Yeap, the scores for The Last Jedi were fake. The real ones were even LOWER. Here there's a video about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWPAbKEmd5M
Wondering whether that will happen in Solo too... or shall I say, wondering not "if", but "how much".
"I don't agree with it so it must be fake!!!"
-kuku
"How you dare to doubt the Truth of the Religion of Diversity!! Shall you burn in the fire, Sinner! Heretic! We speak the Truth and you will not Blasphemy Against Us!"
-grindovermatter
Swing and a miss.
shareWhat the fuck are you on?
shareYou might say he's gone... kuku.
shareIt seems you don't like other people putting words in your mouth, do you?
Well, how about you don't it in the first place?
How about you start making sense?
shareFirst you put in my mouth words I didn't say.
Now you insult me.
Anything more?
You implied them. That's the whole point. Try and pay attention.
shareAh, so I implied them. Because, of course, you know better what I said.
I see... http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/336/076/c11.jpg
You really do have a fragile little ego, don't you?
shareAnd more insults...
shareand until you can provide any solid reasoning as to why your claim about faked reviews is anything more than you being too weak-minded to accept the idea that people have different opinions, I will continue to stand by them.
Good luck!
That's twice in the same thread where he's shifted the conversation over to something arbitrary to avoid having to explain his narrative.
shareyou being too weak-minded to accept the idea that people have different opinions
I see. So you put in my mouth words I didn't say. I don't accept them, and then you insult me, and now you tell me that I'm weak-minded to accept different opinions.
Because, of course, not accepting that other people decide what are my words is weak-minded and shows lack of tolerance of different opinions! ^^ How I dare to be the one that chooses what words I say? That's fascist!!! And nazi!!! And discriminatory!!! http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/334/759/e45.jpg
Ah, internet, such wonderful place... XDDD
Keep digging that hole, buddy. If you don't want people pointing out how piss-poor your arguments are, then don't make such piss-poor arguments.
shareThat chick was angry! Everything these days is manipulated by big business. Whether the score is 5 or a 100, it doesn't really matter to me.
shareRotten Tomatoes is owned by Fandango which is owned by Times Warner. Bad reviews hurts movie sales which hurts Fandango's bottom line.
shareIf that was true then no movies would get bad reviews.
RT is an aggregate site, nothing more.
It has to do with degree. The bad ratings aren't as bad as they should be since zero and 1/2 star ratings are thrown out. If they were fair, they'd throw out the high ratings too like they do in competitive sports. Last Jedi RT core is 47, but the stats guy says the rating is really 24. Big difference.
It's obvious that these movies studios are manipulating information to make it appear that their movies are more popular than they are. According to Lucasfilms, everyone loved their well-reviewed movie, Last Jedi except a few racists and misogynists.
If ratings were being thrown out it's because people were using bots to create numerous accounts to flood the rating system. RT even said this was happening and they put a stop to it.
The only ones manipulating information are the trolls and butthurt fanboys. It's the main reason user reviews on any site are less than useless.
The bots story was discredited a while ago. RT actually said they could track bots and that never happened.
It should be obvious by now that most SW fans hated Last Jedi unless you're in denial.
Right, and that method of tracking bots is what leads to bogus scores being thrown out.
The score was certainly manipulated, but not by studios. Of course now that attempts to manipulate it further have been stalled, new conspiracy theories are being created to pretend the score should be even lower.
Personally I think user scores should only be registered after the user has taken a 50 point quiz on the film to prove that they actually saw the movie in question. I might not always agree with the critics but at least you can count on them having actually seen the movies they're rating.
There are two different ratings. Unfortunately, movie critics are pressured to give certain movies a positive review or they can lose their access to preview screenings. A large studio like Disney has a great deal of power since they create many of the popular films (Marvel, Lucasfilms, Disney, Pixar, ABC, Sky, Fox, Touchstone, A&E). To be blacklisted by Disney could be career ending for a reviewer.
As for normal moviegoers, I really don't believe that 1/2 the people liked Last Jedi or Female Ghostbusters. Most people liked Phantom Menace and Godfather 3?
