reading far too in to things
The cover of Get Smart claims that bonus scenes deliver 62% more “laughs.” I question this assertion. A few things to ponder:
1. Why is “laughs” in quotes? If you’re going to promise me 62% more laughs, I want to know that you mean actual laughter, not 62% more “Oh I see what you did there. Heh, that’s cute – nicely done. Maybe if I chuckle you’ll stop now…”
2. How did you calculate the 62%? That’s a very specific number – how are you presenting the statistic? What was your experimental methodology? Did you employ true simple random sampling? How large was your sample size and what does your distribution look like? What were your control variables? Is this number supposed to be the mean? If so, what is your standard of deviation? I do not trust your statistical methodology until you can satisfactorily answer these questions.
3. 62% more than what? It’s very easy to promise 62% more laughs than Larry King. What’s your frame of reference? I assume you are talking about the original movie. If so, why weren’t your “hilarious alternative jokes” actually included? I am of the opinion that if they were truly that great, they should have made the first cut.
As such, I conclude that I need to get a job. Also, I think that 62% is a made up number.



No Responses to “reading far too in to things”
Please Wait
Leave a Reply