SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING starring Tom Holland (7/28/17) 3 3

[zosocane]

1 hour ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

I am willing to take a guess they might like Deadpool better? If I was that age again I would go with Deadpool because he is more rebellious.

Spider-Man to them is like Superman was to us in that he is their father's hero.

Deadpool is the cool cat now among the young people.

Spider-Man will probably never regain the popularity of the Tobey Maguire movies again.

Just like Superman will never be as popular as he was in the Christopher Reeve era.

I could see the same thing happening to the Avengers,as once Captain America,Thor and Iron Man leave the film series they will never hit the top peak again.

 

Literally impossible to do a better Reeves Superman and very, very difficult to do a better MCU Cap, Thor and Iron Man.  A better Spidey could be done, if Holland was directed by Raimi.  Holland can be a definitive Spidey, but I want to see a director and studio that divorces itself from the Avengers.  I am sick and tired of seeing gratuitous shots of Avengers tower in the background.

[Bosco685]

26 minutes ago, zosocane said:

Literally impossible to do a better Reeves Superman and very, very difficult to do a better MCU Cap, Thor and Iron Man.  A better Spidey could be done, if Holland was directed by Raimi.  Holland can be a definitive Spidey, but I want to see a director and studio that divorces itself from the Avengers.  I am sick and tired of seeing gratuitous shots of Avengers tower in the background.

[Gatsby77]

I actually really liked the MCU tie-ins this time.  Aside from (perhaps) Tony Stark, they seemed organic rather than gratuitous -- like unexpected Easter Eggs and treats rather than the obvious say...Coulson or Nick Fury appearances in Phase 1 that were so beating us over the head with the coming Avengers initiative.

Also, this was the first Spidey film where I could stomach the multiple villains. Really well done -- didn't feel forced, like they did in (esp.) Spider-Man 3.

Last superhero film to do that well was probably Dark Knight Rises (w/ Catwoman + Bane).

[Prince Namor]

On 7/15/2017 at 1:56 PM, Gatsby77 said:

- Also -- yes -- Bendis is a far better writer than Stan Lee. Sure, the hate is justified for the abomination that is "One More Day," but his run on Daredevil alone is _by far_ the best treatment that character's ever had. Just like it's okay to acknowledge that Frank Miller's art on Daredevil trumped that of Everett's or even Romita's, I'm perfectly comfortable in choosing Bendis over Lee. Yes - they were writing for different times and different audiences -- and Bendis had the advantage of standing on the shoulders of giants, but the level of plotting and sophistication brings Bendis to bear vs. Lee is almost laughable.

I continually hear this and I just don't understand what was so great about Bendis' run on the Daredevil book.

He took an established character and he introduced a new love interest for him (been done before), outed his secret identity (been done before), and brought the Kingpin back (yet again). And most of what Bendis did, he couldn't have done without what Frank Miller laid the groundwork for during HIS run. 

THAT is better than Fantastic Four 1-100 or Amazing Spider-man 1-100? I just don't see it.

Regardless of what anyone thinks.... nothing in comics can ever compare to those two runs. Bendis' had 20+ years of comic history and experience of what had gone before when he wrote what HE wrote.... Stan Lee was a part of stories that opened up new ways to view the characters and the worlds they inhabited....Lee/Kirby/Romita/Ditko stories CHANGED comics...ALL of comics. 

Those guys were like the Beatles.

Bendis is a cover band. 

[jsilverjanet]

I do like Ultimate Spider-Man 

[Prince Namor]

21 minutes ago, jsilverjanet said:

I do like Ultimate Spider-Man 

I like Van Halen's 'You Really Got Me'.  It's a cool remake of the Kink's song.

[jsilverjanet]

[fantastic_four]

14 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

15 hours ago, ComicConnoisseur said:

It has the highest rating ever for a Spider-Man movie on rotten tomatoes.

Not that I am taking sides. I enjoyed Homecoming. But it is the second highest RT score, behind Spider-Man 2 (now 92% vs. SP2's 94%).

And more importantly it's much further behind on average rating with 7.6 for Homecoming and 8.3 for SM2.  And that's significant because you almost NEVER see average ratings above 8 for a superhero movie.

Always remember, when talking about comparative quality of movies, don't use the dumb Rotten Tomatoes score, use average rating, which is equivalent to Metacritic or MRQE ratings, i.e. they're the average of the actual scores reviewers give.  The RT rating is a dumbed-down "did they like it or did they not" score.  It's VERY useful for deciding whether or not you're likely to enjoy a film, but it's poor for doing relative comparisons of the quality of two films.

