[rickc]

Is there anything in this movie that scares me? No. Do I have some major concerns about seeing this movie in a theater? You bet your ass I do. I live in a city that a few days ago marked the second anniversary of the largest mass shooting in American history. I am well aware of how things can go from zero to a thousand in the blink of an eye. The man responsible for that shooting was a man of enormous wealth. He was not your "typical" self loathing mass murderer. He came in well under everyone's radar. If I have to worry about a multi millionaire with everything to live for taking me out in a blaze of gunfire, than everyone is suspect.

I know that this will sound morbid but if there was a bookie taking bets on the over/under of some nutjob shooting up a theater during a performance of the Joker, I would bet everything that I own that it IS going to happen. I would probably have to lay odds to get the bet (as in bet more money to win a smaller amount of money). Americans are caught up "perfect storm" trifecta when it comes to this sort of thing. 1) We have a large amount of people suffering from mental illness. 2) We have easy access to firearms. 3) We suffer from a lack of originality. The U.S. is the copycat killer capitol of the world. School shootings were virtually unheard of before Columbine. Nowadays its every few weeks that someone that wants to go out in a blaze (for whatever reason) chooses to do it in a school. We have already had one nutjob claiming to be the joker shooting up a theater. We have precedent. Everyone and their brother is talking about this movie now. I believe that the chance to instantly become notorious will be too great for someone teetering on the edge to resist.

I do not think that the movie should be banned. If someone is going to shoot up the place, than they are going to shoot up the place. Nothing is going to stop someone who is ready to give up the ship. I just believe that the odds are really good that it WILL happen given the way things are today.

[BeaverFever]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Just for fun would you like to see how I rate movies?

If you check out the graphic below you'll note that Rotten Tomatoes has the reviewers rating at 69%. The audience rated it 91%.

So I add 69 to 91 and get 160. Then I deduct 69 from 91 = 22.

Then I add 22 to 160 to get 182. Joker has a 182 rating.

150 is a gotta see it.

If the audience score had been less than the critics I would have deducted Audience from Reviewers and deducted that number from the total of the 2.

It works providing it's the sort of movie you might be interested in, in the first place.

For the life of me I can’t understand the rationale behind that math. It seems to reward movies where there’s a big discrepancy the critics and audience regardless of which group likes or dislikes the movie. And I’m not sure why you need to sum up the ratings which are percentages if you’re not going to give them weighting ir divide them to get an average.

So for example if you trust audience reviews more than critic reviews but still consider critic reviews to some extent you could do something like weight them 70/30:

(0.7 x 91) + (0.3 x 69) = 84.4
100 being a perfect score and 75 being “gotta see it”

Or if you’re completely agnostic you could add up both ratings and divide by 2 for an average of both critics and audience ratings

If you want to factor in the discrepancy between critics and audiences I would think that a big discrepancy might be a negative factor rather than a positive one so you could subtract the ratings spread and weight that too, depending on how critical you think that is. Say with a 60/30/10 split:

=[(0.6 x 91) + (0.3 x 69)] - (0.1 x 22) = 82.2

As long as all your weights add up to 100% (or 1.0 in the formula) you can apply whatever number you want based on your preferences.

[FieryVulpine]

rickc rickc:

3) We suffer from a lack of originality. The U.S. is the copycat killer capitol of the world. School shootings were virtually unheard of before Columbine. Nowadays its every few weeks that someone that wants to go out in a blaze (for whatever reason) chooses to do it in a school. We have already had one nutjob claiming to be the joker shooting up a theater. We have precedent. Everyone and their brother is talking about this movie now. I believe that the chance to instantly become notorious will be too great for someone teetering on the edge to resist.

Want to know who can shoulder much of the responsibility? The media with its "if it bleeds, it leads" philosophy that brings in more views and ad revenue. Look at how much attention these shooters get on all the main networks with their names repeated for all to hear and the personal histories dissected the final detail. Even if they don't survive they would rather die in infamy than live in obscurity. The media has effectively--and inadvertently fetishized violence to the point to where they have made these massacres more desirable for budding psychotics starving for attention.

[rickc]

FieryVulpine FieryVulpine:

rickc rickc:

3) We suffer from a lack of originality. The U.S. is the copycat killer capitol of the world. School shootings were virtually unheard of before Columbine. Nowadays its every few weeks that someone that wants to go out in a blaze (for whatever reason) chooses to do it in a school. We have already had one nutjob claiming to be the joker shooting up a theater. We have precedent. Everyone and their brother is talking about this movie now. I believe that the chance to instantly become notorious will be too great for someone teetering on the edge to resist.

Want to know who can shoulder much of the responsibility? The media with its "if it bleeds, it leads" philosophy that brings in more views and ad revenue. Look at how much attention these shooters get on all the main networks with their names repeated for all to hear and the personal histories dissected the final detail. Even if they don't survive they would rather die in infamy than live in obscurity. The media has effectively--and inadvertently fetishized violence to the point to where they have made these massacres more desirable for budding psychotics starving for attention.

I agree 100%

[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Just for fun would you like to see how I rate movies?

If you check out the graphic below you'll note that Rotten Tomatoes has the reviewers rating at 69%. The audience rated it 91%.

So I add 69 to 91 and get 160. Then I deduct 69 from 91 = 22.

Then I add 22 to 160 to get 182. Joker has a 182 rating.

150 is a gotta see it.

