Page 1 of 1

Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 6:12 pm
by TheCatt
Now with data

Although their methodology may be inherently flawed
For example, moviegoers rated “The Martian” 8.2 out of 10 on IMDb, but readers gave the book by Andy Weir on which it was based 4.3 out of 5, which means the book rates 0.4 points higher when both are scored out of 10.


Goodreads only allows ratings of 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. Which translate to 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 per the above. That means the "average" is a 6. IMDB uses 1 to 10, so an "average" of 5.5.

Additionally, IMDB uses a Bayesian weighted (may be misremembering the name) model that automatically gives every movie a certain # of 7 votes (thus why so many movies ratings are close to 7).

I submit the scales are not comparable.

Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 6:28 pm
by thibodeaux
Book

Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 6:54 pm
by TPRJones
TheCatt wrote:I submit the scales are not comparable.
Agreed.

Usually book is better, but whenever I can I watch the movie first. That way I can enjoy a nice movie and still enjoy the book even more when I read it. The reverse often leaves the movie feeling a bit empty.

Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 7:08 pm
by GORDON
The novelization of Chronicles of Riddick was great.

Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 8:21 pm
by TheCatt
Shawshank Redemption was a great adaptation, but the story was solid too.

Big Fish was much better as a movie than a book

Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 8:22 pm
by GORDON
I was just kidding, I didn't really read the novelization of Chronicles of Riddick. That was a joke on the Community episode I watched today. Abed was reading it.