The Luckiest Man in America (2025)

Kajiimagi

Kajiimagi

<Aristocrat╭ರ_•́>
3,037
5,663
Sylas said:
65% is good to great. not quite excellent.

50% is average. nearly every movie ever made falls into this category.

Let me see how many 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 out of 10s you've given for movies in your life then we can judge what you think a 6.5/10 movie is.

Now I'm guessing, but you are probably one of the retards who shit all over a movie and then assign it a 5/10. You dumbasses don't know you can just say 1/5 stars and call it a day, no you got to pollute the standard distribution model with your retarded takes.

it's ok, like 99% of people who judge movies or post reviews do this, they judge film like an inverse of how women judge men's appearances
Click to expand...
I think he's one of those incels that just shits on others opinions as he has none of his own. If he was more offensive I'd use the ignore function. I'd use the newly fixed search to see if I was right but honestly, I don't give enough of a fuck to care.
 
  • 2Worf
Reactions: 1 users
Dr.Retarded

Dr.Retarded

<Silver Donator>
15,249
33,327
.
Kajiimagi said:
I think he's one of those incels that just shits on others opinions as he has none of his own. If he was more offensive I'd use the ignore function. I'd use the newly fixed search to see if I was right but honestly, I don't give enough of a fuck to care.
Click to expand...
Brikker Brikker is one of us. We can all have goofy opinions at times, Lord knows I do, especially when it comes to movies, I don't think he's an incel weirdo. I mean God damn looking at Chuk's film opinions at times, no offense buddy.
Hopefully the movie will be entertaining, who knows, but I'll probably watch it at some point.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Brikker

Brikker

Trump's Staff
6,438
5,147
I think i value my limited recreational time as a gainfully employed person with 2 small children too much to waste it on a 6.5 rated movie. That's why I question calling a 6.5 rating a "good" movie, to me that is a mediocre movie. Maybe 7+ would be good, 8+ great, 9+ a top 20ish ranking movie.

P.s. calling someone you don't know an incel makes you sound like a liberal
 
  • 2Like
  • 1Worf
Reactions: 2 users
Kajiimagi

Kajiimagi

<Aristocrat╭ರ_•́>
3,037
5,663
I'm a lot of things, a liberal is none of them. I'm *almost* offended. But I try not to take this place too serious.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users
Sylas

Sylas

<Gold Donor>
4,294
5,729
Brikker said:
I think i value my limited recreational time as a gainfully employed person with 2 small children too much to waste it on a 6.5 rated movie. That's why I question calling a 6.5 rating a "good" movie, to me that is a mediocre movie. Maybe 7+ would be good, 8+ great, 9+ a top 20ish ranking movie.

P.s. calling someone you don't know an incel makes you sound like a liberal
Click to expand...
The problem is ratings are meaningless since almost everyone uses them wrong. a 6.5/10 is objectively a good film. It's better than 75% of all movies ever made.

But retards don't know how numbers work so the worst slop they've ever seen, they'll bitch and moan about wasting their time and money then claim it was a 5/10. a 5/10 is an average movie, almost every movie you've ever seen is a 5/10 film. the further away from 5/10, for better or worse, the rarer the film is. There's as many 1/10s as there are 10/10, like once per decade something drops that is so monumentally epic or atrocious that it earns a 1/10 or 10/10.

This is why I asked how many movies you would rate a 1-5 on a scale of 10? If the worst movie you've ever seen you'd only rank a 5/10 then yeah, a 6.5/10 sounds terrible, mediocre, waste of time, etc. But it's not. a 6.5/10 is in the top 10 films of the year.
 
DickTrickle

DickTrickle

Definitely NOT Furor Planedefiler
13,769
16,137
Sylas said:
The problem is ratings are meaningless since almost everyone uses them wrong. a 6.5/10 is objectively a good film. It's better than 75% of all movies ever made.

But retards don't know how numbers work so the worst slop they've ever seen, they'll bitch and moan about wasting their time and money then claim it was a 5/10. a 5/10 is an average movie, almost every movie you've ever seen is a 5/10 film. the further away from 5/10, for better or worse, the rarer the film is. There's as many 1/10s as there are 10/10, like once per decade something drops that is so monumentally epic or atrocious that it earns a 1/10 or 10/10.

This is why I asked how many movies you would rate a 1-5 on a scale of 10? If the worst movie you've ever seen you'd only rank a 5/10 then yeah, a 6.5/10 sounds terrible, mediocre, waste of time, etc. But it's not. a 6.5/10 is in the top 10 films of the year.
Click to expand...
There's absolutely nothing that says the scale has to result in a bell curve distribution, like you're implying.

It also doesn't need to be relative either. It's possible more bad films than good films are made from an objective/static evaluation, which would bring the mean to less than 5 (on a 0 to 10 scale). Or vice versa. It would also mean that just because a film is better than X percentage, doesn't automatically make it good. If every student fails an exam, that doesn't make the highest score an objectively good score, it just makes it the best available.

