|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Nov 8, 2017 20:19:21 GMT
Top 5, I'll take it. Though, the list is a bit of a joke. No way Spider-Man 2 isn't even in the top 5. And Lego Batman being in the top 10 and higher than Winter Soldier? I don't think so. And it's debatable with Logan, but The Dark Knight is far better than Wonder Woman and should be number one and I think anyone can agree with that. The whole adjusted score system is completely flawed.
If this is a list of the best then where is Superman the Movie (1978)? Where is Batman (1989)? Where is Spiderman (2002), and Spiderman 2 (2004)? Where is X2:X-Men United (2003)? Where is Captain America: Winter Soldier (2014)? Where is X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)? ALL of those movies are better than 7-10 on this list.
the list is just the best reviewed according to tomatometer adjusted by Bayesian to account for unbalanced review numbers etc (like you need adjusted for inflation to compare gross), these are the movies that got most fresh ratings (not average ratings). Where is Watchmen on this list? DofP was kicked out the top 10 by Thor:Fragglerock alas. It's a shame. |
|
|
|
Post by DSDSquared on Nov 8, 2017 20:26:51 GMT
Civil War has to be the most overrated of all the MCU movies. I like it a lot, but on no planet is it better than The Winter Soldier. For me Civil War takes the story that Winter Solider set up and takes it to the next level, making it bigger, by including all the Avengers and even finding a clever way of introducing Spiderman. Don't get me wrong, I also like Winter Soldier. For me its the movie where Marvel grew into truly mature super hero movies. And the casting coup of Robert Redford was a nice touch.
But in your opinion, what makes Winter Soldier better than Civil War?
I just think it is a better movie. However, above all, it is more exciting. Some of the most iconic action scenes in CBMs were all in that one movie. The boat scene at the beginning, the street fight with Winter Soldier and Cap, the elevator fight, etc. All perfectly choreographed and pulse pounding. The story was contained and very tight. It was truly a Cap movie and it was a breath of fresh air to the genre, IMO. It was like a spy film with incredible action. I love Civil War. I have seen it multiple times, but if I had to sit and watch one right now, it would definitely be TWS. It is just one of those movies you can watch a hundred times and not get bored. |
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Nov 9, 2017 12:13:47 GMT
Obviously, the discrete group of critics chosen by RT to compile this list, do not agree with you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Nov 9, 2017 13:44:41 GMT
Obviously, the discrete group of critics chosen by RT to compile this list, do not agree with you. say, cupcake, where do you take the information regarding a "discrete group of critics cosen by RT" from? RT is of course just that, representing below 1% of worldwide critics, still: Could you link it for me please? |
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Nov 9, 2017 16:19:00 GMT
Obviously, the discrete group of critics chosen by RT to compile this list, do not agree with you. say, cupcake, where do you take the information regarding a "discrete group of critics cosen by RT" from? RT is of course just that, representing below 1% of worldwide critics, still: Could you link it for me please? Hit (?) next to Sorted by Adjusted Score. We know the discrete group is different from the full list of critics because of the Logan/TDK comparison ... and the changing adjusted score when there was no change to the critics status on the Tomato-meter page. |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Nov 9, 2017 16:52:07 GMT
say, cupcake, where do you take the information regarding a "discrete group of critics cosen by RT" from? RT is of course just that, representing below 1% of worldwide critics, still: Could you link it for me please? Hit (?) next to Sorted by Adjusted Score. We know the discrete group is different from the full list of critics because of the Logan/TDK comparison ... and the changing adjusted score when there was no change to the critics status on the Tomato-meter page. that seems misleading, "distinct" means the eligable RT critics that actually rated for that movie on RT (they have hard criteria for who is allowed to be featured on RT www.rottentomatoes.com/help_desk/critics/).
Or how could people calculate the adjusted score independently? We had a hysterical MCU fanboy who squealed like a paranoid hog bc SMHC was not ranked at 4 according to his Bayesian calculations (one week later RT of course updated it). How could he do that without knowing who is on the "distinct critics list"?
