SCREEN-L Archives

April 1995, Week 1


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Tue, 4 Apr 1995 10:43:44 CDT
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (37 lines)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
i like the five star system myself, as it gives a greater range for opinion,
but not too great, like say a 100 point system, which i have seen tried
(because then you have the debate why did this film get an 88 and this and
89....are so subtle and arbitrary differrence relevant or necessary?)
to me in that 5 star system only the rarest of films deserve the fifth star,
i.e., classics (in large almanac type works) and films that are sure to stand
the test of time. Four star systems dont have the flexibility to denote
between a good, a great, and a fabulous
****very good
of course my whole problem with the star system is that it doesn't really
work when comparing say a four star hollywood piece (i.e. box office
favorites and critical favorites (pulp fiction usually got high reviews) and
films that are clearly great from many critics view but definitely do not
suit an extremely wide audience (Blue, Heavenly Creatures, and Ed Wood all
got *** to **** on the 5 system but didn't get the audience say pulp fiction
**** or forest gump *** got this year)
actually now after writing all this, i can clearly see its a completely arbitr
ary and silly system. there is no way i can really rationalize the system for
you,but that's my opinion, scrap it or save it.
james goldschmidt