STAR WARS : Episode IX December 20, 2019 6 6

[mattn792]

Enjoy your measuring contest 

[valiantman]

19 minutes ago, mattn792 said:

Enjoy your measuring contest 

Thanks! For your sake, I hope the 7.92 in your username refers to inches and not centimeters.

Edited February 2, 2020 by valiantman

[mattn792]

Glad I could help prove @Bosco685’s case.

[Bosco685]

10 hours ago, valiantman said:

These are simply different measures, and vastly different individuals.  Professional critics should always have their motives questioned when just 10 people can cause significant swings in an overall score.  There are no 1,000 voters on the audience side which could have anything like the influence that 10 critics have.

 

Alternative hypothesis: Critics which dislike a movie universally liked by audiences and other critics are outliers, possibly because they genuinely like being in the spotlight even if they're wrong.

However, when critics approach 50%/50%, there is no way to ensure a larger portion of the spotlight, and critics fall back on the "image" they hope to convey to their public, "hipster", "fanboy", "fangirl", "curmudgeon", etc., and it is entirely possible that the total population of critics allowed to be part of the official critic score looks nothing at all like the audiences for these movies.  It is also likely that the critics two years ago aren't the same as the critics five years ago or today.  That's literally fishing in three different ponds and assuming the nets will pull in the same mix of fish. Unlikely.

 

Too long; didn't read:

If we do need to be suspicious of 500 of one thing or 90,000 of another, it's the 500 where each individual fish has a stinkier portion of what we're being served.

I think you are missing the point. These are influencers which impact potential moviegoers on whether or not they will attend a show. It is not as simple as throwing a formula into the mix to statistically plot what the confidence interval will be to reality. This is human emotions and influences based on conditioning. And in this case, allowing critics and other moviegoers to determiner what we consider seeing. And by the way, Metacritic's Critic Score dropped just this week again going from 54/100 to 53.

ROS is experiencing some of the most mixed results of all the modern films from more than one source. The data doesn't lie when you compare all these sources. But even if we just focused on Rotten Tomatoes, check critic comments. These are the latest results. An easily influenced potential moviegoer would land here and probably think 'Jumanji: The Next Level is looking like a night out this week'. 

Do you actually think Disney Marketing saw all this data flowing in and assumed Disney Magic will overcome? Heck no. It used its considerable resources to rally past these results so as to spark interest any way it could. Either via social media campaigns, ads and yes - even direct marketing techniques where they could counter the critic results when a moviegoer checked if ROS was worth seeing.

It is a fairly recognized practice now when you can't win the critics over, go for the audience results and word-of-mouth instead. But even the CinemaScore results for ROS from those hardcore fans attending opening weekend came in mixed at a B+, THE LOWEST of the modern franchise.

I think you ignored all this relevant data which clearly tells us Disney Marketing was forced to take extreme action to address such mixed results. 'Simply different measures' dismisses real reality, fellow statistician. See, I take all these factors in when assessing a production's situation. Not just a single key variable or dataset. 

And don't forget: buy Rebellion War Bonds. The Resistance needs our help!

Edited February 2, 2020 by Bosco685

[Bosco685]

By the way, there are some really good Star Wars propaganda posters out there. Especially from the 501st.

"Paid For By The Imperial Propaganda Department" 

Edited February 2, 2020 by Bosco685

[▫️]

10 hours ago, valiantman said:

Thanks! For your sake, I hope the 7.92 in your username refers to inches and not centimeters.

 

[Bosco685]

How far that RT critic score has come since its reveal.

[valiantman]

10 hours ago, mattn792 said:

Glad I could help prove @Bosco685’s case.

There was always an empty second seat on the short bus.

[valiantman]

1 hour ago, Bosco685 said:

I think you ignored all this relevant data which clearly tells us Disney Marketing was forced to take extreme action to address such mixed results. 'Simply different measures' dismisses real reality, fellow statistician. See, I take all these factors in when assessing a production's situation. Not just a single key variable or dataset. 

This is exactly how Flat Earther's back up their conspiracy claims.  Flat Death Star theory?

You say the data shows a manipulated result, clearly the work of "big business" meant to fool the average citizen for "increased profits", and I say the data is fine, critics don't represent audiences well, and the Earth/Death Star is as round as it always has been.

[Bosco685]

Just now, valiantman said:

This is exactly how Flat Earther's back up their conspiracy claims.  Flat Death Star theory?

You say the data shows a manipulated result, clearly the work of "big business" meant to fool the average citizen for "increased profits", and I say the data is fine, critics don't represent audiences well, and the Earth/Death Star is as round as it always has been.

'Propaganda'

'Google statistician'

'Flat Earthers'

You nailed them all! Waiting for 'Yo Momma' next. 

Don't let all those other data points set reality with facts versus statements of wild assumptions. 

[Bosco685]

Do studios pay attention to Rotten Tomatoes results (other than posting positive results in their ads and posters and official sites and even appearing in videos to celebrate on the Rotten Tomatoes site)?

THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER: Studios Fight Back Against Withering Rotten Tomatoes Scores

Quote

The power of the "Tomatometer" has reached a tipping point as critics screenings inch closer and closer to openings and movies try to avoid the dreaded green splat.

 

The Emoji Movie's $24.5 million domestic opening during the July 28 to 30 weekend accomplished what no other movie has been able to do during a tough summer season at the box office — survive an abysmal Rotten Tomatoes score (7 percent) and open in line with prerelease tracking.

 

One possible secret weapon? Sony wouldn't let reviews post until midday on July 27, hours before the pic began playing in previews before rolling out everywhere. Sony, like every studio, is looking for their own basket of rotten eggs to throw at review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes in hopes of combating a bad "Tomatometer" score. That means screening some titles later and later for critics.

 

"The Emoji Movie was built for people under 18, who gave it an A- CinemaScore, so we wanted to give the movie its best chance," says Josh Greenstein, Sony Pictures president of worldwide marketing and distribution. "What other wide release with a score under 8 percent has opened north of $20 million? I don't think there is one."

 

At a tipping point now, Rotten Tomatoes' influence began to grow exponentially after it and parent company Flixster were acquired in February 2016 by leading movie ticketing website Fandango, a unit of Comcast's NBCUniversal. (Warner Bros. holds a minority stake in the merged companies.) This summer, a slew of event films earning a rotten score were beached domestically — Baywatch (19 percent) and Transformers: The Last Knight (15 percent) among them — while tentpoles earning scores north of 90 percent did better than expected, including Wonder Woman, Spider-Man: Homecoming and Dunkirk.

 

Studios — all too eager to advertise a good score, a practice that didn't begin until summer 2016 — are now scrambling to understand what happens when their titles garner the infamous green splat.

 

After buying Rotten Tomatoes, Fandango began featuring Tomatometer scores for every movie on its ticketing site, a practice likened to a restaurant promoting a Yelp rating. (MovieTickets.com intentionally doesn't feature any reviews scores on its site so as to not influence a consumer, according to insiders.) More recently, some studios were taken aback when AMC Theatres, the country's largest chain, adopted the same practice on its own ticketing website. AMC's site now only features a score if it is fresh, defined as anything 60 percent and above. The mega circuit declined comment.

 

Box-office analyst Jeff Bock of Exhibitor Relations says including the Rotten Tomato score on Fandango's ticket site is counterintuitive. "Rotten Tomatoes is a great resource, but can be damaging to the bottom line for films that people are on the fence about. And Fandango, at its core, is about selling as many tickets as possible," he says.

 

But Rotten Tomatoes vp Jeff Voris says it is "a disservice to focus just on the score. There are many levels of information." And Fandango counters that it used to feature Metacritic before it acquired Rotten Tomatoes, although the former doesn't have the same influence.

Hollywood studios have commissioned a number of studies on the subject in recent months. National Research Group found that seven out of 10 people said they would be less interested in seeing a movie if the Rotten Tomatoes score was 0 to 25. And social media research firm Fizziology, which tracks every major Hollywood release, discovered that a Rotten Tomatoes score has the most influence on moviegoers 25 and younger.

 

"The Tomatometer has evolved into a truth serum of sorts to help moviegoers decode whether the promise of the campaign lives up to the reality of the film," says NRG CEO Jon Penn.

 

Adds Fizziology president Ben Carlson, "Things have reached a crescendo this summer. We see entire audience segments talking about a movie for months and then, all of a sudden, the conversation completely dries up and goes away when the Rotten Tomatoes score comes out. People are using the score as a pass/fail. Hollywood has always talked about a movie being "review proof." But it may not be Rotten Tomatoes proof."

 

One reason The Emoji Movie may have overcome such a terrible score is because it's a family film. Sony's The Dark Tower, the final event film of the summer, which opens Aug. 4, will again test whether it helps to delay reviews until Wednesday night or even Thursday. Critics won't see the movie until the evening of Wednesday, Aug. 2 (the review embargo is also that night). Universal delayed reviews of The Mummy (17 percent) until the Wednesday morning before the film's release and it didn't help much at the box office. And Warner Bros. didn't screen The House at all for reviewers. The House, earning a 17 percent rotten score, bombed with $8.7 million.

 

ComScore's Paul Dergarabedian has his own advice: "The best way for studios to combat the 'Rotten Tomatoes Effect' is to make better movies, plain and simple."

You better believe it! Either working directly with Rotten Tomatoes, or against it. Whichever does the job for better box office results.

[valiantman]

5 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

'Propaganda'

'Google statistician'

'Flat Earthers'

You nailed them all! Waiting for 'Yo Momma' next. 

Don't let all those other data points set reality with facts versus statements of wild assumptions. 

Of course the studios want people to see the movie.  The audience score being "manipulated" requires it to be 86% with 8,000 votes and SOMETHING OTHER THAN 86% with more votes.  Then it would require an explanation. There is no manipulation when the audience score stays at 86%.  Critics being added to the critic score who jump on the hater bandwagon are people who didn't want to see the movie in the first place.  A steady 86% isn't the manipulation.

Business is happening, no doubt.  "Funny business" is more likely on the critic side, not the steady 86%.