Usually Bayesion works like this (simplified)
weighted rating (WR) = (v ÷ (v+m)) × R + (m ÷ (v+m)) × C
Where:
R = average / rotten - fresh vote (mean) = (Rating)
v = number of votes for the movie = (votes)
m = minimum ratings required to be listed (currently 40)
C = the mean vote across the whole report
This is what companies often use to make data comparable, but there are more sophisticated approaches with weighted votes etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Nov 9, 2017 17:34:47 GMT
that seems misleading, "distinct" means the eligable RT critics that actually rated for that movie on RT
That is impossible for the simple reasons I have already given. In addition to the Logan/TDK comparison, you can also see evidence to the contrary in a King Kong v Seven Samurai comparison. Seven Samurai beats out King Kong in every RT category, including the number of reviews, yet still has a lower "adjusted score". Clearly, the input is not what your think it is. They can't. If someone has claimed to have done so, let them show their work ... then apply it to Logan and TDK. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Nov 9, 2017 17:53:36 GMT
You must really have a limited vocabulary, if you repeat the same words over and over again. This is disgusting. The word "over" is repeated twice in this post. This PSA comes to you courtesy of Lord Death Man. Hee hee hee... |
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Nov 9, 2017 17:55:53 GMT
Top 5, I'll take it. Though, the list is a bit of a joke. No way Spider-Man 2 isn't even in the top 5. And Lego Batman being in the top 10 and higher than Winter Soldier? I don't think so. And it's debatable with Logan, but The Dark Knight is far better than Wonder Woman and should be number one and I think anyone can agree with that. The whole adjusted score system is completely flawed. So Thor: Ragnarok isn't #1 and Wonder Woman is still #1? formersamhmd has been saying for a couple of months that Wonder Woman wouldn't last through the year at #1 because Thor: Ragnarok would be ranked higher. SMH and Thor: Ragnarok are supposedly 2 of MCUs highest-rated movies and yet Wonder Woman still beats both of them easily. So you are saying this list is the gospel. So Marvel has made 5 of the top 10 CBMs of all time, right? And DC has made only 3 of the top 10, right? (and one of those is animated) MoS, BvS, and SS aren't even in the top 50...right? That's why I love lists. They immediately prove you can't rank art. Anyone citing the list has to immediately disqualify the list the moment it doesn't agree with their opinion. Works that way with "awards" too. This is a serious question that I have asked multiple times both here and on IMDB and never gotten a real answer so I am not trying to be argumentative. I am not a big fan of The Dark Knight but I understand why many people think it is good. However, Days of Future Past I don't understand. To me it was just ok. So please; What was so great about Days of Future Past? My guess would be that it looks great in comparison to most Fox CBMs. It's like hanging out with a group of friends who are all unattractive. You can be average looking but look like a model in comparison. Wonder Woman got that benefit too. Even Thor 3 got to be compared to two mediocre movies so it looks like the best CBM ever. It can work in reverse too. If you follow a great movie it hurts your perception to be compared. It was ok for a Fox movie. But it suffered the usual problem of being a Wolverine and Friends movie. Naturally they had to change the original story to make it about Wolverine. Should have just called it Days of Wolverine Past. |
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Nov 9, 2017 17:55:58 GMT
Obviously, the discrete group of critics chosen by RT to compile this list, do not agree with you. Clearly. And they went ahead and created a list and then called it the best of. And they were wrong in several of their choices for what should be in the top ten. I already knew all this. Thanks for pointing it out though. Thumbs up! |
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Nov 9, 2017 20:53:08 GMT
Obviously, the discrete group of critics chosen by RT to compile this list, do not agree with you. Clearly. And they went ahead and created a list and then called it the best of. And they were wrong in several of their choices for what should be in the top ten. I already knew all this. Thanks for pointing it out though. Thumbs up! Just wanted to make sure you weren't under the illusion that this list was anything more than just another internet opinion piece by a minority of unknown critics. Some folks apparently are. |
|
|
|
Post by Jedan Archer on Nov 9, 2017 21:25:57 GMT