I actually take your suggestion when I want to know if a movie is good by reading the comments from people on this site.
Yet another bogus conspiracy theory. The critical rating for A Wrinkle in Time alone proves this one false.
"I really don't believe that 1/2 the people liked Last Jedi"
Neither do I. In reality it was probably far more than that.
So you're saying they faked their reviewers' scores, but kept the audience score intact? Wow.
shareExactly.
shareIt's pretty amazing the kind of mental gymnastics people will perform to protect their fragile egos.
shareThe reviewers scores and the moviegoers score are calculated differently.
shareIf they were willing to go through the trouble of faking reveiwers' scores to make the film look better than it was, why would they put the actual audience score there for everyone to see? It makes no sense.
shareBecause positive reviews/ratings encourage people to see a movie.
Also, studios did a study and found out people are less likely to see a movie if it rates low 0-25. Tossing out low ratings (zero and 1/2 star) helps more movies to avoid that very low rating.
I hope that you know none of this is about giving you accurate movie reviews/ratings, but for companies to make money.
Again, why would they put the actual audience score there for everyone to see if it's not about accurate reviews and ratings?
shareBecause positive reviews/ratings encourage people to see a movie.
shareUhh, bro... the audience score for The Last Jedi is 47%, right there for everyone to see on The Last Jedi page.
shareBut don't you see? It's REALLY 24%, but Disney, with all their might and power convinced Rotten Tomatoes to change it to 47%. I mean, sure, with just a couple different key strokes they could have changed it to 87% or even 97% but it's all about money or something!
But no, the Disney execs in all their wisdom thought, "Yeah let's make it 47%, that'll get people into the theater by golly!"
You're confusing Disney with Fandango. Fandango owns RT. It's RT that tosses out low ratings. Studies show people will avoid a movie rated 0-25. 47 is actually safe. High-rated movies encourage people to see them like that dog Dunkirk.
shareYou said it was the "movies studios" that are manipulating the scores to that OH SO IMPRESSIVE 47%. Make up your mind.
share47% is safe? Ok I'm done here. Goodbye.
shareand what about all the movies on RottenTomatoes with a score between 0 and 25%?
I guess Fandango has enough money or something.
Let me guess, you have no actual evidence of studio tampering other than "Well, I would have rated this movie even lower."
shareI don't believe you watched the youtube video. The OP's linked youtube video only says that RT tosses out super low scores because they are considered "excessive". RT is owned by Fandango which makes money when you buy movie tickets from them. If you don't buy, they don't make money. And people tend not to buy when a movie is "excessively" low-rated.
Why do you think Fandango bought Rotten Tomatoes and Flixster, anyway?
I'm asking for evidence, not a youtube video made by a guy who also makes videos 'proving' that the Earth is flat.
shareI see the argument, but that's not the same as faking scores to make The Last Jedi look good. The video also doesn't prove the 47% isn't accurate.
Logically, people that give blockbuster movies 1/2 star should be thrown out because it's very likely they are voting with emotion rather than their brains. But is it really a fact that ALL 1/2 star scores were removed? So far it looks to be a rumor. You'd have to analyze all the votes being cast. It's a difficult chore, but doable. Has anyone done it? Not that I know of. It's very flat-earth like, where they stop analyzing when they see a result they like, then post a video.
To me, IMDB is the best scoring system, and they also throw out scores, but from voters they deem less credible. They have to or bot campaigns would skew the votes. So far the worst that has happened was Shawshank Redemption and Godfather switched places thanks to Nolan fans running a downvote campaign against Godfather to help the Dark Knight. But throughout IMDB's history, Shawshank and Godfather were always neck and neck, and still are.
For all you know, RT could also just be ignoring scores from less credible people rather than simply ignoring all 1/2 star votes. I'm gonna need more proof than a guy looking at 100 votes and then stopping.
I'm skeptical in general about movie and TV reviews. There are professional reviewers who are influenced by bias, money, pressure or reputation. There was a reviewer who gave a very negative review to a Howard Stern TV show years ago and when she was asked what she specifically didn't like about the show, she admitted that she hadn't watched it. She did a very general review based on her personal dislike for him.
