Slate has basically taken all the data from Rotten Tomatoes from 1985 to present, removed documentaries and allowed you to chart the career progress of anyone listed on the website based on reviews of their movies. They have put together some interesting data such as a director seems to start getting uniformly higher reviews somewhere around their 8th or 9th movie and that actors start out with an average score of 55% and it drops to 50% where it seems to stick.
It's interesting to track directors and actors and see correlations between the reviews they receive in their respective careers and where they cross. (Johnny Depp/Tim Burton for example).
Have you tried the internet? It's made out of millions of people missing the point of everything and then getting angry about it
I think the data could probably be cleaned up a bit by looking at billing order to guess how much influence the person actually might have had on the movie. If someone had a cameo in a crappy movie it shouldn't get the same weight on the chart as an award-winner that they had top billing on, for example.
If someone had a cameo in a crappy movie it shouldn't get the same weight on the chart as an award-winner that they had top billing on, for example.
Chuck Norris' highest rated film is Dodgeball, so...
I agree though, unweighted the data are pretty meaningless. It would be interesting to break it down and look at actor-actor and actor-director interactions; you would expect that there are some actors who manage to bring up those around them, likewise directors.
Author
