|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Dec 8, 2018 18:56:54 GMT
Why is it so important what some selected critics on review aggregators say? It shouldn't be. lol, thanks for taking the time and going so deep down in my posting history. A few days ago would have sufficed when I posted about the unbelievable Spiderverse ratings. Btw: An essential indication for a low-effort thinker is the inability to distinguish between " subjective" and "objective/facts". Try to think about it. If you can't, I will spell it out for you: I personally could not worry less about a site's rating of a film - and nobody mentally stable should - there are thousands of critics and only a few are represented on these sites, and in the end it's just their opinions, opinions! BUT a final rating number on a site of course constitutes a FACT (as much as I might personally disagree with it). And I - SUBJECTIVELY - have great fun rubbing those unpleasant facts into the wounds of salty fanboy bullies, even though they are just numbered opinions. Get it now?
That reminds me how you desperately tried to agitate against the that particular list and the old statistical Bayesian method (!...lol). Only to hilariously turn heel when BP came out, innit? You will never get it!  |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Oct 29, 2018 17:02:15 GMT
coldenhaulfield I can never tell when you are being subversive, genuine, or both.  Seems like the vast majority of the viewing public likes MCU Spider-Man. I trust Cinema Score more than IMDB to gauge the general population's view of a movie. They have been polling movie goers for 40 years. Instead of relying on people to have an IMDB account, log in, and rate it Cinema Score goes to the movie goers. This causes IMDB to be more of a specific demographic than Cinema Score. We also could go off of Grosses to gauge popularity, but that can be ambiguous. Also using that metric Spider-man 3 would be more popular than Spider-man 1 or 2. Cinema Score Venom B+ Homecoming A Amazing Spider-man 2 B+ Amazing Spider-man A- Spider-man 3 B+ Spider-man 2 A- Spider-man 1 A- IMDB Venom: 7.0 Homecoming 7.5 Amazing Spider-man 2 6.6 Amazing Spider-man 7.0 Spider-man 3 6.2 Spider-man 2 7.3 Spider-man 1 7.3 This is no reason for you to like them, just a metric on how popular each movie is with the public. Sony pulling Spider-man out of the MCU would be bad business. The vocal minority on here and on the internet as a whole isn't strong enough for them to cut-their own throat from the backlash from pulling Spidey from the MCU. "You have no proof that they're not. But I guess it suits YOUR narrative to just call everything Fake News. Innit?" The one making the accusation has to provide the proof or their accusation is hollow and baseless. Why doesn't Disney spend money to get all of their movies good reviews I wonder. Why just pay to get the MCU movies a good score? Why risk the government intervention? The FTC is pretty tough on non-disclosure for paid endorsement. Which this would be a form of. The closest I've ever seen to a studio paying for reviews was in the early 00's. That was when Sony, 20th Century Fox, Artisan Entertainment and Universal Pictures used employees to review movies in commercials, and not disclosing it. One company used a fake film critic. That was Sony. They made up a film critic for Connecticut's Ridgefield Press named David Manning. He gave positive "reviews" for A Knight's Tale and The Animal. Sony used his "reviews" in advertisements and Newsweek found them out. Wouldn't you think other studios would dig for information if Disney was buying reviews? I mean At&t owns Warner Brothers and CNN. If they thought that Disney was buying reviews their journalistic wing in CNN would jump all over that. One it would be a huge story to break. Two it would stop a rival Studio from buying reviews. Three it would lower another huge media conglomerate down while raising yours up. I'd rather Disney/Marvel Studios have Spider-man why would you want him to be controlled by the Company/Studio who has been proven (and had to pay fines) for using paid reviews and a fake critic? Popularity online doesn't mean anything, and if it's popularity you want, merely compare the adjusted box office; the Raimi movies were far more impressive in the context of their own time both creatively and commercially. Saying, "well, in the context of 2018... people think it's a 7.3/10." Okay, well in 2002 people thought it was 11/10; there is no comparison between the cultural phenomenon of 2002/04 and Tom Holland. . also the statistical fallacy is strong with this one: it's not comparable data, based on voting numbers alone. Venom has roughly 100k votes, Homecoming 300k and Spiderman over 600k. This makes a huge difference and this is why RT makes a Bayesian adjusted lists when review numbers differ.
