STAR WARS : Episode IX December 20, 2019 6 6

[▫️]

8 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

 

 

[Bosco685]

2 hours ago, Oddball said:

 

I loved how that film made you feel immersed in that future culture with all those governance news spots and advertisements. So creative! 

[Bosco685]

As of this weekend, ROS finally surpassed Rogue One due to international box office results.

Domestically, ROS is still lagging behind when comparing similar day results.

Now 17% behind TLJ by Day 45 estimates.

[valiantman]

1 hour ago, Bosco685 said:

As of this weekend, ROS finally surpassed Rogue One due to international box office results.

Domestically, ROS is still lagging behind when comparing similar day results.

Now 17% behind TLJ by Day 45 estimates.

This is a great post.

 

Happy Groundhog Day! 

[Bosco685]

Looks like a shift in Mixed/Disliked and Mixed occurred with IMDb tracking.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Well.

[MetalPSI]

@valiantman this has indeed been the most entertaining segment of the thread. Not that I would take either side in the debate, but the fact two adults CAN debate. This is the purpose of a forum, and no, this shouldn't have taken place in PM @mattn792

Dynamic conversation that everyone can experience is the point, at least to me.

Kudos 

[Bosco685]

11 hours ago, IkewithMike said:

@valiantman this has indeed been the most entertaining segment of the thread. Not that I would take either side in the debate, but the fact two adults CAN debate. This is the purpose of a forum, and no, this shouldn't have taken place in PM @mattn792

Dynamic conversation that everyone can experience is the point, at least to me.

Kudos 

And with such discussions, we learn the film industry marketing approach is not so black-and-white in its approach where they count on the release of a film and roll the dice, hoping for a win. There are influences such as how to overcome inhibitors like when critics respond mixed or strongly negative towards a film. Like this one. Which has occurred before by studios in countering Rotten Tomatoes results when not in their favor.

Sure, @valiantman  could have reached out via PM to discuss what he felt was an error in a chart. But with data visualization, part of the factors going into presenting data is how to utilize data spreads and rescaling so trending is more clear. Something he didn't factor into his 'your chart is wrong' declaration. And in this case, the variance being less apparent if you used a 0% to 100% scale. In business analysis (not third-party data aggregation), such methods are used to clarify such shifts.

Edited February 3, 2020 by Bosco685

[Bosco685]

21 hours ago, mattn792 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.

The Imperial Propaganda Commission will be awarding you mightily for this. At least two boxes. 

[Antpark]

As a non-statistician (with the community college degree to prove it ) what would it take to move 86% one way or the other?

[theCapraAegagrus]

14 minutes ago, Antpark said:

As a non-statistician (with the community college degree to prove it ) what would it take to move 86% one way or the other?

[Bosco685]

  

2 hours ago, Antpark said:

As a non-statistician (with the community college degree to prove it ) what would it take to move 86% one way or the other?

Without any deep analysis to determine what it would take to shift the overall rating % either +/- 1%, we can take the current total and determine the exact count necessary to shift the total either way.

So out of 96,867 total audience members, all it would take for a shift +/- is 969 total contributors. That means every one of those 'POSITIVE' voters gave this film a  3.5/5 rating minimum (the Rotten Tomatoes 'POSITIVE' standard). Remember, even the tiniest of variant from that 3.5/5 is supposed to be counted as a 'ROTTEN'.

Think about that. We are saying this overall population never experiences a significant enough mixed or negative reaction to shift that 86% down, nor strong enough reactions to shift it up? It is always 86%. You believe that with the woke culture we deal with, and people rallying against studios if they don't get their way with a film?

Edited February 3, 2020 by Bosco685

[valiantman]

17 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

19 hours ago, Antpark said:

As a non-statistician (with the community college degree to prove it ) what would it take to move 86% one way or the other?

Without any deep analysis to determine what it would take to shift the overall rating % either +/- 1%, we can take the current total and determine the exact count necessary to shift the total either way.

