MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Drives Me Crazy

I have read at least 3 news stories today quoting numbers that are used to support an argument by the article’s author. But while people are busy whining about blogs, how is it that they – and more importantly, their editors – getting that all stats are simply not the same.
An AOL poll about television is, a) based on people who are using AOL’s site, b) based on a site, AOL, that is owned by Time-Warner, not an unbiased place to start, 3) naturally manipulated by the news, views, and ads on that AOL site, and 4) based on people who opt-in, who are notoriously unreliable.
I didn’t run into it today, but my friend, Anne Thompson, runs stats from Fandango each week as though they are news. They are not. Of course there is a natural tendency for more ticket sales to reflect more popular movies. But audiences that buy tickets online, people who hang out on Fandango, the theater chains that Fandango serves, race, age, and sex all are variables that are not in any way counted in this “survey.” With all due respect, it is nothing but a slightly interesting artifact.
And in today’s NY Times, a lazy reading of the MPAA materials about the last year at the box office leads to a quote of a MPAA “stat,” that is actually from the portion of their report that was based on a survey. There is a HUGE difference from a hard fact, based on hard numbers, and a number coming out of a survey… especially when movie surveys come up misleading time after time after time, based primarily on the questions asked, not any ill intent. (As I often comment… could YOU really tell someone on the phone tomorrow how many movies you will go to a theater to see this summer? Without looking at a release chart and estimating? Speaking for myself, I could see 20 mainstream releases… or 30.. or more… in the 16 weeks of the summer season.)
This really isn’t about the constant backhanding of the web with cheap disdain… though that raises my fury. It really is about reporters and editors not paying attention to where their information is coming from. Sometimes a banana is just a banana. Sometimes, it is a soda or a pie or a penis or some pudding. That detail matters if you seek to make a legitimate argument and not just to support your position with any “survey” or “stat” that’s handy.

Be Sociable, Share!

9 Responses to “Drives Me Crazy”

  1. a1amoeba says:

    Come on David – you know there are 3 kinds of lies:
    Lies, statistics, and Peter Travers pull quotes.

  2. T. Holly says:

    David acts like he hasn’t written a story with a hook in a million years. Actually he hasn’t, he writes for a blog.

  3. Chucky in Jersey says:

    It really is about reporters and editors not paying attention to where their information is coming from.
    I have two words for you: Judith Miller.

  4. doug r says:

    You know, most motion pictures are fiction. Why should writing about them be any different?

  5. David Poland says:

    Is a lie a good hook, T Holly?
    I know you hate substantive questions. But…

  6. T. Holly says:

    Was it the AOL poll that said Ellen was the best daytime host? I missed the stories, can you link them?

  7. T. Holly says:

    Seems like Cieply used the
    http://www.mpaa.org/MovieAttendanceStudy.pdf
    — the report footnoe is: “All statistics throughout represent data from mid-July to mid-July of the following year – not calendar years.”
    So it’s a survey? Even though,
    “Admissions data is calculated from data sourced to Nielsen EDI and NATO.”

  8. T. Holly says:

    The tip is the footnote in the *by nationality* section, “Survey is conducted only in English.”
    But it’s acceptible to call trend tracking with year-to-year surveys (going back to 2003), statistics.
    Let’s ask the MPAA to release the questionaire and data about sample size, not pile on the people using them. OK? (sure, sure)

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon