Rotten Tomatoes Bans User Reviews and Comments Before a Film's Theatrical Release To Counter Online Trolls (rottentomatoes.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Rotten Tomatoes Bans User Reviews and Comments Before a Film's Theatrical Release To Counter Online Trolls (rottentomatoes.com)

Posted by msmash on Tuesday February 26, 2019 @04:02AM from the how-about-that dept.

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.

258 of 443 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Common by Zorro · 2019-02-26 04:04 · Score: 4, Funny

Meet Sense.
1. Re:Common by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-26 04:22 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  for each of you there will be more that aren't like you.
  If that were the case Rotten Tomatoes wouldn't have to get rid of user ratings when they don't go their way.
  Those hamfistedly pushing "progressive" politics can only maintain their narrative with censorship. THAT is truly being outnumbered.
2. Re: Common by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-26 04:23 · 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.
3. Re:Common by LifesABeach · 2019-02-26 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  one has to question the nature of what generated this troll feeding frenzy.
4. Re:Common by penandpaper · 2019-02-26 05:13 · Score: 4, 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. What changed in season 2? How can you go from creatively, morally, and ethically bankrupt to it's all characters stories in the space adventure return and that's a good thing. 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 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 . It doesn't explain Oscar viewership 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!
5. Re:Common by Mashiki · 2019-02-26 05:19 · 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.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
6. Re:Common by penandpaper · 2019-02-26 05:23 · Score: 2
  
  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.
7. Re:Common by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-26 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
8. Re:Common by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-26 05:37 · Score: 2, 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 some fans are just pumping it as a kind of protest at Discovery, which is giving us a second excellent season right now.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
9. Re:Common by Mashiki · 2019-02-26 05:42 · 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 it.
  Doing a bang up job on moving from stupid, into retarded. I'd suggest a mental health hospital, they can help special ...cases like you're. But they're pretty much all shut down.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
10. Re:Common by Opportunist · 2019-02-26 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  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 failure because the movie did not deliver what he expected, is the user to blame or the movie? Seriously, if you go into a superhero movie and get a romcon, you would probably be disappointed. That's most certainly not what you'd expect from a movie that allegedly centers around the epic good vs evil struggle. Not saying that CM is anything like this, but user ratings can pretty well also mean disappointed expectations. Like I felt when I walked out of Troy. Maybe it wasn't a bad movie, but certainly not what I was expecting.
  With critics, I have more and more the feeling that they have to praise certain movies from certain makers. Transformers being a pretty good example, personally I have rarely seen a more boring, bland and uninspired series. Zero character development (quite frankly, the characters are the same through the whole series), a fully predictable plot (in all of them), existing on explosions and effects alone, loud enough that you can't even catch some sleep.
  But aside of that, choosing your kind of movie is getting trickier and trickier, because more and more often movies don't deliver what you'd expect from them. And those are also usually the movies that get scathing reviews from viewers: They went in with VERY different expectations (based on name, franchise or previews) than what the movie eventually delivered.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
11. Re:Common by Mashiki · 2019-02-26 05:48 · Score: 2, 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...and they seem to be having one hell of a run with commercial failures these days. ME:A, BFV, Anthem(it's already 50% off in some stores). Do you understand now, or would you like me to draw you a picture?
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
12. Re:Common by Mashiki · 2019-02-26 05:51 · Score: 4, 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.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
13. Re:Common by Opportunist · 2019-02-26 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  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 wreck.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
14. Re:Common by penandpaper · 2019-02-26 05:52 · Score: 2
  
  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 nothing to gain for an average person making a review.
  As far as Star Trek Discovery? I stopped paying attention when I found I didn't like it. Don't care what people say or what happens to it (isn't there a lawsuit against STD and CBS?) it's not for me. I find reboots mostly miss and found a new IP to tickle my sci fi twitches (Expanse).
15. Re:Common by grep+-v+'.*'+* · 2019-02-26 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  The League of Fart Sniffers.
  I'm sorry, I must have missed that sequel to "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen". Really doesn't sound that wonderful, sequels REALLY seem to be going downhill.
  
  BTW, I'm a Nazi Troll I guess - I don't want to see the movie. I've only seen about 3 and don't care for them. More won't help; "assembling them" won't help, either.
  
  I would like to see Doctor Fart Sniffer and his assistant Euuwww in their latest adventure, Butthole Transplant. "Doctor -- it's ALIVE!"
  
  --
  If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
16. Re:Common by RedK · 2019-02-26 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  The Last Jedi was such a great success that Solo rode it all the way to insolvency.
  Disclaimer : I personally enjoyed both TLJ and Solo. I recognize that I am in a minority of people.
  
  --
  "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
  Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
17. Re:Common by Mashiki · 2019-02-26 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  *****ROFLCOTPER*****
  Sorry were you saying something to actually add anything intelligent, or just province that you really are moving from stupid to retarded?
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
18. Re:Common by Riceballsan · 2019-02-26 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  Well I'd also say it minimizes it more.
  Lets say there's 200 trolls Movie comes out September 1st.
  Right now... 200 trolls post 1 star reviews in august, while 5 real people have seen the movie, so the ratio of 40:1 hate/love... Less real people go to see the movie because on the last day of august they see it, and if they do go they are expecting it to be disappointing, which may taint their enjoyment/excitement.
  If the real reviews and the fake ones start at the same time... then you'll get say 1000 positive reviews, with the 200 fake ones dragging it down, less are discouraged and more go in. The big difference is it takes way more work to outyell the real reviews, when there's actually people who have seen the movie reviewing it.
19. Re:Common by Mashiki · 2019-02-26 06:17 · Score: 2
  
  When in doubt, double down on stupid huh? That's pitiful. That didn't work for EA, or the actors of Ghostbusters 2016 either.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
20. Re:Common by lgw · 2019-02-26 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  That's not what's happening here, though. User reviews before release don't make much sense, and comments before release are rarely valuable.
  Sure, they're calling them "online troll" because of their politics, but that doesn't seem important here.
  And I believe RT already suppresses criticism of films that you're "supposed to" like, by simply not counting any 1-star reviews. Pretty crappy, but old news.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
21. Re:Common by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-26 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  In before the freeze peach guys.
  I find it ironic that this "freeze peach" term is gaining traction among the quote unquote anti-SJW circles. This is after years of the anti-SJWs complaining about labels like "SJW" being thrown around as a slur making it difficult to have any sort of productive dialogue.
  
  Oh, and you fake 1A types?
  That's frankly a strawman. Yes yes yes the 1A is a specific amendment to restrict the US federal government. There's still the idea or concept of free speech, which exists independent of what's written in the law.
  Sure a private entity can legally censor people. That doesn't make it any less censorship, nor does it alleviate the moral/ethical debate. As above, it appears that instead of practicing what they preached about dialogue in the past, people are more polarized and unwilling to talk.
  
