Just ok for me...
very slow i give it 7/10
share7 out of 10 means more than just ok..
shareNo it doesn't. A movie could be any rating and still be labeled as okay. That's the whole point of commentary and reviews, so that we can express the rating in words.
shareYou're confused. I'm saying him giving it a 7 out of 10 is inappropriate if he just thought it was ok. If he thought it was just ok he should have rated it closer to a 5
shareI'm not confused at all. Look at it like this. 70 points out of 100. 50 points out of 100. Both of those can be considered okay movies. Ratings are people's subjective views and opinions. If I rated a movie 8 out 10 and called it fun. Does that mean that every 8 out 10 movie is also fun? Nope.
shareDude, shut up. You're talking nonsense. Giving a movie a 7/10 is ranking it quite high. This would equal to 70% rating rotten on tomatoes. Don't apply the grade school system here where 7/10 equals to a 'C' which is an average mark. Unless, of course, you are in a grade school.
shareMaybe you need to go back to grade school. An overall score is comprised of 1 or 1000s of individual scores from a single person's subjective point of view. If you learned anything in school, you would also learn what a dictionary is. Okay means passable or acceptable. A score of 7 out of 10 is okay, passable, acceptable, good, great, awesome, fun, sad, scary, or whatever the *beep* you want it to be.
So take your preschool antics and you shut up, dude.
Something cant be "great" and "okay" to you at the same time, you cant think something is "outstanding" and "passable" at the same time, do you understand that these are different words in the english language for a reason?
"Great" and "okay" are not synonyms, I dont know how else to explain something to you thats just common knowledge for most others.
Who are you to tell someone to use a dictionary, here is the definition of "ok"
adjective: okay
1.
satisfactory but not exceptionally or especially good.
So how does "not exceptionally good" equal a 7 out of 10?
7 means you should watch the movie, but his words say dont bother, the rating and words do not match up, understand now?
You obviously missed the point or are just unwilling to acknowledge it.
shareI'm the one who made the point in the first place, therefore its you who is misunderstanding.
Ebert and Roeper give it a 7 out 10!
"Just ok" "very slow" "one thumb up"
See how the quotes dont match the rating?
7 is a more than positive rating on this site, yet his comments were not positive, this is simple stuff my friend. If he had said, "just ok" 5/10, now that would make sense. If he had said "just ok" 2 out of 10 that would also be weird. Because 2/10 is a really bad rating, it means it was worse than just ok, are you starting to get this now? Just ok means neutral, not good, not bad. I cant believe this needs to be explained to you.
I understand your point and why it makes sense but I also understand this reviewer. That's why I responded to try to explain to you a different view point. And to be honest it's more common here on imdb than you might think. I've been lurking here for a long time. I'm not an expert on anything. I'm just saying that I always read user reviews/comments before and after most movies I watch. So I've seen a lot of different view points and I've made some sense of it.
He said "Just ok for me, very slow, I give it 7/10." There's nothing wrong with his statement. But I understand why you don't agree with how he says it.
5 out of 10 is generally not an okay movie, it could be, but normally 5 out of 10 is a movie to avoid. If a person loves a movie, it gets a 10. This user gave it a 7 out of 10. It wasn't bad. It wasn't great. It was acceptable for them. 7 out of 10. Who cares. I'm done posting in this thread. I agree to disagree forever to infinity and beyond. Although your view point isn't wrong either. No ones opinion is wrong when dealing with subjective material. But I'm done. Done D O N E. I give this movie 6.5 out of 10, it was ok.
either this is the best trolling ever or your level of stupidity is exceptional, which means that i'd give your level of stupidity at least a 7/10, not a 4/10 which would mean that your level of stupidity would just be slightly below regular.
shareLmao, most sensible post in the thread.
shareDear Lord this is too funny!
Precisely. 5/10 is the score of an average movie entertainment wise, its common knowledge; but if people are voting average films at 7/10 then no wonder the voting is so screwed up on some of these movies! Add to the fact that friends of the directors, producers, actors etc. all give (mainly) budget movies straight 10's and you've got a serious critique problem on your hands. Haha!
What a wonderful world we live in.
I totally understand and agree with both of you, but in different context. But at the end of the day, regardless the status quo of the average movie rating system, it's all subjective. Everyone thinks different. The countless individuals watching and rating movies all with their different opinions, many of which may share absolutely opposing views, are all an equal and important part of the system, which is almost totally pointless to try to assume is fine-tuned. If anything the ratings we go buy should only truly be able to tell us if a movie is either undeniably great in some way, or undeniably *beep* in most ways. Anyhoo, while I can totally agree with your point that you really can't tell someone else how they 'feel' about something regarding how they would rate it, I can also agree with the other guy, that personally reading a 'just ok for me, very slow..' then seeing a 7/10.. I would think that's one of those people that's just *beep* up the rating system for the rest of us. But as I said it would almost be pointless to assume any rating system by total strangers should give you a precise rating according to your own personal thinking anyway.. even so, it doesn't hurt to maybe see if they just hadn't considered their number rating enough.
sharelook. for some people 4 is alright, for some people 6 is alright, but if the top score is 10, you can hardly give it a 7 and say it is sub par at the same time. that's like saying the knicks almost won with a score of 40:105.
shareWhat a stubborn idiot you are. Everyone tells you you're wrong. And it's obvious you're wrong. But you're still arguing.
shareWell I'm glad you can finally try to clear things up for me. It's been a few months of me just sitting here waiting for someone to tell me the honest truth. Thank you, for your effort but you're wrong too. Come back and try again in a few months.
sharemovie was ok
10/10
You're confused. The IMDB scale:-
10 - Fantastic
9 - Really good
7 - Okay
6 - Whatevs
5 - Awful, destroy it with fire
4 - "What is this number, why is it here?"
3 - "What is this number, why is it here?"
2 - "What is this number, why is it here?"
1 - Maybe if I click this it'll take the overall score down
The OP didn't have much of a commentary or review, barely even a point at all. If the star rating is so useless, why have it at all? Okay implies average, and the obvious choice for a film that is average is around 5, otherwise why have the score out of 10?
shareI never said ratings are useless but I understand you're point of view. Movie ratings and user reviews are a whole different study and are slightly skewed from common sense. A single reviewer giving a movie a 7 out of 10 is different than the average public score of 7 out of 10. If he loved the movie he would give 10 out of 10. If he hated the movie 0 out of 10. If the movie was generally bad 5 out of 10. 7 out of 10 is passable which means okay. In quality control terms, okay means okay for sale.
Any dictionary and thesaurus does not list average and okay in the same section.
OP reviewed the movie "Just ok for me, very slow, I give it 7 out of 10". But again I understand your point of view. Movie ratings and reviews are completely skewed due to the way people enter their ratings. People could all love a movie but give different ratings. One gives 10 points, the other 8 points, and another 7 points.
"you're point of view. "
i think he is a person, rather than a POV. i don't see metaphorical concepts posting on a message board.