Announcing Study And Its Protocol About Star Wars Episode # Ⅶ: The Force Awakens. · 10:49am Dec 22nd, 2015
I announce this study ahead of time and its protocol so that nopony can claim that I manipulate P-Values. A little context:
I am vocal that Abrams care nothing about continuity. Just look at what he did to Star Trek; he made Stino (Star-Trek-In-Name-Only). I was vocal about not wanting to see Swino (Star-Wars-In-Name-Only). Several ponies pointed out that I should not bash a movie without seeing it. Since they have a point, I shall see it.
I shall give this movie every chance I can. I shall watch it in 3D, with THX-1138-Sound, and I shall arrive as early as possible, so that I can hopefully get the FrontRowCenter, or is the FrontRowCenter is taken, I shall sit as close to the FrontRowCenter as possible.
¿How shall I judge this movie?:
I shall judge it on a scale from 0 to 1. 0 is fail, while 1 is perfect. These are the possible results:
* If it is a true sequel to the previous movies, it gets ½ points.
* If it is a remake of Episode # Ⅳ: A(n) New Hope (Before "H", one should use "N") pretending to be a sequel to Episode # Ⅵ: Return of the Jedi, which is what the word on the street says, it gets 0 points.
* If it is Swino, it gets 0 points.
¿Why only ½ points in the best case?:
Authors have spent over a million man-hours creating a shared Expanded Universe of Star Wars. Even if this movie has continuity with the previous movies, out of laziness, Abrams places this movie in a new Alternate Universe of Star Wars with a point of divergence after Star Wars Episode # Ⅵ: Return of the Jedi, because he could not be bothered to make a movie consistent with the continuity of the Expanded Universe of Star Wars. Really, the highest score, I should give the movie is 0, but that would lead to allegations of Bashing, so I shall give the movie half a point, if it has at least continuity with the movies.
My next day off of work is Wednesday. I shall hopefully report my findings then.
Addendum:
I have to postpone the viewing for a week.
No. Just, no.
First, this isn't remotely scientific, so please don't call it that.
Second, Mr. Abrams is not to blame for the execution of the Expanded Universe, so don't bash him for it. The decision was made by some over-important Disney executives because they didn't own most of the material in the old canon and consider Star Wars to just be another cash cow. Abrams was hired to direct the new film after this decision was made.
This isn't even close to objective. And I'm not sure if there even needs to be a psuedo scientific review. Either you like the movie, or you don't and you'll have reasons either way.
Obviously you haven't watched Alias.
Middle-Middle for best picture and sound.
3637183
3636334
3636334
3636303
3635998
About the claim of bias, I give this movie every chance I can give it:
* 3D
* THX-1138-Sound
* FrontRowCenter
¿Should I travel hundreds of kilometers so that I can watch in in Digital iMax with High FrameRate, 3D, and THX-1138-Sound?
It is Scientific because I have an objective measure of success:
The Movie must be a sequel of Star Wars Episode # Ⅵ: Return of the Jedi to succeed. If it is a remake of Episode # Ⅳ or Swino (Star Wars In Name Only, it fails.
3637183
If Abrams did his job right, I shall want to climb into the screen:
Let me tell you the story of 2 Avatars:
James Cameron made a 3D movie called Avatar. It was so immersive, that I wanted to climb into the screen so that I could be on Pandora, moon of Polyphemus, orbiting Alpha Centauri A. Since I could not, I settled for the FrontRowCenter. I watched Avatar 5 times before it left the theaters, in 3D from the FrontRowCenter with THX-1138-Sound. I wish that it would be High FrameRate too.*
Then I saw Avatar: The last Airbender, which despite being based on a great show sucks. In addition to being a bad movie, it was 2D, but converted to 3D, The Conversion from 2D to 3D was terrible. I ended up retreating as far away from the screen as possible. Then I retreated into a corner. I ended up taking refuge in the BackRowCorner. This brings up an important point:
Bad 3D hurts good 3D. 3D is more hated than loved now because most ponies 1stly experienced terrible conversions instead of movies made in 3D. This is sad.
* I know that someponies dislike High FrameRate because the realism freaks them out. I for 1, would like to movie in the Uncanny Valley, in the Hallelujah-Mountains of Pandora.
Addendum:
I have to postpone the viewing for a week.
