Slashdot Mirror
Rotten Tomatoes Bans User Reviews and Comments Before a Film's Theatrical Release To Counter Online Trolls (rottentomatoes.com)
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.
Meet Sense.
::grabs popcorn::
Culture jamming and "targeted campaigns" like this are the antidote to mass marketing. Fuck the entertainment industry.
Do not criticize Hollywood ... or else!
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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.
For such big strong alpha males you guys sure do shit your diapers a lot.
You can't blame everything on trolls. Maybe the movie just looks really bad to most people. You don't want to watch a superhero fight an old lady on a subway? That old lady that you always have to give up your seat to lol seriously who thought this would be a good fight people can get behind. They clearly did it just for shock value which lasts about 3 seconds. In the trailer when she says, "we're noble warrior heroes" I want to vomit. To me it looks like a complete cringe fest.
... "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".
Obvious point, but the audience score is typically way more accurate than the critic score.
So... No more reason to check rotten tomatos. Looking forward to the free speech (as a principal) alternative.
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.
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.
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.
To see what the fuss is about. Trolling backfires in this regard.
According to RT, these are the top 100 movies OF ALL TIME (their words):
https://www.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
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.
Well I watch the movies Hollywood tells me to watch and I usually like them. I have a good time. I liked ALL iterations of Ghostbusters. I have (gasp) liked ALL of the Star Wars movies. I don't need critics, MRAs or anything else to tell me what to watch.
Ya never know lol
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.
Has it ever occurred to you that you're not RT's audience?
. Where are those invisible review bomb which everybody speak of ? Those are not review but hyped/not hyped feedback from potential cinema goer.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
...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.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-innocent-sounding-topics-that-are-guaranteed-flame-wars/
(examples of flame posts)
"And of course, Hitler"
(Shows posts refrencing Nazis in the threads)
The "Video Game Press" has been utterly replaced by streamers and such - you know, people who actually enjoy video games.
Conventional "Professional Movie Reviewers" are going to be replaced by people who actually enjoy movies, (RLM, et al) and aren't just shilling for Disney Dollars, and a promotion to the Big Boy NewsRoom at Buzzfeed.
Nobody cares about the old guard media. You cant create a "summer blockbuster" purely by buying off the press anymore. You actually have to make something interesting.
Captain Marvel isn't interesting.
"All movies suck!"
There, that make me the best movie reviewer in the world, and better than everybody else.
Now bow down and lick my feet, and bask in all of my glory and superiority over you.
just the best on Rotten Tomatoes. RT isn't exactly a movie buff site. It's for popcorn lovers. e.g. pop culture. If you're going to a site called "Rotten Tomatoes" you probably shouldn't expect deep film criticism or elevated craftsmanship....
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
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.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
but when are they going to deal with the _ACTUAL_ problem of fake positive reviews?
but I remember seeing a YouTube video where a guy trawled (not trolled) through alt-right forums and found a pretty significant effort to down vote, false flag and shit-post YouTube videos using bots. They make a game of it. The do the same in reverse for channels and things they like, so alt-right videos will often have a huge number of likes.
It's becoming harder to do. YouTube caught it and they've been implementing countermeasures but it went on for years. I wouldn't be surprised if now that their shenanigans don't work on YouTube (these aren't state actors, they're just bored, angry dudes) they're moving on to other sites for trolling and lulz.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
-Styopa
Two words: Ghost Busters.
hey, I download the Indian cam version from a torrent site - so now I can't express my opinion?
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?
These were NOT "movie reviews before the movie was even released".
This was the "Want to see it or not" score which shows interest in seeing the movie for when it DOES open.
The score was tanking because Brie Larson went full man hating SJW third wave feminist in her comments before and during the press tour for the movie.
Fans disliked her man hating opinion and expressed their OWN opinion of her and her Mary Sue character and her SJW politics by saying they weren't going to see the movie.
They were NOT trolls leaving fake movie reviews, they were (formerly) paying customers voicing their opinion of the MCU's infestation by SJWs by saying they didn't want to watch the movie when it DID get released.
The main stream media keep lying about 'fake review bombing' - which it isn't - because they are all left wing SJW intersectionalists themselves and they are trying to spin these posters as trolls because it backs their biased narrative. That it is an intentionally misleading phrasing just shows their complete lack of integrity.