I notice when some newspapers in my area get an opportunity to interview a star, the movie never receives a negative review. That's one way to influence reviews.
Right now, I find it strange that Last Jedi is receiving overwhelmingly great reviews when there are basic problems with writing, dialogue, character development and motivation, continuity issues and numerous mistakes. Why are professional movie reviewers ignoring basic script structure?
As for RT, a professional reviewer named Matthew Lickona wrote a mainly negative review and gave the film only 2 stars out of 5, but the RT gave it a Fresh Tomato score. RT states a movie must get a 3/5 for a fresh score. Scroll down to find his review:
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_last_jedi/
Some 2.5 out of 4 star reviews get a fresh tomato while others get a rotten one. Go figure.
If IMDB tosses out scores to make it more credible, then why not RT? There may be a way to verify by finding an unpopular show or movie with only a few reviewers and doing the math.
"Right now, I find it strange that Last Jedi is receiving overwhelmingly great reviews when there are basic problems with writing, dialogue, character development and motivation, continuity issues and numerous mistakes."
I'm not saying there aren't legitimate reasons to dislike the film, because I actually agree with most of those reasons. But the reasons I dislike it require me to have knowledge of prior films in the franchise. Pretty much all of the setups from TFA were ignored. It's annoying, but that's a criticism a career film critic is likely to ignore because they tend to focus more on the film as a standalone.
Everything that happens in TLJ, the story, the dialogue, the character motivations, would all work if it wasn't Star Wars. If we had never seen Snoke, Luke, Yoda, Finn, Rey, Poe, Leia in any previous movie... this movie works. The only questionable motivation was Holdo which was done to hide info from the audience. I didn't like it, but it is standard for film, sometimes even good ones. The one critical error from a filmmaking standpoint was the casino side quest. It doesn't work in any movie. But I don't think that alone is enough to sink the whole thing for a film critic.
As much as you criticize TLJ's RT rating, I think you would agree that TFA's rating, while not accurate, does reveal the audience had a general liking to the film. If you were like me, you found TFA entertaining enough to be interested to see the progression of those plot points. Since just about every single one of them was ignored in TLJ, it felt like a kick in the teeth. That right there is the reason for the rotten score. But a professional critic is likely to look past those things to examine the film's core.
Also, I can see exactly how it happened. When TFA came out, everybody was saying it felt like Star Wars, but it was too damn similar. Rian Johnson took it to heart and tried something different. Whoops. Now people want Kathleen Kennedy's head on a stick. lol
You're making excuses for a bad film.
First of all, Last Jedi is a sequel, not a standalone, therefore it needs to be judged as one. It fails because it ignores the continuity from the last seven movies.
Obviously, Johnson didn't bother to research the Star Wars universe since he repeatedly contradicts established story/rules by making things up. He reminds me of the Twilight writer who had her vampires sparkle when in the sun because she knew nothing about them.
It's also obvious that critics are judging this movie as a sequel since the reviews I've read do mention and compare it to prior movies.
Even as a standalone or non Star Wars film, it doesn't work.
character issues:
Rose knew Finn for a day but falls in love. Why?
Why is leaving forbidden for Finn? Aren't the rebels volunteers?
Kylo kidnapped and tortured Rey and killed Han. Why does she want to help him instead of kill or imprison him?
Why do they show Rey grieving Han's death when she knew him for a day, but not show Luke mourning him?
Why wasn't everyone sucked out into space when the hatch was opened to let Leia Poppins in?
Basic writing rule: show not tell repeatedly broken.
Rey beating Luke, Kylo and the guards is like my practicing Kung fu kicks for 1 hour and then beating Bruce Lee.
Why a major police chase and imprisonment over a no parking violation?
Why didn't Holdo use an auto-pilot?
Coincidences:
Someone who has the exact knowledge that Rose and Finn needed is just waiting for them in the same cell.
"Gimmick":
used for shock value adding nothing to the characters or story.
