Indies form the second clump high in the rankings.
The negative correlation is caused, as the density contours show, by a knot of highly reviewed indies showing up in the data, confusing the positive correlation of the studio movies.
Indie cluster alone:
log-corr: -0.1243865
corr: -0.1673577
Blockbuster cluster alone:
log-corr: 0.230726
corr: 0.2570628
Maybe I should have separated the clusters, and I'll definitely do that for further analysis (even though at best, the correlation is weak in either direction, and the log doesn't change much). I did, however, want to address the general reliance on RT score for any movie, so I stand by the post.
The reliance of RT score for what? What are people routinely extrapolating from the RT score that you think is not valid?
Extrapolating budget from the RT score is definitely invalid: you've shown that. But who does that?
People might go the other way: extrapolate quality from a big budget (it must be good, it's a big blockbuster), but as you say, that correlation is valid (though noisy).
So not quite sure what you're standing by, sorry. I don't want to sound rude and argumentative. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm very happy to concede your analysis is applicable where it is, I just genuinely don't understand what you're referring to here.
This avenue doesn't immediately distinguish whether a movie is a blockbuster or indie or how much money it made. But then again, some people do read movie descriptions thoroughly...
So you think box office is a better correlate of 'good movie' than RT score? I didn't get that from the post, but if that's what you're saying, then yes, I concede you have shown that correlation is not valid.
I'll update the post with a footnote tomorrow clarifying things.