RT removed this because they probably buckled to pressure from Disney/Marvel because they are owned by Fandango which sells movie tickets and even if it wasn't direct pressure from the studios, they certainly know which side their bread is buttered on and they CANNOT be objective about it.
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*
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You keep calling this a "review", before the film is even seen. I do not think you know what this word means.
They removed the AUDIENCE INTEREST poll, NOT the "reviews"
and the reason they did this is because people were trying to tell Marvel something about their viewing wishes/habits. Loudly.
Neither Marvel nor rotten Tomatoes is really listening, and it will probably bite them in the pocketbook..all the while crowing it's "achievement" and "bravery" from a lower box office net.
Shameless information moment: I didn't have areal interest to see the movie to begin with, however I did see Bree Larson's interview. and if I DID have an interest, that would have completely soured it.
Shameless information moment 2: when i was a child, I read A Wrinkle In Time. I think I even saw an adaptation of it once. When they advertised it, i saw the cast, saw OPRAH, and said "oh hell no". The kids, i hear, didn't know the difference.
But us who grew up on it sure will. Which is why it bombed
Brie Larson - I hate white men. If you're a white male, fuck off and don't see my movie and don't come to any press events (paraphrased)
Everyone - leaves an honest answer to the question "do you want to see this movie"
The Media - OMG TROLLZ!
I trust the Audience Scores over the "professional" Tomatometer any day. The Tomatometer is too vulnerable to outside manipulation by professional reviewers acting in coordination to "upbomb" a movie they want to promote.
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.
What they should have done is still allow user reviews before the movie is released. But just silently weight all those reviews by zero since clearly there's no way for those users to have actually seen the movie. Since an account can't submit more than one review for a movie, that at least clears the effect of all the dumb troll reviews from their rankings (the smart trolls would wait until after the movie's release). The text of the early reviews can stay too, just flag it with a big red banner on top saying the review was submitted without having seen the movie. If the same user's reviews have a tendency to be flagged this way, flag all their reviews with a big red banner on top saying the user has submitted multiple fake reviews before the movie's release.
Instead, all their new policy does is push all the troll reviews from pre-release to just-after release. Meaning all of the trolls' ratings will still be included in the movie's overall rating.
Aches that people have so blithely become accustomed to making fun of free speech, by using it as a mocking cudgel against people they don't like.
It's such an insult to the people who fought and died to bring such rights to our world and it subconsciously denigrates the concept af freedom of expression by linking the term "free speech" with something worthy of ridicule.
Much the way people began to associate fashy memes with good times and so soften their view of facism, so too does "freeze peach" damage liberal society.
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 the best move of all time. Whose to say they are wrong? Certainly not you and definitely not me. I don't think Citizen Kane is the best movie ever either but I don't think people who do are crazy.
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 on a pedestal.
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% - that means they're not selling product. And what they're manufacturing is sitting somewhere collecting dust.
Om, nomnomnom...
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.
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?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Before a movie is released so title is bullshit.
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.
Coworker told me a joke with that as its crux once:
Coworker: "Are you gay?"
Me: "...no?"
Coworker: "Well how do you know? Have you ever sucked a cock before?"
Me: "...no." (That was a lie, but I was in the closet back then).
Coworker: "So then you don't really know. See me, I was in the Navy. I've sucked a few cocks. I didn't like it, so I know I'm not gay. You? Never sucked a cock before? Might be gay."
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
To see what the fuss is about. Trolling backfires in this regard.
Did it ever occur to you that people might call something shitty because it's actually shitty?
If you think you need to watch a train wreck just because a few other idiots have raved about it, then by all means join the other morons who value their time at zero.
Don't fall for the gaslighting.
The user you're replying to literally called "Masculinity is toxic" a positive message. He's the definition of a troll. He's always all over all these types of Social Justicy, Political Correctness threads, basically gaslighting everyone.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Wow. RT doesn't have original Star Wars on there but The Last Jedi comes in at #27 of all time (which would be appropriate if it was just a list of Star Wars movies and content, it would be right behind the Christmas Special).
That list is actually funny.
Here's IMDB's take on the top 250 movies (Start Wars and Return of the Jedi are both in the top 25):
https://www.imdb.com/chart/top...
