|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Nov 4, 2017 13:35:44 GMT
formersamhmd 1. If people were convicted by a fellow cop killer who had a splintered personality then all those who were convicted would naturally be released. Not when they're portrayed as absolutely omnipotent as TDK Joker was.one of the very few things we agree on is that the TDN Joker, while being well acted, was written as a Gery Stu ("Villain Stu" type): The universe was bending around him to make him cool to an absurd degree. This begins with the "I shoot the bus driver" scene and end with him losing by hanging upside down but in the end really triumphing (Two Face, Bat exile). This is because the Joker was more written as the embodiment of the Freudian ID principle than a real character (vis a vis Batman being the superego and Dent being the Ego). This is one of the reasons why ppl respond so strongly to this film for such a long time (4 on top 250!). That being said, TDK is still (or arguably because of this) the Citizen Kane of CMBs of this generation, it may not be a really great film overall, but it's definitely top 3 CMB crown jewel material of the last few decades.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 4, 2017 13:42:05 GMT
This is because the Joker was more written as the embodiment of the Freudian ID principle than a real character ( Laziness. But then again, Nolan only really knows how to write fanatics or archetypes rather than full characters. Of course, Ledger dying is what made audiences not criticize this more.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Nov 4, 2017 15:28:01 GMT
Congratulations, Ace. You just confused the reviews with the "adjusted score". We already know how many positive and negative reviews there are for each movie. You can not alter a known fact with a statistical probability. SMH got better reviews. That is a fact that you can not dispute. The "adjusted score" is something entirely different. It is an attempt to rank the movies by deriving a number based on an algorithm that you don't understand, using input data that you don't know. How on earth do you manage to get every single thing wrong? Eh, chum? No, the adjusted score is a normalization of scores using Bayesian Statistics (which is a field of Statistics taught at most major universities that have a Statistics Department) to account for the different number of reviews for each movie. It's more accurate than raw averages because raw averages don't account for the different number of reviews. Using raw averages would be like comparing a batter in baseball who had only 30 at-bats during the season to another batter in baseball who had 300 at-bats during the season.
Bottom line: Wonder Woman is a better-reviewed movie than SMH and that is a fact that you can't dispute: 50 Best Superhero Movies of All Time
You’re still batting zero, champ. It’s already been proven that the “adjusted score” is not derived in the manner in which you describe. Case in point - The Dark Knight v Logan. TDK has better reviews and more reviews than Logan, yet it still has a lower “adjusted score”. Is that your idea of being “more accurate”? Bottom Line: The validity of the “adjusted score” has just been disputed, destroyed even. QED Don’t let the screen door hit you on the way out.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Nov 4, 2017 15:57:04 GMT
I don't intend to join this discussion, but just to clarify how to adjusted score is calculated, here's a quote from The Guardian: "This is because that top 100 is based on an adjusted score that takes into account both a base quota of notices (40) and the rating of critics that the site itself approves of. All this is filtered through the Bayesian equation to allow for a varying numbers of reviews." (link: www.theguardian.com/film/2014/jul/16/boyhood-rotten-tomatoes-imdb) So the rating is calculated using both the number of reviews and it puts more weight on the reviews from critics that the site itself approves of, which is a lot less than all the critics that count towards the tomatometer.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Nov 4, 2017 16:36:28 GMT
formersamhmd1. That would never fly, any cause of mental illness at all before or after wouldn't matter. There would be all calls to have them released. 2. Yeah well that's obviously not even remotely true. 3. Such as who? 4. In comics and cartoons where he was the sole villain he was the main villain which means nothing because that can be said about the condiment king.