  You can boycott my place, sure, but for each of you there will be more that aren't like you.
  Nah, they won't boycott your business, because they probably never needed whatever you were selling in the first place. On the other hand, when they deny you from THEIR businesses, it'll probably hurt you more.
  See, remember that they are on the side of the 1%, the ones who control those important industries; the ones who make the big hiring decisions; the ones who could close up shop, lay off a bunch of people, and then move the business out of the country. They're the ones who own the banks. etc
  When you kick them out of places you own, they'll grumble about it but it ultimately it won't impact their life that much (your life isn't exactly over when you lose access to one internet site)
  When they deny you from places they own, it'll be things like denying you from a job, or a loan, or a business deal you desperately need to keep your business afloat.
22. Re:Common by lgw · 2019-02-26 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  Star Wars makes money on toy sales. Or at least, it used to. That's how badly The Last Jedi failed. Disney broke Star Wars, and it's an ordinary film franchise now, the days where the merch was a multiple of the ticket sales are over.
  People will still go see the sequels - heck, people go see the transformers sequels. But the SW fanbase is turning its back on the movies (or in some prominent cases, abandoning fandom entirely in a public potlach ceremony).
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
23. Re:Common by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-26 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if it means abandoning a completely inflexible fanbase that demands crap re-hashes of the really awful EU books, I guess they should be disappointed by that billion dollars.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
24. Re:Common by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2019-02-26 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  There should be a bell curve centered around the average score. If there us a big dip then a huge bump up at 1 star, then you can safely assume those are people gaming the system for some reason other than movie quality.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
25. Re:Common by lgw · 2019-02-26 06:45 · Score: 2
  
  [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.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
26. Re:Common by lgw · 2019-02-26 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  Meh. The lead actress said this movie wasn't for me. Fair enough, I guess. Seems like she'd know. When a company says it doesn't want my business, I find it best to move on.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
27. Re:Common by lgw · 2019-02-26 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  Disney should be disappointed. They paid several billion for the rights after all, and haven't come anywhere close to making that back. The bulk of money in Star Wars has always been from the toy sales, and once the original trilogy was over, toy sales to pathetic manbabies with massive disposable income and a desire to collect every damn thing.
  These days? Not so much.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
28. Re:Common by kaatochacha · 2019-02-26 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  The Orville was/is awful. It was like McFarlane sold them a parady of star trek, realized Galaxy Quest had already been made, then decided to try to make it serious. Sort of.
  I remember seeing it with a friend, after he was over he asked me "wasn't that supposed to be funny?". I honestly didn't have an answer.
29. Re:Common by kaatochacha · 2019-02-26 07:20 · Score: 4, 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.
30. Re:Common by sexconker · 2019-02-26 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  It made significantly less than TFA.
  Yes, the BR was the best selling BR. But it sold far worse than the BR for TFA did. FAR worse. They trotted out the "BEST SELLING BLURAY!!" stories to try and damage control. Look at the actual numbers. In fact, I dare you go post the hard BR sales numbers for TFA and TLJ.
  And then Solo came out. That did super well, right?
  And the toy sales for SW are going swimmingly?
  And the video games are raking in cash?
  Disney is absolutely terrified, and rightfully so, of Episode 9 (Rise of the Resistance?).
  If Disney had taken the money they used to buy Lucasfilm and instead put in low-yield, guaranteed (no risk, FDIC-insured) savings they would have been better off.
  Will Captain Marvel kill the MCU? I doubt it. I expect people to see it because of End Game, then tons of people will see End Game, THEN the MCU will be effectively over.
31. Re:Common by sexconker · 2019-02-26 07:37 · Score: 3, 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.
32. Re:Common by ljw1004 · 2019-02-26 07:44 · Score: 1
  There's also no proof of review bombing despite all of the media outlets reporting that's the case.
  Yeah, that frustrates me too. Rotten Tomatoes is no longer showing "do I want to watch this?" so I can't make any assessment. I'd want to know whether the volume of "do I want to watch this" ratings for Captain Marvel is significantly different from that for other MCU films. If it is, that suggests trolling/bombing. If it's not, that suggests genuine sentiment.
  
  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.
  Oh that's a good idea! I did just that. Here are how many people voted yes or no on the "I want to see this movie" button on rotten tomatoes, as of 10 days prior to each movie's release:
  
  Captain Marvel - 44,735 voters - https://web.archive.org/web/20...
  Ant Man and the Wasp - 11,503 voters - https://web.archive.org/web/20...
  Avengers: Infinity War - 10,536 voters - https://web.archive.org/web/20...
  Black Panther - 33,540 voters - https://web.archive.org/web/20...
  Thor Ragnarok - 49,917 voters - https://web.archive.org/web/20...
  Spider Man Homecoming - 52,536 voters - https://web.archive.org/web/20...
  Guardians of the Galaxy vol 2 - 53,872 voters - https://web.archive.org/web/20...
  Doctor Strange - 47,723 voters - https://web.archive.org/web/20...
  These numbers flat out don't make sense. I don't know much about MCU but my perception of the hype was that "DrStrange (47k), AntMan+Wasp (11k), CaptainMarvel (45k)" were all minor films about minor characters, while "GOG2 (54k), BlackPanther (34k), InfinityWar (11k)" are major films that were massively hyped.
  
  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.
  I wanted to understand your claim in context. Here's some good context, from two weeks ago:
  
  https://deadline.com/2019/02/c... (Feb 14th)
  Outside of Iron Man‘s $102M and Black Panther‘s $202M, no other Marvel origins film has opened to north of $100M, particularly those in the deeper universe, i.e. Doctor Strange ($85M) and Guardians of the Galaxy ($94.3M)...
  Another box office industry source informed us on Captain Marvel‘s $100M start: “Give or take $20M”.
  http://fortune.com/2019/02/14/... (Feb 14th)
  early tracking data suggests the Brie Larson-helmed superhero film is heading toward a $100 million opening-weekend haul at the box office. That would make it one of the highest-grossing Marvel-movie openings of all time, and put it close to the $103 million earned by DC’s Wonder Woman film during
33. Re:Common by colonslash · 2019-02-26 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  Not common sense to me at all. The 'reviews' were the want-to-see score with comments. Here are the opinions before this internet site was cleansed with money:
  https://web.archive.org/web/20...
34. Re: Common by Kyr+Arvin · 2019-02-26 08:03 · Score: 2
  
  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.
35. Re:Common by JoeDuncan · 2019-02-26 08:13 · Score: 3, 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.
36. Re:Common by JoeDuncan · 2019-02-26 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  ... demands crap re-hashes of the really awful EU books, I guess they should be disappointed by that billion dollars.
  God the EU novels were fucking terrible! I never understood why people liked them...
37. Re: Common by mapkinase · 2019-02-26 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  Orville is utter overrated garbage by overrated meidocre voice actor who can't act in live roles. You have a taste of an old army boot
  
  --
  I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
38. Re:Common by painandgreed · 2019-02-26 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  [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.
  I would disagree, at least with how such terms have been defined over my time on the interwebs. Flamebait is usually written up as a seemingly calm statement that might even have some merit in certain cases, but is put forth by a person who is arguing in bad faith. They don't actually care about the topic. They probably won't even chime in on the topic again. They just want to start an argument by raising a topic that others will argue about usually justifying their actions by "just wanting to have a discussion." Their posts are often just a highly arguable opinion with nothing to actually back up their opinion. This would be like somebody coming to /. and stating how much better emacs is over vi. The above would be a troll. They are obviously trying to goad somebody into a fight which they will continue.
  Of course, I could be wrong. Just recently, it seems I've been using the swapped definitions of family room and living room all my life.
39. Re: Common by penandpaper · 2019-02-26 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Are you upset? Did you like the movie? Were you upset no one else liked it? It's okay kiddo. You don't have to validate your opinion and existence based on others' opinion of what you like. You just like whatever you like and don't let anyone else tell you otherwise. You can cry together if that will make you feel better. :,(
  We got ourselves an ole'fashion you knee corn.
40. Re: Common by squiggleslash · 2019-02-26 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah I'm pissed off by that because had the MRAs/Incels/GGers/etc not poisoned the well, the fact it was absolutely awful might have been apparent before we were watched it.
  But yeah, seems to be the exception - most of the films they get upset about turn out to be good, in some cases exceptionally so.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
41. Re:Common by lgw · 2019-02-26 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  90% of everything is crap. Some of the 10% non-crap EU books were pretty good.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
42. Re:Common by lgw · 2019-02-26 09:02 · Score: 2
  
  "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).
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
43. Re:Common by jellomizer · 2019-02-26 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  You have right to your opinion... However you should had watched the movie, or at least wait for the movie to be released.
  
