Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ArchfiendBobbie" data-source="post: 7731452" data-attributes="member: 6867728">Okay, let's factor that in and take a look at some highlights of their fails.Justice League, a B+, is doing quite well. Murder on the Orient Express, another B, has made back its budget multiple times already. Star Trek Beyond, an A-, was a flop; it failed to break even. Ferdinand, which is ranked A, is on its way to being another flop.I could go on and on and on. Example after example after example of where they were not only wrong, even based on what you say, but sometimes hilariously so.Even adjusting for the value of Bs, it does not change the fact they have too big of an inaccuracy ratio to justify that their data is actually statistically representative. Because it's not even remotely close to statistically representative. They're only collecting data for the first night of the box office run, not the entire run to get a true representative sample size.In short, they keep getting wrong answers because they are not practicing true science, but are instead using a stunted version of a real data collection method and relying on a massively incomplete data set to reach their rankings. They are practicing junk science.Again, they are not accurate to actual performance on too many movies to have relevance to any discussion, scientific or otherwise, of how a movie will perform.</blockquote>