|
|
|
Post by Jedan Archer on Nov 4, 2017 16:49:21 GMT
I don't intend to join this discussion, but just to clarify how to adjusted score is calculated, here's a quote from The Guardian: "This is because that top 100 is based on an adjusted score that takes into account both a base quota of notices (40) and the rating of critics that the site itself approves of. All this is filtered through the Bayesian equation to allow for a varying numbers of reviews." (link: www.theguardian.com/film/2014/jul/16/boyhood-rotten-tomatoes-imdb) So the rating is calculated using both the number of reviews and it puts more weight on the reviews from critics that the site itself approves of, which is a lot less than all the critics that count towards the tomatometer. There seems to be a misunderstanding. The Guardian article claims that adjusted takes into account critics that the site itself approves plus Bayesian formula. As for the former, yes of course: these are the critics forming the Tomatometer, i.e., the RT featured critics. When talking of "RT approved critics" The Guardian links that claim two times to this site (quote for evidence): www.rottentomatoes.com/help_desk/critics/But these are just the standard quality criteria you must fulfill to be featured on rotten Tomatoes as a critic to be part of the Tomatometer. So there is no basis for a claim that RT would somehow select or handpick some critics of the regular RT critic crowd for adjusted scores.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Nov 4, 2017 16:53:19 GMT
I don't intend to join this discussion, but just to clarify how to adjusted score is calculated, here's a quote from The Guardian: "This is because that top 100 is based on an adjusted score that takes into account both a base quota of notices (40) and the rating of critics that the site itself approves of. All this is filtered through the Bayesian equation to allow for a varying numbers of reviews." (link: www.theguardian.com/film/2014/jul/16/boyhood-rotten-tomatoes-imdb) So the rating is calculated using both the number of reviews and it puts more weight on the reviews from critics that the site itself approves of, which is a lot less than all the critics that count towards the tomatometer. There seems to be a misunderstanding. The Guardian article claims that adjusted takes into account critics that the site itself approves plus Bayesian formula. As for the former, yes of course: these are the critics forming the Tomatometer, i.e., the RT featured critics. When talking of "RT approved critics" The Guardian links that claim two times to this site (quote for evidence): www.rottentomatoes.com/help_desk/critics/But these are just the standard quality criteria you must fulfill to be featured on rotten Tomatoes as a critic to be part of the Tomatometer. So there is no basis for a claim that RT would somehow select or handpick some critics of the regular RT critic crowd for adjusted scores. I think you're right. But still, the adjusted score can't only be based on the number of reviews. There are movies with the same tomatometer (f.e. 93%), but where the movie with more reviews actually has a lower adjusted score. I once tried to calculate the formula for the adjusted score, but then I found out about this so there must be something else that they also take into account besides the number of reviews. Maybe it has something to do with top critics, but that's just a random guess.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 4, 2017 17:31:02 GMT
formersamhmd 1. That would never fly, any cause of mental illness at all before or after wouldn't matter. There would be all calls to have them released. 2. Yeah well that's obviously not even remotely true. 3. Such as who? 4. In comics and cartoons where he was the sole villain he was the main villain which means nothing because that can be said about the condiment king. 1) It would if they spun it correctly. If Harvey really WAS this beloved White Knight openly targeted by Joker all Gordon would have to say is that Harvey was left brain damaged after he was captured and then suffered sever infection from his burns that left him incoherent, and the people would believe it and say "Poor Harvey, we should honor his legacy by convicting those criminal scum". Instead, he and Batman come up with the idiotic frame job stuff. Hell, it would've been SO easy to cover Harvey's crimes up. 2) Even to this day MCU films get mud slung at them no matter how many times they succeed. 3) Michael Bay, off the top of my head. Before he became a self-parody. 4) Condiment King has never been anything but a joke character never treated seriously. Two Face is like Batman's second biggest enemy if done well. So far, he never has.
|
|
|
Post by Jedan Archer on Nov 4, 2017 17:32:51 GMT
There seems to be a misunderstanding. The Guardian article claims that adjusted takes into account critics that the site itself approves plus Bayesian formula. As for the former, yes of course: these are the critics forming the Tomatometer, i.e., the RT featured critics. When talking of "RT approved critics" The Guardian links that claim two times to this site (quote for evidence): www.rottentomatoes.com/help_desk/critics/But these are just the standard quality criteria you must fulfill to be featured on rotten Tomatoes as a critic to be part of the Tomatometer. So there is no basis for a claim that RT would somehow select or handpick some critics of the regular RT critic crowd for adjusted scores. I think you're right. But still, the adjusted score can't only be based on the number of reviews. There are movies with the same tomatometer (f.e. 93%), but where the movie with more reviews actually has a lower adjusted score. I once tried to calculate the formula for the adjusted score, but then I found out about this so there must be something else that they also take into account besides the number of reviews. Maybe it has something to do with top critics, but that's just a random guess. Yes, there is definitely more to it than merely balancing-out of different review numbers per film (that issue should be solvable with simple averages and divisions, no need for fancy Bayesian?) - in the end it's a "weighted" statistical method - and I have no idea how exactly it works myself. Look it up, they lost me quickly: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes_estimatorWild laymen guess: It might be that they also calculate the percentage of fresh/rotten votes per single critic so to weigh the individual critics and distinguish between nay-sayers and yay-men, if you have accidently a lot of nay-sayers with one movie this must be adjusted to be comparatively fair and balanced. Whatever.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Nov 4, 2017 18:17:36 GMT
formersamhmdIt would never be as simple as that. Saying "Oh but he went insane AFTER he locked up all those criminals" would never work. He was a deranged cop killer, in the real world, lawyers would be all over that and trying to find some excuse that there were possibly early signs before Jokers involvement to get them released because they'd have no proof that he only went insane after. 2. Yeah they all do, so do X-men and DC to a greater margin. That's just inevitable. 3. Michael Bay? When he was ever hyped? Every movie he has ever done has had bad reviews, his highest rated movie is The Rock and even that only has a 66%. His movies did well because they were ideal summer blockbusters but he treated like how Nolan is whose lowest rates movie is still 71%. 4. He was still the main villain in an episode where he was the only villain. Killer Croc has never been main villain material or Clay Face or Ventriloquist. Neither has Two Face. Joker, Riddler, Scarecrow, Bane, Ra's Al Ghul and Mr Freeze, they're main villain level.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Nov 4, 2017 19:11:07 GMT
No, the adjusted score is a normalization of scores using Bayesian Statistics (which is a field of Statistics taught at most major universities that have a Statistics Department) to account for the different number of reviews for each movie. It's more accurate than raw averages because raw averages don't account for the different number of reviews. Using raw averages would be like comparing a batter in baseball who had only 30 at-bats during the season to another batter in baseball who had 300 at-bats during the season.
