Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Changeling" JMSnews Reviews - *SPOILERS*

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • OmahaStar
    replied
    Originally posted by Jan View Post
    'Fraid you've got the wrong film.

    Jan
    Only thing I can think of is Sanctum, where JC is listed as a producer. Sanctum, Changeling... not sure how those get confused. Although they do both have two syllables.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jan
    replied
    'Fraid you've got the wrong film.

    Jan

    Leave a comment:


  • acourfwaw
    Guest replied
    "Changeling" JMSnews Reviews SPOILERS

    The fact that this had James Camerons name plastered all over the advertising and he was only an executive? producer made me realise they had a bad film and were trying to milk money on his name alone.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dan Dassow
    replied
    Today is the second anniversary of the North American wide release of Changeling. The film was in the IMDb Top 250 from 3 February 2009 to 23 September 2010.

    Changeling IMDb Statistics


    The following plots compare Changeling with other films:
    • The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
    • Watchmen (2009)
    • Star Trek (2009)
    • Up (2009)
    • District 9 (2009)
    • The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009)
    • Up in the Air (2009/I)
    • Saban Oglu Saban (1977)
    • Invictus (2009)
    • Avatar (2009)
    • Toy Story 3 (2010)
    • Inception (2010)


    Comparison of Ranks


    Comparison of Weighted Ratings


    Comparison of Ratings


    Comparison of 30 Day Average Ratings


    Comparison of Number of Votes
    Last edited by Dan Dassow; 10-31-2010, 05:19 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • JoeD80
    replied
    Yep. The pro interface has a lot of useful stuff for me. I realize most people don't see the MovieMeter and instead see "up by xx% in popularity" which is not that helpful without additional data.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dan Dassow
    replied
    Originally posted by JoeD80 View Post
    FYI Changeling is currently at #229 in terms of of the MovieMeter: http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?prowhatisstarmeter
    Joe, I gather you have an IMDbPro account.

    Changeling is also 39th on the list of IMDb Top Rated "History" Titles.

    Leave a comment:


  • JoeD80
    replied
    FYI Changeling is currently at #229 in terms of of the MovieMeter: http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?prowhatisstarmeter

    Leave a comment:


  • Dan Dassow
    replied
    Originally posted by Jan View Post
    Thanks, Dan, that's cool. Is the 'Top' determined by votes, do you know?

    Jan
    Jan,

    According to IMDb Top 250, "only votes from regular voters are considered." The staff of the IMDb has intentionally kept the definition of what they consider a regular contributor vague. This is done to reduce the effect of people stuffing the ballot and distorting the results. Based upon my observations, the IMDb staff excludes votes from unregistered and recently registered people, and people who have only voted for a few films, do not vote on a regular basis or have unusual voting patterns such as high percentage of 1s or 10s.

    This is the formula for calculating the Top Rated 250 Titles:

    weighted rating (WR) = (v ¸ (v+m)) Î R + (m ¸ (v+m)) Î C where:

    R = average for the movie (mean) = (Rating)
    v = number of votes for the movie = (votes)
    m = minimum votes required to be listed in the Top 250 (currently 3000)
    C = the mean vote across the whole report (currently 6.9)

    for the Top 250, only votes from regular voters are considered.

    Here is an example using the current ratings as of 11 September 2010 for Changeling. It is not entirely correct, since it includes all votes, not just the votes from regular users.