  I have two words for you. Micheal Bay.
  So if Micheal Bay decided to make a non-explosion action flick (as many directors, may try to expand their scope) and finds that he is wonderful at say Victorian drama. Shouldn't the movie be based on its self not the names attached to it.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
44. Re:Common by lgw · 2019-02-26 09:07 · Score: 2
  
  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 Marvel has opened the door to indie publication getting a foothold with fresh ideas.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
45. Re: Common by penandpaper · 2019-02-26 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  You have a taste of an old army boot
  Old leather has the taste with age and refinement for the sophisticated gentlemen. I would expect most children have no patience for such a delicacy.
  Ooo a toe. Marvelous.
46. Re: Common by ravenshrike · 2019-02-26 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  Except of course for the minor itty bitty fact that these are not reviews but a measure of interest in the movie which have ZERO FUCKING EFFECT ON THE REVIEW SCORES when the movie actually comes out.
47. Re:Common by penandpaper · 2019-02-26 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  So if Micheal Bay decided to make a non-explosion action flick (as many directors, may try to expand their scope) and finds that he is wonderful at say Victorian drama.
  
  Pigs could fly too. I won't believe it till I see it.
  
  Shouldn't the movie be based on its self not the names attached to it
  Sure. But you know what you are getting with Micheal Bay, barring some Pig Flying miracle.
48. Re:Common by Killall+-9+Bash · 2019-02-26 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  This is what the movie executives hell bent on covering their asses are counting on. They need the troll assault to be real.
  
  --
  "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
49. Re:Common by ljw1004 · 2019-02-26 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  Q1. Is it likely to be a disaster? Before we can answer this, let's first answer a second question...
  Q2. What exactly do you count as a disaster? I'd be interested to hear you say *in advance of its opening* what kind of metric you'd use to count whether it's a disaster. Please let us know whether we should judge disaster by its opening weekend (if so then what level counts as a disaster?) or its long-term take in the US (again, what level?) or its long-term take worldwide? or some other metric? I'm asking you to give a measure now in advance, to make sure there's no backpedalling. Here are some comparison numbers I found...
  * Captain Marvel had 40k people vote whether they wanted to see it on Rotten Tomatoes. Estimates for opening weekend as of last week were $100m +- $20m.
  * Avengers: Infinity War had 10k people vote whether they wanted to see it on Rotten Tomatoes. Its opening weekend was $260m, and its worldwide total gross was $2b.
  * Dr Strange had 50k people vote whether they wanted to see it. Its opening weekend was $85m, and its worldwide total gross was $680m.
50. Re: Common by Straif · 2019-02-26 10:07 · Score: 2
  
  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 just added fuel to the fire.
  The fact that GB was generally a pretty mediocre film and then everyone saying that was accused of being a misogynist just made people push back harder, as is the norm for the internet. Trolls gotta troll but it's a bit of a chicken and the egg situation.
  Write a good story and hire good actors, be they male or female, and then push the film on it's merits. If you're campaign is focused primarily on the sex or race of the cast or the audience then it doesn't speak well for the product which is what most of the people commenting on RT were saying.
  
  --
  Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
51. Re:Common by Kyr+Arvin · 2019-02-26 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  Do you know what the most "successful" Pixar franchise has been? Not Toy Story, not the Incredibles, not even Nemo, which held the record for Pixar of most tickets sold and most DVDs bought. No, it was Cars. It didn't matter that Cars 2 was hated, and Cars 3 was 'meh.' It was merchandising. It sold an incredible amount of merchandise. Almost as much as Star Wars. Cars 2's merchandise sales were so astronomical that it paid for Cars 3.
  A movie can fail, but a 'franchise' success depends on so much more than the movie, and can frequently lumber on without it.
52. Re:Common by Kyr+Arvin · 2019-02-26 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  I thought Rogue One's characters were pretty good (action girl was saddled with a few bad lines, but that's my only real criticism of her). By far the best Star Wars movie since Empire.
53. Re:Common by GonzoPhysicist · 2019-02-26 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  Movie reviews shouldn't be taken as an aggregate because everyone has a different experience. The nice thing about critics is you can find ones you agree with most of the time and trust their judgement of a movie, that's impossible if just get a meta-critic style rating or popular average.
  
  --
  horror vacui
54. Re:Common by Kyr+Arvin · 2019-02-26 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  With critics, I have more and more the feeling that they have to praise certain movies from certain makers. Transformers being a pretty good example, personally I have rarely seen a more boring, bland and uninspired series. Zero character development (quite frankly, the characters are the same through the whole series), a fully predictable plot (in all of them), existing on explosions and effects alone, loud enough that you can't even catch some sleep.
  I mean, your milage may vary from reviewer to reviewer, but all of the live-action Transformers maybe (except Bumblebee) have received overall negative reviews. The first movie was the best reviewed at 57% (and hey, it started out ok..) which at least by RT standards is considered rotten. One other movie in the series had a 35% positive score, all the rest were in the teens. Critics did not like it.
55. Re: Common by Kyr+Arvin · 2019-02-26 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  I avoid all marketing as much as possible because I try to go into movies fresh without any preconceived notions... and marketing is often chock-full of spoilers that I don't want spoiled. That said, it was impossible to avoid positive and negative hype about Ghostbusters. I'm one of those guys who thinks that only bad movies really deserve remakes, that a remake is only justified if the original movie had a good idea that was poorly executed. Because of that I was predisposed to dislike it just on the basis of that. But I wanted to like it. I like the cast -- Jones is ok in small doses, but McCarthy, Wiig, and McKinnon are three of the best comediennes working today, and early in the movie they have some good lines and good moments. But they don't work in this movie, as the plot and their characters are SO bad. It's another goddamn crappy Paul Feig movie trying to cram his usual Paul Feig schtick into a Ghostbusters film. He should have given writing duties to Kristen Wiig. She was starring in the movie, she had a writing Oscar nom for Bridesmaids, and that movie was hilarious... but the best writer involved ended up NOT writing this movie. What a wasted opportunity.
56. Re:Common by Kyr+Arvin · 2019-02-26 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not the one being or acting fucking stupid.
  *****ROFLCOTPER*****
  I don't know whether this is flamebait or if you're seriously trolling trying to be as offensive as possible.
57. Re:Common by thegarbz · 2019-02-26 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  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!
  WTF are you on about. Critics in general aren't shills by any means and being paid to write reviews does not mean they favour any specific movie. You can see that happily if you actually bothered to read critical reviews. They do however fall into a certain general group that get attracted more to specific elements of a film than a general audience.
  