So out of 96,867 total audience members, all it would take for a shift +/- is 969 total contributors. That means every one of those 'POSITIVE' voters gave this film a  3.5/5 rating minimum (the Rotten Tomatoes 'POSITIVE' standard). Remember, even the tiniest of variant from that 3.5/5 is supposed to be counted as a 'ROTTEN'.

Think about that. We are saying this overall population never experiences a significant enough mixed or negative reaction to shift that 86% down, nor strong enough reactions to shift it up? It is always 86%. You believe that with the woke culture we deal with, and people rallying against studios if they don't get their way with a film?

At the risk of reigniting the dumpster, this is far more complicated than just 969 total contributors shifting.  Imagine you have just two dice.

Roll the two dice 8,000 times and you should get 14% that equal 8, and 86% that are 2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10,11,12.

That's the very first data point, the first 86%.

Now, to shift the 86% with "just 969 votes", you somehow have to get 969 extra 8s instead of the same percentages you got after 8,000 rolls.

Only manipulated dice should shift the 86%. Not seeing any changes to the 86% means the first 8,000 rolls were a good way to predict the next 80,000+ rolls.

[Bosco685]

8 minutes ago, valiantman said:

At the risk of reigniting the dumpster, this is far more complicated than just 969 total contributors shifting.  Imagine you have just two dice.

Roll the two dice 8,000 times and you should get 14% that equal 8, and 86% that are 2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10,11,12.

That's the very first data point, the first 86%.

Now, to shift the 86% with "just 969 votes", you somehow have to get 969 extra 8s instead of the same percentages you got after 8,000 rolls.

Only manipulated dice should shift the 86%. Not seeing any changes to the 86% means the first 8,000 rolls were a good way to predict the next 80,000+ rolls.

No, it really isn't complicated if you are dealing with binary vote system on 'ROTTEN' or 'POSITIVE' with the tipping point being => 3.5/5 for the latter and <3.5/5 for the former. All it would take is a 1% portion (969 votes) to tip the overall percentage either way. That tiny a deviation. No tin hats or propaganda alterations need apply. It is that minor a difference which seems to never show up in the daily results.

Kind of like when a grouping of 4 ROTTEN reviews appear one day. Then the next day one disappears, and the critic has no idea why his review was pulled. It's all smoke and mirrors marketing techniques.

Edited February 4, 2020 by Bosco685

[valiantman]

Just now, Bosco685 said:

No, it really isn't complicated if you are going back a binary vote system on 'ROTTEN' or 'POSITIVE' with the tipping point being => 3.5/5 for the latter and <3.5/5 for the former. All it would take is a 1% portion (969 votes) to tip the overall percentage either way. That tiny a deviation. No tin hats or propaganda alterations need apply. It is that minor a difference which seems to never show up in the daily results.

Kind of like when a grouping of 4 ROTTEN reviews appear one day. Then the next day one disappears, and the critic has no idea why his review was pulled. It's all smoke and mirrors marketing techniques.

Exactly! (Yes, I agree!) The critic reviews are being manipulated. 

Not the consistent 86% audience score.

[Bosco685]

1 minute ago, valiantman said:

Exactly! (Yes, I agree!) The critic reviews are being manipulated. 

Not the consistent 86% audience score.

And like the articles I have posted from credible sources, including The Hollywood Reporter, studios are also combating critic negative results through techniques such as potentially manipulating audience score results. It's actually documented.

[valiantman]

1 minute ago, Bosco685 said:

And like the articles I have posted from credible sources, including The Hollywood Reporter, studios are also combating critic negative results through techniques such as potentially manipulating audience score results. It's actually documented.

But I don't necessarily believe the math agrees with "Hollywood Reporter" journalists.  Is this a surprise? Journalists don't get math?  I would think it's a given.

 

The audience scores are essentially "binary" in my dice roll model.  They're either "exactly 8" (14%) or "not 8" (86%).  Rolling two dice thousands of times and seeing the "exactly 8" shift by 1% is very, very unlikely.  Unless the dice (audience scores) are manipulated.

Critics = manipulated

Audience holding steady at 86% = not manipulated.

[Bosco685]

3 minutes ago, valiantman said:

But I don't necessarily believe the math agrees with "Hollywood Reporter" journalists.  Is this a surprise? Journalists don't get math?  I would think it's a given.

