Do you rate ridiculously bad movies 0 or >0 ?

[gabba2k7]

try to spread out your numbers

mission almost impossible

[MockHamill]

I rate movies based on how much I liked watching them, and to some degree how many times I would like watching them, not good they "technically" are or their artistic value.

For instance I love Kiss-Ass, almost every scene is great, and I can watch the movie 20+ times so I rated it 98.
The God Father, which I also love, is technically a better movie but does not have the same extreme re-watch ability value (for me) so I rated it 96.

I reserve the lowest ratings for movies and series where I despised every second of it (Bad Taste, Spartacus).

A movie that is so bad that it is entertaining would get something in the 40-60 range for me.

[paulofilmo]

try to spread out your numbers

mission almost impossible

Oohf, the recs must be balls for you. If a score of 82 is your 44th percentile, you're presumably alienating a lot of users that actually have similar taste to you.

In your case (if you really haven't seen many terrible movies), I would pull up some close TCI users (or your idiosyncratic likes with shared high percentiles), and copy their low rankings. Then scrub any anomalies later on (when you have better users as your top TCIs).
But hopefully Criticker will find a way to function for people who choose to rate like you do.

although this guy hung around for 10 years, so it might not be an issue for some

[gabba2k7]

maybe i should have forced myself to use something like 5,5 6 <...>9,5 10...but too late for that ;[

currently i use
<78 all sorts of bad
79-80 kinda not good
81-82 avoidable though watchable
83-84 solid. (if tv series - to continue watching)
>85 really good stuff

[90sCoffee]

Never understood the 'so bad that it's good' thing. If it's bad then it's bad, maybe I'm not ironic enough.

[livelove]

@90sCoffee:
It's "so bad it's entertaining" rather than "so bad it's good".

[Anomaly]

Why would "so bad it's good" be the ultimate in badness? At least if you're laughing at a film, you're still feeling SOMETHING positive. Emotion is how we respond to the outside world, and fiction is built on deliberately inciting those same emotions. A film in which the only emotion engaged is a profoundly negative boredom, or even no emotion at all, would be worse by this metric. That, in my opinion, would have a much better claim at "ultimate badness."

My ratings are (roughly) a measure of my positive emotional engagement with the film in question. Something which I laugh at will be ranked higher than something which profoundly bores me, even if the laughter was unintended. For example, I'd be much more willing to rewatch The Room than Manos, because at least I can get some positive experience out of the former, and my ratings reflect this.

[Proximity]

lowest i'll go is a 1

[jal90]

I haven't yet rated a 0, but I don't have anything against that in theory. It's just that nothing has reached that low yet to me.

[kuzronk]

10 = .5 20= 1 etc