If the audience score had been less than the critics I would have deducted Audience from Reviewers and deducted that number from the total of the 2.

It works providing it's the sort of movie you might be interested in, in the first place.

For the life of me I can’t understand the rationale behind that math.

Of course not, but it has nothing to do with math.

My system assumes a wokeness in the critics and an influence from the studios on reviewers that can put you onto a crappy movie. It punishes that and delivers a more accurate opinion to the tastes of the average viewer.

It won't work for the woke...like say yourself. Here's the thing the thing though. I don't care. It's not for you.

Watch. I'll show you what I mean. The TV Series Batwoman just came out. The average person is saying 2 things. It's overwoke and it's crap (mostly the latter.) You might like it though.

I'll give you the ratings below. Apply my system and see what happens.

[Martin15]

Paedophile singer Gary Glitter 'could make a fortune' from the Joker while in jail after movie bosses used one of his songs

Makers of movie are facing criticism after the inclusion of Rock and Roll Part 2
The song plays as Joaquin Phoenix's character Joker, dances down a staircase
Gary Glitter, real name Paul Gadd, jailed in 2015 for abusing three young girls



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... Joker.html

[DrCaleb]

The only Joker for me is Caesar Romero.

Or, possibly Mark Hamill.

[Martin15]

Martin15 Martin15:

Paedophile singer Gary Glitter 'could make a fortune' from the Joker while in jail after movie bosses used one of his songs

Makers of movie are facing criticism after the inclusion of Rock and Roll Part 2
The song plays as Joaquin Phoenix's character Joker, dances down a staircase
Gary Glitter, real name Paul Gadd, jailed in 2015 for abusing three young girls



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... Joker.html

Oh look , yuhtubb has it too.... give em a click, they need the money.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nras3c8r45k

[BartSimpson]

FieryVulpine FieryVulpine:

I saw Joker last Friday. Am I supposed to go on a rampage?

I haven't seen the movie but I am definitely wanting to go on a rampage.

I might have to eat every fucking chicken in the room.

[BeaverFever]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Just for fun would you like to see how I rate movies?

If you check out the graphic below you'll note that Rotten Tomatoes has the reviewers rating at 69%. The audience rated it 91%.

So I add 69 to 91 and get 160. Then I deduct 69 from 91 = 22.

Then I add 22 to 160 to get 182. Joker has a 182 rating.

150 is a gotta see it.

If the audience score had been less than the critics I would have deducted Audience from Reviewers and deducted that number from the total of the 2.

It works providing it's the sort of movie you might be interested in, in the first place.

For the life of me I can’t understand the rationale behind that math.

Of course not, but it has nothing to do with math.

My system assumes a wokeness in the critics and an influence from the studios on reviewers that can put you onto a crappy movie. It punishes that and delivers a more accurate opinion to the tastes of the average viewer.

It won't work for the woke...like say yourself. Here's the thing the thing though. I don't care. It's not for you.

Watch. I'll show you what I mean. The TV Series Batwoman just came out. The average person is saying 2 things. It's overwoke and it's crap (mostly the latter.) You might like it though.

I'll give you the ratings below. Apply my system and see what happens.

No your system doesn’t do that all! Your system gives a high score even if overwoke critics gave it a high rating and audiences hate it. You reward ANY difference between audience and critics don’t you see? If overwoke critics gave a movie a perfect 100 but audiences only gave it 50, your system would score the movie a perfect score of 200, the same as a a movie where the audience and the critics both gave a perfect score of 100 each.

So you’ve got a system that rewards elitist insider critics while I have one that allows anyone to give more or less weight to critics depending on their preference. Don’t you understand?

[Tricks]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

No your system doesn’t do that all! Your system gives a high score even if overwoke critics gave it a high rating and audiences hate it. You reward ANY difference between audience and critics don’t you see? If overwoke critics gave a movie a perfect 100 but audiences only gave it 50, your system would score the movie a perfect score of 200, the same as a a movie where the audience and the critics both gave a perfect score of 100 each.

I'm going to defend Fiddle, the fuck is wrong with me.

You've got his math wrong. In your scenario it would make a movie be 100. He subtracts the critic score from the audience score, not the highest from the lowest. It's not the raw delta that matters.

so it would be (100 + 50)+(50-100) = 100

Related, glad it's getting good reviews, I'm looking forward to seeing it.

[raydan]

If you like the movie, you like the movie...
If you hate the movie, you hate the movie...

"One man's garbage is another man's treasure" is a real thing as taste is an individual's personal, cultural and aesthetic patterns of choice and preference. Notice the key word, "individual".

Never let critics decide what you should like or hate, see/listen/taste it first and decide by yourself. Any "system" concerning taste is crap.

[FieryVulpine]

I find this interesting: journalists for CNN are slagging this movie. A company owned by Warner Media. The same company that owns DC Comics/Films and Warner Bros. I have got to wonder if some suit is letting this happen because the contrived controversy the media is trying to create is helping their bottom line in a similar vein to what happened to Captain Marvel earlier this year, except the roles are reversed.

[stratos]

I don't know why but to say that it's broke the October record makes me wonder what other movies were released in the past. You always hear about summer blockbusters, winter/Christmas blockbusters but I don't ever recall October blockbusters being a thing.

[DrCaleb]

stratos stratos:

I don't ever recall October blockbusters being a thing.

Everything is relative. Movies keep sucking, so movie studios are going for whatever win they can.