It's a good list.
BlameBillCosby.com
Alpha's? I think someone just wants to be spanked hahah
Racism against whites is racism against whites, whether you like it (or them) or not.
Great : removing pre-release reviews= REALLY BAD MOVIE.
I don't care what a person says or does outside of their craft, because I'm not a sensitive little culture warrior and let the work speak for itself. You keep on milking your triggered pity-tits on the internet, though, if that's what does it for you.
Strange because if we look at Gillette's share price it was unaffected by the ad, and Nike's went up adding six billion dollars to the value of the company.
Also, fuck off with your sock puppets Mashiki.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
THA MOVIE HAVE A LADIE IN IT!
comments here should be funny.
Talking of gaslighting, can you back that assertion up? Hint: if it involves jumping through hoops, along the lines of "XYZ criticizes toxic masculinity, all masculinity is toxic, ABC likes XYZ therefore ABC thinks masculinity is toxic" then not only will we not accept your answer, we'll treat you as the lying gaslighting shithead you probably are.
Brie Larson , Feb 12 says doesn't want Captain Marvel press tour to be "to be overwhelmingly white male". Feb 5-10 , 91% , Feb 10- Feb 12 90%, 13-14 89%, 15 88%, Feb 16,87% Feb 17 86%, Feb 18 85% Feb 19 82% . You cannot just be a complete ass and expect people not to react. https://web.archive.org/web/*/...
At least Stan Lee is dead, otherwise he'd be rolling in his grave.
Wait...
I gave up on the critic reviews on RT years ago and started relying on the audience reviews, as they more accurately reflected my actual enjoyment of the film.
Having said that, reviews on release have, for a long time, been manipulated - the immediacy of the internet lends itself to manipulation, it's all too easy to game the system, so perhaps this is a kick-back from users?
I have lost count of the number of movies rated highly by critics on RT that are either just 'OK' or a pile of steaming turd - but that's my subjective opinion.
Some people like piles of steaming turd, they may find diamonds in said turd I wasn't able to discover.
And then we get the so called 'cult classic' - the movie that was slated by the critics, that turned out to be an all time favourite, neatly slotted into the 'cult' category, usually years after release.
Fact is, these days, you are better off getting an opinion from likeminded friends than trust anything you read on a review site.
Sad times...
There was/is clearly a coordinated effort to try and impact the audience of Captain Marvel. Most folks, if they are truly not interested in seeing a movie don't create accounts and begin to shout at anyone who will listen that are not interested in seeing said movie.
#metoo came along and people acted all shocked and surprised but the notion of the lecherous Hollywood executive is so ingrained that they make movies and shows where that trope is integral to the plot, i.e., this is something that has been going on since entertainment existed (the powerful/rich taking advantage of stars/those who want to be stars)
Then some women got really upset and said things like "all men suck" but honestly that is something that is so common it is a trope as well. Like I would be surprised if there is a heterosexual sexually active woman alive that hasn't uttered something like that at least a dozen times in her life. There have always been terrible men and women have always complained about them.
(And to be clear, I don't say these things to try to hand wave them away, we should struggle against them and seek to eliminate that sort of mess from society)
I just don't get people acting surprised the problem exists and other people acting surprised and offended that women are understandably pissed off that the problem exists. I also don't get that people don't understand hyperbole when women say things like "all men suck".
And yeah for the record, I'm a white heterosexual upper middle class male and I freely acknowledge that loads of my similar brothers do indeed suck big time. Maybe it's small consolation but I can tell you that many of them are pretty terrible to other men as well. I'd daresay that likely every such man that has ever lived has done something shitty towards women and/or minorities. The distinction is those of us that learned our lesson and do better and those that act like whiney snowflakes and talk about how unfair it is that they can't get away with being shitty anymore.
We've been down this road so many times. I don't understand why we're still on it.
The whole entire complete obvious purpose of movie reviews is to decide whether or not I want to see the movie before going to see the movie.
I don't need the reviews after the release. I need them before.
In fact, that's exactly why movies have pre-releases -- to let some audiences (i.e. enthusiasts) tell the public in-advance.
So now I'm not able to see the movie on opening weekend, if I want to read the reviews first. Great. So I can wait a week, and see it later, right? Nope, because then the very same trolls will be in the very same position to screw things over in the very same way.