3637614
You can't eliminate bias by urging yourself to give it a chance. The bias is inherent in your judgement, and cannot be removed by any conscious effort you make. The only way to get an unbiased review of a movie is to aggregate a great number of viewers' opinions together; hence review sites. Your single review can never be scientific.
I see no objectivity in that supposed ‘measure’. What I see is something vague enough that you can argue it matches one or the other based on whether you like the movie.
It doesn't help that the terms you are using are inherently biased:
It is absolutely a sequel to Episode VI. No matter how crappy it might be, that doesn't change that it is a sequel to Return of the Jedi. So the first ‘objective measure’ is tautologically true, and it has succeeded without you even seeing the movie. Since you are claiming it needs your judgement, you must be using a special definition of ‘sequel’ that does not match the generally accepted definition and which is known only to yourself, which is about as unscientific as you can get.
The second ‘objective measure’ cannot be true under the standard definition of ‘remake’, so that word must be similarly twisted to your own needs.
The third ‘objective measure’ is an acronym you made up to disparagingly refer to what you think the movie will be; namely a bad movie that you don't want to acknowledge as part of the Star Wars Franchise. The definition of this acronym is quite literally a movie you don't personally like; it is not possible to get more subjective (and therefore less objective) than that.
You're embarrassing yourself, and it's painful to watch.
3637614 you are not even close to being objective. You flat out said that the max score you will give it is an F. Imagine if you're taking a test and the teacher walks up to you and says I hate you and no matter how good you'll do, I'm going to fail you. Is that objective? Because that's how objective your being.
Your criteria are horrible as well. By definition, it is a sequel so you can't use that. SWINO is both subjective and derogatory, so it isn't a good category. What your saying your being objective about is just how the movie is presented. Imax and thx sound have nothing to do with the quality of the film. If it's good, it'll be good on Imax or as a 240p smartphone steam.
This post is the single most biased thing against the new star wars movie I've seen.
3637850
I thought about how to reply without seeming mean, but I already wrote that because it ignores the EU and is an AU, the best I can give it is ½ points, if it is not Swino, has continuity with the previous movies, and is not a remake of ANH pretending to be a sequel of ROTJ. If you truly believe that continuity with previous movies is good enough, just multiply my score by 2.
As previously stated, something came up at work, so I had to work last Wednesday, but next Wednesday, I should see the movie. I should have post my report within hours of seeing the movie.
3647693 so lets feed your criteria two different hypothetical star wars movies and see what happens. Version 1 is awesome, it blows your mind away. It's the best movie you've ever seen and is perfect in every way. By your criteria it gets a 5 out of 10 because the EU stuff isn't canon to the movie. Version 2 is identical in every way to version 1 except in one way, it acknowledges EU as canon. There are no other changes at all. The only difference is an arbitrary change that doesn't effect the movie at all. This movie would get a 10 out of 10 using your criteria. So when we grade two identical films with your "objective" criteria, they somehow get different scores, which is kind of impossible with an objective system.
I don't even know why your trying to grade it objectively. Either you like it or you don't, it's pretty simple
3648696
Yes.
I try to be objective. Whether it follows canon is objective. The number of stars I would give it is subjective, so irrelevant:
Since you want stars, I shall include them, even though they are subjective. Most ponies rate movies on a scale of 0 to 5 stars, but since you want the precision on 10 stars, I shall rate the movie on a scale from 00 to 10 stars for you.
3649497 it's not canon. your judging the movie and jj abrams based on that, not how good the movie actually is. Again, i don't see why you feel the need to objectively determine whether you like a movie or not.
You originally had a scale of 0 to 1. I multiplied through by 10 to get rid of decimals.
3650165
I already planned to judge the movie on continuity, which is objective, but for you, I plan to judge the movie about whether I like is; so now, I shall use stars for that.
Much research has been done in psychometrics. I plan a post in the Forum of the Skeptics' Guide to Equestia about the Theory Public Choice which touches upon this. Sticking with only Psychometrics, all scales ar really only 0 to 1 or -1 to +1. For eliminating fractions, one multiplies. ¿Should one multiply by 10 or 100? ¡No!:
Multiplying by 10 or 100 with 0 to 1 leads to single-digit scales with the exception of 1 double-digit value (0 to 10) or a double scale with the exception of 1 triple-digit value (00 to 100). This can lead to errors such as 1 becoming 10 or 10 becoming 1. It is better to multiply by either 9 or 99. This leads to scales of 0 to 9 or 00 to 99. If one uses a scale of 00 to 99, require leading 0s for values of 00 to 09 for preventing errors. If one uses a scale of -9 to +9 or -99 to +99, one must use the sign so that one cannot mix up positive and negative values. The allowed scales are:
* 0 to 9
* 00 to 99 with leading 0s for values from 00 to 09.
