Economical Rating System

Professional reviews are usually done in one to four stars, which usually rate a film first on (a somewhat more objective standard of) quality and second on enjoyability. Of course, as far as I've heard, nobody's really complained about the system, but really, how would an average movie-goer really interpret a "star" rating?

I got this crazy idea sometime after watching the remake of Total Recall. As far as action movies go, I actually enjoyed it. Did I think it was a good/great movie? No, more like So Okay, It's Average. I also payed $2.25 for it some time after it came out. Would I pay $10 for it to see it as a new release? No. Would I watch it again? Probably not. When I looked up its page on The Other Wiki to see the critical reception (because I generally like to see that either before or after I see a movie), the reviews were mostly negative to mixed, although perhaps notably, Roger Ebert broke away from the crowd and gave it a positive one.

I guess my point is that while reviewers tend to judge movies based on "good", "average", or "bad" (although depending on the reviewer, it can sometimes come across as "Oscar Bait" or "rabble"). While that's not a bad thing, it seems there is some sort of a disconnect on what movie-goers actually watch, or want to watch.

Now I thought the whole purpose of reviewers was to advise the average movie-goer on what's worth seeing. So my crazy idea is this: instead of an ambiguous "star" rating, why not advise people not only on whether a movie is worth seeing, but also what the movie is worth or how much to pay for it, like saying "worth seeing as a new release" (more expensive), "see it in the cheap theater", "rent the DVD", or "rent the DVD, get a bunch of friends together, and laugh at and mock the whole movie". Or just plain 'don't even bother'.

So what are your thoughts? Am I crazy? Has someone done this before?

edited 1st Oct '12 5:35:12 PM by shiro_okami

Some reviews do that. But as a general method it's not as useful as the stars because people's economic capabilities differ: if you've got plenty of spare cash and like movies, you may be fine with going to see a merely decent movie in the theatre, while if you're more cash-strapped, you'd only go see something in the theatre if it's really good. What the best economic decision is regarding how you see a movie will vary based on 1) how much money you have and 2) how much you like going to movies generally. Also, your average movie reviewer is substantially richer than the average person. The star format is useful because it just tells you how good the reviewer though the movie was, and you can decide for yourself based on that how much you're willing to pay for it.

The "theatre vs. DVD" kinds of recommendations are most useful when they're about something that gains quality from being seen on the big screen: generally action movies or ones with great cinematography rather than dramas. There's not much difference between watching The Kings Speech on DVD versus watching it in a theatre, but there's a major difference for, say, The Avengers. So having a review say both "this is a good movie" and "this one is particularly worth shelling out the theatre cost for, because it's way better with a big screen and surround sound" can be useful.

edited 1st Oct '12 6:15:05 PM by WarriorEowyn

I don't think it would really fix any problems with reviewers.

I've seen reviewers rate films that way before; usually reviewers on local TV news programs.

I don't bother with the stars. Read the complete review, ask if it's something worth your time and store it away as an alternate opinion on the film, if you do see it.

The price of admission for a movie is less than the cost of my time and effort to go see it. Giving the movie a "worth x dollars" rating is pointless, since I'm either going to pay to see it in the theaters or not pay for it at all (ie, watch it if it's on netflix).

People's moviegoing habits are too variable to be the basis of a rating system. Some people might go every weekend, even if they're not sure what they want to see. Some people might never go, and only watch things when they come out on DVD. Some might only go for movies they really, really want to see. A critic shouldn't even be trying to make that decision for people- they should tell them how good the movie is and let them decide how to see it. You system also doesn't solve the root problem- it's still a one-dimensional system that can't differentiate between "Dumb fun" movies and "high art" films.

In my opinion, ratings systems are only useful when you've got something like Amazon or Rotten Tomatoes that shows you what people in aggregate thought about the movie. That way, if public opinion on the movie skews heavily one way or the other, you know there are decent odds you'll feel the same way.

But when just one reviewer does the ranking? Differences in opinion mean that's not going to matter much; to get useful info, you've got to actually read/watch the review and find out why the reviewer felt the way they did.

I could see some value to a meta-rating service like RT offering a "how much this movie is worth" entry. Basically, every reviewer gives a dollar value they say they'd be willing to pay to see the movie in theaters. These are averaged. The result, in theory, would give an idea of how much a movie is worth.