I will agree it's dumb that people say how bad movies are then give them a rating that would indicate they're average at worst.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Sylas

Sylas

<Gold Donor>
4,294
5,729
DickTrickle said:
There's absolutely nothing that says the scale has to result in a bell curve distribution, like you're implying.
Click to expand...
I mean other than math and that's how statistics work, you mean?

It's called a standard deviation or standard model for a reason, you can have a low deviation or high deviation but you will always get a bell curve, and it will always be relative. Unless you are a computer dissecting lava lamps to produce truly random numbers.

No, what people are doing is judging films on a 1-5 scale (ie 1 to 5 stars) and confusing it with a "1 out of 10" rating system because they don't know what numbers or words mean. In a world where most people mean to say " i give it 1 out of 5 stars" but they actually say "it was a 6/10, shitty movie"

1746982583475.png
 
DickTrickle

DickTrickle

Definitely NOT Furor Planedefiler
13,769
16,137
Sylas said:
I mean other than math and that's how statistics work, you mean?

It's called a standard deviation or standard model for a reason, you can have a low deviation or high deviation but you will always get a bell curve, and it will always be relative. Unless you are a computer dissecting lava lamps to produce truly random numbers.

No, what people are doing is judging films on a 1-5 scale (ie 1 to 5 stars) and confusing it with a "1 out of 10" rating system because they don't know what numbers or words mean. In a world where most people mean to say " i give it 1 out of 5 stars" but they actually say "it was a 6/10, shitty movie"

View attachment 585961
Click to expand...
You're confusing a description of the measurement with the value of the measurement. The standard deviation model is applied to and describes the data, it doesn't change the meaning of the values.

If someone watches 20 movies, ranked 15 of them 0 and 4 10 and 1 a 4, a standard deviation model gives a mean of 2. That doesn't mean 2 is now the rating for an average *quality* movie for that person. The movie scale is qualitative. 5 is average. 10 is still perfect. Plus, a distribution with a mean of five is entirely unlikely with how much selection bias goes into watching a film. Saying things like 6.5/10 is objectively good just because it's better than 75% of other films is silly. That's like saying the 4 movie in the above example is objectively good.

Your argument that people don't use the bottom end of the scale might be true but that's a different issue to someone who correctly uses the full range of the scale.
 
Last edited:
Gravel

Gravel

Mr. Poopybutthole
41,893
143,961
People don't use the top of the scale either. They think a 10/10 movie is perfect. Look at the IMDB top 250, and the top 7 are in the low 9's. After that, they're all 8's. Likewise, the bottom doesn't have any 1's. Certainly there are movies so terrible they deserve it, but nope.
 
Arbitrary

Arbitrary

Tranny Chaser
30,979
87,588
Sylas said:
I mean other than math and that's how statistics work, you mean?

It's called a standard deviation or standard model for a reason, you can have a low deviation or high deviation but you will always get a bell curve, and it will always be relative.
Click to expand...

C'mon now. Bimodal distributions exist. Long ass flat tails exist. Statisticians like when they get a pretty graph but data doesn't have to give you one.
 
Sylas

Sylas

<Gold Donor>
4,294
5,729
Gravel said:
People don't use the top of the scale either. They think a 10/10 movie is perfect. Look at the IMDB top 250, and the top 7 are in the low 9's. After that, they're all 8's. Likewise, the bottom doesn't have any 1's. Certainly there are movies so terrible they deserve it, but nope.
Click to expand...

IMDB is not a distribution model, it is an average, it aggregates reviews. it's different math so yeah you will never get a 1 or 10 its impossible.

DickTrickle said:
You're confusing a description of the measurement with the value of the measurement. The standard deviation model is applied to and describes the data, it doesn't change the meaning of the values.

If someone watches 20 movies, ranked 15 of them 0 and 4 10 and 1 a 4, a standard deviation model gives a mean of 2. That doesn't mean 2 is now the rating for an average *quality* movie for that person. The movie scale is qualitative. 5 is average. 10 is still perfect. Plus, a distribution with a mean of five is entirely unlikely with how much selection bias goes into watching a film. Saying things like 6.5/10 is objectively good just because it's better than 75% of other films is silly. That's like saying the 4 movie in the above example is objectively good.

Your argument that people don't use the bottom end of the scale might be true but that's a different issue to someone who correctly uses the full range of the scale.
Click to expand...

despite being a small sample size, in that theoretical reviewer's mind, almost everything, 75% of all movies are absolute garbage shit with a 0 rating. So yeah, a 4 on that scale actually is objectively good. Again this is why you need to know how a person ranks movies to contextualize what their ratings mean. We're left having to interpret reviews as if everyone is a fucking moron because so many people are such morons that they have ruined rating systems.