Whose Rey's parents? Nobody. That doesn't explain her abilities or anything about her.
Thought Leia was dead? Wrong. Thought Holdo bad? Wrong. Thought Luke there? Wrong.
Movie didn't need Holdo and why not have Luke show up in the fresh? But then Rian couldn't use his gimmick.
The OT ended.
These movies are a female/multi-ethnic reboot of the OT with no ending, therefore perpetual sequels.
Why would the Empire struggle against Ewoks when they have a whole fleet there and are winning the space battle? It doesn't matter, it's science fiction.
How was Luke able to see Obi-Wan at the beginning of ESB despite having so limited experience with the force? It doesn't matter, it's science fiction.
How do they just casually walk out of the garbage compactor once it's turned off without any guards being alerted to the area? It doesn't matter, it's science fiction.
Han and Leia were always mean to each other, and then all of a sudden they were implied to be a couple without it being developed. It doesn't matter, it's science fiction.
I could go on and on picking apart the previous films just as harshly as you've done here. Anyone could if they examined it like that with a negative attitude. And any defense you come up with could be applied to the Last Jedi... because it's science fiction.
It does matter. The reason is because great science-fiction isn't about spaceships and aliens. It's about the human condition.
Lucas studied politics and history and placed its themes within SW.
The Ewoks defeat the Empire for the same reason that the Viet Cong defeated the technologically superior U.S. Lucas was inspired by the Viet Cong for the Ewoks. A more primitive, weaker society defeating a stronger technologically advanced society has happened throughout history.
The Huns defeated the Roman Empire. The U.S. defeated England. In SW, the Rebels defeated the Evil Empire.
It's very inspirational to know that a smaller group can win against overwhelming odds because they believe their cause is just. I enjoyed those messages that Lucas delivered in his movies.
Obi-wan made himself appear to Luke using a technique that Force ghost Qui-gon had taught Yoda who taught Obi-wan. It wasn't really Luke who was actively doing anything.
The garbage compacter was their hiding place so no guards knew where they were which is why they were able to walk out undetected. Soon, the guards see them and begin firing.
When Han and Leia first meet, Leia is mean to him. Han is a selfish, money-loving criminal. He flirts (that's his cockiness and ego), but she's disgusted by him. Then something that's not seen in the Last Jedi happens. CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT!! Han has been through a lot with this group. He shows up at the end of the movie because he realizes he cares about them and perhaps their cause after all and he saves Luke's life. He's no longer selfish. He has risked his life to save another person!
Leia's opinion of this new Han has changed. Remember when he winks at her and she smiles?
At the beginning of the next movie, Leia and Luke are fighting the Empire. Han clearly cares about Luke and risks his life to find him. Leia asks why has he hung around. That's an implication he's sticking around for some reason. They're continue to grow closer since the last movie. -continued....
Their relationship slowly progresses throughout the movie, not all at once. You can follow the different scenes with them together and observe body language and flirtations. Only when Han could die at the end does Leia finally admit she loves him. "I know," perfect Han reply.
That is wonderful writing. Not the Rose saying she loves Finn out of the blue nonsense.
BTW, Abrams ruined Han by regressing him back to the selfish, money-loving criminal again. Worst. He abandons his troubled son, wife, rebel cause and is no longer a hero before killing him for no reason.
Also, I notice you didn't answer a single one of my questions. Not one. You didn't even try. Is it because you can't? What does that say about Last Jedi?
I understand that you're a Star Wars fan. I am too. But, Disney putting a Star Wars label on crap, doesn't raise its value. It's still crap. If the fans don't fight for better quality films from Disney, we won't get them.
Not to say the Dagobah time. Luke was in Dagobah for weeks or months (nobody knows for sure), and so were Han and Leia in the Falcon after they kissed for first time (they couldn't use light speed to go to Bespin).
So when SJWs argue that Luke could use the force out of the blue, and Han and Leia were a couple out of the blue... well, NO. That's bullshit.