Also, time factor, when the hype dies down popular reception usually changes (regularily downwards - see currently Infnity War falling from rank 9 to below 50). It's pretty normal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Jun 5, 2018 12:02:53 GMT
Who is your prime suspect? DaisyB? Raptor? Archie? Weiblers? Maybe... DC Fan? (Anything's possible!) Actually, glancing over mcufan ’s posts, they’re not too dissimilar to our beloved DC-Fan’s. His/her/its last post reads, “James Gunn has said that Groot will have a slowed down growth in the movies. So that scene was already several years after GOTG 2“—a very DC-Fan-esque construction. Compare with this: In both we see the half-truth in the first sentence, followed by a second opinion statement beginning with “so.” It really doesn’t read like Archie, Raptor, or good ol’ Wellibers. DC-Fan is the best suspect from a graphanalytic perspective, but there are also some points against thinking he’s the one. Daisy’s a possibility too. This is fun... (And I found a good article about a famous criminal profiling case, www.smithsonianmag.com/history/unmasking-the-mad-bomber-180962469/)don't bother, those two are not the same.
- MCU fan was a big Star Wars fan and trolled the SW forums for long (until chased away by mock-threads about him, like the weirdraptor before) - DC fan does not give a Sith about SW - MCU fan was not a native speaker, DC fan is. - MCU fan is a statistical/technical guy (he correctly calculated/predicted a Bayesian-method film ranking) but sucked deplorably at cultural/educational stuff, whereas DC is more educated in history and culture (literature/mythology) but sucks at science/technical stuff. - DC fan is an American "sports" nut, MCU fan never uttered anything in this regard... - DC fan would not blatantly defend and enable racism, MCU fan did.
Ergo: DC fan is more likely to be my sock than MCU fan's...
|
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Apr 27, 2018 9:50:55 GMT
would be funnier if you had actually managed to link to a specific post, cupcake. Makes you seem like a easily amused simpleton. But am am grateful enough that you finally learned to respond properly. |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Apr 27, 2018 9:45:20 GMT
jeez cupcake, you said raccoon turd again. But unnecessarily so, I never "promoted" the list, let alone "vehemently". I just say that it is - scientifically speaking - the most accurate representation of critic ratings as it employs Bayesian to account for different review numbers etc. But the critics are full of Dax turds, they do not bite the hands that feed them, just watch the film once with audience and go with bandwagon trends. The only correct ranking would be: Watchmen, TDK, TDK Returns, Logan, WW, Incredibles, Dredd, Kick ass etc. My first pick is not even on there... You're just picking and choosing because you don't want to admit that Black Panther is number 1 It's not too hard to understand. If BP is 1 on this list it means it is it currently IS the best reviewed CBM on RT. That is a fact.
But no thinking person would seriously claim BP to be the best CMB. It's not even the best MCU film (Return of the Winter Soldier is, because they ripped off Star Wars). But BP is Shakespeare compared to Raccon Turd Vol2, Fragglerock3 or Spiderboy6.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Apr 26, 2018 19:52:51 GMT
Are you saying that DC-Fan and Tristan Incarnate are full of shit for promoting this list so vehemently? jeez cupcake, you said raccoon turd again. But unnecessarily so, I never "promoted" the list, let alone "vehemently". I just say that it is - scientifically speaking - the most accurate representation of critic ratings as it employs Bayesian to account for different review numbers etc. But the critics are full of Dax turds, they do not bite the hands that feed them, just watch the film once with audience and go with bandwagon trends. The only correct ranking would be: Watchmen, TDK, TDK Returns, Logan, WW, Incredibles, Dredd, Kick ass etc. My first pick is not even on there... |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Apr 26, 2018 16:24:56 GMT
You guys can discuss the validity of the Bayesian algorithm with the two guys who are the self-proclaimed experts, DC-Fan and Tristan's Journal . They have been quite adamant that it's legit. jeez you are a sweet cupcake for thinking of me. But you should know that DC is just my nice-guy sock. Thusly, there is really only one expert on Thomas Bayes and the art of comparative statistics on this intellectual Chernobyl called a fan site - moi, baby. |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Feb 14, 2018 19:02:26 GMT
jeez, you are so hilarious, cupcake! Remember your failed attempts at disproving the Bayesian adjustment method - a heartfelt laugh at you for that again   it's not forgotten. Are you talking about the posts where I showed inconsistencies in the "Bayesian" scores that no one could refute? Why, yes I do. I don't specifically recall you, though. The babble from you comic book kids starts to meld together after a while.
