|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Jul 24, 2017 13:43:39 GMT
I have seen a lot of futile rating comparisons here. I know most CBM fans suck at analytical thinking, but the fact remains that one simply cannot randomly compare rating samples (with different review numbers etc) without employing statistically adjusted methods (Bayesian anybody?). But if YOU cannot do it, maybe somebody, like the biggest rating site in the world, has already done it for you. The facts are out there, why not look them up? And LO AND FUCKING BEHOLD what RottenTomatoes says: - Spidey Homecoming is on 8 (critically doing a lot better than commercially), while - TDK is on 3, - WW is still on 2 (despite a lot of uninformed BS to the contrary here), - Logan is at glorious 1 place.
editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/50-best-superhero-movies-of-all-time/5/ The wonders of facts, numbers and statistics guys. The facts have spoken.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Jul 24, 2017 13:49:21 GMT
The very idea that any of these movies are garnering "93%" just shows how broken RT is as a metric. "93%" doesn't mean it AVERAGED THAT. It just means "93%" of shill critics gave it 51% or better.
Good post; just adding some clarification.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Jul 24, 2017 14:00:30 GMT
The very idea that any of these movies are garnering "93%" just shows how broken RT is as a metric. "93%" doesn't mean it AVERAGED THAT. It just means "93%" of shill critics gave it 51% or better. Good post; just adding some clarification. correct Colden, the tomatometer itself is a simple, dumb-as-shit, binary thumbs up-or-down system. It's an indicator of certain quality aspects (how many critics gave thumbs up?), but the more revealing indicator is usually the average score - which is also shown on RottenTomatoes btw.
Also, ever wondered why the heralded classic Superman 1 or 2 is not in this list? Because in the 70s critics were not as forgiving with B-movies, rating them traditionally lower. Only with the advent of the internet this changed dramatically. Media platforms like newspapers do not make money by consumers buying the product anymore, but by sporting promotional content. You will usually not bite the hand that feeds you, especially if it's a super expensive 100-200 mil project.
Rating a modest 6/10 is easy, but try to give an explicit thumbs-down to a potential client's prestige product...
|
|
|
Post by blockbusted on Jul 24, 2017 14:08:35 GMT
'Spider-Man: Homecoming' has an average rating of 7.6/10.
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Jul 24, 2017 14:12:30 GMT
Right, I am confused. (Not questioning the outcome...trying to understand it)
Looking up the Bayesian formula it seems to take into account the average rating for the film. But when reviews range from 6/10, 3/4, 3/5 and B- for example, how is an average gathered? Does a seperate score have to be submitted by the reviewer to RT?
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Jul 24, 2017 15:09:17 GMT
'Spider-Man: Homecoming' has an average rating of 7.6/10. um, what about the basic first OP-sentence concerning comparable data did you not understand...? Just take one factor such as number of reviews: e.g. WW has 323 and SMH only 247. Don't see an issue requiring statistical adjustment, before comparing data significantly? Try again when ready.
|
|
|
Post by blockbusted on Jul 24, 2017 15:18:09 GMT
'Spider-Man: Homecoming' has an average rating of 7.6/10. um, what about the basic first OP-sentence concerning comparable data did you not understand...? Just take one factor such as number of reviews: e.g. WW has 323 and SMH only 247. Don't see an issue requiring statistical adjustment, before comparing data significantly? Try again when ready. 'Wonder Woman' has more reviews at least partly because it came out a month earlier. I have a feeling that you used that metric too early...
