Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fast Learner" data-source="post: 1953290" data-attributes="member: 649">I'm totally fine with his star system, and recognize that he always means that he's giving is x stars for what it is compared to what it's supposed to/could be. Great system.As a result he can give a cheesy, low-budget but really fun action film 3 stars and an excellent-but-not-awesome high-budget period drama 3 stars. Are the films equally "good"? How could one possibly compare? I agree that having no rating system would be better than the one he has to use, but I'd much rather he use his existing one than trying to give some kind of meaningful comparison of, say, Rush Hour vs. Big Fish vs. Lord of the Rings vs. American Beauty vs. American Splendor. That system would be completely and utterly meaningless.When I see an Ebert rating, I almost always read the review, but I certainly always think "he's saying that film deserved x stars for the kind of film it's supposed to be," and make my decision based on that. The only reasonable way to get useful information from a review, imo, is to know the reviewer; that is, read lots of that person's reviews and compare his/her thoughts to your own. I've learned, for example, that because I really enjoy the genre of science fiction and fantasy, I can generally add 1/2 to 1 star to any rating of a genre film that Ebert does and it will match my feelings about it. If it's a period drama, which I'm not a huge fan of but like the great ones, I can generally subtract 1/2 star from his rating. If either type of film is now in the 3-4 start range, then I'm going to enjoy it.Why would anyone want him to try to objectively compare Y Tu Mama Tambien to Supercop?</blockquote>

Verification