  Do not disagree lest ye be troll!
  WTF are you on about. People can and do happily disagree with critics all the time and don't get called a troll for it.
  Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one, no two are alike, and everyone think's other's smell of shit.
58. Re:Common by Kyr+Arvin · 2019-02-26 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  and now are expecting it to not clear $100m on opening weekend
  You don't normally put your big blockbuster in late February / early March. It was never expected to be an enormous hit. It's taking the same slot as Black Panther (which was a HUGE hit but wasn't expected to be) and Deadpool. It's not quite the dead zone that January is, but Feb - Early March is where you place your somewhat cheaper movies with more modest aims.
59. Re:Common by thegarbz · 2019-02-26 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  As covered yesterday there's no proof but Occams Razor certainly points towards a co-ordinated campaign. The movie industry has been no stranger to incredible critique where directors / lead actors have outright shat the bed prior to a movie release, yet somehow some comic book flick found 44000 people (70x more than normal) butt-hurt enough to go online and have their click heard on a review system which gets deleted after a movie gets released anyway?
  Doesn't pass the pub test.
60. Re:Common by h33t+l4x0r · 2019-02-26 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  I do care, however, if my deciding to not see a movie somehow makes me a (fill in the blank) -ist.
  Sounds like someone hasn't seen Black Panther yet.
61. Re:Common by denzacar · 2019-02-26 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  The fanbase thought the TLJ was so bad that they let Solo burn.
  
  Let Solo burn? I think you overestimate the fanbase! And its tolerance.
  That movie was bad. And stupid. And they knew it.
  Original directors were filming a COMEDY. Does that movie look like a comedy to you? Not many jokes for a comedy, right?
  What is a comedy without jokes?
  Think about it. A movie made to make you laugh - but there are no jokes.
  Cause they got cut out and replaced with new scenes.
  STUPID!
  And bad!
  And worst of all... BORING.
  Disney fired the original directors SIX MONTHS INTO THE SHOOT, reshooting a bunch of it with a new director, who had about two months to finish it all and do the reshoots.
  And Ron Howard knows how to do that. He went to The Corman Film School. He knows how to pack six months of filming into two months of reshoots.
  But then you get a Roger Corman movie!
  Only it has a bigger budget.
  Thus, along the way, they sunk nearly 300 million into production of it.
  Practically guaranteeing that it will be a flop, cause with marketing etc. it would need to make twice as much just to break even.
  Oh... and then there's the issue of the "lead characters" having nearly zero chemistry.
  Lead boy+girl couple that is. Ehrenreich had great chemistry with Suotamo (Chewy) and pretty good chemistry with Harrelson as well.
  But we are supposed to believe he did it all for a girl... while there's no room for their romance in the movie at all.
  We don't get to feel the chemistry. Which is supposed to be the main character's motivation for the entire story.
  Instead we're thrown three or four mini-motivations.
  Gotta get outta here... Gotta get outta here, again... Gotta get the paper... Gotta get the paper, again... Gotta get the ship... Gotta get the ship, again... and then the movie ends.
  Can you tell they made the movie TWICE?
  The movie was messed up in production, it went over budget - and it sucked. Which is a shame, Ehrenreich is a very charmin fella.
  But there was no boycott by the fans. It was simply a bad and boring movie. And even Star Wars fans have their limits.
  
  --
  Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
62. Re: Common by ShieldW0lf · 2019-02-26 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  I suspect that this had more to do with Mickey Mouse than anything else.
  Shame how Slashdot are going along with the spin doctoring. People are going to actually believe that this was a bunch of miscreants writing fake reviews. A small percentage will understand that people were expressing that their lack of desire to see the movie for whatever reason, but most will operate on the basis of the misinformation they got from sites like Slashdot.
  Just another fake news day.
  
  --
  -1 Uncomfortable Truth
63. Re:Common by Kyr+Arvin · 2019-02-26 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  Meh. The lead actress said this movie wasn't for me. Fair enough, I guess. Seems like she'd know. When a company says it doesn't want my business, I find it best to move on.
  Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
  There are two methods of inclusion.
  First, you can bring under-represented groups in, make them welcome and part of the team.
  Or second, you can do that by telling an overrepresented group that they suck and don't matter. "Inclusion through exclusion."
  The first works. The second does not.
64. Re: Common by Lije+Baley · 2019-02-26 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  Point of Light was meh, but Obol for Charon was where they made me consciously wonder if I should keep my subscription. Schizophrenic plot and three words: Solar powered toaster.
  I will probably keep watching Discovery, but I get more pleasure from The Orville.
  
  --
  Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
65. Re: Common by Lije+Baley · 2019-02-26 13:04 · Score: 1
  
  Er, it doesn't take much to notice that interest in toys is in decline anyway, not to mention the thin margins.
  
  --
  Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
66. Re:Common by Darinbob · 2019-02-26 13:09 · Score: 1
  
  Professional critics for the most part, whether you agree with them or not, will write in a much better style as if these were actually professionals doing professional work, they understand the language, the spelling, and the grammar, and can sometimes pull off some witty writing or some interesting observations. The self-style critic sitting in Mom's basement doesn't match any of this, it's obvious in the first or second sentence that they struggled in English class despite it being their native language, and their writing style makes fan-fic authors look good.
  If you want to rate a film then just rate the film. Writing an incoherent review doesn't add any value.
67. Re:Common by Darinbob · 2019-02-26 13:13 · Score: 1
  
  I liked the Ghostbusters remake. It wasn't as good as the original, sure, but it wasn't the crime against humanity that so many made it out to be. I laughed at it, just like any other average comedy, and there were some bits that I really liked.
  This is part of the flaw with anyone deciding to be an amateur critic. When you're personally invested in a film and have strong emotional feelings about it, then you're probably going to do a terrible job at writing the critique. Especially if someone is writing in an anti-sjw fueled rage then the writing is just dumb; you can earn your Iron Will club badges in other ways.
68. Re:Common by penandpaper · 2019-02-26 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  Because movies use on emotions it makes sense to determine what kind of movie you will like based on the emotional response people have to it. One may not be a PHD in English literature but if they are honest people will appreciate it. A professional critic has an incentive to be dishonest in some cases. This is why I said I have learned that how people defend a film is enough for me to skip it. If a film/show cannot stand on it's own and it needs insulting and aggressive defenders then it isn't the film for me. I don't want to get caught up in w/e dumpster fire is being paraded on Twitter. I might passively observe just out of curiosity.
  How you choose to spend your next buck on what media is irrelevant to me. What you like in media is irrelevant to me. I am actually happy you and others can find what they like. I wish that critics would stop hating on fans for disagreeing on opinionated matters.
69. Re:Common by penandpaper · 2019-02-26 15:20 · Score: 1
  
  Ye be troll. A troll be spotted! A troll be spotted!
  Get the you knee corn over so they can duel to thee death. I got my money on the you knee corn impaling the troll. Ay, this troll be a nasty one it is.
  0.0
70. Re:Common by terrycarlino · 2019-02-26 16:29 · Score: 1
  
  Rotten Tomatoes doesn't work like that. They only count reviews that get more than 2 1/2 stars. So audience reviews basically mean that x % of the people who give a review gave it more than 2 1/2 stars. So for something like Doctor Who 2018 if it has a 26% review 26% of the people who reviewed it gave it greater than a 2 1/2 star review. The rest not. No bell curve there.
71. Re: Common by junglee_iitk · 2019-02-26 20:21 · Score: 1
  
  As a non-white non-American let me tell you, fathers who aren't allowed to be a parent but get to see their children being brain-washed have absolutely no interest in opposing Ghostbusters or any movie for that matter. A lot of those fathers have daughters, you know?
  You should really think hard why you clubbed Men's Rights Activists with incels or gamergaters. I assume you made an honest mistake, of course. There are people on this very website who shit on MRAs because apparently Men + Rights = someone who should just commit suicide.
  Really, do you know any MRA who "poised the well"? My own personal finding is that we have a generation of boys being raised by abusive single mothers being fed the constant 'toxic masculinity' and 'teach the boys not to rape' and that generation of boys are spreading the angst over the progressive-outrage-industry.
  MRAs are old, you know? By definition, they are not incel, as most of them are divorced.
72. Re:Common by thegarbz · 2019-02-26 22:26 · Score: 1
  
  Ye be troll. A troll be spotted! A troll be spotted!
  ??? I'm genuinely confused. Are you suggesting that critics are paid by the movie? That the only movies rated poorly on RT are the ones not being paid for? Or was your argument so silly that you reverted to a caveman tactic https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...
73. Re:Common by millennial · 2019-02-27 00:04 · Score: 1
  
  Good god, dude, you need to grow up. Actual adults don't think like this.
  