LOL. Try not to plagiarize an article from a fashion/beauty website, Ace.
Sorry dude, you Googled that incorrectly. It's 40% by the end of the century. ... Do taht maths. If you keep Googling, you may run across current figures of 15 - 20%, which includes impoverished Africa.
I'd say my 13% is a pretty good number when considering a world-wide population with enough disposable income to go to the movies.
Sport fans know. Sorry if it triggered you, cupcake. I'm disinclined to walk on egg shells just because some snow-flake sees racism behind every bush. So you acknowledge your ignorance by deflecting into accusations of plagiarism ( ) and downplaying the lowest estimates of 15-20 % which is still hilariously above your US numbers and which - - does not remedy your small (US) world fallacy to begin with. The world is bigger than you imagine. But at least you tried (too late). As for your nasty avatar business, you got those foul eggs right in your face, but refuse to walk on the egg shells. I did not expect otherwise from an MCU fan. QED  Lest we forget: Your surrender is accepted, cupcake. |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Feb 14, 2018 17:12:49 GMT
 congrats, another utterly dumb thing to say. Let it be known, the world market is a lot bigger than your limited US horizon, cupcake.
Are you suggesting that the world population of black folks, excluding those from impoverished nations who are unlikely to be lining up in front of the local IMAX any time soon, is not 13%? Okay Ace, give us your figure. I hope it is more than a few percentage points from 13% ... if not, you're going to look like quite the dipwad ... who just hit himself with another unforced error. jeez, you are so hilarious, cupcake! Remember your failed attempts at disproving the Bayesian adjustment method - a heartfelt laugh at you for that again it's not forgotten.
And genius, don't get shocked and better sit down, 1 BILLION black people alone currently living in Africa of a world pop of 7 billion, and there are untold millions of Blacks living throughout the world and within the African Diaspora. Do the maths, for once correctly, man. It's estimated taht they may soon vbe 40% + of world population.
And the naive crap you say about impoverished nations not going to cinema
I am sure you are glad you missed out on that, you always leave when there is smoke and only return if there is an easy win. That's just you, cupcake.
But all that seems more up YOUR alley, those MCU pals could have used your assistence. So, don't deflect: pray tell, WHY are you using a ANGRY BLACK guy avatar in combination with KING KONG user name, and how do you see calling black people monkeys -is that not racist like your MCU pals claim? |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Jan 14, 2018 19:33:43 GMT
I disagree. Wonder Woman stood on its own and was acclaimed before all this came to light. Besides if that had been the case, than it wouldn't have been snubbed for a Golden Globe. fromersamhmd is a sore loser who's jealous that Wonder Woman is better than anything MCU has made. not just him. Remember the nutjob King Kong Brady who created several threads on how sexist and disrespectful WW is? And that RT would fake the Bayesian review rankings with WW on top? Guess that's why it won the critics' award now. Where does Marvel get these nutjob fanboys from? |
|
|
|
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 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 Tristan's Journal on Nov 8, 2017 10:48:48 GMT
as they state in the List the weighted Bayesian formulan is bto compensate for different review numbers and other factors to create a sound comparison basis, its like adjustment for inflation , necessary and used with business data, rot tom go through the effort with all genre Films to give a serious overview what is really best reviewed We had a Poster here who could do percentages calculations and he calculated correctly that Spider-Man will be on four before ro tom punished it. Most Impressive Right, I'm sure it's been covered many times before, but I still can't understand how adjusted scores can go up and down (as they did in the top 10 of that list over a few weeks in the summer when I was folowing them) whilst RT score, number of reviews - total, fresh and rotten, and average rating all remained the same. What is this mystery factor that seems to vary for each film. And if it's an adjusted score I assume it's the RT fresh score adjusted. So how can 92% of all reviews be fresh, but when adjusted 108% of all reviews are fresh! How can you have 108% of the total?!!!? I'm not asking you personally thought o answer these. I'm just throwing it out there. I learnd statistics and test construction at university but you are wise not to ask me, I sucked at it No clue but should find it out as general education worthy |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Nov 8, 2017 10:23:30 GMT
