Slashdot Mirror


Hollywood Is Losing the Battle Against Online Trolls (hollywoodreporter.com)

An anonymous reader shares a Hollywood Reporter article: It had taken years -- and the passionate support of Kirk Kerkorian, who financed the film's $100 million budget without expecting to ever make a profit -- for The Promise, a historical romance set against the backdrop of the Armenian genocide and starring Christian Bale and Oscar Isaac, to reach the screen. Producers always knew it would be controversial: Descendants of the 1.5 million Armenians killed by the Ottoman Empire shortly after the onset of World War I have long pressed for the episode to be recognized as a genocide despite the Turkish government's insistence the deaths were not a premeditated extermination. Before the critics in attendance even had the chance to exit Roy Thompson Hall, let alone write their reviews, The Promise's IMDb page was flooded with tens of thousands of one-star ratings. "All I know is that we were in about a 900-seat house with a real ovation at the end, and then you see almost 100,000 people who claim the movie isn't any good," says Medavoy. Panicked calls were placed to IMDb, but there was nothing the site could do. "One thing that they can track is where the votes come from," says Eric Esrailian, who also produced the film, and "the vast majority of people voting were not from Canada. So I know they weren't in Toronto." The online campaign against The Promise appears to have originated on sites like Incisozluk, a Turkish version of 4chan, where there were calls for users to "downvote" the film's ratings on IMDb and YouTube. A rough translation of one post: "Guys, Hollywood is filming a big movie about the so-called Armenian genocide and the trailer has already been watched 700k times. We need to do something urgently." Soon afterward, the user gleefully noted The Promise's average IMDb rating had reached a dismaying 1.8 stars. "They know that the IMDb rating will stay with the film forever," says Esrailian. "It's a kind of censorship, really."

24 of 487 comments (clear)

  1. Nothing to do with Hollywood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Alternative title: IMDB fails to prevent botting and vote brigading

    1. Re:Nothing to do with Hollywood by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pretty much this, right here.

      Given the topic of the movie, how frickin' hard would it be for IMDb to dump anything with a Turk/Russian/{CDNs-common-to-VPNs}-IP-originate vote of less than 3 stars?

      I'm guessing they'll wait for some SJW-centric production to get vote-bombed, and then decide to do something about it?

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:Nothing to do with Hollywood by Luthair · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not sure that is really workable, they could use VPNs, proxies or bots. Its hard to see what they can do long term other than hope the bots are a minority.

      They should probably restrict reviews for early releases, I think Rotten Tomatoes did something similar in the past few years - at least I feel they used to have an issue with people rating movies before they could have been seen.

    3. Re:Nothing to do with Hollywood by Anubis+IV · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I was going to suggest that the alternative title could be "Someone Didn't Get The Memo: IMDb Scores Are Still Useless".

      A few years back, I used an extension to display IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, and Metacritic scores in Netflix's web UI, thinking they'd help me cut through the chaff and find the films I was most interested in. It became apparent almost immediately that while the Rotten Tomatoes scores were good and the Metacritic scores were occasionally decent, the IMDb scores were nothing more than useless noise, given that they were so far out of sync both with what the other sites are reporting, as well as what my own experiences would suggest reasonable scores should be for the films I had seen. And really, none of this should come as a surprise, given that IMDb is a wiki platform with poor policing, meaning that the scores have become a battleground for various forms of e-peen measuring contests.

      So far as I'm concerned, Rotten Tomatoes has for years done a far better job, particularly with their distinction between critic and audience scores, which makes it much easier to understand what to expect from a movie:
      - High critic score/high audience score = probably the best thing I'll see all year
      - High critic score/low audience score = a thought-provoking film that likely won't entertain
      - Low critic score/high audience score = mindless, "junk food" entertainment
      - Low critic score/low audience score = a trash film that's only thought-provoking inasmuch as it begs the question: why was this film was made?

      In contrast, IMDb scores give me no useful information. They don't tell me what to expect, whether I'll like the film, or even if it's a good film. They're just noise.

    4. Re:Nothing to do with Hollywood by PatientZero · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You want votes from real people who've actually seen the movie.

