Rotten Tomatoes Bans User Reviews and Comments Before a Film's Theatrical Release To Counter Online Trolls (rottentomatoes.com) 443
Rotten Tomatoes is finally addressing its troll problem. The review aggregation website has unveiled a new initiative to "modernize its audience rating system through a series of product enhancements," -- the first of which includes banning user reviews and comments prior to a movie's theatrical release. Getting rid of pre-release user reviews means internet trolls will not be able to flood film pages with negative scores before a movie comes out. As we saw earlier this week, Captain Marvel was at the receiving end of what appeared to be a targeted campaign to lower the upcoming movie's audience rating. Rotten Tomatoes is not banning user reviews entirely. It says it will offer this functionality to users once the movie has hit the theaters.
Further reading on Rotten Tomatoes: Movie Studios Are Blaming Rotten Tomatoes For Killing Movies No One Wants To See
Hollywood Producer Blames Rotten Tomatoes For Convincing People Not To See His Movie
Rotten Tomatoes Scores Don't Correlate To Box Office Success or Woes, Research Shows
DC Fans Angry Over Rotten Tomatoes 'Justice League' Ratings
Why Don't We Care About The Rotten Tomatoes Scores Of TV Shows?
Real Moviegoers Don't Care About Rotten Tomatoes.
Further reading on Rotten Tomatoes: Movie Studios Are Blaming Rotten Tomatoes For Killing Movies No One Wants To See
Hollywood Producer Blames Rotten Tomatoes For Convincing People Not To See His Movie
Rotten Tomatoes Scores Don't Correlate To Box Office Success or Woes, Research Shows
DC Fans Angry Over Rotten Tomatoes 'Justice League' Ratings
Why Don't We Care About The Rotten Tomatoes Scores Of TV Shows?
Real Moviegoers Don't Care About Rotten Tomatoes.
Common (Score:5, Funny)
Meet Sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Common (Score:5, Insightful)
Small dicks + raised as toxic macho assholes = army of neckbeards
I'm surprised you didn't put incel, neonazi, and alt-right in there. You could get all the progressive talking points in a row. It obviously couldn't be the lead actor spewing bullshit and attacking the core demographic for the movie. I mean, your and her methods seem to be the same, just like with ghostbuster 2016.
Re: (Score:3)
When in doubt, double down on stupid huh? That's pitiful. That didn't work for EA, or the actors of Ghostbusters 2016 either.
Re:Common (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really care what most actors and actresses say.
I do care, however, if my deciding to not see a movie somehow makes me a (fill in the blank) -ist. Which is what we're seeing.
People aren't rating the movie, they're rating their desire to see it.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Marvel, the comic book side, is convinced they don't need those toxic comic book fans to sell comic books (the same toxic bigots that have been happily buying the most diverse entertainment medium since the 60s). Sales have of course plummeted and something like 1/3rd of comic book stores have closed since this new attitude took over. It's sad to see it die, but it's their business to kill.
There is an upside: it's been a long time since we've had a new wave of comic book heroes. The ongoing decimation of
Re: Common (Score:2, Interesting)
By the time the real reviews start flooding in, the trolls can no longer keep up. At least not with a big movie like Captain Marvel. You see it all the time. Once the movie hits, the review aggregate starts climbing. But this will address the potential negative impact for opening weekend so Rotten doesn't inadvertently screw its own metrics.
Re:Common (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah well, this wasn't "freeze peach" the term used by progressives and authoritarians when someone calls them out on their bullshit. Don't let your stupid hurt you anymore then you just did with that post. There's also no proof of review bombing despite all of the media outlets reporting that's the case. Rather it seems to directly centered around the main actress(Brie Larson ) being a misandrist, and a racist, while engaging in over sexism towards the primary audience. Not the number of progressive fluff pieces that have ranged from "she didn't say anything wrong" to "she doesn't have to apologize for it."