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Jul 24, 2017 16:01:27 GMT
Right, I am confused. (Not questioning the outcome...trying to understand it) Looking up the Bayesian formula it seems to take into account the average rating for the film. But when reviews range from 6/10, 3/4, 3/5 and B- for example, how is an average gathered? Does a seperate score have to be submitted by the reviewer to RT? And that's why RT is a broken and seriously flawed system, on every count.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Jul 24, 2017 16:26:09 GMT
um, what about the basic first OP-sentence concerning comparable data did you not understand...? Just take one factor such as number of reviews: e.g. WW has 323 and SMH only 247. Don't see an issue requiring statistical adjustment, before comparing data significantly? Try again when ready. 'Wonder Woman' has more reviews at least partly because it came out a month earlier. I have a feeling that you used that metric too early... 1. This is an official RT adjusted score publication. They decided on the right time when to include SMH (this week), as this is unlikely that there will be any further reviews 3 weeks afte rthe movie opened (typically 95% of reviews are released before or upon release). Btw this chart is constantly updated and adjusted by RT.
2. But this is exactly the point of statistical adjustment methods: you do not need the same number of reviews to compare validly. The method (here: Bayesian) will statistically level any inbalance. Thus, it is irrelevent that there are roughly 1/3 fewer reviews for SMH as long as you do it via statistically adjusted method to compare the data - and have a large enough sample size (usually 20-30 reviews). Without the method it would be like comparing apples with oranges.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Jul 24, 2017 16:42:10 GMT
Right, I am confused. (Not questioning the outcome...trying to understand it) Looking up the Bayesian formula it seems to take into account the average rating for the film. But when reviews range from 6/10, 3/4, 3/5 and B- for example, how is an average gathered? Does a seperate score have to be submitted by the reviewer to RT? yeah that's an ancient point of contention, but pretty easy to dissolve: As far as I know the reviewers who want to be featured on RT or any big aggregate ratings site (which is obviously considered a huge privilege and career boost for them, increasing their clicks and advertising revenues manifold) are contractually bound by RT to notify (i) overal rotten or fresh rating (which often creats discord as many raste 3/5 but still give rotten symbol, RT then states that it's the reviewer's will not theirs)
(ii) individual rating based on the RT scoring system (X/10) (or you just could not do it, then sites like Metacritic would be completely worthless)
The Tomatometer is created by RT alone. Reviewers are not obliged to use the RT score system on their site of course, eg they can use a grading system (a la B-).
|
|
|
Post by blockbusted on Jul 24, 2017 16:48:52 GMT
You might've had some credibility if you weren't a massive MCU hater...
I know that it's an official publication from RottenTomatoes, but why do I feel like you posted this thread to spread MCU hate again?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2017 17:35:42 GMT
LOL but seriously Logan sucks. So does GOTG and X-Men DOFP.
|
|
barkingbaphomet
Junior Member
all backlit and creepysmoking
@barkingbaphomet
Posts: 2,252
Likes: 1,006
|
Post by barkingbaphomet on Jul 24, 2017 17:59:15 GMT
The very idea that any of these movies are garnering "93%" just shows how broken RT is as a metric. "93%" doesn't mean it AVERAGED THAT. It just means "93%" of shill critics gave it 51% or better. Good post; just adding some clarification. correct Colden, the tomatometer itself is a simple, dumb-as-shit, binary thumbs up-or-down system. this exchange brought to mind you two hosting a kid friendly pop sci program. and i laughed.
|
|
|
Post by furiousstyles77 on Jul 24, 2017 18:06:55 GMT
Right, I am confused. (Not questioning the outcome...trying to understand it) Looking up the Bayesian formula it seems to take into account the average rating for the film. But when reviews range from 6/10, 3/4, 3/5 and B- for example, how is an average gathered? Does a seperate score have to be submitted by the reviewer to RT? yeah that's an ancient point of contention, but pretty easy to dissolve: As far as I know the reviewers who want to be featured on RT or any big aggregate ratings site (which is obviously considered a huge privilege and career boost for them, increasing their clicks and advertising revenues manifold) are contractually bound by RT to notify (i) overal rotten or fresh rating (which often creats discord as many raste 3/5 but still give rotten symbol, RT then states that it's the reviewer's will not theirs)
(ii) individual rating based on the RT scoring system (X/10) (or you just could not do it, then sites like Metacritic would be completely worthless)
The Tomatometer is created by RT alone. Reviewers are not obliged to use the RT score system on their site of course, eg they can use a grading system (a la B-).