  --
  I am scientifically inaccurate.
74. Re:Common by penandpaper · 2019-02-27 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  Uh oh. You got me. I poked fun of you actually commenting on my "Agree lest ye be troll". That totally means I am using super advanced caveman tactics. After Og say try this one trick to win a debate, we have concluded that deer blood can create a comfortable environment. A safe space, if you will, for cave debate (cavebate?) to occur. We have named this debate tactic Og Venisonumumumum. The number of suffixed um's tells you how useful it is.
  I was saying that critics can have a conflict of interest. Like being employed by the same company that make the money they are critiquing. I thought it was obvious with the link and the AC saying as much. Sorry, your comment didn't seem worth replying to except for the troll party.
75. Re: Common by penandpaper · 2019-02-27 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  Was I whining? Could you please show me. I'm a little slow. I used it as an example. I also mentioned why critics couldn't say anything bad about it (despite it being bad). Uh oh. I said it was bad, does that mean I am whining? It is so terrible it cannot be mentioned in any bad light. lol. Is it going to turn into the Voldemort of movies. That which cannot be named! It will haunt Hollywood until everyone has grown to their senses and realize it is the next Citizen Kane.
  It That Shall Not Be Named isn't above criticism. Get over it people don't like It That Shall Not Be Named.
76. Re:Common by GrumpySteen · 2019-02-27 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  You'd have a better point of Tom Cruise's movies were tanking at the box office.
77. Re:Common by thegarbz · 2019-02-27 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  I was saying that critics can have a conflict of interest. Like being employed by the same company that make the money they are critiquing.
  In what way are the critical aggregated scores putting critics in the employ of specific movie studios? That doesn't make any sense. Unless you're saying there's a deep underground conspiracy that ensures that critics across a variety of news publishers are secretly being paid by movie studios rather than the news publishers that employ them... all the while randomly panning movies not related to specific publishers to hide their paid services?
  As tin foil hat as that sounds at least it is some kind of an explanation, but so far your post or your claim didn't make any kind of sense at all.
78. Re: Common by Millennium · 2019-02-27 15:36 · Score: 1
  
  The hell of it is, I more or less agree on all this. It still does not constitute a license to be a jerk.
79. Re:Common by Mashiki · 2019-02-27 15:45 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sorry, I must have missed that sequel to "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen". Really doesn't sound that wonderful, sequels REALLY seem to be going downhill.
  
  South Park S10E02 will get that one for you.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
80. Re:Common by Mashiki · 2019-02-27 15:51 · Score: 1
  
  These numbers flat out don't make sense. I don't know much about MCU but my perception of the hype was that "DrStrange (47k), AntMan+Wasp (11k), CaptainMarvel (45k)" were all minor films about minor characters, while "GOG2 (54k), BlackPanther (34k), InfinityWar (11k)" are major films that were massively hyped.
  They've been hyping the movie for the last 6mo, interestingly the mouse started telling the lead actress to shut the hell up because it looks like the crap she's spewing isn't matching well for focus groups at the moment. Not hard to figure out why either, that doesn't make it a coordinated action. Unless you're suggesting that various left-wing media sites which have been heavily promoting her bullshit are the actual source of the coordination, because it was them trumpeting it, then stating "she doesn't need to apologize for attacking men, or the audience!" Which led people to say "fuck that noise."
  
  So just to be explicit, your suggested benchmark of "it probably won't clear $100m in its opening weekend" is tantamount to saying "it probably won't be one of the highest-grossing Marvel-movie openings of all time". Okay, given that it's a smaller movie about a character who's completely new to the film franchise, that sounds very reasonable. Are you expecting it to have an average opening compared to the other MCU openings? (and if it has an average opening, will you consider that a failure on par with GoG and DoctorStrange? or worse than them?)
  MCU movies generally open "well" they don't decrease in terms of opening performance either. Downward trends and re-estimating a movie that was apparently to clear well over the $150m range on just a US release only isn't a good sign. Note that the numbers are a "western" release number, not counting SEA, China or Japan.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
81. Re:Common by Mashiki · 2019-02-27 15:53 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, but only once.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
82. Re:Common by Mashiki · 2019-02-27 15:59 · Score: 1
  
  Q2. What exactly do you count as a disaster? I'd be interested to hear you say *in advance of its opening* what kind of metric you'd use to count whether it's a disaster. Please let us know whether we should judge disaster by its opening weekend (if so then what level counts as a disaster?) or its long-term take in the US (again, what level?) or its long-term take worldwide? or some other metric? I'm asking you to give a measure now in advance, to make sure there's no backpedalling. Here are some comparison numbers I found...
  Disasters in film openings come from multiple things. Story, actors doing bullshit things, studios pulling bullshit things, these are all similar to 'product failures' depending on how bad of a screw-up there is, determines the level of the disaster. Let's look at Ghostbusters 2016 to start with. They hyped the piss out of it, kept hyping it up, kept hyping it up. Then released a shit trailer, and it killed the hype. Then when people started talking about it, the lead actors then started attacking the audience. This lead to multiple media outlets also attacking the audience. This lead to a disastrous turn-out for the movie itself and lots of empty theaters.
  Now, let's look at the current state of Star Wars. The first movie was tolerable to most people. The second movie, the actors and publications started attacking the audience because the story became absolute shit. This lead to the famous "the last jedi deconstructs star wars, and this is a good thing" being the title or byline at 50+ sites. This further pissed people off, leading to a bad turn-around showing for Solo. Now, what's the focus groups and average people saying about the SW franchise? "Don't care, they killed everything."
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
83. Re: Common by junglee_iitk · 2019-02-27 17:42 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe. More skeptic part of me thinks that this mixing of MRAs with incels is deliberate propaganda. It basically covers all men who are currently not subservient to a woman.
84. Re:Common by ljw1004 · 2019-02-28 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  [Q2. What exactly do you count as a disaster? I'd be interested to hear you say *in advance of its opening* what kind of metric you'd use to count whether it's a disaster.]
  Disasters in film openings come from multiple things...
  I know what disasters come from... I'm just asking if you will set out now, in advance, a metric by which we can judge objectively whether your prediction of "disaster" comes true. I'd expected you to say something like "US opening weekend $120m is a success", but I assume you'd pick different numbers.
  Am I asking an unreasonable question? Is there a different way you'd want to judge the success of the film?
85. Re:Common by ljw1004 · 2019-03-11 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  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...and they seem to be having one hell of a run with commercial failures these days. ME:A, BFV, Anthem(it's already 50% off in some stores). Do you understand now, or would you like me to draw you a picture?
  I'm reading the reports now:
  
  https://www.boxofficemojo.com/...
  [Captain Marvel] delivered the franchise's seventh largest opening weekend of all time while grossing more over its first three days than the combined totals of any previous three-day weekend so far this year...
  Captain Marvel proved a massive success...
  Historically, the performance ranks among openings that include The Dark Knight ($158.4m opening), The Hunger Games: Catching Fire ($158m opening), Rogue One ($155m opening) and The Hunger Games ($152.5m opening), the four of which representing a total domestic gross ranging from $408-530+ million...
  Internationally, Captain Marvel delivered an estimated $302 million, making it the fifth highest international opening weekend of all-time and the sixth largest worldwide debut ever...
  Your prediction of Captain Marvel likely being a disaster was enormously off the mark. I wonder what you think about that?
Oh hell yeah, another one of these threads by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-26 04:08 · Score: 1

::grabs popcorn::
Anti-Advertising by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-26 04:13 · Score: 1

Culture jamming and "targeted campaigns" like this are the antidote to mass marketing. Fuck the entertainment industry.
1. Re:Anti-Advertising by TigerPlish · 2019-02-26 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  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 sit in front of their screens 'bating and drinking Brawndo?
  
