I KNEW the movie would flop

[Mosotti]

It's pointless to give it a 10, that won't increase the rating on imdb as much as you think. They aren't doing a plain average calculation, it's a formula designed to counter these fanboi/hater actions. It's nothing unusual that the rating on imdb is much higher than rotten tomatoes, because critics are kinda retarded and their way of calculating the outcome is shit. Movies like this have a target audience and critics are not really in that category. Plus they have to keep up the myth "all videogame movies are shit"

[rda]

It's pointless to give it a 10, that won't increase the rating on imdb as much as you think. They aren't doing a plain average calculation, it's a formula designed to counter these fanboi/hater actions.

What's the formula? I thought it was a simple average. No?

[Tackhisis]

What's the formula? I thought it was a simple average. No?

No, they use a secret algorithm to calculate it.

[Pann]

What's the formula? I thought it was a simple average. No?

According to IMDB "IMDb publishes weighted vote averages rather than raw data averages. Various filters are applied to the raw data in order to eliminate and reduce attempts at vote stuffing by people more interested in changing the current rating of a movie than giving their true opinion of it.

The exact methods we use will not be disclosed. This should ensure that the policy remains effective. The result is a more accurate vote average."

If you notice the weighted average for Warcraft is 7.4 whereas the actual average is 7.9, so it looks as if the people who are, in the words of IMDB, more interested in changing the current rating of a movie were the ones giving it a higher rating.

[Zaqwert]

Part of the secret algorithm is basically to try to detect people who are voting 1 or 10 out of spite or fanboyism.

Like if you create an account and vote a movie as 1 or 10, and have no other activity on that account, I can guarantee you your vote isn't being counted.

[rda]

No, they use a secret algorithm to calculate it.

According to IMDB "IMDb publishes weighted vote averages rather than raw data averages. Various filters are applied to the raw data in order to eliminate and reduce attempts at vote stuffing by people more interested in changing the current rating of a movie than giving their true opinion of it.

The exact methods we use will not be disclosed. This should ensure that the policy remains effective. The result is a more accurate vote average."

If you notice the weighted average for Warcraft is 7.4 whereas the actual average is 7.9, so it looks as if the people who are, in the words of IMDB, more interested in changing the current rating of a movie were the ones giving it a higher rating.

Part of the secret algorithm is basically to try to detect people who are voting 1 or 10 out of spite or fanboyism.

Like if you create an account and vote a movie as 1 or 10, and have no other activity on that account, I can guarantee you your vote isn't being counted.

OK, thanks, I didn't know.

But how do we interpret the fall from 9.1 to 7.4 then? Those who would be more likely to rate the movie highly went to see it first? I doubt it's that, the movie falls off after the first week heavily, pretty much everybody who bothered to see it saw it "early" - meaning when none of their friends saw it, which is, I guess, what's important. Perhaps filtering for fanboys / haters isn't working all that well. I mean, I guess it's better than nothing, but not much more than that...

PS: "the weighted average for Warcraft is 7.4 whereas the actual average is 7.9" - this is one more illustration of the point that the effect of fanboy voting is larger than the effect of hater voting. Or at least the filtering algorithm on IMDB thinks it is.

[rda]

Other than the people here who claim to know 100% how the system works.

Didn't see anybody in this thread claiming he knows the exact numbers. Doesn't mean estimates aren't useful / far from reality.

[Plehnard]

But how do we interpret the fall from 9.1 to 7.4 then?

That's because the 9.1 weren't weighted, that was done after the US release. The weighted score was down to 7.1 for some time and got up to the 7.4 we have now, so the film is actually having a light upstream there at the moment.

[rda]

That's because the 9.1 weren't weighted, that was done after the US release. The weighted score was down to 7.1 for some time and got up to the 7.4 we have now, so the film is actually having a light upstream there at the moment.

Interesting. Thanks for the info.

[zerocarbs]

All the Warcraft lore and all the interesting things they could have done with this universe and they tell a boring orcs vs humans story. I have a good suspicion that it was Blizzard who pushed to have their story told. Probably partly why Sam Raimi's idea never panned out. So obvious all the money in the movie went to making the CGI hulks.

[Youn]

I am not sure as a director I would complain at all about getting a 7.4. For example: Star Wars is an 8.7. How many movie directors and writers have been inspired by that one?

[Zequill]

All the Warcraft lore and all the interesting things they could have done with this universe and they tell a boring orcs vs humans story. I have a good suspicion that it was Blizzard who pushed to have their story told. Probably partly why Sam Raimi's idea never panned out. So obvious all the money in the movie went to making the CGI hulks.

Because Sam Raimi adaptations work so well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legend_of_the_Seeker

I know Book to TV show is not Game to Movie but this have everything wrong about Adaptations.

- - - Updated - - -

Part of the secret algorithm is basically to try to detect people who are voting 1 or 10 out of spite or fanboyism.

Like if you create an account and vote a movie as 1 or 10, and have no other activity on that account, I can guarantee you your vote isn't being counted.

And that stupid. I remember seeing the graph, there was 3 times more 10 then 1. And the difference of vote between the number of 9 vs 10 were far less than the number of 1 vs 2. If you just remove the 1 and 10, you make the balance tilt way more toward a lower score.

[zerocarbs]

Because Sam Raimi adaptations work so well.

Your personal feeling on Sam Raimi is moot. The fundamental problem was that the story sucked and failed to garner interest from those who were not established fans or Chinese people. Again I blame Blizzard for pushing their story. Which only originated as a means to have orcs fighting humans in a video game. A story that came second to game play. It's not an interesting narrative and never was.

[Deleted]

Sigh. I thought so. No reason at all. Your 'real Warcraft' wouldn't line up with others' But you won't admit that, you'll whine on and on. Sad, really.

Is it so hard to grasp that we want a movie in the style of the blizzard famous cutscenes? Id take that everyday over the crap we got ;/

[Darktbs]

All the Warcraft lore and all the interesting things they could have done with this universe and they tell a boring orcs vs humans story. I have a good suspicion that it was Blizzard who pushed to have their story told. Probably partly why Sam Raimi's idea never panned out. So obvious all the money in the movie went to making the CGI hulks.

Because the Warcraft franchise started with Murlocs,elfs and trolls.

[clevin]

Is it so hard to grasp that we want a movie in the style of the blizzard famous cutscenes? Id take that everyday over the crap we got ;/

Yes, because every time someone says that, I discount their opinion. Those scenes don't tell a story. They're 1-3 minute shorts meant to sell something and yes, they look graphically impressive but putting graphics over story utterly misses the point of what makes a good movie.

PS: You also make the mistake of assuming what you want = what everyone wants. As I said in the post you quoted, different people will want different things from the one, try Warcraft film.

PPS: Also, bagging on this movie DOES NOT advance your goal. Want to see a better Warcraft movie? You should be CHEERING that this movie NOT flop, that it at least does well enough to get another movie in the franchise so that there's some chance of getting a movie you like better. What you and others do by cheering for it to flop is the equivalent of a childish tantrum thrown when you don't get your favorite dessert.

[Tart]

The movie was very good and im a worse critic then Jay Sherman.

[Tiphess]

even thought the movie was actually really good (it has something like 83-85% audience score out of ~50k review last time i checked), it didn't break even in the end, so i sadly it is a flop :/

[adt1980]

its still in cinemas, so we dont know profits/losses yet?

[Plehnard]

its still in cinemas, so we dont know profits/losses yet?

And probably never will, it's rare that you get those numbers directly from a studio.
The only think we'll know in the future if it was enough to justify a sequel.