So we've done absolutely nothing here.
Like I said, we've run this road before. Welcome to reviews and recommendations since the dawn of time. If they aren't co-roberated, authenticated, and trusted, then they are meaningless.
Would it be so very difficult for sites like Rotten Tomatoes to do any fact-checking whatsoever to ensure that reviewers have actually seen the movie? Or at least paid for it? Truth is, it still wouldn't matter, because trolls could like the movie and still troll it, welcome to politics.
The problem is the same as it's always been. Stupid readers who don't consider the source.
Not your's Amerikuks. HA HA!
Whatever happened to just ignoring what we did not like or do not find interesting? Now we have to tell the world that we don't like it?
WORLD - I DO NOT APPRECIATE WHEN MY WIFE RUINS MAC N CHEESE BY ADDING BROCCOLI.
Now the internet is a better place since you all know that I do not care for broccoli in my mac n cheese.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
star trek discovery. another pre-tng era boring timeline. if I wanted the past, I'd reread asimov. until the star trek writers actually get some imagination, and move forward in time from tng, there's no point to a star trek series. glad they kept it off public tv.
Rotten Tomatoes lost me as any sort of regular user (IE bothering to even have an account and frequent the site specifically) over a decade ago. To me one of the most useful features they *used* to have (and maybe they've added it back since - I don't care at this point) was the ability for me to specify my favorite reviewers. This was back when Ebert was still alive. I don't agree with all of Ebert's reviews, however he served as a kind of litmus test / constant that I could use to see reviews of movies over a span of more than half a century by a single person. RT made it very convenient for me to see his (and a few other reviewers I cared about) review very easily just by pulling up nearly any mainstream movie on their site. At some point that stopped functioning, then they eventually removed the UI completely where you could select your favorite reviewers. This was somewhere around a decade ago or longer.
I'm not sure in their reason to do so, but it seems such a fundamental thing that they were motivated financially or politically (IE by the studios) to remove that feature.
Better known as 318230.
I went to the 2016 Ghostbusters movie with no expectations, and had a great time. And what's a franchise here? Two movies and an animated cartoon most people have forgotten about by now.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Don't let the truth get out before its global release?
A great movie should sell due to the skill of the production, not the politics.
Time for sites to put up reviews and user comments.
Time for some competition to movie reviews.
Let people see comments and find reviews of political movies before they go see the movie.
Then spend their money on much better quality movies with plot, content, fun, creativity.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
I'm not sure what it says about you that you think Mashiki is the only one sick of your shit, but I am fairly certain it isn't good.
the video. I'll admit, I downvoted Diablo Immortal (the one you're no doubt talking about) without watching it. To be blunt, I didn't need to watch it to want to register disapproval with a mobile version of Diablo made by a company with a history of crummy fee-to-play Diablo clones. But my dislike wouldn't take until I'd let the video play on more than one device (It seems my original attempt to dislike the video w/o watching it put me on a shit list somewhere, since I don't have that problem with other videos).
/.. Mostly because I'm venting (right wing politics have done a lot of harm to me and mine, and the entire country, and the entire world...). But I'd like to think my occasional +5 around here might just maybe make somebody think of pulling the lever for a progressive (or at least staying home and skipping the Trump Train) and maybe someday we'll join the rest of the civilized world in guaranteeing basic rights like healthcare, food and shelter.
The same goes for when I try to like one of the lefty videos like Secular Talk without watching it all the way through.
As for why I don't troll lefty sites, well that would be kind pointless, wouldn't it? What I really want is to get under the skin of the self righteous "I got mine" crowd here on
And yeah, like Al Bundy said, "I don't understand women, but women understand women, and they hate each other". But chicks don't troll for the lulz. They do it to be mean and spiteful. They don't need lulz. Any women with a pulse has men falling over for them because men want women more than women want men, so they don't develop the kind of sense of humor men do. Not my observation, it was Chris Hitchens (Arrg, FSM rest his soul).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Stoicism is no longer rewarded, so fuck you bitch.
Kudos to you for at least admitting you let others control your behavior, I guess.
for China first and US Second. Also there's less dating. Folks are staying single longer (or permanently). I'd chalk that up to a crap economy plus other options besides marriage, but the fact is movies are date vehicles.
