« Hard work pays off | Main | Fundraiser glass half empty or half full »

Comments

Mat Morrison

Isn't it odd to have a time dimension (or sequence) on the y-axis?

Jeff

Great point regarding the profitability data, since that's what the studios care about, of course. However, if it's really ratings that we want to look at, it would be nice to see something to help us decide what "good" looks like. 100% is obviously good, and it looks like Cars 2 was a bomb, but how bad is a score in the high 70s? (Incidentally, it looks like you may have nudged Monsters U and Brave to the other side of 80% in your redesign.)

Perhaps it would tell us nothing, but I'd be curious to see this data plotted over time (instead of just sequenced), against a Rotten Tomatoes average rating, or, even better, an average rating of kid movies. It might also be interesting to see releases from Dreamworks and pre-Pixar Disney; animated blockbusters that are released in the same summer may suffer or benefit in the ratings from comparisons to each other.

Chris

The Rotten Tomatoes score for (at least) Monsters University and Brave is much higher in your replotted figure than it is in the original. The original appears to be correct.

Kaiser

Mat: Is it odd to have English text running vertically? And note the horizontal axis on the original chart was not a proper time axis anyway.

Chris: Yes, those two dots are in the wrong place.

jlbriggs

I think there are just many problems with this chart and the conclusions drawn from it.

The regression line is indicator of trend is, obviously, just silly.

The use of rotten tomatoes ratings as the sole indicator is, obviously, useless.

Including a movie that was released a week ago serves no purpose at all.

The chart set up is not the worst offender out there, but it could use a lot of improvements.


Kaiser - while your chart is better, I do find the splitting of the axis labels a little counter intuitive.

I made a simple version here:
http://jsfiddle.net/jlbriggs/TLn9B/embedded/result/

I also made a version that uses the box office dollars, as a percent of budget:
http://jsfiddle.net/jlbriggs/TLn9B/5/embedded/result/

Which may tell a better story than the rotten tomatoes ratings...or at least a story that goes a long more closely with the article.

I omitted Monsters U in both charts, as it just doesn't make sense to include it.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Marketing analytics and data visualization expert. Author and Speaker. Currently at Vimeo and NYU. See my full bio.

Book Blog



Link to junkcharts

Graphics design by Amanda Lee

The Read



Good Books

Keep in Touch

follow me on Twitter

Residues