  --
  The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
2. Re:Anti-Advertising by techsoldaten · 2019-02-26 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  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.
Wrong-think detected by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-26 04:13 · Score: 1

Do not criticize Hollywood ... or else!
quiet, blessed quiet by PopeRatzo · 2019-02-26 04:14 · 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.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
1. Re:quiet, blessed quiet by Dunbal · 2019-02-26 04:16 · Score: 2
  
  Are you going to jump off this bridge with a broken bungee cord? Why not? Do you have first hand knowledge of broken cord bungee jumping?
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
2. Re:quiet, blessed quiet by Nidi62 · 2019-02-26 04:19 · Score: 4, 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.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
3. Re:quiet, blessed quiet by JackieBrown · 2019-02-26 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  The post that was replied to said "first hand knowledge."
4. Re:quiet, blessed quiet by chispito · 2019-02-26 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
5. Re:quiet, blessed quiet by WankerWeasel · 2019-02-26 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  I have a friend that views movies before they're released several times a month. He provides reviews of them on Facebook all the time. He would have a legit reason to review a movie before the theater release but now couldn't share that review with RT, as he does with his Facebook friends.
6. Re:quiet, blessed quiet by sg_oneill · 2019-02-26 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  Can you imagine a world where you had to actually have some first-hand knowledge of something before you could express an opinion?
  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* this sort of shit should be banned.
  
  --
  Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
7. Re:quiet, blessed quiet by nucrash · 2019-02-26 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  Place something witty here
8. Re: quiet, blessed quiet by c6gunner · 2019-02-26 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  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.
9. Re:quiet, blessed quiet by WankerWeasel · 2019-02-26 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  He's in a well known punk rock band and a bartender, but maybe professional film critic could be added to that list.
10. Re:quiet, blessed quiet by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-26 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  News flash: This article is not about reviews. RT decided to discontinue its "want to see" functionality after the Cpt Marvel movie fell from the high 90's to 27 or so. This might be based on backlash against Brie Larson, who plays the protagonist, making racially and sexually bigoted remarks while discussing the film in public.
11. Re: quiet, blessed quiet by tsqr · 2019-02-26 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  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.
12. Re:quiet, blessed quiet by Pfhorrest · 2019-02-26 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  I wish I could give you a Funny mod.
  
  --
  -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
  "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
13. Re:quiet, blessed quiet by david_thornley · 2019-02-26 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  For one thing, your implied proposal would wipe out almost all of the study of history. I do have opinions on the Battle of Cannae, but I'm a touch too young to have had first-hand experience.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
14. Re:quiet, blessed quiet by Shotgun · 2019-02-26 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Entering infinite logic loop. Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!
  
  --
  Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
  Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
15. Re: quiet, blessed quiet by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2019-02-26 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  The reason for that are plea deals, which some have a serious problem with as far as rights go, not the least of which is making it easy for convictions without having to go through all that pesky jury problem.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
16. Re:quiet, blessed quiet by PopeRatzo · 2019-02-26 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  For one thing, your implied proposal would wipe out almost all of the study of history. I do have opinions on the Battle of Cannae
  First, it's not my proposal. Second, I doubt that you're the guy people should turn to when trying to get information on the Battle of Cannae.
  You need to loosen up, David. I want you to have opinions on the Battle of Cannae. I'm not trying to stifle your opinion. It's good and proper that you should have an opinion. But you should not expect Gaius Terentius Varro to give you a call to get advice on whether or not to attack Hannibal.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
17. Re:quiet, blessed quiet by PopeRatzo · 2019-02-26 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  He's in a well known punk rock band and a bartender, but maybe professional film critic could be added to that list.
  I think I might know him too. I guess there could be more than one punk rock musician slash bartender slash film buff. That would be pretty funny if we were thinking of the same guy.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
18. Re:quiet, blessed quiet by colonslash · 2019-02-26 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  The Rotten Tomatoes feature was a poll asking if you wanted to see the movie, with text explanations. So it was a test of public sentiment probably largely based on pre-release publicity, including trailers. The commenters did some first-hand knowledge of what they saw and were intending to do.
  I read the comments while they were still up, and a lot of the negative ones focused on Brie Larson saying she didn't care what 40 year old white men thought about some movie. Not the brightest move to alienate a big portion of your audience, but luckily for the movie there's a lot of money to help cover up the controversy.
19. Re:quiet, blessed quiet by colonslash · 2019-02-26 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  The 'reviews' were the want-to-see score with comments. Here are the opinions before this internet site was cleansed with money:
  https://web.archive.org/web/20...
20. Re:quiet, blessed quiet by PopeRatzo · 2019-02-26 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  I am confused, are you saying that am I not allowed to have an opinion on whether or not I want to see a movie, until after I have seen that movie?
  No, I am saying I cannot imagine a world where that would be the case.
  I don't get why so many of you ACs are confused.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
21. Re: quiet, blessed quiet by c6gunner · 2019-02-26 23:45 · Score: 1
  
  Heh. New left wing talking mantra: "Fences work; walls don't!"
22. Re:quiet, blessed quiet by Dunbal · 2019-02-27 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  So is posting whether you will or will not going to see a movie. That's not opinion, that's your future intention.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:"Trolls". by steelwraith · 2019-02-26 04:15 · 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.
maybe require proof of attendance initially? by RhettLivingston · 2019-02-26 04:16 · 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.
1. Re:maybe require proof of attendance initially? by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-26 04:40 · Score: 2
  
  I'm picturing Comic Book Guy with his laptop strapped over his shoulders, furiously typing
  Worst. Movie. Ever.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
2. Re:maybe require proof of attendance initially? by JesseMcDonald · 2019-02-26 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
3. Re:maybe require proof of attendance initially? by WankerWeasel · 2019-02-26 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  It's already hard enough to get people to leave reviews for nearly anything online. The more hoops you make them jump through, even very very small ones, create a barrier to entry that will cause a SIGNIFICANT drop in the number of reviews. For a site that is based on reviews and needs as many as possible, even a small step like using an app or submitting a photo would likely cut their reviews by more than 90%.
4. Re:maybe require proof of attendance initially? by chispito · 2019-02-26 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
5. Re:maybe require proof of attendance initially? by RhettLivingston · 2019-02-26 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  Just being in the lobby when you start to post the review doesn't seem like much of a barrier to me unless you didn't actually go to see the movie at all. I am very fond of the saying "trust, but verify".
6. Re:maybe require proof of attendance initially? by grep+-v+'.*'+* · 2019-02-26 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  THIS. I don't look for RT at all, but the few times I'm redirected there, that's the only indicator I use.
  