As for Oscar viewership, they have to compete with other forms of entertainment (Fortnight, Netflix, etc).
Finally, I don't need critics anymore. In the old days I looked up reviews because media was bloody expensive and if I was gonna spend money I wanted to know I got good value. Entertainment got real, real cheap these days. I don't need somebody to tell me a movie's good or bad if I can stream it for the price of a Netflix or Hulu subscription or worst case $4 bucks on Amazon.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
They should just make a movie about an anthropomorphic penis that tries to live it's life as a regular human. The folds of the fore/loose skin will act as arms and legs, and the slit will have very tiny eyes in it that are not visible on screen, but there nonetheless.
I will watch it.
have nothing at all to do with the film? She is an actress after all, and if the director is doing their job she'll give the intended performance.
So assuming you're correct isn't this just a bunch of folks leaving reviews for a reason other than the content of the film? Isn't that supposed to be a "bad thing"
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
she said, and I'm the libbiest lib who ever libbed in lib-town. She is only the second female lead in a Super Hero movie, and I almost don't want to count Wonder Woman since that was kind of a no brainer (still a good movie) whereas Captain Marvel is actually a bit of a risk. What I'm saying is yeah, it's kind of a big deal that the movie got made.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
the problem is, are you going to go out of your way to try and take the movie down a notch because of the controversy around it. You're probably not, but it's looking more and more likely that folks did.
It's one thing if the fans took to RT to say "I don't want these movies made because I don't like them". Hell, even if the reason is "I want more male power fantasies because I'm a man and that's what I want" that would be fine. And honestly maybe that's what's at play here.
But if the reason folks are bombing RT with "won't see" is "I'm mad a what that chick said" and not anything to do with their enjoyment of the film (or lack thereof) that's fuck up.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
it happens naturally from the local newspapers who _are_ paid. Then RT publishes the aggregate score of their (phony) reviews. Metacritic does the same thing. Just look at the User Reviews. That's what matters.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
She actually said the exact opposite.
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) 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 fire" I do think that if I see smoke I damn well check and if I find dry ice maybe I clean it up...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I can't find it. All I could find was her making the point that 63% of film critics were white male, and that seemed high. Given that white men are 36% of the population (give or take) she's not exactly wrong.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I gots a right to freedoms of teh speech and it shall nay be enfringed says the constitutional of dees younited stayst.
The Tomato meter score is the percentage of critics who recommend the movie.
However, they also give a numerical score that usually agrees with other sources like IMDb, Google Users, Metacritic, and Netflix.
Always ignore the TM score and look at the critics' average review score instead. It's almost always completely accurate, even when the TM score is flat out fake news.
The real problem is that RT reviewers are lying and saying they recommend bad movies. And as a result, RT is giving "certified fresh" ratings to movies with an average rating of 6.4 / 10 (aka stinkers that nobody actually wants to watch).
I think Rotten Tomatoes is right. People really can't handle freedom. They need to be controlled. History has shown this again and again. Freedom of speech and thought was a nice experiment but it failed. People shouldn't be able to say and think whatever they want, it results in chaos. Society and public opinion must be controlled. Goverment cannot do it for legal reasons obviously. But thankfully corporations can influence your online experience. By slowly changing and guiding digital policy and freedoms. RT did the right thing, they have my vote! Think about it... Freedom of speech and thought is actually overrated in a practical sense. It's almost meaningless in everyday life. People should be controlled. It's commendable when it's done gently, so they don't realize, to prevent any backlash. You know what I am saying makes sense. What kind of world would you really like to live in? One of order or chaos? You know it makes perfect sense. It's time some people finally have the courage to create the world everyone has always wanted. Edit: The claim that RT took money from Walt Disney to help limit WD financial losses has no proof what so ever.
I fucking LOVE super hero shit, i eat it all up! Seen all marvel stuff... Was even going to watch this Captain Marvel thing in spite of the bad press its gotten (emotionless actor etc), i mean. how bad can it be right?
And now this shit?!? I dont give a shit that your a woman Brie Larson, so why do you care so much that im a man? I guess i should thank you though, now i can spend that time on a movie with actors who just want to be actors, not activists.
Gay.