Edited July 18, 2017 by fantastic_four

[Bosco685]

7 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

And more importantly it's much further behind on average rating with 7.6 for Homecoming and 8.3 for SM2.  And that's significant because you almost NEVER see average ratings above 8 for a superhero movie.

Always remember, when talking about comparative quality of movies, don't use the dumb Rotten Tomatoes score, use average rating, which is equivalent to Metacritic or MRQE ratings, i.e. they're the average of the actual scores reviewers give.  The RT rating is a dumbed-down "did they like it or did they not" score.  It's VERY useful for deciding whether or not you're likely to enjoy a film, but it's poor for doing relative comparisons of the quality of two films.

You forgot during your education rant to also ensure the sample of the population is comparable. If the average rating is high - but that is across 5 people - and another is slightly lower but averaged across 1.5M - there is a difference.

Back to the cane-wielding broadcast.

[fantastic_four]

6 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

You forgot during your education rant to also ensure the sample of the population is comparable. If the average rating is high - but that is across 5 people - and another is slightly lower but averaged across 1.5M - there is a difference.

The sample size for the Tomatometer and average rating scores are identical, the Tomatometer score just simplifies the scoring to a thumbs up/thumbs down are-you-likely-to-enjoy-it-or-not indicator.

[Bosco685]

2 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

The sample size for the Tomatometer and average rating scores are identical, the Tomatometer score just simplifies the scoring to a thumbs up/thumbs down are-you-likely-to-enjoy-it-or-not indicator.

You're missing the point of a statistical sample value, yet were making a good point of paying attention to the average score. If you are going to point to the Average Rating as a stronger gauge - but the sample is very small (let's say 12 critics) - then you are going to end up with a wide variance compared to one that has been fully reviewed prior to release - 175-200 critics. And what makes it worse with a very tiny sample is one bad review leads to a more sensitive average. Where a large sampling cuts down on that sensitivity.

EX (12 critics):

- 8 give it a 9.0, 4 give it an 8.0: 8.67

- 8 give it a 9.0, 3 give it an 8.0, 1 gives it a 5.0: 8.4

Ex (50 critics):

- 40 give it a 9.0, 10 give it an 8.0: 8.8

- 40 give it a 9.0, 8 give it an 8.0, 2 give it a 5.0: 8.68

So a few folks that had a widely different critical review of a movie is going to have less of an impact on the average. That's why improvement measures like Six Sigma scores focus on sample size comparisons so much to ensure you are comparing items statistically accurate.

[fantastic_four]

9 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

27 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

The sample size for the Tomatometer and average rating scores are identical, the Tomatometer score just simplifies the scoring to a thumbs up/thumbs down are-you-likely-to-enjoy-it-or-not indicator.

You're missing the point of a statistical sample value, yet were making a good point of paying attention to the average score. If you are going to point to the Average Rating as a stronger gauge - but the sample is very small (let's say 12 critics) - then you are going to end up with a wide variance compared to one that has been fully reviewed prior to release - 175-200 critics. And what makes it worse with a very tiny sample is one bad review leads to a more sensitive average. Where a large sampling cuts down on that sensitivity.

EX (12 critics):

- 8 give it a 9.0, 4 give it an 8.0: 8.67

- 8 give it a 9.0, 3 give it an 8.0, 1 gives it a 5.0: 8.4

Ex (50 critics):

- 40 give it a 9.0, 10 give it an 8.0: 8.8

- 40 give it a 9.0, 8 give it an 8.0, 2 give it a 5.0: 8.68

So a few folks that had a widely different critical review of a movie is going to have less of an impact on the average. That's why improvement measures like Six Sigma scores focus on sample size comparisons so much to ensure you are comparing items statistically accurate.

The Tomatometer score and the average rating score sample sizes are identical.  Why do you keep saying they're not?

[Bosco685]

6 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

The Tomatometer score and the average rating score sample sizes are identical.  Why do you keep saying they're not?

You were making a point about movie comparisons, right?

52 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

Always remember, when talking about comparative quality of movies...