      --
      Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
      I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
    5. Re:Nothing to do with Hollywood by barc0001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's tons of ways to block botting. Easiest is when a vote is entered the IP and userid for that vote goes into a table with a timestamp. When another vote for the same IMDB item is cast the table is referenced and if it's the same IP but a different userid and less than 10 or 15 minutes has elapsed, the vote is rejected and the UI pops a message about the same IP with a captcha to solve. If the captcha is solved then the vote is registered. That way bots are blocked but a family who just watched a movie and for some reason ALL of them wanted to rate it on IMDB within a 15 minute window afterward could still vote.

    6. Re:Nothing to do with Hollywood by xevioso · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This. Many sites do it, and while it takes some setting up, it;'s fairly straightforward to prevent folks from the same IP or username from voting repeatedly. It's not normally an issue in IMDB because who cares enough about a movie to vote enough times to change the ratings in that way?

      Oh wait...

      Actually, when I see something with lots of single stars I'm pretty suspicious anyway.

  2. Re:Fake movie by Luthair · · Score: 5, Informative

    Does Turkey even need to be discredited? They seem to have done it all by themselves.

  3. Re:Fake movie by hackel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Turkey lost any and all of the credibility it had earned over the years when they "elected" Erdogan and his disgusting Muslim buddies to ruin the country.

  4. I'm a troll and I'm triggered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've been a slashdot troll since the 90s. Trolling is high art - the modern day equivalent of the court jester - the practice of teaching everyone not to take themselves too seriously.

    This crap that is happening now with 4-chan esque social justice warfare against women, minorities, the historical fact of the Armenian genocide is *not* trolling. These people are doing the exact opposite of trolling - they're propping up the global misinformation machine instead of trying to convey the sense of critical thought and skepticism that I and my brethren have been working fastidiously toward for the past 3 decades (or more).
     
    STOP calling them trolls. This is not what trolling is!

    1. Re:I'm a troll and I'm triggered by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 4, Funny

      I've been a slashdot troll since the 90s.

      I can vouch for this. I remember seeing this guy around regularly since the 90s.

  5. Re:Fake movie by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Informative

    Erdogan did not run as a dictator. During his initial rise to power he was actually a very moderate politician. He called for EU membership for Turkey, and under his direction the country did enter negotiations with the aim of getting that membership. He pushed major labor reforms too, giving employees substantially greater protections than ever before in the country and introducing non-discrimination law. He changed later on, slowly, over the course of the 2000s at 2010s, depending increasingly upon tighter control of the media and repression of opposition to stay in power and growing steadily more conservative and Islamist in his social policies.

  6. Re:100 years ago, who cares? by Kohath · · Score: 4, Funny

    What about people who only learn and repeat meaningless cliches?

  7. Re:Fake movie by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Informative

    He called for EU membership for Turkey

    And he single-handedly took those aspirations behind the shed and shot them in the back of the head.

  8. Re:100 years ago, who cares? by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Digging up historical grievances helps no one.

    And burying historical grievances only hurts the next group of victims when you can't show that you are on the path to the next atrocity.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  9. Re:Fake movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It has nothing to do with them being Muslims, you abject moron. It has everything to do with them being authoritarian dogmatic pseudo-religious autocrats.

    If a Christian or Jewish cabal orchestrated a coup, it would have equally nothing to do with those religions either except as their rhetorical umbrella.

  10. Literally Hitler by DeplorableCodeMonkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    No, this is not against trolls, but something far worse. Erdogan is literally the closest thing in the industrialized world to Hitler we have. Don't believe me?

    1. It's looking more and more like he staged a fake coup (remind you of the Reichstag burning?) to preemptively crush dissent.
    2. He's adopted a view of immigration and migration that is close to the Nazi policy of lebensraum.
    3. He has used a popular referendum to greatly empower himself and gut the authority of competing institutions.
    4. He has taken a Turkish equivalent of the Nazi view about fellow Germans living in other countries. His government went nuts when European states clamped down on Turkish political organization in their borders.
    5. FFS, he even channels Hitler with the moustache.

    Odds are very good that if there is a mass civil war in Europe over race and religion, it will be directly the result of Erdogan's work combined with the idiocy of Merkel and a few others who let him get away with it. Anyone who considered Erdogan, who wants to resurrect Ottoman Turkey, would have wanted to keep those migrants out at bayonet point if necessary.

