Unfair Member Reviews...

[dadkins]

"You're stupid!"
"Did you even watch the movie?"
"What movie did you watch, it wasn't this one!"
"You don't understand the movie..."

Apparently we as individuals cannot have our own tastes in movies.

What may be unfair to... you, might be spot on to me.
Also -
What may be unfair to... me, might be spot on to you.

Damned if you do, damned of you don't.

If I like the movie, I like the movie.
If I don't like it, then I don't like it
Been flamed on more than one occasion here because of my likes and dislikes.

[squall_line]

Originally Posted by dadkins

Apparently we as individuals cannot have our own tastes in movies.

What may be unfair to... you, might be spot on to me.
Also -
What may be unfair to... me, might be spot on to you.

This has more to do with people de-meriting the technical aspects of a movie because they didn't enjoy the plot. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion about the content of a movie, but that doesn't provide justification for giving a picture the lowest possible score on a technical aspect such as picture quality or sound quality.

The narratives provided by staff reviews give reasons for their scoring, and I don't see why asking for a short narrative from other reviews is all that out of line.

"this movie suxx0rz, don't waist you're time!" is NOT an informative narrative, IMHO, nor justification for a negative technical review. Opinions in the forums, however, are completely different, as they don't show up in the review scores for movies.

[dadkins]

If *YOU* were to get a Blu-ray, and the audio sucked *TO YOU*, and the video was crappy *TO YOU*, and the story line sucked *TO YOU*, and everything else was just plain bad *TO YOU*... are you still going to rate everything as 4-5 stars?
No, I don't honestly think you will - but I could be wrong.

One thing great about not being a clone - individuality.
I like _____
You do not like _____, and nothing says you have to like it.
Same goes for vice verse.

You have never seen someone praising something that was crap to you?
You have never liked something that someone else disliked?

As for the 1 post wonders that rated that movie, Distater Movie - they should be removed!
Yeah, the movie was pretty much unwatchable.
Video was ok, Audio was ok, as far as I made it into the movie.
The movie sucked!

[squall_line]

I fail to see how a BD review would possibly warrant a 0.5 PQ rating if it didn't suffer from macro-blocking, banding, black crush, and looked like a 480i DVD. I also fail to see how it would warrant an AQ rating of 0.5 unless it had significant hissing, popping, near-silent dialogue, and poor sound imaging. What personal preference could possibly come into play that would justify a 0.5 picture or audio QUALITY rating? You also seem to fail to understand that "no justification for a 0.5" isn't the same as "it should get a 4 or a 5." The point of a 0-5 scale is to be able to rate WITHIN that scale, not just on either extreme.

Read the recent staff review, and the user reviews for Donnie Darko. They have justifiable reasons for giving the movie low marks, and the staff person is honest enough to say something along the lines of "well, it doesn't look like a reference-quality movie, and I'm not a fan of the colors they chose, but there aren't any macro-blocking or other *technical* problems, either, so I can't justify a rating below about a 2.5 for PQ".

If a person's eyes are so bad that everything in a movie actually looks bad *to them*, or they are listening to the movie through the speakers on a TV or have a HTIB system that doesn't even sound good for radio broadcasts, then maybe they have no business posting a review in the first place.

Your final statement about the ratings for Disaster Movie contradict your assertion that the ratings were justified based on personal preference.

Then again, I'm the kind of guy that will applaud the opposing team at a baseball or football game for making a spectacular play, too. Some people in the world can't be bothered to recognize good work and quality in something that they otherwise dislike, and that's a sad statement about society, indeed.

[Beta Man]

Not "unfair" necessarily, but more "uninformed" I'd say.......someone gave a move a lower rating for Audio because the "rear surrounds" didn't have much going on.......

it was a 5.1 audio track..... so the guy was just matrixing with his 7.1 setup......

[Ashamed Pegasus]

Originally Posted by dadkins

If *YOU* were to get a Blu-ray, and the audio sucked *TO YOU*, and the video was crappy *TO YOU*, and the story line sucked *TO YOU*, and everything else was just plain bad *TO YOU*... are you still going to rate everything as 4-5 stars?
No, I don't honestly think you will - but I could be wrong.

I believe you've completely missed what this entire discussion is about... squall_line did excellent job trying to explain it to you, but I guess in post #21 you must have smashed your head into that brick wall just a little too hard...

[MikeDaWiz]

Originally Posted by Ashamed Pegasus

I believe you've completely missed what this entire discussion is about... squall_line did excellent job trying to explain it to you, but I guess in post #21 you must have smashed your head into that brick wall just a little too hard...

I totally understand what Pegasus is talking about. Just because you dont like the movie doesnt mean you have to bash the PQ and AQ. Now i havent seen the movie and i dont know what it loks or sounds like, but im sure it is not 0.5 rating. When you rate something on a basis of PQ and AQ, you have to remain unbiased. You cant base your rating on the story of the movie and if you liked it or not because that has no baring. Wow, just realized how long ago the last post was made.