Clearly. And they went ahead and created a list and then called it the best of. And they were wrong in several of their choices for what should be in the top ten. I already knew all this. Thanks for pointing it out though. Thumbs up! Just wanted to make sure you weren't under the illusion that this list was anything more than just another internet opinion piece by a minority of unknown critics. Some folks apparently are. Lol, yes the reasonable part of mankind that wishes to rely on comparable data without incurring liability. You smell like a bad loser, Champ. In fact your avatar already gives it away. Comedy gold. Take a cold shower and calm down. |
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Nov 9, 2017 21:58:30 GMT
the reasonable part of mankind that wishes to rely on comparable data. The "reasonable part of mankind" doesn't blindly accept nonsensical results. (see my earlier posts for examples of nonsensical "adjusted scores") Apparently, you are in the category that does. I'm a Patriots fan. We won that game. It was pretty sweet! Keep flailing away, Champ. It's what you do best.  |
|
|
|
Post by Jedan Archer on Nov 9, 2017 22:03:45 GMT
the reasonable part of mankind that wishes to rely on comparable data. The "reasonable part of mankind" doesn't blindly accept nonsensical results. (see my earlier posts for examples of nonsensical "adjusted scores") Apparently, you are in the category that does. I'm a Patriots fan. We won that game. It was pretty sweet! Keep flailing away, Champ. It's what you do best. You argue like an angry child that does not want to accept realities. They won't ever let you clean toilets in "lawyer school" or anywhere else if you do not work on that, Ace. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Nov 9, 2017 22:13:31 GMT
That's enough of all that, be civil now.
|
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Nov 10, 2017 0:17:11 GMT
You argue like an angry child What have you contributed to this thread besides absolutely nothing? You are welcome to discuss the issue under consideration. Otherwise, back under your rock ... and please work on your banter. If you can’t stand up to a “child” without incurring a slap from an admin, you’re doing it all wrong, sluggo. |
|
|
|
Post by Jedan Archer on Nov 10, 2017 6:30:44 GMT
You argue like an angry child What have you contributed to this thread besides absolutely nothing? You are welcome to discuss the issue under consideration. Otherwise, back under your rock ... and please work on your banter. If you can’t stand up to a “child” without incurring a slap from an admin, you’re doing it all wrong, sluggo. Did I hit a nerve? You still argue like an angry child, champ. There is no need for debunking as you as you bring nothing of substance (yeah you learn that in "Lawyer School"). You got to learn to accept facts even when they don't agree with you. Coping mechanisms would be whining and crying foul...well that's exactly what you do. Fair enough, moving on. |
|
|
|
Post by Jedan Archer on Nov 10, 2017 8:02:39 GMT
That's enough of all that, be civil now. Moderater, could you clarify. I interpreted this as a general call for moderation to all involved. Which would be perfectly fair and adequate a corrective measure considering the circumstances. Not contest or appeal. Now, King Kong claims this was specifically designed for me to "incurring a slap from an admin". I would imagine in this case I was formally tagged or quoted by you with specific instructions as to the nature of my wrongdoing? Maybe I get old and rusty, could you enlighten me? |
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Nov 10, 2017 17:37:53 GMT
Clearly. And they went ahead and created a list and then called it the best of. And they were wrong in several of their choices for what should be in the top ten. I already knew all this. Thanks for pointing it out though. Thumbs up! Just wanted to make sure you weren't under the illusion that this list was anything more than just another internet opinion piece by a minority of unknown critics. Some folks apparently are. We're on the same page, my friend. I'm picking up what you're putting down. |
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Nov 10, 2017 18:55:10 GMT
Were you trying to "hit a nerve"? (Fail, BTW) That's the sort of trolling the admins frown upon. Is it really so important to you that you succeed in making me angry? (Fail, BTW) That's the sort of trolling the admins frown upon. I presented examples that clearly show that the "adjusted score" can not possibly be using the Tomato-meter critic data, regardless of how it is "adjusted". If you find yourself incapable of countering my points, hurling insults from afar is not a recommended alternative. That's the sort of trolling the admins frown upon. |
|