Two movies that everyone has seen, considering they are on TV every other month (at least it often seems that way). And it's two really good movies (ok, a good movie and a not quite as good but far from bad movie). I'd dare say that establishes certain expectations with viewers.
Like I said somewhere else, if you go in without these expectations, you have a decent movie that works. If it didn't carry the name Ghostbusters, nobody would even compare it to the older GB-movies and by itself, you have a solid comedy there. I guess the problem most people had with it is that the horror element was flat and simply not really there, and I'd expect a solid horror element from a movie with that name.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
My main problem with it was they made it character-driven and neglected the plot.
In the original GB, Venkman was the outrageous character, and the rest were colorful but served different purposes in supporting the storyline. They weren't all over the top like in the new one.
It was like watching M*A*S*H where every character is Hawkeye.
The comics based movie was made so heavy handedly entrentched in identity politics that anonymous rebelled against it.
Solution: curb free speech. That's the whole single reason behind recent limitations on free speech. From Google engineers to Nobel laureates - nobody is safe
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
You pretended some other opinion, the only thing real was your hate of the product. You pretended that it was not hatred of women or women saying to you "You can think what you want, I don't give a shit" you pretended it was not a woman depicted in BF5 but instead "bionic enhancements" (it was not bionic, the prosthetic was a real life thing in WW2).
So since you never GAVE your REAL opinion, only a FAKE claim of your opinion, your opening statement there is irrelevant because it never happened here.
If you want to use that defence, try using your real opinion, not a fake one.
at a drop of a hat, then project it as if it is only ever done by "the left" (being anyone not agreeing with you) and that it is never not done by them, so that you can 100% of the time ignore any actual argument, just wait until you get called a rude name (talk about snowflakes and PC police!!) and if that doesn't happen soon enough, just recall a time it might have done.
Gay (homosexuality) is desire of the same gender. That only requires you meet people of the same gender to see if you desire them. It doesn't mean sucking cock.
And to the OP it doesn't matter if you cannot personally experience everything. You aren't COMMENTING on everything. So if you haven't experienced, don't comment. Something you, the OP, did not do because this was not about your feelings over the movie but your feelings of powerlessness and your hatred of anyone neither powerful nor a rich capitalist male (whom you cannot criticise unless you find a way to claim them to be either part of the NWO or leftie/commie).
Nope, you just wait around until you ARE called a nazi (which is inevitable given you are one, or at least play on on the internet) because you started antisemitic trolling or lauding white supremacy.
Try calling yourself atheist at a RWNJ watering hole like Fox forums.
You were not pandered to, so you hate the movie.
Yet another nice thing that the creeps and trolls and other abusers have ruined for everybody. Why can't they just grow up?
with a long history of Dog Whistling and outright oppression. There's the Drug War, which Nixon's own people admitted was designed to crack down on civil rights protesters and the left in general. There's "Broken Windows" policing. There's tons of statistics showing blacks are no more likely to commit crime than whites when controlling for socio-economics.
What there is not is generations of oppression against white men (unless you count the 1800s and the Irish/Germans, but that ended by the 1900s, still took a century...). I don't see any Dog Whistling. She's not trying to hide her main point anywhere. At no time did she say or imply in any way I can see that White men are evil. She said the exact opposite. Hell, she was dating Alex Greenwald until recently, one of the whitest of white men I've ever seen. You don't see a lot of Klansmen dating black chicks...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
In the original GB you had 4 very different characters that served their purpose. Venkman was the loudmouth asshole and the (deserving) recipient of all the "bad" things that happen to them. Had Slimer hit Ray instead of Peter, we'd have felt bad for him, but Peter was by then already established as a bit of an asshole, so him getting slimed good was "deserved" (one of the problems I had with the 2016 version, when the ghost spewed at her she did not deserve this in any way... anyway).
Ray had some child-like qualities and he was the cute one. You didn't want anything bad to happen to Ray, he was nice. Really, really nice. He was funny and he was the one where the horror aspect really hit hard because, like I said, you felt for him. You wanted him to be safe.
Egon was the ivory-tower, geeky scientist type of guy. The comical egghead that takes the whole thing serious the most of them all. Basically he was the explanation where all the stuff comes from (kinda like Holtzman in the new one), kinda aloof but not in a bad way.