So what's the real thing going on? People are simply saying that "they have no interest in it." Before rottentomateos scrubbed it the main "not interested" group was made up of old accounts greater than 8 years. Feel free to look up the archived snapshots if you want, wayback, archive.co, whatever go have fun. So what's that really mean? RottenTomateos is removing and modifying it because of likely either the studio or the progressive sphere of influence so people can't say they don't want to see it. What's this similar to? When netflix removed the star rating system after people said that Amy Schumer's comedy special was absolute bullshit. Then they remove the downvote option from showing up outside of your own account. So now, netflix only upvoting - which everyone can see.
What does it appear to be that they're doing? Pushing user reviews out, and pushing critic reviews only. I'm sure that works out really well when you're in the league of fart sniffers.
Oh speaking of how well is the moving going to do? They've already revised the opening weekend downward twice, and now are expecting it to not clear $100m on opening weekend. Of course the 'you're a sexist, racist, nazi, misogynist, etc' because you don't want to watch the movie is already pulling it's bloated corpse through various left wing media sites.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, poor baby, did your Freeze Peach melt? Waa, f'n waa.
I'm not the one being or acting fucking stupid. But I'll bow before your obvious skill.
When a business decides that some use of their servers is a problem, POW, now you know that they decided it is a problem. Proof? What the fuck are you talking about, Homer? Why would you set their standard of proof? You do know who you are, right? You do know you're not Rotten Tomatoes, right? Right?? So why the fuck do you think you'd set the standard of proof? Because you shouted "freeze peach?" That doesn't confer ownership.
Oh, you mean a business who suddenly decides, that in a case with one movie, and an actor that was being a loud whiny douche waffle, that their best solution for people who said they "don't want to see it" is to turn around and remove people. Yes, that makes a lot of sense...doesn't it. Gee it's like there's this pattern of sites, that suddenly remove user rankings on a product because people say they don't want to see
Re: (Score:3)
[nothing but personal abuse]
This is why Slashdot has a Flamebait mod. It's often abused as an "I disagree" mod, but this sort of thing is what it's intended for.
Re: (Score:3)
"Trolling", as defined for the Slashdot mod (somewhat different than the current usage) is what you're talking about. An insincere post designed to provoke emotional reaction. "Flamebait" was misnamed from the beginning: it was always for "flaming" posts (which, to be fair, usualy provoke a response in kind, escalating until Godwin).
Re:Common (Score:5, Interesting)
Critics at least try to look at the movie for what it is
LOL. No they don't. They are the most obvious shills on the internet and the old business model of independent critics is coming to an end. Critics now have to compete with regular viewers which is apparently a problem. Can't have people disagree with critics/narrative or else they be racist sexist trolls!
The Orville Season 1 hated by critics [rottentomatoes.com]. What changed in season 2 [rottentomatoes.com]? How can you go from creatively, morally, and ethically bankrupt [indiewire.com] to it's all characters stories in the space adventure return and that's a good thing. [indiewire.com] When it's the same show/formula nothing major different? I am all for people changing their mind but there are plenty of these kind of examples and that kind of 180 is a little ridiculous. Media producers are buying up critic sites [soundbooks.org] so in many cases there is a conflict of interest to say something bad.
Online trolls do not explain why box office numbers are down [fortune.com]. It doesn't explain Oscar viewership [ocregister.com] at the 2nd lowest record. And it certainly doesn't explain the garbage that is being produced and hailed as the 2nd coming of sliced bread. Do not disagree lest ye be troll!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Orville is a really interesting example. Personally I rated season one higher than the critics, but then I have a higher tolerance for Star Trek style cheeze. The stories were all re-hashes of common tropes, but enjoyable, and it was occasionally funny.
But then season 2 has been pretty bad for the most part. Some decent episodes but the first two in particular were terrible. Yet other fans rated them very highly, despite them being full of the stuff they were complaining about with Star Trek.
I think som
Re: (Score:3)
I trust critic ratings/reviews less than I would trust a used car salesmen. They make money from clicks and live in a world that any claim of "sexism or racism" will end their career. Considering anyone was a racist sexist for disliking Ghostbusters 2016 I think it's understandable why it was universally loved by critics. Using online trolls is a tired excuse to shill reviews for bad shows/movies.
