The Believer

...is a good film about a neo-Nazi Jew. Anyone seen it?

Mark.

On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 22:21:44 -0000, Mark Thakkar
<[email protected]> wrote:

[q1]>...is a good film about a neo-Nazi Jew. Anyone seen it?[/q1]

Does it star Ariel Sharon?

--
"You can't trust anyone!"
- "Try pseudo-trust. Like a compromise." sachi, 2001

Reply 2

Unregistered

"Mark Thakkar" <[email protected]> wrote in message

[q1]> ...is a good film about a neo-Nazi Jew. Anyone seen it?[/q1]

Nope, is it another one that has disappeared under the Lord Harry Potter
and the Rings tsunami? Have you seen it? Is it good? It appears to be on
at the worst two Odeons in Central London.... meaning a non-populist
story and screens little larger than a phat TV. Took so long to get
round to watching Ghost World that I had see it on little more than a
postage stamp :frown:

Reply 3

Unregistered

Pete,

[q2]>> ...is a good film about a neo-Nazi Jew. Anyone seen it?[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Nope, is it another one that has disappeared under the Lord Harry[/q1]
[q1]> Potter and the Rings tsunami?[/q1]

Oi! I'm looking forward to one, having seen the other. Anyone watch the
South Bank Show just now?

[q1]> Have you seen it? Is it good?[/q1]

I've seen it (today), and I thought it was good. It's quite short,
perhaps too short, but thought-provoking. (And dammit, I need to be
provoked into thought! Ahem.)

Mark.

Reply 4

Unregistered

On Mon, 17 Dec 2001 00:09:10 -0000, Mark Thakkar
<[email protected]> wrote:

[q1]>Pete,[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q3]>>> ...is a good film about a neo-Nazi Jew. Anyone seen it?[/q3]
[q2]>>[/q2]
[q2]>> Nope, is it another one that has disappeared under the Lord Harry[/q2]
[q2]>> Potter and the Rings tsunami?[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>Oi! I'm looking forward to one, having seen the other. Anyone watch the[/q1]
[q1]>South Bank Show just now?[/q1]

Yup...made me want to watch it now :smile:

Did you see that fantasy-type painter? Looked fantastic, would love to
have one of them hanging on my wall.

Dan

Reply 5

Unregistered

"Mark Thakkar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
[q1]> Pete,[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q2]> > the Lord Harry Potter and the Rings tsunami?[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Oi![/q1]

I saw HP too. The opinion I was allowed to have on it has to be fairly
neutral - I've been fiercely critical of the popular opinion that the
books are pieces of literary heaven fallen to Earth. I stick to the view
that they're good children's books but not much more. Thus I couldn't
say the film was bad because I'd be told to "Stop whining, you festering
old curmudgeon" or say it was good - "AAAHHH! Told you so!". Suffice to
say I thought it was pretty good, very good-looking, several good
performances but too long to hold my attention and that the child-acting
was very child-like.

LOTR:FOTR OTOH should be excellent. Tickets bought and paid for.
Comments to follow on Friday.

Woah! Just noticed that it (LOTR) has an average of 9.6/10 from 1301
voters on IMDb. A completely unheard of average. Has the film already
been released in the States? Or does this mean LOTS of stoopid people
have been voting without seeing it? Anyhow despite IMDb using a "true
Bayesian estimate" it is pretty much certain that this film will become
the most popular ever as recorded by their Top 250 in a few days time.

And yes, I agree it is entirely pointless to assign scores out of 10 to
films and other objetd'art.

Pete.

Reply 6

Unregistered

Danny,

[q2]>> Anyone watch the South Bank Show just now?[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Yup...made me want to watch it now :smile:

[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Did you see that fantasy-type painter? Looked fantastic, would love to[/q1]
[q1]> have one of them hanging on my wall.[/q1]

You can get pretty decent quality (i.e. quite thick) posters of them.
It's a matter of personal taste, but there are two other main artists
beside Ted Nasmith: there's John Howe (bold & colourful) and Alan Lee
(more understated). Alan Lee does the ones in the illustrated editions
of the books.

Mark.

Reply 7

Unregistered

Pete,

[q1]> Anyhow despite IMDb using a "true Bayesian estimate" it is pretty much[/q1]
[q1]> certain that this film will become the most popular ever as recorded[/q1]
[q1]> by their Top 250 in a few days time.[/q1]

I know they don't publish how they do this, so people can't circumvent
it, but have you any idea what they might mean by:

"Various filters are applied to the raw data in order to eliminate
and reduce attempts at 'vote stuffing' by individuals more interested
in changing the current rating of a movie than giving their true
opinion of it"?