    PHP Code:
    Votes  Percentage  Rating  Wt Vote
    11
    ,824 17.9%       10      118,240
    15
    ,881 24.1%        9      142,929
    21
    ,120 32.0%        8      168,960
    10
    ,378 15.7%        7       72,646
     3
    ,252  4.9%        6       19,512
     1
    ,197  1.8%        5        5,985
       551  0.8
    %        4        2,204
       330  0.5
    %        3          990
       280  0.4
    %        2          560
     1
    ,201  1.8%        1        1,201

    Sum                                 Rating
    66
    ,014                     533,227  8.0775

    Plugging this into the formula
    weighted rating 
    (WR) = (v ¸ (v+m)) Î R + (m ¸ (v+m)) Î C
    WR 
    = (66,014 ¸ (66,014+3000)) Î 8.0775 + (3000 ¸ (66,014+3000)) Î 6.9
    WR 
    8.0399 
    Last edited by Dan Dassow; 09-12-2010, 01:06 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jan
    replied
    Thanks, Dan, that's cool. Is the 'Top' determined by votes, do you know?

    Jan

    Leave a comment:


  • Dan Dassow
    replied
    Changeling first appeared on the IMDb Top 250 on 3 February 2009. It has been on the list continuously since 10 February 2009. Its best ranking of 216 occured between 6-19 May 2009. On 9 September it was ranked 250. It finally fell out of the IMDb Top 250 on 10 September 2010, but returned on 11 September 2010 with a rank of 250.

    Changeling's and other films IMDb Top 250 Rank over time

    Last edited by Dan Dassow; 09-11-2010, 12:35 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dan Dassow
    replied
    Originally posted by Jan View Post
    I've whisked these latest posts to the 'JMSnews reviews' thread. Thanks for being careful, though, JoeD80.

    Originally Posted by JoeD80
    What exactly are you referring to? You declare this to be so without actually saying what was changed.
    I've read in several places that Christine did give Walter money to go to the movie theater and that he was possibly snatched there or en route. To me, that's a difference that makes no difference and that would have added several minutes of screen time to no good effect while it took longer for Christine to realize that he was missing.

    Originally Posted by Shr'eshhhhhh
    The removal of Sarah Louise Northcott is one example of an opportunity missed.

    In a film about a woman obsessed with finding and protecting her innocent son removing Northcott's possibly complicit, certainly protective mother made no sense at all.
    Except that she really had no place in it since the movie wasn't about Gordon or the murders (plus the fact that she was released due to there being no evidence other than her confession). It was about Christine and what was done to her when all she wanted was to find her son.

    The onscreen items superimposed at the end of the film were considerably shorter than in the script. There, it was noted that Jones never paid the civil award, that Davis regained his office but was forced to resign a second time.

    Even if Jones & Davis had any legitimate point of view to be shown, nothing would mitigate what they caused to be done to Christine and other women (in addition to their better known corruptions). Plus, their point of view would probably not be overly evident from the source material JMS was using.

    Jan
    This is JMS's take on the matter:

    Re: Glaring Omission of the 'True Story'- Sarah Louise Northcott
    by straczynski 57 minutes ago (Tue Sep 8 2009 19:56:24)
    Note: The original post no longer exists on the IMDb.

    To answer both questions (this and the subsequent one) at once...as I'd mentioned in another thread, the mother's confession really went nowhere. It was clear she was just trying to save Gordon, and she was later released because there was no proof that she actually did anything. Yeah, it would've spun the heads around of the audience, but we were already at well over two hours and there just wasn't room to include everything, especially something that rabbit trailed and eventually led nowhere. If we'd included it, we'd have to have either another piece of film showing her being released, or include it in the tiny crawl at the end, and there were already too many "endings" to justify that.

    Had this been a miniseries, sure, it would've been there because there would've been time. But in a movie, you have to keep only what's absolutely relevant. Also, we were telling this from Christine's POV. I didn't want to center the film around Northcott. So yeah, there was a lot on that side left out. But none of what was omitted changed anything that's shown in the film: that he did these crimes, was tracked down, arrested, convicted, and executed in the manner shown.

    (Signifantly, in Sanford Clark's testimony, he says that Louisa only came to the ranch sporadically, both when they were building it and afterward, and they went to elaborate steps to make everything look normal, which further reinforces the sense that she wasn't directly involved.)