 

Sorry that's not a cool Star Wars poster.

[Bosco685]

1 minute ago, valiantman said:

Of course the studios want people to see the movie.  The audience score being "manipulated" requires it to be 86% with 8,000 votes and SOMETHING OTHER THAN 86% with more votes.  Then it would require an explanation. There is no manipulation when the audience score stays at 86%.  Critics being added to the critic score who jump on the hater bandwagon are people who didn't want to see the movie in the first place.  A steady 86% isn't the manipulation.

Business is happening, no doubt.  "Funny business" is more likely on the critic side, not the steady 86%.

 

Sorry that's not a cool Star Wars poster.

I think no matter the examples and facts presented (actual and theory), you will now want to stick with the 86% audience score is a reality because that is now the stance you worked so hard to get behind.

It's an approach. A myopic one when all these real details are presented from more than one recognized trusted tracking source and experienced industry reporting sites like The Hollywood Reporter. But who am I to influence your views of the world? Those other data references would overwhelm the senses.

Spoiler

 

[valiantman]

Just now, Bosco685 said:

I think no matter the examples and facts presented (actual and theory), you will now want to stick with the 86% audience score is a reality because that is now the stance you worked so hard to get behind.

It's an approach. A myopic one when all these real details are presented from more than one recognized trusted tracking source and experienced industry reporting sites like The Hollywood Reporter. But who am I to influence your views of the world? Those other data references would overwhelm the senses.

  Hide contents

 

There are always dozens of reasons (variables, data points!) to believe something false, but the world used to ask a calculator to give us the  answer.  Now the world asks the media how it "feels" and if it doesn't sound sensational enough they keep digging.

 

I'm just an old fuddy-duddy who likes the calculator.

[Bosco685]

Just now, valiantman said:

There are always dozens of reasons (variables, data points!) to believe something false, but the world used to ask a calculator to give us the  answer.  Now the world asks the media how it "feels" and if it doesn't sound sensational enough they keep digging.

 

I'm just an old fuddy-duddy who likes the calculator.

I understand.

Yet from that article published by a trusted industry tracking source (if you take a moment to read it), it is clear studios are actively working with and against Rotten Tomatoes depending on the film score results. Take a moment to research these things, and it hits you how studio marketing has evolved with the times based on audience influencers like social media and review aggregation sites. It's a reality!

{goes back to Googling how to count fingers and toes} 

[valiantman]

13 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

I understand.

Yet from that article published by a trusted industry tracking source (if you take a moment to read it), it is clear studios are actively working with and against Rotten Tomatoes depending on the film score results. Take a moment to research these things, and it hits you how studio marketing has evolved with the times based on audience influencers like social media and review aggregation sites. It's a reality!

{goes back to Googling how to count fingers and toes} 

I agree studios will work against all negative influences on their business, but our discussion started when you showed a chart with a flat 86% audience score you questioned, and a falling critic score on a second chart (which you made) where a 58% at a height of 80 "drastically fell" to 52% at a height of 20.

We got off the rails when I questioned the two charts (because the second chart was visually manipulated (not purposefully,  I understand), but the second chart is wrong) and then you staunchly defended the first of your two charts and actually re-did the first chart to have the same flaw as the second.

So, we have my correct quick evaluation of your two charts (the "propaganda" thing was a joke, it had a  emoji), your misinterpretation of my evaluation, your "correction" of the wrong chart, and then your later refusal to change the second chart after I'm pretty sure you did finally understand what I was originally saying.

Meanwhile, I have showed how the math of your first chart was fine from the beginning, though you created the chart specifically to visually contrast with the second chart (which was never correct).  

Currently, you're both arguing that the first chart has number manipulation by studios and the second chart you made (the only visual problem I ever intended to mention) has no visual problem.  We're further from where we started.

Everything else we've discussed is a very bitter gravy on top with funny bits peppered in.

Edited February 2, 2020 by valiantman

[valiantman]

Long story short, I said @Bosco685 had a bicycle with a flat tire. He said it didn't. I said it did, so he got mad and flattened the front tire so they would match, saying "Everyone can see that's not better!"

 

I only ever wanted him to fix the back tire, since he circles the block around here every 15 minutes.

Edited February 2, 2020 by valiantman

[mattn792]

1 hour ago, Oddball said:

 

Ironically enough, when you remove the made up decimal point...well, we all know that joke about calling the bowling alley and asking if they have 10 pound balls.

[Bosco685]

25 minutes ago, valiantman said:

Long story short, I said @Bosco685 had a bicycle with a flat tire. He said it didn't. I said it did, so he got mad and flattened the front tire so they would match, saying "Everyone can see that's not better!"

 

I only ever wanted him to fix the back tire, since he circles the block around here every 15 minutes.

'He got mad'? 

'he circles the block around here every 15 minutes' 

Meanwhile...

Rise of the Farce Continues!  

[valiantman]

7 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

'He got mad'? 

'he circles the block around here every 15 minutes' 

Meanwhile...

Rise of the Farce Continues!  

Second chart still wrong, as it always has been.