  --
  If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
7. Re:maybe require proof of attendance initially? by WankerWeasel · 2019-02-26 06:26 · Score: 2
  
  I've seen as much as a 98% drop in responses online due to the addition of a single form field. Even the very smallest additions can have a HUGE impact on response rates. As small of a task as it seems to require people to start their review while in the theater lobby, it would likely be a huge barrier and cut down significantly on the number of reviews (not to mention all those who forget to start their review while there). Again, RT wants as many reviews as possible, so it'd be a determent to their site to require such. There's a reason Amazon and other sites don't require you to purchase from them in order to review a product.
8. Re:maybe require proof of attendance initially? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2019-02-26 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  He's one of the fat white male nerds this movie "wasn't made for."
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
9. Re: maybe require proof of attendance initially? by mapkinase · 2019-02-26 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  I would not brag about your horrible taste that matches auduence preferences
  
  --
  I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
10. Re:maybe require proof of attendance initially? by larryjoe · 2019-02-26 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  Taking that idea further, it would be really helpful to know the opinions of other reviewers who have preferences like mine. There's a chance that the average of the entire reviewer population reflects my potential enjoyment of the movie, but there's also a chance that it doesn't. So, maybe something like the old Netflix recommendations.
11. Re:maybe require proof of attendance initially? by Cipheron · 2019-02-27 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  > HIgh critic, low->middle audience: Cerebral film, probably will enjoy it if I go in with my thinking cap on
  This one was traditionally true, however it's not really anymore. Case in point: Ghostbusters 2016 has 74% positive critics reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. It's certainly not lauded for it's "cerebral" points, but for some presumed socio-political point.
12. Re: maybe require proof of attendance initially? by Cipheron · 2019-02-27 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  That's really elitist. It's just a tautology that for most people, if 90% of actual people who watched a film enjoyed it, then they'll probably enjoy it too. There's certainly better odds of that than if 90% of "film critics" enjoyed something yet only 40% of normal people did.
  Film critics are using a different metric than "is the film actually any good to go see" which is what matters to most people.
Re:"Trolls". by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-26 04:16 · Score: 3, Informative

For such big strong alpha males you guys sure do shit your diapers a lot.
I guess that's another word lost ... by cascadingstylesheet · 2019-02-26 04:20 · 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".
1. Re: I guess that's another word lost ... by reanjr · 2019-02-26 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  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.
2. Re: I guess that's another word lost ... by TigerPlish · 2019-02-26 04:54 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
3. Re: I guess that's another word lost ... by RedK · 2019-02-26 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  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).
  
  --
  "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
  Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
4. Re: I guess that's another word lost ... by jbmartin6 · 2019-02-26 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  You're a troll.
  
  --
  This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
5. Re: I guess that's another word lost ... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2019-02-26 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  A troll is someone who is trolling, as for fish, hoping for a bite.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
6. Re: I guess that's another word lost ... by Outta_the_way_peck! · 2019-02-26 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  That's nowhere near "ruining something for someone else." That's an asshole.
  I would submit that trolls are a subset of assholes.
7. Re: I guess that's another word lost ... by RedK · 2019-02-26 11:31 · Score: 1
  
  https://boundingintocomics.com/2019/02/25/captain-marvels-brie-larson-clarifies-overwhelmingly-white-male-comments-wants-to-bring-more-seats-up-to-the-table/
  
  --
  "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
  Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
8. Re: I guess that's another word lost ... by s4080326 · 2019-02-26 12:01 · Score: 2
  
  I always think we stuffed up by going with Troll instead of Trawl. Troll should be kept exclusively for people trying to get a response out of someone. We shouldn't be using it to describe bullies trying to silence others.
9. Re: I guess that's another word lost ... by Cipheron · 2019-02-27 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  IDK how many of those misogynists there really are. They certainly didn't hit Wonder Woman or Alita: Battle Angel, for example.
  I'm not saying there are *none*, but explaining-away all criticism as "misogynists don't want to see a thing with a female lead" is a bit simplistic, and we have plenty counter-examples of female-lead action movies that are widely loved (e.g. Alita Battle Angel) by for example the *exact same* Youtube reviewers who dislike things like The Last Jedi and the latest season of Doctor Who. those supposed misogynists seem to get behind female-lead things pretty strongly if they *good*. What people actually object to is the injection of divisive politics into things. For example one anti-Alita review article said Alita sucks because a "man" made it, and it would have been better if Alita had been made by a feminist woman and had overtly fought against "toxic masculinity" in the movie. However, if they did that most people would have HATED the movie. And not because there's a "female lead". most people against cramming politics into everything are also atheists, and we'd get offended if someone crammed Christian messaging into the same movie. It's nothing to do with gender, and everything to do with the fact that it's offensive for people to hijack entertainment to preach at you.
troll = dissatisfied movie-goer by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-26 04:22 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:troll = dissatisfied movie-goer by Jason+Levine · 2019-02-26 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
2. Re: troll = dissatisfied movie-goer by reanjr · 2019-02-26 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  High audience score simply means widely palatable. It most def doesn NOT mean it's a good movie.
3. Re:troll = dissatisfied movie-goer by RedK · 2019-02-26 04:53 · 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.
  
  --
  "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
  Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
4. Re:troll = dissatisfied movie-goer by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2019-02-26 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  "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 planning on advertising Captain Marvel at all.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
5. Re: troll = dissatisfied movie-goer by Opportunist · 2019-02-26 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  It needn't even mean that. It could still well be that the franchise has a wide potential audience range that will go see any movie, no matter the quality.
  You have the same with computer games.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
6. Re:troll = dissatisfied movie-goer by RedK · 2019-02-26 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  "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?
  
  It was a good way to see how well the promotion campaign was going. And it did its job perfectly in this case : Brie came out and said something people disliked during the promotion of the movie, so people actually went out of their way to leave feedback about their sudden lack of intention of seeing the movie.
  As a feedback mecanism, it worked perfectly. It's just that the powers-that-be didn't like what the feedback said in this instance.
  
  --
  "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
  Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
7. Re:troll = dissatisfied movie-goer by Opportunist · 2019-02-26 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  Either you're trolling or you are not aware that this is still about the "planning to see the movie" feature, not an actual review. You could never review a movie before its release on RT. Neither before this change nor now. What you could do until now was to post whether you plan to see a certain movie.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
8. Re:troll = dissatisfied movie-goer by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2019-02-26 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Got it. You don't understand statistics or polling. Because it's not a random sample, and it's treated as a percentage, it's meaningless. An absolute number of people who do want to see it would work, but the number of people who don't is meaningless.
  WTF did someone say that has you so butthurt?
  And, again, it's not a feedback mechanism, at least not a meaningful one. Like, I would be hard pressed to make any statement about this movie or their ads other than "the people who don't plan to see this movie actively dislike it as opposed to not caring." And I don't know how that information helps anyone in anyway.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
9. Re:troll = dissatisfied movie-goer by RedK · 2019-02-26 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  Got it. You don't understand statistics or polling. Because it's not a random sample, and it's treated as a percentage, it's meaningless. An absolute number of people who do want to see it would work, but the number of people who don't is meaningless.
  Nice strawman.
  But of course, you're wrong. The percentage did in fact indicate whether people interacting had a positive or negative view overall.
  
  And, again, it's not a feedback mechanism, at least not a meaningful one.
  That's your opinion of course, not a fact.
  
