Comments for sursumcorda.salemsattic.com/post/do-you-pay-attention-to-the-numbers-you-read

Comment #3615

2013-04-01T13:15:19Z

My guess is that more than 1'000 were 3D, not more than 3'000.

Here is the original article.

Comment #3614

2013-04-01T11:57:10Z

So, to paraphrase Eric's question above, is it bad facts, or bad statistical analysis? Or really bad decision-making on the part of the studio? The way I read it is that the studio had one idea of what makes for "the very best movie," and actually sacrificed profit in order to do so. Artistic considerations aside (if one can use that term about something that sounds as if it's all explosions, blood splatter, and chase scenes), the public disagreed even more with that decision than with the critics' analysis. The studio would have been better off adopting GEIBTP (good enough is better than perfect).

Still, the discrepancy is mind-boggling enough to make me suspect something is wrong with the numbers.

Thanks for sharing this.

Comment #3613

2013-04-01T06:38:13Z

That call negated months of marketing and stalled merchandising campaigns, but the studio believed that it would be a better movie in 3D and knew that If audiences turned out, the conversion would provide a real boost in grosses because of the $3-$4 surcharges theaters charge.

"We wanted to put out the very best movie we could," Paramount's head of distribution Don Harris told TheWrap, "and it became clear to us that 3D was the way to go."

The PG-13 rated "Retaliation" was on 3,719 screens nationwide, more than 3,000 of which were 3D and another 302 Imax. Forty-five percent of the grosses came from 3D, and Imax theaters accounted for 9 percent. The film played to audiences that were 68 percent male and 59 percent over 25. The critics weren't keen on "Retaliation," but moviegoers gave it an "A-" CinemaScore.

So, if I calculated correctly, the (at most) 417 screens (11.2% of the total) that showed the movie without 3D accounted for 46% of the grosses?

Comment #3612

2012-11-03T18:52:40Z

That's kind of you, Eric, to extend the benefit of the doubt, and an interesting approach. I don't agree with it, because (a) the sentence would be missing an "at" or other preposition in my opinion, and (b) the extra comma would make the sentence even more awkward, but I can't say for sure it isn't a grammatically correct possibility.

Comment #3611

2012-11-03T11:44:39Z

And then I was thinking, if "prematurely" is an adverb it would made to modify the "born" and not the "27 weeks". . .If he'd been born "27 weeks premature" THEN we'd have to call the Guiness book. . .but "27 weeks prematurely" might work? Where's my Strunk and White?

Comment #3610

2012-11-03T11:41:55Z

Could it have just been for lack of a comma? If he was born "27 weeks, prematurely," all would be scientific and well, no? Bad editing or bad facts, he asked, dumbly. . . :)

Comment #3609

2012-11-03T01:29:03Z

Hmmm. Steal $1 million, pay $120,000 back. Sweet deal. Makes as much sense as President Obama running in 2016.

Comment #3608

2012-11-02T21:12:35Z

Yes, with so many numbers whizzing our way it's no wonder a number fly under the radar. I ran across an example in a news article about an errant e-mail that also includes information on a fraud. Not until reading the comments did I realize the guy defrauded others for far more than the amount he was ordered to pay in damages.