I could go into the same detail of every flaw you mentioned. Rey was captured, but Kylo revealed his intentions were not just mere torture. Rose and Finn had a whole side quest dedicated to them, bringing them closer. Luke had been separated from Han for a long time, whereas Rey just met and admired the guy right before she saw him killed. It's inspirational for the Ewoks to defeat the Empire, and it's emotional for Holdo to self-sacrifice. We never got to see if Luke was even good with a lightsaber in his old age as he didn't actually face off against Kylo in the flesh, and Kylo was injured and fought like an amateur when he fought Rey.
We can go on and on and on. It's pointless. If you look to criticize any Star Wars film, you will find legitimate things to criticize. If you look for ways to defend any Star Wars film, you will find a way because it's mere science fiction.
You're trying to excuse bad writing by saying it's only sci-fi. Lucas improved the genre by tossing that sorry excuse.
What Kylo says while assaulting a woman is irrelevant. The point is he has assaulted her. Offensive.
Rose and Finn had celebrated freeing animals but leaving children enslaved. Dumb writing. And why would a rich planet keep human slaves instead of robots for labor? It's cheaper and they'd get more work done.
I didn't see any romantic intentions from either one. If anything, Finn seems to like Rey.
If you met someone, a few hours later he/she kissed you and said he/she was in love with you, what would be your reaction? Most people would say creepy.
You're making stuff up. The movie doesn't say there was a long separation between Luke and Han. A woman crying her eyes out over a man she knew one day vs a best friend and brother-in-law he knew 30-40 years. Seriously? And why does Rey get to keep the Millennium Falcon over Chewie, his best friend of 40-50 years?
The Ewoks victory has a bases in history which Lucas was showing.
It's stupid for Holdo to self-sacrifice if she can abandon ship and use an auto-pilot. That's stupid writing.
It would've been better to show more Leia then waste time with an undeveloped Holdo character who did nothing. They're putting many female characters in the movie, but not taking the time to develop them or give them good stories. Why was Maz even in this movie? Or Phasma? Rose is being compared to Jarjar.
The reason why only Jedi (& Sith) use lightsabers instead of normal folks is because they are dangerous to the user without proper Jedi training. Rey had no training. That's part of SW lore. Unlike Johnson, I know it.
You didn't get to see Luke fighting because Kennedy doesn't want to show heroic men - only Rey can fight. Notice she rescued Kylo and the rebels too. Sexism in reverse.
So Rey with no training can beat Luke because he's old? Yoda was old and could fight. Obi-wan, Vader, Palps, too. Ageism much?
We can go on and on and on. It's pointless. If you look to criticize any Star Wars film, you will find legitimate things to criticize. If you look for ways to defend any Star Wars film, you will find a way because it's mere science fiction.
shareI believe you may be confusing the enjoyment of a movie with a movie being good. Apparently, you enjoyed Last Jedi even though earlier you had acknowledged there were problems. Bad movies can be enjoyable and fun to watch like Plan 9 From Outer Space. But, I wouldn't say the movie was of high quality re: acting, writing, directing, etc.
You're assuming all movies are exactly the same in quality when that's not true. There is a difference in quality between Empire Strikes Back and The Phantom Menace. Empire is almost a perfect film whereas Phantom has obvious major issues. BTW, I can enjoy Phantom, anyway.
You obviously look down upon "mere science-fiction" which is a shame. Sci-fi can be very deep and enlightening.
I would recommend a movie like Gattaca and books 1984 and Fahrenheit 451. Like I wrote earlier, great science-fiction is about the human condition.
No, I just understand that we are arguing opinions here. And when you argue opinions regarding science fiction films, there is no wrong or right. The only purpose to continue on is ego.
shareYour words:
"I'm not saying there aren't legitimate reasons to dislike the film, because I actually agree with most of those reasons."
We're actually in agreement.
Yes, but I'm not a film critic. You asked how a film critic could have a different perspective, and I gave a rational explanation. Instead of agreeing that a career film critic can look at it from another angle, you instead choose to argue opinions. It's like you are trying to maintain some convoluted idea that professional critics are also part of the conspiracy to sell tickets. It's puerile silliness at this point.
share"You asked how a film critic could have a different perspective"
No, I didn't.
