NEW YEAR WEEKDAYS THREAD: New Year Day Final Trend P 26. Happy New Year.

[ZackM]

7 minutes ago, Warlock said:

The Rotten Tomatoes Rating for Rise of Skywalker has been "stuck"at 86% since the movie came out, from 1000 to over 75,000 reviews. This is beyond suspicious, as it is statistically impossible to happen organically. I don't know who exactly is fixing these reviews or how.

However, there would have to be a differential or movement in the response rate at some point in over 75,000 reviews if it was a real aggregate score from a distribution of people due to natural entropy in any biological(human) system, that's a statistical fact.

 

 

Fandago owns Rotten Tomatoes, and the President of Fandago is Paul Yanover who used to work for Disney. Interesting fact right there.

1.  It hasn't been stuck at 86% since 1000 votes.  It drifted between 85% and 87% until it was at around 15000 votes.

2.  While the % has stayed at 86% since that time, the average rating has gone up a little bit.

3.  Take a basic statistics course to find out why such a situation is very very far from being statistically impossible

[lorddemaxus]

1 hour ago, REC said:

Is it possible that the RT audience score just isn’t all that trustworthy, or a very good representative sample of what people actually think?

 

The all audiences score is more like 78, and the top critics is more like 49.  Personally I think the true value is closer to the average of these numbers.  I’m more in line with top critics, but I would concede some people will think “that movie was a pretty-OK movie” meaning the truth is probably closer to mid-60s.

Looking at how the movie is performing, no I disagree. A 86% audience score represents how the movie is performing. It clearly isn't getting unanimous praise films like these get (which would mean over 90%). The best comparison would be the Maoyan score which is similarly highly inflated (anything below 8.5 is bad, anything below 8 is terrible).

[CJohn]

7 hours ago, Jedi Jat said:

New Year Day 1st Trend

 

SW: TRoS: $15mn

Jumanji 2: $11.5mn

Frozen 2: $5mn

That seems... kinda bad for Star Wars. 

[Darth Lehnsherr]

John Talks is an idiot 

[Warlock]

15 minutes ago, Avatree said:

I was going to politely ask how it's a statistical impossibility, and why you think it's unlikely / impossible for 86% of the reviews be positive. Then I saw your final beyond-retarded statement and clearly arguing with you will not get either of us anywhere, since I'm sure you are aware that Rotten Tomatoes is owned by Comcast / Universal.  BYE.

 

 

Oh Really? Since when?

 

https://ibb.co/B6TZg1M

[redfirebird2008]

10 minutes ago, CJohn said:

That seems... kinda bad for Star Wars. 

 

I dunno, it's just a boring number...and a boring run. 

[Avatree]

5 minutes ago, Warlock said:

Oh Really? Since when?

 

https://ibb.co/B6TZg1M

It says so right in that image you linked.

[Warlock]

Just now, Avatree said:

It says so right in that image you linked.

It says it is owned by Fandago Media, which in turn is 75% owned by Universal and 25% Warner.

 

I stated that the President of Fandago, Media, used to work for Disney. That is correct. What about that is incorrect?

[Menor the Destroyer]

3 hours ago, TalismanRing said:

It's good.  Not great and not terrible.  For a comparison - Joker is 88.

 

Around 80 would be mediocre and sub 70 would be terrible with the new verified system.

I don't think SW should be compared with Joker or Jumanji, one of which is super dark and the other one is not really a fan-driven film. I think a better comparison is something like Spider-Man FFH which has a 95%.

[Valonqar]

23 minutes ago, CJohn said:

That seems... kinda bad for Star Wars. 

it's also an early projection so it likely goes up. 

[ZackM]

8 minutes ago, Warlock said:

It says it is owned by Fandago Media, which in turn is 75% owned by Universal and 25% Warner.

 

I stated that the President of Fandago, Media, used to work for Disney. That is correct. What about that is incorrect?

Is the idea that the President of Fandango is ordering a subsidiary, Rotten Tomatoes, to alter their ratings of Star Wars because said President used to work for Disney?

[Warlock]

4 minutes ago, ZackM said:

Is the idea that the President of Fandango is ordering a subsidiary, Rotten Tomatoes, to alter their ratings of Star Wars because said President used to work for Disney?

I didn't say that, I just said it was an interesting fact. 

 

And FYI, as to your previous comment "Take a basic statistics course to find out why such a situation is very very far from being statistically impossible".

Post-doc in STEM here that has taken postgrad level stats courses. I stand by my previous comment: it is basically impossible for there to be zero variance in a result, over 10s of thousands of responses in a given population due to inherent variability of response.