  11. Re:100 years ago, who cares? by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Turkey is a bit like North Korea. The dedication to the country is absolute and the country can do no wrong, not in history, not in the future. Turkey wants to be a member of the EU. Yay Turkey. Turkey thinks the EU is an evil institution against everything Turkey stands for. Yay Turkey. Turkey doesn't have a dark and evil past, anyone saying otherwise is just trying to re-write history. Turkey's current supreme leader is nothing like a dictator. Anyone saying otherwise is just a supporter of Fethullah Gulen who had the audacity to try and overthrow the Turkish government by coupe ... while not even in the country.

    All over Europe, the only foreign flags I see waved at protests are for Turkey, the greatest country in the world. We don't want to live there, but don't you dare tell us they aren't the greatest. Yay Turkey.

    Also genocide didn't happen.

  12. Re:Current rating on IMDb is 5 stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    45.2% 10s, 53.4% 1s! More oddly 55K mens votes average 4.3 while 24K womens votes average 9.6!

  13. Re:Fake movie by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Erdogan did not run as a dictator. During his initial rise to power he was actually a very moderate politician. He called for EU membership for Turkey, and under his direction the country did enter negotiations with the aim of getting that membership. He pushed major labor reforms too, giving employees substantially greater protections than ever before in the country and introducing non-discrimination law. He changed later on, slowly, over the course of the 2000s at 2010s, depending increasingly upon tighter control of the media and repression of opposition to stay in power and growing steadily more conservative and Islamist in his social policies.

    Culminating in quite possibly orchestrating the coup last year and using that (and the very fortuitous rise of ISIS in Syria) to justify the sweeping grab for power that he just pulled off, effectively guaranteeing he will be in control in Turkey at least through the next decade. He used the coup to purge the military, leaving only loyalists who he can trust not to fulfill the Turkish military's customary role of maintaining secularism in government. You have to give him credit: for a politician he played the long game very well.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  14. Re:Disgusting use of censorship to protect bad mov by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I honestly don't know much about Turkey, but as for the Germans: They've owned up to what happened and they've passed laws to make the truth easier to get at. They've searched the world over to locate war criminals from that time and ensure they are prosecuted. They've repatriated stolen art, personal belongings, and family fortunes to those it was stolen from. In short, a generation of Germans who weren't even alive when this atrocity happened, have stepped up to make amends and heal the world. So even if Turkey was innocent of the accusations, they would be no better than the Germans. And by the way, Hollywood has flogged Germany over and over again for what happened... so in all respects you are mistaken.

    --
    Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
  15. Re:Fake movie by Old97 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are making the mistake of confusing his tactics with some coincidental attribute that he used to bind his followers to him. Erdogan is an authoritarian working to install a one-party dictatorship. He's something of a Fascist. Since he happens to be Muslim along with his people he's using that religious and cultural context to employ pretty universal tactics. The Nazi's and Fascists used some Christian symbols and traditions. Stalin even resorted to Tsarist and Orthodox symbols and traditions to build popular support during World War II. Religion and culture are used to create bonds between the leader and the followers. It's their source of tribal identity. Modi in India uses Hindu culture and traditions. In Myanmar it's Buddhism.

    --
    Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
  16. Re:100 years ago, who cares? by Headw1nd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, it was 100 years ago. If Turkey would own up to it, then maybe it would be forgotten history. But their failure to own up to it isn't history, it's happening right now. It's not a matter of paying for your ancestors crimes, it's a matter of lying day in and day out about historical fact. If you can't come clean about things a century ago that you aren't even responsible for, how can anyone trust you to be honest about the things you are responsible for right now?

  17. Re:Fake movie by Old97 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What makes you think that a majority of Christians agree on any specific social issue? First of all, "Christian" or "Christianity" is not a religion. It's an umbrella term claimed by many religions. Many denominations, churches and sects identify as "Christian", but not all of them agree on who is or is not. Mormans believe they are Christian. Most other "Christian" groups don't think they are. The KKK and Aryan Brotherhood types identify themselves as "Christian" though I'd think almost every other "Christian" group rejects them and their claim. Islam is similar in this respect. It's not even as simple as Sunni versus Shiite. I've read that most people who identify as Muslim reject ISIS. Is ISIS a Muslim group? Most of Erdogan's opponents in Turkey identify as Muslim. So while it is possible to look at a specifi group and make your argument, Christians and Muslims are not specific groups. T

    --
    Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok