What's the difference?Makabriel said:@Andrew: Agreed. There is a difference between a critique with a bias and a critique aimed at pushing the reviewer's own bias upon the audience.
A review with a biasMega_Manic said:What's the difference?Makabriel said:@Andrew: Agreed. There is a difference between a critique with a bias and a critique aimed at pushing the reviewer's own bias upon the audience.
I'd say that these still wouldn't be "normal" or "objective" as there are still a number of sampling errors and choices indicative to the methods. If you're looking at the professional reviews that might mean that its coming from the opinions of an audience with say potentially more of an arts/film education slant. Or if you're looking at the average of all the votes could have a slant for a younger tech savy group or a more affluent group with more access to the internet. Third possible bias country, the USA has more film critics and viewers then say Canada (where I live) which would also shift perceptions in the films (believe me we do in fact think about some things differently). Hopefully a good statistician would realize the limitations of such methods and not claim them "objective".medv4380 said:When you make a claim against critics that they aren't behavior statisticians you're inadvertently giving credit to Rotten Tomatoes and Meta Critic. The average scores of users, and critics, is the statisticians way of removing the bias to show the "Normal", or "Objective" view. That's really the only way to do it, but I wouldn't expect a movie critic to understand the wisdom, and madness of the crowd.
I disagree as none of his "elephant in the room" beliefs had anything to do with the book he created. I never knew of his beliefs when I read the book 20 years ago and in now knowing these beliefs, I don't suddenly go "Oh, that's what that meant!"Tturbo said:Great episode this week.
Eventhough Card might had never to do with the movie script it's still his book in the end, and what he thinks matters because it's going to transpire through the book (because complete objectivity is a myth). It shouldn't stop people from reading, seeing or admiring any sort of art piece being a book, a movie or a painting, but it should indeed be acknowledge.
Not sure if you're serious about this...medv4380 said:When you make a claim against critics that they aren't behavior statisticians you're inadvertently giving credit to Rotten Tomatoes and Meta Critic. The average scores of users, and critics, is the statisticians way of removing the bias to show the "Normal", or "Objective" view. That's really the only way to do it, but I wouldn't expect a movie critic to understand the wisdom, and madness of the crowd.