* -9 to +9 with the sign required so that one cannot mix up positive and negative values
* -99 to +99 with leading 0s required for values from -09 to +09 with the sign required too so that one cannot mix up positive and negative values.
¡Scales from 1 to n are innumerate! Scales should either to from 0 to n or -n to +n because, logically, all scales are either 0 to 1 or -1 to +1
3651068 judge the movie however you want, I don't give a crap. continuity is objective, but none of the EU stuff is canon. you're judging on what you want the canon to be, not what the canon actually is.
I don't see how 0 to 1 is better than 0 to 10 or 0 to 100. They both convey the same information, but the second and third eliminate decimals. Which brings me to my second point. your 0 to 9 system makes it harder to convey information, which is the entire point.
3651557
By making all responses the same digit-length, one reduces errors We have psychometric research supporting this for reducing errors:
¿Why consistent digit-length reduces errors?
I personally prefer 0 to 9 or -9 to +9 as most ponies do not make fine enough distinctions for justifying 00 to 99 or -99 to +99. I noticed that I had an unstated premise, so I state it now:
If one uses a certain digit-length, one might as well use the whole range. As an example, ¿why limit the scale from 0 to 5 (like a star-review as an example) when one can use just as easily use 0 to 9?
3651557
I was in such an hurry to get ready for the movie, which I saw that, I did not address this point:
As I stated, all scales are really either 0 to 1 or -1 to +1. For eliminating fractions, one often multiplies the scale by n. The resultant scales are either from 0 to n or from -n to +n. In Psychometrics, the scales 0 to 1 and 0 to 100 are the same scale, but rescaled to different ranges. One can convert between them by multiplication and division. This is often used in merging datasets:
2 researchers are doing research about the appear of different brands of Popcorn for Jiffy Pop. 1 researcher figured that a 0 to 9 scale is good enough, while another more anally retentive researcher used 00 to 99. Multiple the scores of the 1st researcher by 11 before merging the datasets.
I write the new BlogPost with the Objective Section about what the movie is which is Scientific and a subjective review, which will be in its own section and is Unscientific. I shall say this; the movie managed to surprise me. Feel free to speculate as to how it surprised me.
3652145 these scales seem to be focused mostly on back end data processing, not what is actually presented to viewers. For example, i've never been asked to rate something from -9 to 9, even if that is how the information is handled behind the scenes. So if i were to use a scale of 0 to 9, i'd write the final information as a percentage, not as a score out of 9. 5 and 10 are deeply ingrained into humans so presenting information either out of 5 or 10 (or 100) is the easiest for the average person to understand. Note i'm not talking about analysts, i'm talking about random people, which you should assume your reader is unless you have reason to believe other wise. I actually asked the wrong question. what i meant to ask was why use 0-9 not 0-10?
3653301
If one lets ponies score from 0 to 10, they might write 23 because the form allows entry of 2 digits. When I finally write my ForumPost about voting for the Skeptics Guide to Equestria, which is not likely to be my next ForumPost, you will see why allowing voters to rate politicians on a scale from -9 to +9 makes sense.
I finished my new BlogPost and shall post it in minutes. Feel free to tear me a new 1. I promise that whatever you write, I shall not so much as downvote your comments. I want your brutal creative criticism. Please check my Scientific Analysis.
What about the THX logo and it's remodified deep note to come before the opening logos? I hope you're prepared.
[youtube=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FC359mlTvkc]
[youtube=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rMJmKpDT3_g]
[youtube=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9-UtmVaSbwA]
[youtube=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v4R-QDi0mtc]
[youtube=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2knpiDvxx5w]
3663322
I fixed your embedded videos:
3663322
I fixed your embedded videos:
3663339 You know how loud theaters can be. So you might want to be careful when one of the newest of these logos comes on before the opening logos to Star Wars 7.
3663844
I saw the movie. It is Swino (Star Wars In Name Only. It is also a bad remake of A new Hope and parts of the Empire Strikes Back.
3664158 Look at the Wikipedia article, and you'll find that Abrams said he made it like a King Arthur tale.