If you find what you like with or without critic reviews then power to you. I like user reviews because there is
Re: (Score:3)
The whole noise brigade over Ghostbusters in 2016 just proved the point. All you care about is making yourself the victim, your own failings remain unacknowledged, you are blind to the hysteria of the self-proclaimed persecuted white male.
Ghostbusters 2016 was an unfortunate example. It was definitely hit hard by the troll brigade who were super offended that women were taking over a franchise that was first built by men. AND it was a pretty bad movie. Both were true, but they get conflated because subtlety and detail when talking to complete strangers on the Internet is non-existent.
Re: (Score:3)
For Ghostbusters 2016 I think it was really less of an issue with taking offense that it was an all female crew, though there are always people who get offended when people mess around with established franchises, than the fact that they made that part of their marketing campaign which is the same complaint many people are having with Brie Larson's take on Captain Marvel. Larson has gone a little further with her awkward comments targeting white male critics, both for this movie and previous work, which ju
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'd be rather certain that anyone with a bone to pick would instantly the moment he could possibly post a fake review would do so, so the damage could well be worse, considering that it will only happen right at the box office release instead of having already blown over because the initial steam is off.
I also disagree on the professional critic vs. user ratings issue. I, at least, don't go to a movie where my expectation is that I would not enjoy it. So if someone goes to a movie and declares it a fa
Re: (Score:2)
Word is that they have given Rian Johnson a trilogy of Star Wars films based on his ideas. That's how badly The Last Jedi failed.
Re:Common (Score:4, Insightful)
The fanbase was plenty flexible and accepted a crappy remake of Star Wars (A New Hope) when TFA came out.
The fanbase supported Rogue One / Star Wars Vietnam even though it was full of crappy characters no one cares about in a setting no one cares about with a plot that was entirely pointless.
The fanbase then went in on faith again for TLJ, but in lower numbers (mostly due to fewer repeat viewings).
The fanbase thought the TLJ was so bad that they let Solo burn.
The fanbase may or may not come back for Episode 9.
Disney/Lucasfilm can attack its fanbase and shit out crappy movies that destroy the characters all they want. One day they'll realize that the fans they hate so much are the customers they desperately need.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Last Jedi making 1B doesn't mean it's a failure. The failure that people are talking about is the Last Jedi created a genuine trust and core-fan loss of the product.
Considering by your post, you don't understand why Captain Marvel is likely to be a disaster, I'll help you out. After 20 years of them trying to shove her into some type of hero-type body-of-situation, and it failing every time. They then made a movie, where the lead actor proceeded to pull an EA. In EA's case, that was a bold movie...a
Re:Common (Score:4, Funny)
Do you understand now, or would you like me to draw you a picture?
I don't care one way or the other, but now I do want you to draw me a picture, please.
Re: (Score:2)
The Last Jedi is certainly not a box office failure, but a disappointment it was nonetheless. Bland, uninspired characters, characters doing things that are fundamentally against what had been established in canon so far, interesting characters being pushed aside and brushed off, simply and plainly unbelievable stunts that test your suspension of disbelief really, really hard, a ridiculously twirling-moustache evil guy...
Sorry. Was it a financial success? Certainly. But plot- and character wise it's a train
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with user review is that people give their opinion? Well damn serves me right for ever listening to word-of-mouth on the internet.
do not like the director
I have two words for you. Micheal Bay.
quiet, blessed quiet (Score:2, Insightful)
Can you imagine a world where you had to actually have some first-hand knowledge of something before you could express an opinion?
Me neither.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The post that was replied to said "first hand knowledge."
Re:quiet, blessed quiet (Score:5, Funny)
Can you imagine a world where you had to actually have some first-hand knowledge of something before you could express an opinion?
I don't know what that world would be like, but I don't like it.
First hand experience in everything is impossible (Score:2)
Can you imagine a world where you had to actually have some first-hand knowledge of something before you could express an opinion?