Bottom line: Wonder Woman is a better-reviewed movie than SMH and that is a fact that you can't dispute: 50 Best Superhero Movies of All Time
No, it hasn't. The RT adjusted score is calculated using Bayesian Statistics, which is based on Bayes' Theorem and is taught in most major universities that have a Statistics Department.
The fact that the RT adjusted score is based on Bayes' Theorem means it can't be disputed or refuted because mathematical theorems are considered facts that can't be disputed or refuted. For example, the Pythagorean Theorem (the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other 2 sides) is a fact that was established since the days of ancient Greece and no one has been able to dispute or refute it in 25 centuries.
So bottom line: Wonder Woman is a better-reviewed movie than SMH and that is a fact that you can't dispute: 50 Best Superhero Movies of All Time
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Nov 4, 2017 19:22:12 GMT
I don't intend to join this discussion, but just to clarify how to adjusted score is calculated, here's a quote from The Guardian: "This is because that top 100 is based on an adjusted score that takes into account both a base quota of notices (40) and the rating of critics that the site itself approves of. All this is filtered through the Bayesian equation to allow for a varying numbers of reviews." (link: www.theguardian.com/film/2014/jul/16/boyhood-rotten-tomatoes-imdb) So the rating is calculated using both the number of reviews and it puts more weight on the reviews from critics that the site itself approves of, which is a lot less than all the critics that count towards the tomatometer. There seems to be a misunderstanding. The Guardian article claims that adjusted takes into account critics that the site itself approves plus Bayesian formula. As for the former, yes of course: these are the critics forming the Tomatometer, i.e., the RT featured critics. When talking of "RT approved critics" The Guardian links that claim two times to this site (quote for evidence): www.rottentomatoes.com/help_desk/critics/But these are just the standard quality criteria you must fulfill to be featured on rotten Tomatoes as a critic to be part of the Tomatometer. So there is no basis for a claim that RT would somehow select or handpick some critics of the regular RT critic crowd for adjusted scores. So RT doesn't hand-pick the critics for its adjusted score. RT only defines the criteria that critics must meet in order to qualify for its adjusted score (e.g. you must work for a top 100 daily newspaper or top 100 weekly newspaper or top 100 magazine, etc.). So critics who don't meet that criteria aren't included. That's not RT doing hand-picking of critics for its adjusted score. That's RT setting the bar and some critics reaching the bar while other critics fall short of the bar.
It's no different than when I was in elementary school and 1 of the city's daily newspapers gave away free Top Student tickets (i.e. 2 tickets to a baseball game for the local MLB team). But in order to get the Top Student tickets, students had to have a GPA of 3.5 or higher. So that wasn't the newspaper hand-picking which students to give the tickets to. That was the newspaper setting the minimum requirement for which students get the tickets, and some students met the requirement while others didn't.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Nov 4, 2017 20:02:53 GMT
No, it hasn't. The RT adjusted score is calculated using Bayesian Statistics, which is based on Bayes' Theorem and is taught in most major universities that have a Statistics Department.
The fact that the RT adjusted score is based on Bayes' Theorem means it can't be disputed or refuted because mathematical theorems are considered facts that can't be disputed or refuted. Can you explain this. Genuine question. I kept note of that Top list for a few weeks and noted that he percentage score that ranks the films changed a few times over that period, yet there was no change to total, rotten or fresh reviews or average rating. So what factor in the equation caused these changes? Time?