Wonder Woman still beats both of them easily. "Easily" is a bit strong. The main reason WW is top is that it received more reviews...that is the aspect of the formula that gives it a strong adjusted score, yet is has not beaten Thor Ragnarok or SMH on Fresh score, average rating or audience score. And if WW is at 108%...108% of what? as they state in the List the weighted Bayesian formulan is bto compensate for different review numbers and other factors to create a sound comparison basis, its like adjustment for inflation , necessary and used with business data, rot tom go through the effort with all genre Films to give a serious overview what is really best reviewed We had a Poster here who could do percentages calculations and he calculated correctly that Spider-Man will be on four before ro tom punished it. Most Impressive |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Nov 3, 2017 19:33:01 GMT
And you stop being so disrespectful. he is what he is. One must beat them with their own weapons, make them scratch their fanboy rashes: Hey, Sam old buddy, what about the best reviewed movie ever claim? - Currently Thor FraggleRock on average score 7.5 and 93% Tomatometer (on Metacritic its on 73%)  ; who needs Bayesian, right...? So, lets compare the raw data with eg: - TDK has an average score of 8.6 and 94% Tomatometer, thus kicks FraggleRock ass - Spiderman 2 has an average score of 8.3 and 94% thus kicks FraggleRock ass - Logan (a FOX MAN MOVIE) has an average score of 7.9 and 93% thus kicks FraggleRock ass - Superman 1 has an average score of 8 and 94% thus kicks FraggleRock ass What do you call this, " artificial downers"? Don't worry with a bit of Marvel MCU magic it's back at 100% soon.  |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Nov 2, 2017 21:05:43 GMT
no formersamhmd , but we DC fans seem just to be a tad more patient than you MCU folks: - The results are not final, there will be at least 150+ reviews more on RT; - Currently its on 7.5 average and 94% but that will change again ( Metacritic: 73%); - Even if that was final we need an weighted adjusted score (Bayesian) to account for different review numbers etc to seriously compare results; Geez, you MCU guys should really stop with the fun and get serious (like with education), or you will stay basement dwelling comic nerds for life. |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Nov 2, 2017 10:21:09 GMT
Agreed. Homecoming is the worst Spider-Man movie adaptation ever. “The worst Spider-Man movie adaption ever” got better reviews and a better box office than Wonder Woman. That’s still funny! it's funny because you lack perspective.
- Ratings: Wrong! WW is currently No 1 reviewed on the statistically adjusted score site of RT the word's biggest aggregator. We won't explain mathematics and statistical methods like Bayesian to you again.
- Gross: not that I would care who made a few millions more as long as I don't get my share, but SMHC naturally made more Box Office (wordwide, US-domestically it kicked Spider ass) because it featured some of the currently most popular and heavily promoted superheroes in the world, - Spiderboy (built in kiddy market) and IronMan, - plus some MCU pals like Cap etc, - plus it's Spideys long hyped "homecoming" into the currently most popular and commercially successful franchise: the MCU.
WW is an ORIGIN stand ALONE story regarding a FEMALE lead nobody cared about before (a concept that always flopped with female leads so far) in the upstarting yet successful yet controversial DCEU. Despite that it took "Spiderboy&Ironman into MCU" the Chinese market (!) to finally beat the underdog movie.
That is amazing! Still butthurt why serious people don't talk about that fabled success of SMHC, but WW has ongoing Oscar buzz? Those are the facts and reasons spelled out for you.
