. Mr. Plinkett's the Star Wars Awakens Review (2016) is listed as Direct-to-Video yet it wasn't a direct to video film. Baby's Day Out Review is listed as short film, and even though it's only about 25 minutes long, it wasn't a film so much as a web review of a movie. re:View (2016), Best of the Worst (2013), and Half in the Bag (2011) are listed as TV shows even though they are film review web series. Basically, none of these are right, and because there is no web release category, people just select the closest thing they can, which leads to inconsistent categories.

A similar problem exists for stand up comedies. Most of them seem to be listed as TV movies, but some are straight-to-videos or films, which is inconsistent. I think the cleanest solution would be to combine Films, TV Movies, and Straight-to-Video into one category, then make all stand up comedies that category, then add a genre "stand up comedy," then make the genre stand up comedy be mutually exclusive with the genre comedy (meaning an entry can be either a stand up comedy or comedy but not both). In fact, I would make the genre stand up comedy be mutually exclusive with every other kind of genre, such that if an entry is stand up comedy, then no other genre is allowed for that entry.

CosmicMonkey
Posts: 594
1271 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:52 pm

Re: Release type changes

Post by CosmicMonkey »

I don't think that movies, tv movies and direct-to-video should be combined, since I imagine there are people who would still like to differentiate between them, however I agree that there should be new categories for web series and online videos.

I also agree that there should be new genres for stand-up comedy and concert films, since there is no way to currently categorize them neatly, and usually when I'm looking for a sitcom, for example, my recommendations page will be full of stand-up comedy specials, which is really what I was looking for.

BadCosmonaut
Posts: 355
4400 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 7:08 am

Re: Release type changes

Post by BadCosmonaut »

CosmicMonkey wrote:I don't think that movies, tv movies and direct-to-video should be combined, since I imagine there are people who would still like to differentiate between them, however I agree that there should be new categories for web series and online videos.


Just out of curiosity, what would be the purpose or benefit of keeping them separate? Like why differentiate between them? I can't really think of any reasons. I'm curious if anyone has any.

As far as I can tell, keeping them separate has no benefit while at the same time causes inconsistency problems like I mentioned above. All three types are full length movies. For purposes of this site, what difference does it make if it was a Direct-to-Video or TV movie? Do these categories even have solid definitions these days? Is a movie that is first released to Netflix Direct-to-Video or a TV movie? If a movie is released on Blu-Ray and a streaming service, is it a Direct-to-Video or a TV movie? The industry isn't as clear cut anymore as when movies were either released to theaters, to DVD/VHS, or to cable. And in any case, what difference could it possibly make for this site?

iconogassed
Posts: 919
7281 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:41 pm

Re: Release type changes

Post by iconogassed »

BadCosmonaut wrote:The industry isn't as clear cut anymore as when movies were either released to theaters, to DVD/VHS, or to cable.

Which is precisely why an historical database like Criticker should refrain as much as possible from obliterating well-defined historical distinctions in form and mode of production.

BadCosmonaut
Posts: 355
4400 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 7:08 am

Re: Release type changes

Post by BadCosmonaut »

undinum wrote:Which is precisely why an historical database like Criticker should refrain as much as possible from obliterating well-defined historical distinctions in form and mode of production.


Just saying that it explains why doesn't actually explain why. Can you explain it?

Why not distinguish between black and white movies and color movies? Why not distinguish between silent films and talkies? Why not distinguish between movies rated by the MPAA and those that weren't? There are many distinctions that can be made. The questions is why keep this particular distinction. Should it be kept simply because it's the status quo? If not, then what's the reason it should be kept? There needs to be a stated function or benefit. If there is no stated function or benefit, and if the categories themselves can cause any kind of an issue or confusion, then the distinction should be done away with.

iconogassed
Posts: 919
7281 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:41 pm

Re: Release type changes

Post by iconogassed »

That you apparently are unable to distinguish between whether a film was created specifically for television and whether or not it received post-completion approval from a panel of bureaucrats means you have not put sufficient thought into your own position. Ta.

BadCosmonaut
Posts: 355
4400 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 7:08 am

Re: Release type changes

Post by BadCosmonaut »

undinum wrote:That you apparently are unable to distinguish between whether a film was created specifically for television and whether or not it received post-completion approval from a panel of bureaucrats means you have not put sufficient thought into your own position. Ta.


What makes you think I'm unable to distinguish that?

Even if I was unable to distinguish that, how does that mean I haven't put enough thought into my own position? I made a substantive argument that was backed by reason and example. I explained it twice above. Did you read what I wrote? Rather than duck the substance of my argument, why not reply to the substance of what I wrote?

Your post here makes it look like your only out is a personal attack. "You don't know what you're talking about so I won't bother replying." Meanwhile, you've yet to make even one substantive argument or refute anything I wrote at all...

Anyways, I'd prefer if the thread doesn't get too derailed into off topic stuff. If anyone has any thoughts about the topic in the opening post, I'm still interested in a discussion about that stuff.

MacSwell
Posts: 1721
2706 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:03 am

Re: Release type changes

Post by MacSwell »

I agree there should be extra categories for web series and stand-up, but I'd absolutely hate for movies, TV movies and straight-to-video to be all one category. I like the differentiation, even if it can lead to the kind of inconsistencies you described. I only rank feature films, so like being able to easily identify and ignore TV movies, which I have zero interest in watching or ranking.

BadCosmonaut
Posts: 355
4400 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 7:08 am

Re: Release type changes

Post by BadCosmonaut »

Maaxwell wrote:...I only rank feature films, so like being able to easily identify and ignore TV movies, which I have zero interest in watching or ranking.


That's interesting. Thanks for the reply. I wouldn't have thought that someone would specifically want to not see or rate TV movies. If that's the case, then I would probably agree that keeping them separate is important.

The inconsistency issue is still an issue though, and I think the easiest solution is to create web release and live music/concert categories. I also think the stand up comedy issue needs to be addressed somehow. I'd argue to make those changes, then give it a while for people to correct the current database issues (like the inconsistency example above), then see if that pretty much fixes all the issues.

Just out of curiosity (and I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise), is there a particular reason you aren't interested in watching or ranking TV movies? Specifically, does your reason have to do with the content of TV movies (like lower production value, or usually worse story telling that is found in TV movies), or do you not like them for some kind of meta reason (like only wanting to use criticker for theatrical releases, etc.)?

MacSwell
Posts: 1721
2706 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:03 am

Re: Release type changes

Post by MacSwell »

BadCosmonaut wrote:Just out of curiosity (and I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise), is there a particular reason you aren't interested in watching or ranking TV movies? Specifically, does your reason have to do with the content of TV movies (like lower production value, or usually worse story telling that is found in TV movies), or do you not like them for some kind of meta reason (like only wanting to use criticker for theatrical releases, etc.)?

Not entirely sure why, but for some reason I only have eyes for feature-length films. A huge portion of my childhood was based around learning everything there was to know about cinema and I think that's left me completely uninterested in other entertainment formats. The discovery of Criticker only cemented this position.

Shorts, TV movies, mini-series, even documentaries are things I pretty much never indulge in, and certainly would never rank, even if I think they're fantastic (Touching the Void for example).

TV shows I watch a little, but it's mostly sitcoms and cartoons. Aside from proper classic like The Sopranos or Twin Peaks, TV dramas can go to hell. The ones my friends have raved about over the years - eg. Lost, The Walking Dead, and now Stranger Things - have all been fucking awful. That's not to say there isn't good stuff out there, but I'd rather watch 10 movies in the time it takes to get through one season.

Post Reply