Requiring unique IP addresses? (Would rule out votes from e.g. college/
library computers, friends' machines etc.) Can't think of any other ways
right now.

Mark.

Reply 8

Unregistered

"Mark Thakkar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
[q1]> Pete,[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q2]> > Anyhow despite IMDb using a "true Bayesian estimate" it is pretty[/q2]
[q2]> > much certain that this film will become the most popular ever as[/q2]
[q2]> > recorded by their Top 250 in a few days time.[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> I know they don't publish how they do this, so people can't circumvent[/q1]
[q1]> it, but have you any idea what they might mean by:[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> "Various filters are applied to the raw data in order to eliminate[/q1]
[q1]> and reduce attempts at 'vote stuffing' by individuals more interested[/q1]
[q1]> in changing the current rating of a movie than giving their true[/q1]
[q1]> opinion of it"?[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Requiring unique IP addresses? (Would rule out votes from e.g.[/q1]
[q1]> college/ library computers, friends' machines etc.) Can't think of any[/q1]
[q1]> other ways right now.[/q1]

A vote is attached to a registered username (and thus an email address)
rather an IP address. I have voted from friends' machines using my
account Also for the "important" polls only votes from regular voters
count. Thus to change a movies standing you have to 1) set up lots of
Hotmail accounts, 2) register on IMDb with each one of them and then 3)
vote a lot with each one so it's quite a lot of effort. Maybe they also
secretly filter out votes from users who all appear to use the same IP
as an extra precaution but I don't know.

Pete

Reply 9

Unregistered

Pete,

[q1]> (LOTR) has an average of 9.6/10 from 1301 voters on IMDb. A completely[/q1]
[q1]> unheard of average.[/q1]

Now upped to 9.7 from 3103 votes, though I'll do my bit by adding a 9.
They seem a bit confused on their Top 250 page, though, as they have it
down as 8.7 from 3103 votes.

Mark.

Reply 10

Unregistered

"Mark Thakkar" <[email protected]> wrote in message

[q1]> Pete,[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q2]> > (LOTR) has an average of 9.6/10 from 1301 voters on IMDb. A[/q2]
[q2]> > completely unheard of average.[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Now upped to 9.7 from 3103 votes, though I'll do my bit by adding a 9.[/q1]
[q1]> They seem a bit confused on their Top 250 page, though, as they have[/q1]
[q1]> it down as 8.7 from 3103 votes.[/q1]

That's the true Bayesian weighted average thing. There is a minimum
of (I think offhand) m=1250 votes to be admissible for the Top 250.
Let v= number of people who voted on the particular film The score in
the 250 is

v/(v+m) * Films Rating + m/(v+m) * Average Rating in the Database
(currently 6.9)

v.a. the number of votes as well as the average score counts

So for LOTR you have

3103/(3103+1250) * 9.7 + 1250/(3103+1250) * 6.9 = 8.7 (I assume)

Thus as more and more people vote and the average remains above 9 it
will get to number 1 but doesn't jump in there straight away.

Pete

Reply 11

Unregistered

"Pete Bartlett" <[email protected]> wrote in message

[q1]> Thus as more and more people vote and the average remains above 9 it[/q1]
[q1]> will get to number 1 but doesn't jump in there straight away.[/q1]

Well not quite straight away - it is now top a full two days after going
on general release.
[q1] :frown:

[/q1]

Pete

Reply 12

Unregistered

On Fri, 21 Dec 2001 19:12:01 -0000, Pete
Bartlett([email protected]) said...
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>"Pete Bartlett" <[email protected]> wrote in message[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q2]>> Thus as more and more people vote and the average remains above 9 it[/q2]
[q2]>> will get to number 1 but doesn't jump in there straight away.[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>Well not quite straight away - it is now top a full two days after[/q1]
[q1]>going on general release.[/q1]
[q1]> :frown:

[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>Pete[/q1]

Ooh good :smile:

Funny, only last night I was very bored so working out how
many of the top 250 I'd seen (54 so far, with another 8 or 9 to watch
over christmas...) and it's changed quite a bit... LOTR gone up to 1, HP
gone out of the list, few more changes, especially at the bottom.

More IMDB fun: http://uk.imdb.com/bottom_100_films Proud to say I
haven't seen a single one, and only heard of the police academy one...

chris

Reply 13

Unregistered