I think I talked about this before when ratings last came up in here, but I really think ratings only make sense when you have the context of a person's entire list of ratings to compare again. Me saying Cardcaptor Sakura is a 9.5/10 doesn't mean a danged thing unless you can look at my other ratings and see hey, he's only given literally one other thing out of literal hundreds of other things he's rated a 9.5 or greater before, so that must really mean something. Meanwhile, other people give out 10/10s constantly just because they thought something was good and they're used to giving perfect scores for literally anything that they think is just good. Not me - like I said, my average score is 61%, and out of the hundreds of movies I've watched, I've only given an 8/10 (what I consider to be "great") or higher a total of 26 times, so that rating really means something within my rating system. But you can't see all of my ratings since they're on a private site, hence why I was trying to give some quick context with the list I made, .
As for what an 8/10 means...like I said, it means "great" - how it gets there is irrelevant. Some might just be consistently great but never go beyond that for whatever reason, others might be utterly perfect in some aspects (e.g. Steven Universe's main cast are my idea of "perfection") but fall short in other ways (e.g. average to poor filler episodes that feel kind of irrelevant and inexplicably drag down later seasons). Earlier, I said I rate stuff roughly 75% subjectively (how much everything appeals to me specifically in terms of characters, themes, plot, setting, world-building, style et al.) and 25% objectively (how well-constructed all the elements are, attention to detail, competent writing, acting, and so on). For movies, I don't usually give out anything more than a 7.5/10 if a work has what I would consider to be some kind of large bugbear or hangup that markedly took away from its enjoyment unless it really truly was consistently great except for that - I'm a little kinder towards longer TV shows like Sailor Moon purely because of their length and the quantity of good times given outside of that, so I don't usually penalize e.g. something like SuperS quite as much as if the equivalent were to happen in a movie.
That's usually not an issue for me either, especially considering a lot of my favorite stuff (including anime) is often quite aged, so clearly I have some kind of appreciation and fascination for older stuff. It's just that...I'm a really tough person to appeal to, and I usually have excellent (but by no means perfect) intuition for what will appeal to me based on how a film/show is communicating to me right off the bat. How themes are being communicated, the types of characters used (and even the way characters just look, talk, or express themselves), art or filming style, setting - everything like that has a sort of unconscious language to it. My intuition for anime is still admittedly a work-in-progress, since it's not a medium I've had extensive experience with and so I'm still forming heuristics for it, but it feels like it's getting better, and when I take just even a super quick look at Akira, it seems like a very masculine (in the worst sense) main character that I'm probably going to hate, an edgy almost cyberpunk-ish setting that I'm probably not going to care for, looks way too action-oriented for my tastes... It just doesn't look like it's going to appeal to me. I'm very particular about what I like, and these are already setting off red flags for me - I'm still going to give it a chance eventually, but that's my perspective going into it.
lmao - while I'm usually a bit of a proponent for darker stuff (up to a limit, of course, and given the right kind of kid who can handle it) being suitable for younger audiences because of how meaningful and formative such works can be at that age, I think that's a bit much...