Michael Vollmar-Grone <email@example.com>@library.berkeley.edu on
12/12/99 10:58:35 AM
Please respond to firstname.lastname@example.org
Sent by: email@example.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Defining quality feature films
<Could you let us know how you defined "quality feature films"?
Gladly. The following is from the Methodology section of my paper.
The sample of films released on video, DVD, or laser disc were
randomly selected and stratified by MPAA classification. Filtering
through critical reviews was necessary, as many collection development
policies demand a quality component as requisite for acquisition.
Reviews by Roger Ebert and Leonard Maltin, film critics with national
reputations, were used. Specifically, the Microsoft Cinemania 96 CD-ROM
database, with updates through December 1996, generated a list of
four-star films. Using two professional film reviewers allowed a
broader perspective than a single source. While Ebert is thought to lean
toward the highbrow viewpoint, perhaps evidenced by his Pulitzer Prize
for Criticism, Maltin is known for his populist views.
The films were selected from that list using Random Number
Generator!, a freeware program by Sergey A. Golovko. All films in the
study had been previously released in one of the selected formats.
From the 372 unrated and 374 rated four-star films, a minimum of 10
percent were checked. Because of the limited number, all four X/NC17
titles were sought. For balance, the two other small categories were
adjusted from 2 to 4 for G (19), and from 3 to 4 for PG13 (34). The
remaining three categories and their quantities are 37-NR (372), 12-PG
(116), and 20-R (201).