Why would we want that? Such a society would be paralyzed and unable to function. We every day have to depend on and have opinions about all sorts of things from the mundane to the profound that we haven't experienced first hand. Nobody can be experts in everything so we depend on information we get from others. Hopefully good quality information.
To be crude about it, you probably don't need to suck a dick to have an opinion about whether you are going to enjoy the experience.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you imagine a world where you had to actually have some first-hand knowledge of something before you could express an opinion?
Me neither.
No, and this will not fix that, since there will still be audience reviews once the movie is released. We cannot devalue social media's weight in society fast enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He could always be a professional film critic. Rotten Tomatoes does allow film review of professional critics to post in advance of the release of the film.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is this relevant?
If you haven't seen the film, you have no business leaving a review. People rely on Rotten Tomatoes for reviews of films. If the reviews are being spammed by gibberish non-reviews by weirdos pushing a political agenda on a movie review site, then they stop being useful.
The only real surprise is this should have been the policy from day one. Because *of course
Re: quiet, blessed quiet (Score:2)
Can you imagine a world where you had to actually have some first-hand knowledge of something before you could express an opinion?
Sure would be nice to never again have to hear a liberal talk about guns, war, or border walls ...
On the other hand I'm not looking forward to all the bank robbers and murderers getting let off the hook because we couldn't find 12 jurists who had firsthand experience with those crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand I'm not looking forward to all the bank robbers and murderers getting let off the hook because we couldn't find 12 jurists who had firsthand experience with those crimes.
Juries weigh evidence presented during a trial. Having firsthand experience with a bank robbery or murder would undoubtedly result in a prospective juror being disqualified from sitting on a jury for an alleged bank robber's or murderer's trial.
By the way, you don't generally need 12 "jurists" for a trial. A judge, prosecutor and defense attorney are usually sufficient.
maybe require proof of attendance initially? (Score:5, Insightful)
They could take this a step further by requiring some indication of actual attendance. This might be as simple as only accepting reviews posted by the app from the theater during or within a half an hour of a showing until the movie has been released on DVD or for streaming. Or perhaps every review could require a photo of a unique ticket stub assuming there is some way to validate them reliably.
The audience score is the only aspect of Rotten Tomatoes I find to be of value. The scores from movie critics just don't seem to have a strong relationship with whether or not I'm going to enjoy a movie. Actually, maybe that's not quite correct. It does sometimes seem like a movie with a very low critics score and a high audience score is usually great. So there may be a strong inverse relationship.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm picturing Comic Book Guy with his laptop strapped over his shoulders, furiously typing
Worst. Movie. Ever.
Re: (Score:2)
only accepting reviews posted by the app from the theater during ... a showing
Please don't. The last thing we need is more people using their phones during the movie.
The ticket stub idea has merit. Unlike what Rotten Tomatoes is doing it wouldn't interfere with reviews based on screenings prior to the main theatrical release, which are a factor in deciding whether the film is worth seeing on its opening night.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The audience score is the only aspect of Rotten Tomatoes I find to be of value. The scores from movie critics just don't seem to have a strong relationship with whether or not I'm going to enjoy a movie. Actually, maybe that's not quite correct. It does sometimes seem like a movie with a very low critics score and a high audience score is usually great. So there may be a strong inverse relationship.
Do you read any of the reviews? Who cares whether a reviewer of any type liked or disliked a movie, what matters is why.
RT missed a big opportunity to clean its ratings (Score:2)
I guess that's another word lost ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... "troll" means someone trolling for responses by posting something they don't really believe - or, they don't care whether they believe it, they just care that it is inflammatory and will get reactions.
What exactly does that have to do with fake movie reviews? Yes, you could troll with those, I suppose, but the concern is the negative scores, not the trolling per se.
"Troll" has evolved to mean "someone acting bad in my opinion on the internet".