In a sane world we would all judge movies objectively and no one would confuse 2 thumbs up vs 5 stars vs 10/10 and mix and match their fucking rating systems, but we don't live in a sane world.

"If everyone could just..." is insanity, the one thing we know for sure is that "everyone" will "not just..." anything.
 
DickTrickle

DickTrickle

Definitely NOT Furor Planedefiler
13,769
16,137
Sylas said:
IMDB is not a distribution model, it is an average, it aggregates reviews. it's different math so yeah you will never get a 1 or 10 its impossible.



despite being a small sample size, in that theoretical reviewer's mind, almost everything, 75% of all movies are absolute garbage shit with a 0 rating. So yeah, a 4 on that scale actually is objectively good. Again this is why you need to know how a person ranks movies to contextualize what their ratings mean. We're left having to interpret reviews as if everyone is a fucking moron because so many people are such morons that they have ruined rating systems.

In a sane world we would all judge movies objectively and no one would confuse 2 thumbs up vs 5 stars vs 10/10 and mix and match their fucking rating systems, but we don't live in a sane world.

"If everyone could just..." is insanity, the one thing we know for sure is that "everyone" will "not just..." anything.
Click to expand...
I would still argue it's not objectively good, only objectively better than most stuff, for that reviewer. There's a difference there. That theoretical reviewer will still see the four movie as not having been worth the watch even though it was the fifth best film they had seen.

I will agree though that it's almost impossible to compare ratings between people without their contexts. In the past, when I actually watched a lot of movies, I would pay attention to certain reviewers because I kind of knew their history and could reasonably understand what their ratings meant. Here, we get stuff like the Tarrant scale, where everything is either good or great.
 
  • 1Worf
Reactions: 1 user
Hoss

Hoss

Make America's Team Great Again
<Gold Donor>
28,361
18,321
Arbitrary said:
C'mon now. Bimodal distributions exist. Long ass flat tails exist. Statisticians like when they get a pretty graph but data doesn't have to give you one.
Click to expand...
I thought those were because of small sample sizes.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Hoss

Hoss

Make America's Team Great Again
<Gold Donor>
28,361
18,321
I read the wiki on this guy. My favorite part was 10 years later he contacted the producers and said, hey, I know you added 27 more lightboards, but I think I can still beat ya. How about you invite me back for a tournament of champions? Cowards didn't even answer him.
 
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
27,046
56,561
Screenshot 2025-05-12 at 7.10.01 AM.png


The distribution of IMDb movie rankings is roughly centered around 6.41, with a standard deviation of 1.11 and a range from 1.6 to 9.3. It's not perfectly even, showing a slight skew to the left, meaning slightly more movies tend to receive lower ratings.
 
Sylas

Sylas

<Gold Donor>
4,294
5,729
looks like it's skewed to the right not left, with slightly more movies receiving higher ratings.

Not sure if it's selection bias (outside of universally panned cultural flops like, the snow white remake, popular movies tend to be slightly better than average and receive more reviews than unknown/unheard of turds), or if it's their weighting system pushing movie reviews higher (they tend to ignore 1 star reviews when they suspect review bombing/brigading behavior).
 
  • 1Solidarity
Reactions: 1 user
Aldarion

Aldarion

Egg Nazi
10,386
28,892
Hoss said:
I thought those were because of small sample sizes.
Click to expand...
Generally yes.

Half the people in this argument don't seem to understand what a normal distribution is, or why it almost inevitably shows up anytime a continuously variable feature (like height, attractiveness, or movie quality) is measured.

Theres literally a law that describes this phenomenon and explains why it happens. But instead we get hur dur shes a 10
 
Hoss

Hoss

Make America's Team Great Again
<Gold Donor>
28,361
18,321
Sylas said:
looks like it's skewed to the right not left, with slightly more movies receiving higher ratings.

Not sure if it's selection bias (outside of universally panned cultural flops like, the snow white remake, popular movies tend to be slightly better than average and receive more reviews than unknown/unheard of turds), or if it's their weighting system pushing movie reviews higher (they tend to ignore 1 star reviews when they suspect review bombing/brigading behavior).
Click to expand...
Does IMDB pull the same shenanigans with their ratings as rotten tomoatoes? If so, no valid conclusions can be drawn from their data. But yeah, 6.41 average looks like it's skewed right. It should center on 5.5.
 
Cad

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
27,046
56,561
There are more movies on the lower range so it's skewed to the left, see how to the right of the peak it drops off very quickly while the left side has a much more gentle slope? Thats because more movies are ranked lower, fewer are ranked higher.

The overall graph is obviously shifted right a bit since the average is 6.4 or so and average should be around 5 if it were a perfectly normal distribution, but more are ranked lower and fewer are ranked higher which is why the statistics analysis says skewed left with a 6.41 mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.