nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 854:
Line 854: + + +
Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (view source)
Revision as of 15:32, August 22, 2008
, 15:32, August 22, 2008→About the viewer reception: Not that simple.
::The key is to report what people thought when they saw the movie. The distribution curve of the 2 to 9 figures shows a film that was well thought of, although not top of the line. The idea that we have to remove people because they may have enjoyed it for ideological reasons instead of movie making quality is inconsequential. If someone enjoys the film then they enjoy the film -- the reason is unimportant. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:22, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
::The key is to report what people thought when they saw the movie. The distribution curve of the 2 to 9 figures shows a film that was well thought of, although not top of the line. The idea that we have to remove people because they may have enjoyed it for ideological reasons instead of movie making quality is inconsequential. If someone enjoys the film then they enjoy the film -- the reason is unimportant. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:22, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
::: That raises the issue of just what they are ''supposed to be'' voting on; whether they personally enjoyed it (which is of no consequence to others, so the votes are meaningless), whether they enjoyed it and therefore others are likely to (which ignores the ideological aspect), whether they thought the film was a quality one, or etc. So depending on what the reason for voting should be, the reason may indeed be important.
::: Even taking the first of those options (that they simply personally enjoyed it), there will be ''some'' (but I couldn't say how many) who (a) didn't see it but voted '10' anyway (e.g. they were unable to see it for some reason, but wanted it to do well so voted anyway), or who thought that the quality was poor, the arguments were not well-put, or whatever, but still wanted to show support for it for ideological reasons. So there will still be some favourable skewing (albeit, I believe with confidence, much less than the unfavourable skewing).
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:32, 22 August 2008 (EDT)
::Dinsdale makes a strong point. Given that everyone seems to be in agreement that the IMDB ratings are neither reliable nor honest, why cite them at all? Better, I think, to link to some actual reviews (one would hope that a reviewer has at least viewed the film.) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:43, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
::Dinsdale makes a strong point. Given that everyone seems to be in agreement that the IMDB ratings are neither reliable nor honest, why cite them at all? Better, I think, to link to some actual reviews (one would hope that a reviewer has at least viewed the film.) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:43, 21 August 2008 (EDT)