Re: I guess that's another word lost ... (Score:2)
A troll is someone who posts on the Internet with the intention of ruining something for someone else. This most definitely applies. A human who doesn't want to see a movie simply ignores it. A troll who doesn't want to see a movie goes on Rotten Tomatoes and votes it down.
And then there are those who feel the need to explain they don't wanna see a movie with a female superhero lead. Those are misogynists.
Re: (Score:3)
A troll is someone who posts on the Internet with the intention of ruining something for someone else.
No, that's not what a Troll is. A Troll posts something with the deliberate purpose of getting a rise out of the other party. That's nowhere near "ruining something for someone else." That's an asshole.
If people keep expanding the meaning of Troll, then soon everyone will be a Troll. I just looked it up in Webster's and that, indeed, is what is happening.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're the one that's letting people's different opinions ruin it for you, they are not actively trying to ruin it at all.
Brie Larson made a stupid comment, had to walk it back, and some people didn't like her "activism" and as such opted to leave a note on RT that they wouldn't see the movie (not a review, there were no reviews).
What reviews? (Score:5, Informative)
When I checked Rotten Tomatoes last week, I saw no bad reviews.
I did see that about 29% of people planned to see the movie. That isn't a review or a rating.
Re: (Score:3)
Replying to my own comment, but I checked again.
Now Rotten Tomatoes is listing the number of people who want to see the film - not the percentage.
Just clicking around finds no other movies that shows anybody who wants to see them. Only Captain Marvel. Now perhaps there is a threshhold of votes that have to be met before Rotten Tomatoes will display the numbers. And admittedly, Captain Marvel is part of a franchise that's pretty popular. But what are the odds that people, in reaction to reports of a tro
Re: (Score:3)
No, RT decided to start scrubbing long time accounts that were heavily active, and their "no interest" posts on billet page. What they're doing is removing "no interest" posts because it makes the movie look bad. Nothing more, nothing less.
Re: (Score:3)
Next up: Pissed off users voting up all other movies to surpass the number of people planning to see Marvel.
If a movie is worth trolling it’s worth watc (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it's very much the marketing strategy of Nike and Gillette and others now. Make an ad that most people will accept as a positive message, but which will trigger a significant minority, and watch as the outrage turns it into a viral sensation that people are still talking about weeks later.
You might have skipped that day in advertising and marketing class. But the generation of negative press doesn't win you likability or improve the chance someone will see it. It does the opposite. Gillette's ad appears to have cost them another 7% of the market share, with other companies like DSC taking a heavy 5% of that. Nike, short term bump, they're one several companies now holding onto large numbers of goods that aren't selling. What didn't hear about that? Their sale inventories went up by 23%
Re: (Score:3)
To be honest, it would not have been a bad movie if it wasn't for the expectations that came with the franchise. Feig isn't a bad director, he just isn't a director for a horror comedy. You don't make Michael Bay direct a romcon, do you?
Top 100 Best Movies of All Time (Score:5, Funny)
According to RT, these are the top 100 movies OF ALL TIME (their words):
https://www.rottentomatoes.com... [rottentomatoes.com]
Who can take this site seriously?
Rank Rating Title No. of Reviews
1. 97% Black Panther (2018) 456
2. 99% Lady Bird (2017) 355
3. 98% The Wizard of Oz (1939) 111
4. 100% Citizen Kane (1941) 80
5. 96% BlacKkKlansman (2018) 386
Re: (Score:2)
The flaw here seem to be that they weight the ranking according to factors including the number of critic reviews... Since there are more critics for recent movies (because their critic database is always growing) it favours recent movies, and of course Citizen Kane because critics are secretly trolling everyone with it*.
* Nah it's a good movie really, just a product of its time and not something many modern viewers would enjoy that much. Kinda like 2001.
Re: (Score:3)
The flaw is the entire system. I mean give me a break, I liked Black Panther, but it has a 98% rating and is listed as the #1 movie OF ALL TIME. They should call the list something else.
Re: Top 100 Best Movies of All Time (Score:4, Interesting)
Posting a negative review of Black Panther was proof of racism. At one point RT was systematically deleting negative reviews.
