John Wick: Chapter 2 | February 10, 2017 | Teaser Trailer on Page 8

[elcaballero]

6 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

Dem revoos...

For an action sequel as well. 

 

20 reviews in on RT. I need @Jason to give me a range for the final rating. 

[Jayhawk the Hutt]

Don't know when I'll be able to see this, I may have to go on Thursday night if I want to see it anytime opening week.

Edited February 7, 2017 by Jayhawk

[Ozymandias]

So Keanu Reeves has 2 career defining roles, Mr. Anderson and The Boogeyman.

[Water Bottle]

1 minute ago, Ozymandias said:

So Keanu Reeves has 2 career defining roles, Mr. Anderson and The Boogeyman.

 

Honestly I'm surprised they aren't trying to bring the Matrix back.

[Ozymandias]

1 minute ago, Water Bottle said:

 

Honestly I'm surprised they aren't trying to bring the Matrix back.

 

Well Revolutions did shit the bed something fierce.

[robertman2]

Also when was the last time the Wachowskis made a good movie?

[Water Bottle]

Just now, robertman2 said:

Also when was the last time the Wachowskis made a good movie?

 

Speed Racer.  But who says they need to make it? I don't think they own the IP.

 

4 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

 

Well Revolutions did shit the bed something fierce.

 

Years and years ago though.

[DAR]

Spoiler

As long as the dog survives this time

 

Edited February 7, 2017 by DAR

[Ozymandias]

1 minute ago, robertman2 said:

Also when was the last time the Wachowskis made a good movie?

 

I liked Cloud Atlas but it was mega flop and a lot of people hated it.

[RandomCat]

2 minutes ago, DAR said:

  Reveal hidden contents

As long as the dog survives this time

 

Spoiler

Reviews Spoiled that one already.

 

Yes, the dog survives.

 

[Water Bottle]

3 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

 

I liked Cloud Atlas but it was mega flop and a lot of people hated it.

 

Jupiter Ascending wasn't that bad. I'm also a fan of the first season of Sense8.

[Ozymandias]

 

[robertman2]

2 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

  Hide contents

Reviews Spoiled that one already.

 

Yes, the dog survives.

 

Spoiler

 

7 minutes ago, Water Bottle said:

 

Speed Racer.  But who says they need to make it? I don't think they own the IP.

 

 

Years and years ago though.

I forgot about Speed Racer. That was pretty cool. First movie I saw in IMAX.

[RandomCat]

2 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

 

 

 

...I loved the Honest Title.

[The Futurist]

Never heard about a bad Lana & Lilly Wachoswki film.

 

#AlternativeCinephileFacts

 

[Jay Beezy]

2 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

Never heard about a bad Lana & Lilly Wachoswki film.

 

#AlternativeCinephileFacts

 

 

Never heard about a good Lana & Lilly Wachowski film either because they haven't made a movie yet. Period. 

[Harley]

Didn't they make the Matrix or is that alt reality?

[Jason]

49 minutes ago, elcaballero said:

For an action sequel as well. 

 

20 reviews in on RT. I need @Jason to give me a range for the final rating. 

 

Rating, or tomatometer score? No matter, I can do both.

 

At only 20 reviews in, the 90% confidence interval for the RT score is enormous - 81% to 98%, assuming that the final number of reviews is around 200. I don't even want to see what the 95% C.I. looks like.

 

There's about two-thirds chance the final RT score ends up being between 86% to 96%. If you're only interested in the lower limit, about an 85% chance the final rating is at least 86%.

 

Graph of the probability distribution for the final RT score looks like this:

 

Exercise caution in interpreting the P-values, there are about two bars shown for every percentage point. So the probability of exactly a 95% final rating is about 9%, not 4.5%.

 

Only 13 of the 20 reviews so far have provided a rating. Based on those, final rating has two-thirds chance of falling between 7.1 and 7.8, or an 85% chance of exceeding 7.1.

 

All of this assumes random sampling of course - the impression I get from examining about 25-ish films from the past few years (top ten of 2015 and 2016 plus a few others) is that any non-random bias is small for most films, but there's a minority of films that deviate well outside random sampling expectations. (Three out of those 25, one that is borderline)

Edited February 7, 2017 by Jason

[RandomCat]

12 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Rating, or tomatometer score? No matter, I can do both.

 

At only 20 reviews in, the 90% confidence interval for the RT score is enormous - 81% to 98%, assuming that the final number of reviews is around 200. I don't even want to see what the 95% C.I. looks like.

 

There's about two-thirds chance the final RT score ends up being between 86% to 96%. If you're only interested in the lower limit, about an 85% chance the final rating is at least 86%.

 

Graph of the probability distribution for the final RT score looks like this:

 

Exercise caution in interpreting the P-values, there are about two bars shown for every percentage point. So the probability of exactly a 95% final rating is about 9%, not 4.5%.

 

Only 13 of the 20 reviews so far have provided a rating. Based on those, final rating has two-thirds chance of falling between 7.1 and 7.8, or an 85% chance of exceeding 7.1.

 

All of this assumes random sampling of course - the impression I get from examining about 25-ish films from the past few years (top ten of 2015 and 2016 plus a few others) is that any non-random bias is small for most films, but there's a minority of films that deviate well outside random sampling expectations. (Three out of those 25, one that is borderline)

 

This is beautiful. Thank you

[elcaballero]

17 minutes ago, Jason said:

Rating, or tomatometer score? No matter, I can do both.

 

At only 20 reviews in, the 90% confidence interval for the RT score is enormous - 81% to 98%, assuming that the final number of reviews is around 200. I don't even want to see what the 95% C.I. looks like.

 

There's about two-thirds chance the final RT score ends up being between 86% to 96%. If you're only interested in the lower limit, about an 85% chance the final rating is at least 86%.

 

Graph of the probability distribution for the final RT score looks like this:

 

Exercise caution in interpreting the P-values, there are about two bars shown for every percentage point. So the probability of exactly a 95% final rating is about 9%, not 4.5%.

 

Only 13 of the 20 reviews so far have provided a rating. Based on those, final rating has two-thirds chance of falling between 7.1 and 7.8, or an 85% chance of exceeding 7.1.

 

All of this assumes random sampling of course - the impression I get from examining about 25-ish films from the past few years (top ten of 2015 and 2016 plus a few others) is that any non-random bias is small for most films, but there's a minority of films that deviate well outside random sampling expectations. (Three out of those 25, one that is borderline)

Thanks! Out of curiosity, what type of distribution did you use?

Edited February 7, 2017 by elcaballero