    As to the found boy...the police and press at the time identified this as a boy who had been at the ranch. There weren't a great deal of details given, because they were trying to respect the privacy of the family, but that much was established.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jan
    replied
    I've whisked these latest posts to the 'JMSnews reviews' thread. Thanks for being careful, though, JoeD80.

    Originally posted by JoeD80
    What exactly are you referring to? You declare this to be so without actually saying what was changed.
    I've read in several places that Christine did give Walter money to go to the movie theater and that he was possibly snatched there or en route. To me, that's a difference that makes no difference and that would have added several minutes of screen time to no good effect while it took longer for Christine to realize that he was missing.

    Originally posted by Shr'eshhhhhh
    The removal of Sarah Louise Northcott is one example of an opportunity missed.

    In a film about a woman obsessed with finding and protecting her innocent son removing Northcott's possibly complicit, certainly protective mother made no sense at all.
    Except that she really had no place in it since the movie wasn't about Gordon or the murders (plus the fact that she was released due to there being no evidence other than her confession). It was about Christine and what was done to her when all she wanted was to find her son.

    The onscreen items superimposed at the end of the film were considerably shorter than in the script. There, it was noted that Jones never paid the civil award, that Davis regained his office but was forced to resign a second time.

    Even if Jones & Davis had any legitimate point of view to be shown, nothing would mitigate what they caused to be done to Christine and other women (in addition to their better known corruptions). Plus, their point of view would probably not be overly evident from the source material JMS was using.

    Jan

    Leave a comment:


  • JoeD80
    replied
    EDIT: that was the spoiler free thread

    Originally posted by Shr'eshhhhhh View Post
    Changing the events surrounding Walter's disappearance also was unnecessary and made the story too simplistic.
    What exactly are you referring to? You declare this to be so without actually saying what was changed.

    Originally posted by Shr'eshhhhhh View Post
    It removed some depth from the characters and made it a plain case of a wronged woman against and evil police force with no possibility of seeing the various points of view on both sides.
    The LAPD was corrupt at the time, no doubt about it. But go ahead and show me how you think that a department that tried to convince a woman that a different child was hers had a side that could be considered as being equally altruistic; I'm interested.
    Last edited by JoeD80; 05-04-2010, 03:27 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shr'eshhhhhh
    replied
    I finally got up the nerve to watch Changeling last night.

    It's a case I already knew a lot about and I was rather apprehensive about watching a drama based on something so utterly hideous.

    It's a well made film which doesn't draw indecent sensation from the crimes (what is seen is horrific but only in a way necessary to the telling of a horrific story).

    Miss Jolie gives a good performance but I can't help but think she was miscast in this film.

    At no point do I believe that she is an ordinary working mother, she looks like a film star and this undermines the narrative.

    Despite reports about the historic accuracy of the script it does take huge liberties with what actually happened.

    Sometimes some deviation from the truth is necessary to deliver a film which fits into the alloted length and budget but the real story is so compelling on so many levels that some of the alterations undermine what could have been a much more interesting picture that could have still remained outside the realms of sensationalism.

    The removal of Sarah Louise Northcott is one example of an opportunity missed.

    In a film about a woman obsessed with finding and protecting her innocent son removing Northcott's possibly complicit, certainly protective mother made no sense at all.

    Changing the events surrounding Walter's disappearance also was unnecessary and made the story too simplistic.

    It removed some depth from the characters and made it a plain case of a wronged woman against and evil police force with no possibility of seeing the various points of view on both sides.

    Another example of the simplistic telling of the story being that Jones and Davies were both later reinstated and Mrs Collins never got a penny of the $10,800 the court decided Jones should pay to compensate for her mistreatment and yet the film gives the impression that their careers were finished by what happened.

    So on the whole a good enough film with some lovely period detail and plain no-nonsense direction from Mr Eastwood, not what I was hoping for but at least not what I was dreading either.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jan
    replied
    ^^ Whatever you're talking about, it's not J. Michael Straczynski's "Changeling".

    Jan

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X