So, naturally, only positive ones are left.
Not the best of all time (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Who can take this site seriously?
People who think superhero films are the height of film making.
Good films (Score:2)
People who think superhero films are the height of film making.
Judging by the amount of money people are paying to see them you could make a good argument that they are, at least by some metrics. Maybe not to art house snobs but they are good movies and many people rate them as their favorites. Ranking movies by the sum of the enjoyment they provide is not a silly metric. I have to admit I've watched The Avengers and Star Wars many more times and gotten far more enjoyment from them than Casablanca or Citizen Kane or whatever art house movie you think should be put o
Re: (Score:2)
Using RT as a reference automatically gets you classed as someone who doesn't care about being taken seriously in any case.
Re: (Score:2)
My apologies: You meant RT=Rotten Tomatoes. I'm used to trolls trying to use another RT as a reference.
Sorry for that.
Re: (Score:2)
How many times have you made almost the exact same post and why do you think it's insightful? So you don't agree with their top 5 movies of all time? Who cares?
All five of those movies were very well received critically and this is reflected in their scores so those seem to be accurate enough. This is what people come to the site for, an averaged metric to give them some indication as to whether a movie will be good or not based on average user and critic scores.
Their method for creating these scores though
It's just a list (Score:2)
According to RT, these are the top 100 movies OF ALL TIME (their words): Who can take this site seriously?
I take it as seriously as any other list which is to say not very. It's just a list based on their metric of aggregated subjective opinions. You can have your own list based on whatever metrics make you happy and it won't be one bit more or less valid. There is no objectively "correct" list of best movies. Obviously you don't agree with their list but that doesn't make it or you wrong. Your opinion is yours and none of us are required to share it. Clearly to many people Black Panther legitimately is t
Great and what about the real problem (Score:4, Funny)
For example, whenever a blockbuster is close to release you can expect stories on RT - audience "reactions" from a preview screening, or suspicious embargo busting reviews invariable positive. How are are these allowed to appear? Who greenlights the story in the first place? Why are reviews listed before an embargo? Who hand selects which tweets to highlight?
My suspicion is RT is paid to generate positive feedback, "buzz" for a movie, and so prior to the embargo they fill the vaccum with bullshit and hype. And while troll reviews need to be fixed too, the user section is really is off on one side. I doubt it influences movie goers even a tiny fraction of what appears on the front page.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It would be naive to think it isn't true unless RT emphatically deny doing it, e.g. by publishing their ethics. Go look at their lead headlines right now and witness an example [rottentomatoes.com] of what I'm talking about. Not the first time either [rottentomatoes.com]. It happens a lot with these major studio releases.
And it's funny how their tweets seem to come from a core of blogs which have their own questionable ethical standards. These tweeters clearly don't seem bound by any embargo. It would be naive to assume
Next up, require proof of seeing (Score:4, Funny)
How about requiring people who want to review the movie to snapshot their ticket stub with an app on their phone?
Or if you got the DVD, then take a picture of the box.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that would work.
1. Tickets could be electronic. To take a snapshot of a ticket as a QR code (what my local theatre chain does), you would need a second phone running the RT app to photograph the first phone that shows the ticket.
I suppose there could be systems out there that use NFC instead.
2. The tickets need to be verified by a human. How would they identify what they see as a ticket?
I have gone to many press screenings in Europe where the "ticket" was a full-size letter with just info abou
There was not a *prefilm* review... (Score:5, Interesting)
. Where are those invisible review bomb which everybody speak of ? Those are not review but hyped/not hyped feedback from potential cinema goer.
Wonder how many trolls are anti-censorship (Score:2)
...when they are the reason for this censorship. "FREE SPEECH!" Yeah, but no: it's their sandbox. I know mommy and daddy told you that you must share the sandbox and your toys, but they were not preparing you for the real world. Oh, and speech may be free, but never without consequence. So lie in that bed, fuckers.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt this is going to solve the issue. It's gonna make it worse. You think they will now simply go away? What's gonna happen now is that the shitstorm will be postponed to the crucial first release week instead of having fizzled out by then because they moved on to their next target.
The Trolls score another victory (Score:3)
Same thing happened with Netflix and Amy Schumer's show. In that case Netflix removed all show ratings. That these establishments have to retreat from user input keeps making the "trolls" more powerful. Worse yet, removing user interactivity from your online offering is not a good idea generally. Since that Netflix change I stopped watching Netflix though its recommended queue. It quickly started to suck. But watching far less Netflix was not bad for me overall. Hell, I might even cancel my subscription I watch it so little now. Less TV and more money in my pocket.
Re: (Score:2)
Fake news, Day 2. (Score:2, Redundant)
Why is this propaganda on /.
RT Already does not allow ratings or comments until release. The only number is the percent of people who want to see it.
A similar article was posted yesterday. I would hope that /. and it's readers would be smarter than to fall for this. At this point the MSM is trolling the general public.
Re: (Score:2)
Because clicks and reaction postings.
Duh.
Dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
They weren't reviews.
They were "do you want to see this film" that a clickbaity blogger parsed as "review bombing of our feminist victory film" and the activist left-wing media has gotten triggered themselves into righteous snow(flake)storm.
That they don't even understand fundamentally what they are angry about is really the ironic icing on the cake.
Fake news and censorship, it is all so tiresome (Score:5, Informative)
What they did was censor stats about how many people clicked that they wanted to see the movie, not review.
And it was because once again because white men were told we are evil and not wanted, so a lot clicked on the not-wanting-to-watch option.
Was /. always this moronic or is it just nostalgic memories clouding my view?
I dare say that this would be worse for movies (Score:2)
Right now, a studio can react in time to a bombing. Now it's gonna happen right in that critical first week after release with zero reaction and mitigation time for studios.
Bravo. *golfclap*
100% false and a coverup (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone - leaves an honest answer to the question "do you want to see this movie"
The Media - OMG TROLLZ!
She actually didn't say that (Score:3)
If you read the above article you'll find what made everyone freak out is she said that having 63% of film critics being white males seems a bit high to her. Given that they're about 36% of the population she might not be too far off.
I'm not saying it's time for quotas (Troop Leader says ve have to meet our qoota [youtube.com]) but it probably wouldn't hurt to make sure we haven't left some systemic discrimination in place. While I don't believe in "where there's smoke there's
The Audience Scores are scores I trust (Score:3)
As an experiment I just thought up a handful of movies and mentally rated them on a scale of 0 to 100, then compared my rating to the TM and AS ratings at RT.com. When the TM and AS were in agreement I was generally in agreement too. When they differed greatly, oh boy, it was clear the TM rating was way out of line.
Greatest Showman
My=85 TM=56 AC=88
The Prestige
My=90 TM=75 AS=92
Last Jedi
My=40 TM=91 AS=44
Ghostbusters
My=35 TM=74 AS=51
Laserblast
My=10 TM=NA AS=13
LEGO Movie 2
My=80 TM=86 AS=75
Happy Death Day
My=70 TM=72 AS=66
Remember that RT.com is now owned by Fandango (and Warner Brothers) and no longer serves the purpose of providing honest feedback on movies. Hollywood wants it to fit nicely as another gear in the movie promotion engine. Allowing honest feedback about movies from consumers will no longer be tolerated as it doesn't fit the agenda of selling more tickets no matter what. In that regard it has followed the same path as other "captive reviewers" like most car magazines or video game review websites.
I don't want to see it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Mainly because of the racist & sexist actress that plays the leading role character, but also because I'm so sick and tired of Hollywood pushing feminist and feminist ideology into every bloody movie being made now and/or proudly proclaiming right now is the first time in cinematic history where women have had strong leading roles when those have existed for decades. In order to push their poor oppressed women narrative they conveniently forget about Laura Croft (Angelina Jolie version), Sarah Conner, Ripley, Princess Leia, Million Dollar Baby, Thelma & Louise, Silkwood, Blair Witch, Basic Instinct, Charlie's Angles, Quick and the Dead, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, x1000. Don't forget Wizard of Oz.