Here's laughing at you, cupcake.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Oct 25, 2017 8:25:17 GMT
No idea why Wonder Woman is #1 on that list. Going by the average score Wonder Woman has a 7.6. The same as Spider-man Homecoming. Logan meanwhile has the superior 7.9. The Dark Knight an 8.6. Iron Man an 7.7. The Avengers an 8.0. The Incredibles and 8.3. Guardians of the Galaxy an 7.7. The Dark Knight Rises an 8.0. There's probably others as well. Edit: Like Thor Ragnarok which currently has a 7.9. It's a mathematics/statistical thing. You cannot validly compare random data, eg, the ratings you cite are averages of different numbers of reviews, eg WW as a must-review media sensation has +300 reviews other films just have 200 and below.
Thus, you need an established weighed statistical formula, such as Bayesian (here employed), to have a clear picture and factor out distractors and imbalances. It's a comlicated calculation mechanism. They do this with every genre/film list so to create an objective picture.
But you just cannot validly compare the site ratings of films as is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Oct 17, 2017 9:08:32 GMT
You are such a prat.
Firstly you do realise using such a weighted method is used for imdb for a good reason, it stops numb nuts like yourself who give 10's to brands they like before ever seeing the sodding films and 0 or 1 to those you assume you will hate less value, this isn't needed for RT because RT accumulates and tallies the scores of certified critics who generally don't judge based on preconceived notions, and who themselves will rarely give such extreme scores.
Using it for RT is such an idiotic notion because it assumes those who rank films higher will do so ignorantly but they are vetted professionals who do it for a living, even those who favour specific genre's don't throw out 9 or 10's willy nilly, those scores don't go to just really fun or entertaining movies but extraordinary films, pro critics like those RT collects the scores from will knock off marks because they dislike the lighting or sound design things that 99.99% of other people ignore, hence why critical scores are lower than fan scores.
I am afraid you are misunderstanding the purpose and functioning of weighted statistical methods.
The method employed here on RT is Bayesian and it inter alia serves to get a conclusive comparison to validly compare ratings - compensation e.g. for different amounts of reviews per film.
Someone who would compare the aggregate ratings of say a film with 100 reviews with one that has 300 reviews, can with good reason be regarded an ignoramus lacking basic understanding of mathematics and sound comparison mechanisms.
The weighted algorism used on IMDb is something completely different and used for another purpose, apple-oranges.
Thus, DC Fan (and RT btw) is right that WW is the - statistically adjusted - best reviewed CBM on the world's biggest review aggregator site (which still just features below 1% of worldwide reviews). No surprise: RT say so themselves and make the methods used transparent, see link.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Sept 16, 2017 16:57:59 GMT
lol amigo, mighty convenient arguments for some movies released less then 10 years ago 2008-2011/12 vis-a-vis films released as from 2013. But fair enough;I counter with: The DCEU films had made tons more money back then in 2008 et seqq than now because 1. Superhero fatigue has set in, 2. Disney-MCU currently has pretty much a dominant market position (as DC had for decades before) tainting the dark/gritty CMB a la Nolan with it's formulaic kiddy appeal, 4. During the TDK hype/shortly after people would have stormed the cinemas even more for Supes and WW 3. Most important the factor of entropy, if we factor that in (i) Δ U = W + Q {Delta U=W+Q} not to forget (ii) Δ F = Δ U − T Δ S, the DCEU around 2009 would have made at least 3,14159 26535 89793 23846 times more money gross than in 2013 et seqq (Euros of course, not USD). I do not even have to bet, I have the entropy numbers on my side. That's not convenient, that's when the overseas market boomed. It began around mid 2010 when 3D started to pick up following the success of Avatar and then Alice in Wonderland. 1. There is no Superhero fatigue. We get more Superheroes movie than ever before and they all make a lot of money. 2. That's an assumption and unlikely anyway. Spider-man being a massive hit in 2002 didn't stop Hulk and Daredevil from flopping in 2003. The only fair comparison to be made is to compare the DCEU movies from 2013-2017 to the MCU movies from 2013-2017. what's fair dude? You circumvented my Euro based entropy calculation, it's the God particle of comparative-temporal box office assessments based on the Bayesian statistical method crossed with the Higgs Boson approach. Is that fair?  But OK, if you so insist we can agree to vehemently disagree... (and I bet Logan would have fairly beaten them all including TDK if released in 2008). |
|