 

Edited July 18, 2017 by Bosco685

[fantastic_four]

I was indeed, and the average rating is the score to use when making those comparisons.  If a reviewer gives a movie four out of five stars, that translates to 80%; if another reviewer gives it three out of four, that translates to 75%.  The Rotten Tomatoes average rating--as well as the MRQE score, and the Metacritic score--use those 80% and 75% scores to average out their overall scores.  The Tomatometer converts that four out of five stars to a simple "they liked it" thumbs-up positive, and if they give it two out of five stars that gets converted to a thumbs-down negative.  The average rating tells you the overall quality of the film, but the Tomatometer is intended to guide us on whether or not reviewers liked a film to help inform us on whether or not it's worth our time to go see that film.  The average rating gives us more information on the absolute quality of the film from the perspective of critics.

Sample size for the two scores is identical, the Tomatometer is just a reinterpretation of a critic's review.  Rotten Tomatoes decided to make the simplified Tomatometer score their primary score to differentiate itself from the competition, and it seems like a good idea to me when thinking of RT as the quickest check when making a "is this movie worth seeing" decision.  But when you're going beyond that level of evaluation to comparative quality of films, the RT average rating, MRQE score, or Metacritic score are far better to use.

I think the only difference in the RT, MRQE, and Metacritic scores are in the reviewers they each decide to factor into their sample set.  Each site has different criteria for which critics they consider and which they don't.  I haven't decided which of the three does the best job of picking their critics.

[fantastic_four]

3 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

Sample size for the two scores is identical, the Tomatometer is just a reinterpretation of a critic's review.  Rotten Tomatoes decided to make the simplified Tomatometer score their primary score to differentiate itself from the competition, and it seems like a good idea to me when thinking of RT as the quickest check when making a "is this movie worth seeing" decision.  But when you're going beyond that level of evaluation to comparative quality of films, the RT average rating, MRQE score, or Metacritic score are far better to use.

And just to explicitly lay out what you're losing with the dumbed-down Tomatometer score, if a critic gives a film ten out of ten stars, that's exactly the same on the Tomatometer as if that critic had given it six out of ten stars.  So even though the critic thought the film was an extraordinarily sublime film, that fact gets lost in simplifiying his score to a binary thumbs up/thumbs down scale.  So the Tomatometer tends to lose information about critical reviews that judge a film to be exceptional.

A vexing side effect of the Tomatometer scoring is you can have a film that gets 90% or higher that is really just a slightly-above average film.  It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.  The Tomatometer makes these films look extraordinary when really they're just "meh."  With any high Tomatometer score you can't be sure a film is particularly exceptional because those films get lost in the crowd of solid-but-not-spectacular films that get highish Tomatometer scores.

[Bosco685]

16 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

I was indeed, and the average rating is the score to use when making those comparisons.  If a reviewer gives a movie four out of five stars, that translates to 80%; if another reviewer gives it three out of four, that translates to 75%.  The Rotten Tomatoes average rating--as well as the MRQE score, and the Metacritic score--use those 80% and 75% scores to average out their overall scores.  The Tomatometer converts that four out of five stars to a simple "they liked it" thumbs-up positive, and if they give it two out of five stars that gets converted to a thumbs-down negative.  The average rating tells you the overall quality of the film, but the Tomatometer is intended to guide us on whether or not reviewers liked a film to help inform us on whether or not it's worth our time to go see that film.  The average rating gives us more information on the absolute quality of the film from the perspective of critics.

Sample size for the two scores is identical, the Tomatometer is just a reinterpretation of a critic's review.  Rotten Tomatoes decided to make the simplified Tomatometer score their primary score to differentiate itself from the competition, and it seems like a good idea to me when thinking of RT as the quickest check when making a "is this movie worth seeing" decision.  But when you're going beyond that level of evaluation to comparative quality of films, the RT average rating, MRQE score, or Metacritic score are far better to use.

I think the only difference in the RT, MRQE, and Metacritic scores are in the reviewers they each decide to factor into their sample set.  Each site has different criteria for which critics they consider and which they don't.  I haven't decided which of the three does the best job of picking their critics.

Average is an average. But now you are going against what you pointed out before when comparing movies - don't use the Rotten Tomatoes score to gauge the difference. Use the Average Rating, which is what they scored it out of a 10-point scale. Versus what some have done, which is comparing movies at a point-in-time versus waiting for a decent sample size.

1 hour ago, fantastic_four said:

And more importantly it's much further behind on average rating with 7.6 for Homecoming and 8.3 for SM2.  And that's significant because you almost NEVER see average ratings above 8 for a superhero movie.