"so you could maintain some convoluted idea that reviewers from all platforms are part of some conspiracy to sell tickets."
You don't appear to understand marketing. I thought you at least understood algorithms since you brought it up with IMDB. The question was only what type of algorithms RT is using to formulate their ratings for moviegoers.
I really believe you're arguing to argue.
"I really believe you're arguing to argue."
I'm actually trying to avoid it, because all I see is conspiracy land.
Initially when I said I agreed with the criticisms of the film, you ignored it and said I was making excuses for a bad film. I clarified twice in that post that I was explaining the mindset of professional reviewers.
You're right that you didn't ask. You said you didn't know how it was getting overwhelmingly great reviews. Since we both know where the vast majority of those overwhelmingly great reviews are coming from, I gave an explanation how professional reviewers tend to critique films. You kept saying no no no. You don't want to hear the rationale behind a positive review of TLJ. You want your conspiracy. There's no argument here, just an unwillingness to buy into your conspiracy theory that has failed to be fleshed out.
You initially said that you agreed with the criticism, then in your next comment appeared to be backtracking by making excuses such as if it wasn't a Star Wars movie or a sequel. It was the backtracking that I was reacting to, not your first comment.
I still disagree with your explanation re: reviewers. I'm assuming you're not a professional reviewer and neither am I so I have no problem in just leaving it as is.
It's not conspiracy, but marketing. I used to be in advertising so I tend to view a company like Disney from that perspective. Getting positive press - including reviews - is just part of marketing.
Kennedy has angered many fans which has lead to a Solo boycott. It should be interesting to see the impact and what Disney will do.
My point was if it wasn't a Star Wars movie within the Star Wars world, and it made a billion dollars, and a film critic gave it a great review, you probably wouldn't disagree so heavily because your expectations were at a minimum. But because it's Star Wars, you have a higher level of expectations because of prior films and setups. Professional critics are better at reviewing movies as standalones even if the movie isn't intended to be a standalone. Every other complaint regarding character motivation to development is all opinion that differ from person to person. For example, I hated the Last Jedi, but Finn and Rose's relationship seemed fine to me. How do I know it didn't feel fine to you too and that you're just digging for reasons to hate it? I just have to take your word for it, which is why arguing opinions is so pointless. My opinion is right! No mine is! No mine! And round and round we go.
Saying it's not a conspiracy does not remove it from conspiracy territory.
Flat earther: NASA has lied to us and the earth looks flat, therefore the idea that earth is a sphere is false.
Keelai: Marketing exists and I didn't like TLJ, therefore people who give TLJ a good review are part of a marketing campaign.
C'mon, dude. That's sooo deep in conspiracy land. Both are equally missing a gigantic middle ingredient to make that logical leap. I mean, if you have a gut feeling then that's fine. But don't sit there and try to argue your conjecture as fact.
Also, I agree about early buzz for movies being contrived and sometimes way off from the later reviews that end up being harsh. But those early reviews end up being so few compared to the later reviews, and here you're including all reviews. I just can't get on board with that simply because marketing is a thing that exists.
You're wrong about my expectations re: Disney SW. I never expected their movies to be as good as Lucas', but I'm shocked that Last Jedi was so bad.
Art has subjective as well as objective criteria in regard to judging it. For instance, not liking opera is subjective. But, calling an opera singer bad because she can't carry a tune is objective.
Quality movie script writing has objective standards too. I agree with many points in this 5+ hour negative review for Last Jedi.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw7pcCj0ORk
Now, I'm listening to a multi-part review of the novel as I read it. Amazingly, this critic has added more movie issues that the 5+ hour critic hadn't mentioned. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68H2aOSwqvE&t=56s
I'm finding the story analysis more entertaining than the movie.
Why did you hate Last Jedi?
I just found early Solo reviews. This man basically reiterates what I've been trying to convey to you about reviewers and their reviews. Read the comments about how multiple reviewers use the same word "blast".
