[pretoriusB]

>Here's why: because there are really high odds that of all the people across the world that watched the movie in both formats, at least one person would experience this.

What a BS explanation of what the author describes.

This "law of big numbers" non-explanation could be used to dismiss tons of relevant and non random events.

>Oh boy. The author seems unaware that all or nearly all modern theory about suspension of disbelief places most of the responsibility on the viewer, not the artist.

I seriously doubt this explanation, since the audience is more or less the same for every major movie. Yet some resonate with the majority of people and others do not. Any references to this "modern theory"?

[baddox]

Are you sincerely arguing that, since this author experienced an HFR showing with little laughter and a non-HFR showing with plenty of laughter, this is valid evidence that the HFR format is less engaging on average? If so, that is completely preposterous, and I'm curious how you explain that both of my audiences laughed? Perhaps I'm the outlier, and nitrous oxide was pumped into my HFR showing?

[pretoriusB]

Or perhaps we need MORE tests with control groups in both showings to reach a conclusion, instead of getting to the NON-explanation of the "law of big numbers" that it was ..."bound to happen somewhere, man".

[baddox]

My claim was only that his anecdote is not valid evidence of his claim. I didn't claim that it was statistically false, because I don't actually have scientific data.

I'm not familiar with this "law of big numbers" term you keep using, but my proposed explanation of the author's anecdotal evidence is valid. Like I said, it's probably very likely that at least one viewer in the world would see both formats and experience audience laughter in only the non-HFR showing, even if a very large percentage of audiences in all formats laughed. It is not evidence that, among all showings, there was less laughter in one format than another.