 

The audience scores are essentially "binary" in my dice roll model.  They're either "exactly 8" (14%) or "not 8" (86%).  Rolling two dice thousands of times and seeing the "exactly 8" shift by 1% is very, very unlikely.  Unless the dice (audience scores) are manipulated.

Critics = manipulated

Audience holding steady at 86% = not manipulated.

Clearest example caught to date as of 2018:

Is MoviePass Manipulating User Reviews on Rotten Tomatoes to Get Butts in Seats?

Quote

Not wasting any time in finding someone to blame for their misfortunes at the box office, Gotti’s marketing team quickly took to attacking the critics who panned their movie, calling them out of touch and unable to identify what audiences really want. They backed up this accusation by pointing towards the very same platform that seems to have caused all the trouble in the first place: Rotten Tomatoes.

 

Once again, that Tomatometer rating rests firmly at a 0%. That’s 0 fresh reviews, compared to 26 rotten, with an average rating clocking in at a miserable 2.4/10. The critic's consensus byline simply (and hilariously) reads: “Fugheddaboudit.” The marketing team zeroed in on another statistic, however, and that is the Tomatometer's stark contrast to the “audience score." The rating which signifies any random user's affinity towards a film is at an unusually high 74%.

 

 

This morning, a new 16-second marketing campaign for Gotti appeared online, with the words “Audiences loved Gotti. Critics put out the hit,” teased between brief flashes of footage from the film. The final line featured a direct attack on the critics who had been responding to the film, asking, “Who would you trust more? Yourself or a troll behind a keyboard?” 

 

They’re coming out pretty strong against critics here in what seems like a very desperate (yet decidedly of the times) plea for an audience. Things get even more fishy, however, when you go back and study that Rotten Tomatoes audience score.

 

Dan Murrel of ScreenJunkies tweeted out his own suspicions this morning, noticing, “On Rotten Tomatoes, the movie Gotti has a quite unique score of 0% BUT it has a really good 77% audience score; looking at it, it has over 6,900 user reviews which is an insane number for a movie that opened to a miserable $1.7 million on 500 screens.” 

 

He then decided to investigate the matter further. To put things in perspective in terms of the amount of user reviews, Gotti’s 6,900 are just a few less than this week's top selling film Incredibles 2 which features 7,454. That's also over 2,000 more than Ocean’s 8 at 4,592.  Incredibles 2 made $180 million at the box office this weekend.

 

 

So the fact is, these are huge budget blockbuster movies that Gotti appears to be putting up similar numbers too. He then compared Gotti to a film much more similar in terms of scope, the Sundance darling Beirut, which earned 5 million dollars on 700 screens. The film only received 708 user ratings. That seems like a much more realistic number.

It was so obvious, the studio's marketing team got caught at what was going on. But with this, it was confirmed how studios have access to services which can create troll farms (like with social media) where they can storm Rotten Tomatoes and boost the audience score. Even with the new verification method (a two-step process to provide a score, then select a radio button where you purchased the tickets) this can still be manipulated.

So you think a massively powerful entity like Disney Marketing dealing with the lowest critics score in Star Wars history doesn't have the same capabilities? 

[valiantman]

2 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

So you think a massively powerful entity like Disney Marketing dealing with the lowest critics score in Star Wars history doesn't have the same capabilities? 

Not at all. I don't question that businesses will always do what they think will earn them more (short-term) profits. (I do not believe most businesses think much about long-term profits, but that's a non sequitur to this discussion.)

BUT... to make the case that the math ALSO proves the manipulation, there needs to be a math proof.

In the case of 86% after 8,000 still being 86% all the way to 97,000, there is no math proof.  

There are likely dozens of articles asking, "how can this be true?" but the math itself says, "very easily, with 99.999%+ confidence."

[valiantman]

Now, if you want a really good conspiracy... 

 

Big studios recognized they're getting caught manipulating results, so they have hired nerds like me (maybe even me!) to tell them how much manipulation is also statistically defensible.

Edited February 4, 2020 by valiantman