 

Edited January 1, 2020 by Warlock
addressing a previous comment

[ZackM]

1 minute ago, Warlock said:

I didn't say that, I just said it was an interesting fact. 

What is the interesting fact?  That the president of Fandango used to work for Disney?  I'm not sure that it's particularly interesting that the head of a major media company used to work for a different major media company.  As is the case with every professional industry, people tend to bounce around from all the same companies within that industry.

[lorddemaxus]

53 minutes ago, Warlock said:

The Rotten Tomatoes Rating for Rise of Skywalker has been "stuck"at 86% since the movie came out, from 1000 to over 75,000 reviews. This is beyond suspicious, as it is statistically impossible to happen organically. I don't know who exactly is fixing these reviews or how.

However, there would have to be a differential or movement in the response rate at some point in over 75,000 reviews if it was a real aggregate score from a distribution of people due to natural entropy in any biological(human) system, that's a statistical fact.

As I said before multiple times before, 86% isn't a good score so if Disney wanted to manipulate scores, they would have put it at 94% or 95%. What you are talking about has happened with other movies too. Also, the 86% only dictates how many people would give it 3.5+, so that explains the lack of fluctation. This crappy argument would have more credibility if it was based on the avg score given (which RT also counts) since that's much more likely to fluctuate but your friend John clearly has no clue how audience scores on RT works, doesn't know how to do proper analyses, and is using TROS as a way to push his delusional alt-right views.

Edited January 1, 2020 by lorddemaxus

[redfirebird2008]

Even if they were manipulating the audience score, it's not gonna help the legs. Last Jedi had an "A" Cinemascore with media people bragging about that and it still ended up with far worse legs than Force Awakens, which also had the same "A" Cinemascore. Real world audiences are gonna do what they are gonna do, regardless of what the poll numbers might say. 

[Warlock]

4 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

As I said before multiple times before, 86% isn't a good score so if Disney wanted to manipulate scores, they would have put it at 94% or 95%. What you are talking about has happened with other movies too. Also, the 86% only dictates how many people would give it 3.5+, so that explains the lack of fluctation. This crappy argument would have more credibility if it was based on the avg score given (which RT also counts) since that's much more likely to fluctuate but your friend John clearly has no clue how audience scores on RT works, doesn't know how to do proper analyses, and is using TROS as a way to push his delusional alt-right views.

No, but 86% is a remotely believable score, for the general population that aren't paying attention to the box office.

 

That exactly 86% of people rate it above 3.5+/5, for the last 12 days straight, doesn't seem at all odd to you? Not say, 83-89 depending on the day? Maybe I'm the crazy one here.

[Warlock]

9 minutes ago, redfirebird2008 said:

Even if they were manipulating the audience score, it's not gonna help the legs. Last Jedi had an "A" Cinemascore with media people bragging about that and it still ended up with far worse legs than Force Awakens, which also had the same "A" Cinemascore. Real world audiences are gonna do what they are gonna do, regardless of what the poll numbers might say. 

I agree. I think it is futile as TLJ showed, but still noteworthy.

 

N.B. Someone somewhere can do a cost benefit analysis. But I have already invested far too much of my time on this topic.

Edited January 1, 2020 by Warlock

[Valonqar]

yeah and studios know that so they have no reason to manipulate the score. 

[Menor the Destroyer]

8 minutes ago, Warlock said:

No, but 86% is a remotely believable score, for the general population that aren't paying attention to the box office.

 

That exactly 86% of people rate it above 3.5+/5, for the last 12 days straight, doesn't seem at all odd to you? Not say, 83-89 depending on the day? Maybe I'm the crazy one here.

Simple math. The more votes there are the harder it becomes for additional votes to change the score. So it's not improbable at all. In fact many movies stay at the same score for a long time after opening.

Edited January 1, 2020 by Menor

[pepsa]

7 minutes ago, Warlock said:

No, but 86% is a remotely believable score, for the general population that aren't paying attention to the box office.

 

That exactly 86% of people rate it above 3.5+/5, for the last 12 days straight, doesn't seem at all odd to you? Not say, 83-89 depending on the day? Maybe I'm the crazy one here.

No it doesn't, the more rewievs come in the robust the score will be.

If you have 2500 reviews with 86% over 3.5/5 you need less reviews to move it a percent.

When you have 75k reviews it's a lot easier to stay contant because you would need huge fluctuation on a daily basis to even move it one percent.