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Nov 4, 2017 20:07:50 GMT
That's irrelevant. MCU claims the TV shows as part of their shared universe so Iron Fist is as much an MCU product as Iron Man. Moreover, MCU has promoted their shared universe with the tagline "It's all connected" so MCU can't disavow Iron Fist or Inhumans from their shared universe now just because those shows got bad reviews. MCU promoted those shows as part of their shared universe so they live by their tagline, they die by their tagline. No, everything I've posted has always been true, accurate, and fair. I never said Marvel has "disavowed" Iron Fist or Inhumans from the MCU, I'm saying that Marvel Studios and Marvel Television are two different factions of the company, in other words - Thor: Ragnarok is not produced by Marvel Television, Iron Fist is not produced by Marvel Studios. At the end of the day, yes, they're made by the same company but the creative teams involved are not the very same. Do you work for MCU dictator Kevin Feige? Because you're making excuses for Feige that only employees of Feige would make.
If I buy a toaster oven and a pair of shoes at Macy's, those 2 departments may be managed by 2 different managers. But as the customer, I don't give a shit that those 2 departments have 2 different managers. They both part of the same store so if the toaster oven doesn't work, I consider that the store's fault for selling a defective product.
Same with MCU. They've marketed their TV shows and movies with the tagline "It's all connected". So to general audiences, Iron Fist is just as much MCU as Iron Man and they can't just disavow Iron Fist and Inhumans just because those shows got bad reviews. They marketed Inhumans and Iron Fist as part of MCU so they live by the tagline, they die by the tagline.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Nov 4, 2017 20:41:24 GMT
Output is only as good as the input, Ace. Even the dumbest “software engineer” knows that! The fact that TDK got a lower “adjusted score” than Logan when TDK got more reviews and better reviews is proof that the “adjusted score” is not an accurate reflection of all the reviews a movie received. Therefore, my original statement is correct - SMH got a higher percentage of positive reviews than WW, because ... it did. ... plus it kicked WW’s ass at the box office with a total global gross. That’s a slam dunk in anyone’s book! BTW, thanks for helping me reveal that the RT “adjusted score” is a nonsensical number ... derived in a manner that you don’t understand with data that you don’t know. Well done, Mr. “software engineer”
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Nov 4, 2017 22:12:02 GMT
formersamhmd It would never be as simple as that. Saying "Oh but he went insane AFTER he locked up all those criminals" would never work. Sure it would, but it would require Gordon and Batman using their brains. Cover up the killings. Hell, blame the Joker or someone else. MCU's been getting it from day one, and still gets it. There were times where X-Men and DC could do no wrong. MCU's NEVER gotten that. It's happened. I don't know which episode you mean, the only Condiment King story I know was the one where he was a guy brainwashed by Joker. And there have been stories where those guys work out fine as their own villains.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Nov 4, 2017 23:44:00 GMT
I never said Marvel has "disavowed" Iron Fist or Inhumans from the MCU, I'm saying that Marvel Studios and Marvel Television are two different factions of the company, in other words - Thor: Ragnarok is not produced by Marvel Television, Iron Fist is not produced by Marvel Studios. At the end of the day, yes, they're made by the same company but the creative teams involved are not the very same. Do you work for MCU dictator Kevin Feige? Because you're making excuses for Feige that only employees of Feige would make.
If I buy a toaster oven and a pair of shoes at Macy's, those 2 departments may be managed by 2 different managers. But as the customer, I don't give a shit that those 2 departments have 2 different managers. They both part of the same store so if the toaster oven doesn't work, I consider that the store's fault for selling a defective product.
Same with MCU. They've marketed their TV shows and movies with the tagline "It's all connected". So to general audiences, Iron Fist is just as much MCU as Iron Man and they can't just disavow Iron Fist and Inhumans just because those shows got bad reviews. They marketed Inhumans and Iron Fist as part of MCU so they live by the tagline, they die by the tagline.
I'm stating the truth - Marvel's film and TV division are not comprised by the same group people, Kevin Feige has no involvement in any of the TV shows produced for ABC, Netflix, and Hulu and does not include them when discussing each newer phase of the MCU. At the end of the day its all Marvel, but the TV, film, animation, game, and comic divisions are not the same. You said Iron Fist was a Marvel Studios production, but its really a production of Marvel Television. There's nothing wrong with being technical about this sort of thing, and it wasn't like I was speaking for everybody and what they think, and for the record I do count Inhumans and Iron Fist as part of the MCU - I have never once claimed they weren't because they were not well received productions nor am I suggesting Marvel themselves don't count them either. Learn. To. Read.
|
|