Always remember, when talking about comparative quality of movies, don't use the dumb Rotten Tomatoes score, use average rating, which is equivalent to Metacritic or MRQE ratings, i.e. they're the average of the actual scores reviewers give.  The RT rating is a dumbed-down "did they like it or did they not" score.  It's VERY useful for deciding whether or not you're likely to enjoy a film, but it's poor for doing relative comparisons of the quality of two films.

So you were making a point when comparing movies, don't pay attention to the Rotten Tomatoes score. Use the Average Rating as a more accurate gauge, right?

But when comparing across movies, the point I made is you also need to factor in how many contributors created that Average Rating. Across two or more movies, they are still averages. But the sample size differences can paint a false picture. Which is why even Rotten Tomatoes waits for a certain number of critics to contribute before it calls a film Fresh or otherwise.

FRESH CRITERIA: To receive a Certified Fresh rating a movie must have a steady Tomatometer rating of 75% or better. Movies opening in wide release need at least 80 reviews from Tomatometer Critics (including 5 Top Critics). Movies opening in limited release need at least 40 reviews from Tomatometer Critics (including 5 Top Critics). A TV show must have a Tomatometer Score of 75% or better with 20 or more reviews from Tomatometer Critics (including 5 Top Critics). If the Tomatometer score drops below 70%, then the movie or TV show loses its Certified Fresh status. In some cases, the Certified Fresh designation may be held at the discretion of the Rotten Tomatoes editorial team.

So going back to my example, if at a point in time you are going to compare across movies even using the Average Rating - your earlier point - statistically you also need to ensure its a decent sample size of contributors versus the early feedback stage where only the quick reviewers have gotten their opinions in.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Bosco685

[Bosco685]

4 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

And just to explicitly lay out what you're losing with the dumbed-down Tomatometer score, if a critic gives a film ten out of ten stars, that's exactly the same on the Tomatometer as if that critic had given it six out of ten stars.  So even though the critic thought the film was an extraordinarily sublime film, that fact gets lost in simplifiying his score to a binary thumbs up/thumbs down scale.  So the Tomatometer tends to lose information about critical reviews that judge a film to be exceptional.

A vexing side effect of the Tomatometer scoring is you can have a film that gets 90% or higher that is really just a slightly-above average film.  It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.  The Tomatometer makes these films look extraordinary when really they're just "meh."  With any high Tomatometer score you can't be sure a film is particularly exceptional because those films get lost in the crowd of solid-but-not-spectacular films that get highish Tomatometer scores.

I'm not missing anything with your earlier point. We are in agreement the RT average - statistically calling out the % of critics that noted a film as fresh versus not - doesn't give the true gauge of how strongly the critic felt positive or negative about a movie. Where the 10-point scale very much conveys that clearly.

What you are assuming I said is an average is not an average. What you are missing is the larger the sample, the less sensitivity to the few that may dislike a movie. The smaller the sample, the more sensitive it is to someone disliking a movie.

[fantastic_four]

Yes, sample size is important, but whether you're using Tomatometer or average rating to compare two films, the issue in different sample sizes is going to exist either way.  It's a tangent, and one that basically says "you can't compare two different films at all" when we were both doing exactly that.

What's particularly confusing about why you're pointing out sample sizes is that for Homecoming and Spider-Man 2 they're virtually identical with 265 for Homecoming and 263 for SM2.

[fantastic_four]

1 minute ago, Bosco685 said:

What you are missing is the larger the sample, the less sensitivity to the few that may dislike a movie. The smaller the sample, the more sensitive it is to someone disliking a movie.

That's true whether you're looking at Tomatometer or average rating.  So why point it out at all?  You seem to be arguing against using metascores at all to compare two films.

[Bosco685]

1 minute ago, fantastic_four said:

Yes, sample size is important, but whether you're using Tomatometer or average rating to compare two films, the issue in different sample sizes is going to exist either way.  It's a tangent, and one that basically says "you can't compare two different films at all" when we were both doing exactly that.

What's particularly confusing about why you're pointing out sample sizes is that for Homecoming and Spider-Man 2 they're virtually identical with 265 for Homecoming and 263 for SM2.

No confusion. You seemed to be calling out a general rule of thumb how best to compare any movies - not just Spider-Man 2 and Spider-Man: Homecoming. It just so happens now you are circling back to those two movies.

16 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

It looks like a few critics dropped the Homecoming score down.

It will be interesting over time to see where the Audience Score lands. Trying to compare 76K to 1.15M is quite a sample difference.

But even with those two movies, critics average is at a good point to compare. Audience Average Rating is at a wide stretch for now.