What did she say that was racists and sexist? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone with more than two brain cells still believe RT is relevant? Five years ago it may have been but lately there have been some extreme differences between the 'most learned movie reviewers' and us proles that actually buy tickets.
Re: "Trolls". (Score:2)
Is critical review completely foreign to you? This is how it's ALWAYS worked. Critics need to create a reason for their existence. By telling everyone the movies they like suck, they imply that by following their critiques, you will be exposed to much better art.
Re: (Score:2)
Has it ever occurred to you that you're not RT's audience?
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone with more than two brain cells still believe RT is relevant?
Before yesterday I would have said no. But the sheer entertainment value of the comments on the two stories about it here have made me reconsider.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For such big strong alpha males you guys sure do shit your diapers a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
If the "review" is posted before the movie is released, how is it accurate? Sure, some people might have been lucky enough to see advance screenings, but how many people see those and then post about it on Rotten Tomatoes? If there's a flood of negative reviews coming in before the movie has been released, then chances are those reviewers never actually saw the film and the reviews should be deleted.
Re:troll = dissatisfied movie-goer (Score:5, Interesting)
You never could post reviews on RT before release. No one "troll bombed" the reviews on Captain Marvel. You were spun a fake story, and now the "fix" is in, based on those lies.
The actual section that was "bombed" (aka, people have an opinion that's different from our manufactured consent) was the "Intend to see" section. And you see, the pesky thing about an "Intend to see" section is that you actually need to fill that out before you see the movie.
Slashdot is merely continuing the push the fake RT narrative of a "review bomb" by trolls, to mask Brie Larson's poorly chosen attempt at shoving her "activism" into the promotion of the movie.
Re: (Score:2)
"Intend to see" is a stupid and useless metric. Unless non-responses were counted as "no"s, the self-selection in the voting makes any percentage meaningless. I mean, when's the last time you went out of your way to tell people on the internet you weren't doing something? The only time is if you are virtue-signaling - I'm not owing a TV/eating meat/watching movie that offends my group.
I haven't seen anything from Brie Larson about the movie, or at all in the lead-up to it. Made me wonder if they were p
Re: troll = dissatisfied movie-goer (Score:2)
High audience score simply means widely palatable. It most def doesn NOT mean it's a good movie.
Re: (Score:2)
Culture jamming and "targeted campaigns" like this are the antidote to mass marketing. Fuck the entertainment industry.
Not all of it deserves it, but the vast majority does. Especially the more pervasive ones.
There have always been movies / programs / artists who take great glee in sticking it to The Man. Smothers Brothers, Laugh-In, Animaniacs, South Park and the like come to mind.
What would've Office Space's "release" been like were it done today? Back then Fox buried it and buried it waaay deep. I would like to think a positive bombing campaign from fans would've helped. But would they bother? Or would they just si
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, this is just a mercy rule.
It's not fair when the lead actress tanks the work of the 200+ other creative people who actually made it.
Everyone knows a significant portion of the audience will never see it, and the media is using them to generate outrage to maximize the remaining viewership.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean, like, go against the studios that give them those great graphics and promo videos before the other sites get them?
Do you bite the hand that feeds you?
Re: (Score:2)
In before the "how can you know, have you seen it" cries.
I have not seen this one. But I also don't need to watch another Michael Bay movie to predict with fair accuracy that it will contain a lot of explosions and very little character development and meaningful dialogue. Unfortunately movies with female leads have become agenda pieces rather than actual entertainment. It has to send a message of a strong female character. The problem here is that the intersection of the two sets "people who want to watch
Re: (Score:3)
Brie Larson , Feb 12 says doesn't want Captain Marvel press tour to be "to be overwhelmingly white male".... You cannot just be a complete ass and expect people not to react.
In what world is wishing for a little diversity being "a complete ass"?