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2018/05/11/solo-star-wars-story-blast-world-premiere-first-reactions/601078002/
US Today appears to have fair and honest professional reviewers.
I can't trust any analysis done by a brainless flat-Earther.
I made it as far as the point where he said he was analyzing 100 random votes. I know it's impossible for the video creator to literally count up every vote, as he can't see every vote, so going by 100 votes isn't going to cut it mathematically. I assume he's also only able to do 100 random written reviews, which will also throw off his statistics considering there is often more of an incentive to write a negative review (this is seen constantly on IMDb).
I didn't even like Last Jedi, so I have no desire to defend its score. Just going by the merits of this video.
Feel free to let me know if I missed anything by not finishing the video.
The rest of bullshit in his channel doesn't change the analysis, specially because it's quite straightforward and easy to do, in case you wanna use the effort and check the results. I don't think he made it up, since there would be quickly people speaking out.
I assume he's also only able to do 100 random written reviews, which will also throw off his statistics considering there is often more of an incentive to write a negative review
Well, well, here you actually argued a solid and good counter-argument. There's always a first for everything ^^.
Wait... what? You said it's straightforward and easy to do, but then you said you don't think he made it up. You have no idea if it's made up or not, because you didn't do the research. And since you didn't do the research, you don't know if it's straightforward and easy to do. You're just a bullshitter, and a bad one.
Why doesn't he just show the data he's reviewing in his video? It's a video. It's supposed to show that stuff. Instead he fills the screen with instructions on how to follow what he's saying, forcing everyone to take his word for it. It's exactly the type of non-factual commentary you get from every flat earther.
Hey, mate, take your pills and relax. He just took a sample of 100 scores and calculated the average. It's not rocket science. Indeed, statistics is extremely simple, it doesn't even count as maths when people in liberal arts can do it.
He just did it and it happened that the average was quite different from the one showed in RT, that's the point.
Then show the 100 scores he reviewed. It's that simple.
shareAnd something to drink? Does not want the young master something to drink? And a blondie to fan the young master and polish his nails, maybe?
shareYou're just admitting the video is bogus. Thank you.
shareAnd you keep assigning to me words I didn't say. It seems that you're ability to speak consists in:
(1) Assigning words they didn't say to other people
(2) Insulting them
(3) (Optional) Insulting something else
(4) Go to step 1
Interesting XDDDD
Another non sequitur, which is just another admission the video is bogus. Thank you.
share"Yeah, his other videos are bullshit, but THIS one is true because it confirms what I believe to be true!"
-kuku
It does follow though, that the same kind of people who entertain conspiracy theories about 'fake reviews' and 'bribed critics' will also believe in conspiracy theories about flat earth or lizard people.
"Here's the conclusion that I want to be true! Now what 'facts' can I twist to fit that conclusion?"
Here's the conclusion that I want to be true! Now what 'facts' can I twist to fit that conclusion?
-What he did?.
He went to the RT page and picked 100 sequential scores (you can't pick non-sequential scores at that speed). That's quite easy to see. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_last_jedi/reviews/?page=2&type=user
-Is he misrepresenting data?
The data are individual scores and the goal is to approximate its average score. Is taking individual scores misrepresenting data when it comes to calculate the average of individual scores? Tough question, mmm...
-Can be truly a "random" set?
Obviously not, since he took sequential scores. By the way, survey companies never pick a truly random sample of people, they carefully taylor it to represent demographics, but well, that's another story.
-is 100 even enough?
Yeap, for that population 100 is enough to have quite a good approximation.
Now the question you're not asking, and the one that matter:
-is the sample not segregated?
Nope, and that's the big issue with it. It's segregated in two ways: it picks people who wrote a review (which you pointed out) and picks sequential votes, which means votes in a very narrow time range.
But then, he gets an average of 24 vs the official one which is 47. Quite a difference. What are the odds? even considering the segregation. Nice question.
Why do you even care???
shareOf course there will be fake ratings just like tjl.
people dont want the disney machine against them.
I think the fakes were primarily on imdb. This time I think LF will buy plenty for both sites: http://www.filmmakerseo.com
share