And finally, and this was a really big deal back then, Winston was the audience character. You need someone like that in a movie that deals with lots and lots of technobabble and scienc-y stuff. Egon would never have done the Twinkie scene with, say, Ray because there wasn't anything to be said between them. They knew. But neither Winston nor the audience did, and through him we got to understand what's going on. This was basically the identification figure we had in the movie. And, and this was a big deal in the 80s, he was black.
That doesn't work out in the new one. Holtzman works as some kind of goofy Egon type character, the two other scientist women are basically interchangeable (I honestly did not really identify any kind of fleshed out character in any of them) and Patty was IMO the worst kind of stereotype you could come up, she was literally the black bitch mama from da hood. And that really ruffled me the wrong way.
Why couldn't the black character be a scientist this time?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And in actual reality, not the one Mashiki desperately wishes were reality but exists only in his head, Gillette is doing fantastic. I can still barely find their products at my store, they get bought up. Ironically, the videos of people flushing razors and cans of shaving cream down the toilet to "boycott" Gillette has been increasing rapidly as well, so it stands to reason that the far right's version of "boycotting" is buying up all the stock to throw away. Nike experienced this too, as their sales (according to actual figures, and not the mad ramblings of a whiny child) have skyrocketed.
TL,DR: the far right believes boycotting is purchasing a company's products and destroying them, not realizing that helps the company exponentially more than it hurts them.
I just know that whenever a company decides to go SJW, I immediately purchase stock. So far I'm $500k ahead thanks to Gillette and Nike and the predictability of right wingers!
To quote wiki, dog whistle (politics) is "political messaging employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different, or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup."
Whether or not there's a history of a dog whistle existing before doesn't change whether there's one now.
I don't see any Dog Whistling.
Dog whistling doesn't depend on you specifically seeing/hearing it either. Again from the wiki, one of the first researchers on the subject found that "respondents hear something in the question that researchers do not"
You saying you don't see/hear anything wrong is, amusingly, the same kind of excuse that the right uses on things like climate change ("I don't see the evidence, therefore it must not exist!" "I see it's cold out side where I am. Therefore it's all a hoax!"). Or worse, apologizing for sexual harassment ("I don't see how that's sexual harassment. That's just [insert euphemism to make whatever was done sound less bad]. Stop being such a triggered snowflake!")
Now, maybe Brie really didn't intend to create a dog whistle. Maybe she really meant what she said, but the other thing about dog whistles is that it can be repeated by somebody else unwittingly just the same, the same way random posters on the Internet can repeat right wing talking points, genuinely believe them, but then are accused as being Russian trolls spreading propaganda.
Hell, she was dating Alex Greenwald until recently, one of the whitest of white men I've ever seen. You don't see a lot of Klansmen dating black chicks...
That's another rhetoric used by the right. This is the "some of my best friends are black" defense.
and Lucy wasn't a super hero movie, it was a french action/sci-fi movie. Very different tone and style than a super hero movie. Super powers != Super Hero.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Strange because if we look at Gillette's share price it was unaffected by the ad, and Nike's went up adding six billion dollars to the value of the company.
Strange because share price doesn't reflect on the ground sales, go read their shareholder report. And do that again with Nike. I'll wait. Stock sitting in warehouses and not being shipped out because existing stock isn't selling, doesn't translate into "making money."
Also, fuck off with your sock puppets Mashiki.
Sorry, I don't need sock puppets. I realize this hurts your progressive ego, but maybe you should think a little bit. Then you can wonder why you've managed to piss so many people off because you're parroting the same bullshit that everyone is sick of.
To put it in a simple turn, that should make sense: "Your views are toxic and people fundamentally dislike them."
Om, nomnomnom...
What's wrong Mashiki, run out of mod points today?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Drink! Amimojo continues to ignore what people tell him as reason(s) he gets downvotes, and double downs on his own conspiracy theory!
Second drink as this is straight out of Trump/alt-right play book - dismissing things you don't like as just fake news, manufactured narrative, conspiracy from haters, etc.
Third drink as he's replying to Mashiki, his favorite harassment/crybully victim. It's very telling that Amimojo gets an even worse downvote record than our resident Canadian right winger who is probably one of the crazies they let out that he's talking about here