Tristan , tone it down, you are at full level 10 dick head
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Jul 24, 2017 18:37:30 GMT
yeah that's an ancient point of contention, but pretty easy to dissolve: As far as I know the reviewers who want to be featured on RT or any big aggregate ratings site (which is obviously considered a huge privilege and career boost for them, increasing their clicks and advertising revenues manifold) are contractually bound by RT to notify (i) overal rotten or fresh rating (which often creats discord as many raste 3/5 but still give rotten symbol, RT then states that it's the reviewer's will not theirs)
(ii) individual rating based on the RT scoring system (X/10) (or you just could not do it, then sites like Metacritic would be completely worthless)
The Tomatometer is created by RT alone. Reviewers are not obliged to use the RT score system on their site of course, eg they can use a grading system (a la B-).
Tristan , tone it down, you are at full level 10 dick head admittedly, all that is a little bit dry and sober, and clearly not to your taste, furious. I am sorry for that, but sometimes a man has to crunch the numbers and facts, doing serious business. It cannot be all flopping dicks and tits every day, man. Sorry if I distracted you from doing your usual forum business...
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Jul 25, 2017 3:12:56 GMT
Tristan , tone it down, you are at full level 10 dick head admittedly, all that is a little bit dry and sober, and clearly not to your taste, furious. I am sorry for that, but sometimes a man has to crunch the numbers and facts, doing serious business. It cannot be all flopping dicks and tits every day, man. Sorry if I distracted you from doing your usual forum business... Naturally that flabbergasted furious and quickly shut him the fuck up. Very nice!
|
|
|
Post by Jedan Archer on Jul 25, 2017 19:34:15 GMT
It's sad that seemingly this mediocre reboot is even better reviewed than the first two Spiderman movies. All I can say to the re-re-boot of this character: "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce". Nuff said.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Jul 26, 2017 1:55:42 GMT
It's sad that seemingly this mediocre reboot is even better reviewed than the first two Spiderman movies. All I can say to the re-re-boot of this character: "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce". Nuff said. Right?! As John Lennon once said, "Nobody told me there'd be days like these."
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Jul 26, 2017 10:00:29 GMT
It's sad that seemingly this mediocre reboot is even better reviewed than the first two Spiderman movies. All I can say to the re-re-boot of this character: " History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce". Nuff said. that paraphrase perfectly sums up the history of the Spidey rebooting withing the last 15 years .
SMH spiderboy did not even have a man bulge, they airbrushed that away or just left it out with the CGI Spiderboy. Like with those Disney CGI dogs that did not have an anatomical anus. Incredible.
|
|
|
Post by mcufan on Jul 26, 2017 10:23:57 GMT
I have seen a lot of futile rating comparisons here. I know most CBM fans suck at analytical thinking, but the fact remains that one simply cannot randomly compare rating samples (with different review numbers etc) without employing statistically adjusted methods (Bayesian anybody?). But if YOU cannot do it, maybe somebody, like the biggest rating site in the world, has already done it for you. The facts are out there, why not look them up? And LO AND FUCKING BEHOLD what RottenTomatoes says: - Spidey Homecoming is on 8 (critically doing a lot better than commercially), while - TDK is on 3, - WW is still on 2 (despite a lot of uninformed BS to the contrary here), - Logan is at glorious 1 place.
editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/50-best-superhero-movies-of-all-time/5/ The wonders of facts, numbers and statistics guys. The facts have spoken.
except he is really number 4 and climbing. Rotten tomatoes screwd up big time with that list. They now removed the true percentage because it was bullshit and they didn't want homecoming passing wb properties. Homecoming was with 105% and some change already until they removed the weighted percentage. They never updated the list since inserting him at number 8. He should be number four and in it's way to overtake the dark Knight. That list is bullshit and it means squat. When it worked for Warner it was all good, as soon as they see that spider Man could overtake Batman, they stopped updating the numbering and removed the percentage. Lol So, that list means nothing now.
|
|