  --
  "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
  Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Re: "Trolls". by reanjr · 2019-02-26 04:26 · Score: 1

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.
First hand experience in everything is impossible by sjbe · 2019-02-26 04:26 · Score: 1

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.
What reviews? by dasunt · 2019-02-26 04:26 · Score: 4, 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.
1. Re:What reviews? by dasunt · 2019-02-26 04:35 · Score: 2
  
  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 troll campaign, have been doing a counter-troll campaign to drive up the number of people planning to see the movie? And will Rotten Tomatoes investigate and remove any fraudulent votes for the movie? Or just negative fraudulent votes?
2. Re:What reviews? by Mashiki · 2019-02-26 05:24 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
3. Re:What reviews? by Opportunist · 2019-02-26 06:08 · Score: 2
  
  Next up: Pissed off users voting up all other movies to surpass the number of people planning to see Marvel.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
4. Re:What reviews? by thegarbz · 2019-02-26 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  More likely you didn't look hard enough: Avengers Endgame: 10k people want to see, Frozen 2: 1050 want to see. John Wick 3: 700 want to see. You know this metric gets nuked as soon as a movie is released right?
  
  have been doing a counter-troll campaign to drive up the number of people planning to see the movie?
  100%. There was definitely a campaign to boost the numbers. I was paying attention as this story unfolded. 2 weeks ago there was about 2k people on the want to see and like 90% positive. Then the review bombs hit and at one point it was almost in the single digits positive with 20k+ opinions. Now as it stands more people want to see Captain Marvel than wanting to see the end of the most anticipated comic movie of this generation?
  Definitely there was a counter campaign.
  
  And will Rotten Tomatoes investigate and remove any fraudulent votes for the movie? Or just negative fraudulent votes?
  Really there's no point. As I said this metric is removed on release anyway and it will soon be forgotten and these stupid bombing campaigns will simply not affect a movie prior to release in the future.
5. Re:What reviews? by Skubman · 2019-02-26 18:56 · Score: 1
  
  Crap, what if we ran presidential elections like this? Vote for everyone you want to see as president.
  
  --
  -This signature is strictly to prevent comments ending with questions or propositions.-
6. Re:What reviews? by Opportunist · 2019-02-26 19:59 · Score: 1
  
  I'd be more interested in a way to actually vote someone off if he turns out to be crap.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
7. Re:What reviews? by Cipheron · 2019-02-27 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  To be honest, raw numbers are probably more meaningful there than a percentage. A movie could have a total of 3 votes to see it, and 1 vote not to see it, and be shown as "75% want to see it". However, displaying that as "3 people want to see it" would give you a more meaningful estimate of popularity.
  Additionally, if 1 million people want to see something, that's what really affects it's profitability, not how many additional people DON'T plan to see it.
  The percentage is less meaningful. The only reason people *would* be positive-bombing the score is in response to the negative-bombing that already occurred. For future movies, removing the entire percentage system would eliminate that dynamic.
8. Re:What reviews? by Skubman · 2019-02-28 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with that is the Pence Paradox. "Yeah, impeach me, but look who's all shiny and clean and NEXT IN LINE!" Then you go from idiot in charge who at least might have the foresight to surround himself with capability and mooch credit to idiot in charge who will ensure there are stronger idiots around him.
  
  --
  -This signature is strictly to prevent comments ending with questions or propositions.-
9. Re:What reviews? by Opportunist · 2019-02-28 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  That's why I call VPs "Assassination insurance". Take a look back through history up to Johnson and realize that ALL VPs since Kennedy's assassination were essentially tools to convince a potential assassin that if you off HIM, you'll get THAT ONE instead. And you don't want that!
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If a movie is worth trolling it’s worth watc by xack · 2019-02-26 04:28 · Score: 3, Funny

To see what the fuss is about. Trolling backfires in this regard.
Top 100 Best Movies of All Time by 110010001000 · 2019-02-26 04:30 · Score: 5, Funny

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
1. Re:Top 100 Best Movies of All Time by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-26 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
2. Re:Top 100 Best Movies of All Time by 110010001000 · 2019-02-26 04:46 · Score: 2
  
  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.
3. Re:Top 100 Best Movies of All Time by Sir_Eptishous · 2019-02-26 04:59 · Score: 2
  
  Who can take this site seriously?
  People who think superhero films are the height of film making.
  
  --
  We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
4. Re: Top 100 Best Movies of All Time by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-26 05:11 · 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.
5. Re:Top 100 Best Movies of All Time by phayes · 2019-02-26 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  Using RT as a reference automatically gets you classed as someone who doesn't care about being taken seriously in any case.
  
  --
  Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
6. Re:Top 100 Best Movies of All Time by phayes · 2019-02-26 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  My apologies: You meant RT=Rotten Tomatoes. I'm used to trolls trying to use another RT as a reference.
  Sorry for that.
  
  --
  Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
7. Re:Top 100 Best Movies of All Time by skam240 · 2019-02-26 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  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 is hardly scientific and taking a top 100 movie list on a site like this with any level of seriousness is just foolish.
  In other words, Rotten Tomatoes' scoring works well enough for the core purpose of the site but of course results get weird when you get too deep into the numbers.
  
  --
  I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
8. Re:Top 100 Best Movies of All Time by david_thornley · 2019-02-26 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't like 2001 when it came out. Having lived at that time, I don't think it was a product of its time.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
9. Re:Top 100 Best Movies of All Time by JaredOfEuropa · 2019-02-26 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  A great movie of all time should at least age well. Perhaps a movie should be at least, say, 10 years old before being even considered for that list. My guess is that in 10 years, Black Panther and Blackkklansman will be more or less forgotten.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Great and what about the real problem by DrXym · 2019-02-26 04:30 · Score: 3, Funny

It's not the troll reviews which are the main problem, it is the shill reviews.
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.
1. Re:Great and what about the real problem by Falconnan · 2019-02-26 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  This could well be true... But we need to be honest here: There's no solid evidence for your assertion regarding shills (at least paid shills). There is a strong bit of evidence for a coordinated hit job (whether the cause for the hit job is valid is its own debate). Either practice harms the review process generally and needs to stop. I don't care about Ms. Larson's politics in general. I do have concerns as to her acting skills, but I'm reserving judgment given the franchise's relatively decent showings so far.
2. Re:Great and what about the real problem by DrXym · 2019-02-26 08:54 · Score: 2
  
  "It could well be true".
  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 of what I'm talking about. Not the first time either. 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 they're not being paid for this of piffle, the tweeters for "influencing", and RT for aggregating it.
  So yeah, maybe it's all completely innocent. The real world suggests money is changing hands. I'd add that the trolls damage studios, not RT, so I wonder too why their actions focus on that and not the bigger issue.
3. Re:Great and what about the real problem by DrXym · 2019-02-26 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  When there is a lot of money riding on a successful launch of a product (movie, game, phone etc.), these companies will drop a LOT of cash on buying positive press. They can easily pressure blogs and websites to toe the line by rewarding the good little sites with freebies and press junkets and punishing the bad little sites by dropping ad campaigns or blackballing them. I don't believe RT is immune to this.
  I still remember reading "Ain't it cool news" almost 20 years ago and see it slide from being a gushing fanboy website with interesting news into a shill-for-hire front for studios looking for good word of mouth. Nothing has changed.
4. Re:Great and what about the real problem by hiroshimarrow · 2019-02-26 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  Let me google that for your. RT is owned by Flixster, which is owned by WB. WB, being a huge member of MPAA is likely all too happy to force their subsidiaries to play ball.
  https://www.theguardian.com/me...
5. Re:Great and what about the real problem by mvdwege · 2019-02-26 23:23 · Score: 1
  
  It's about ethics in film reviews!
  
  --
  "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Next up, require proof of seeing by mysidia · 2019-02-26 04:40 · Score: 3, 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.
1. Re:Next up, require proof of seeing by Misagon · 2019-02-26 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  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 about the movie, the name of the theatre and a date ... and written in a foreign language.
  3. Instead of an actual ticket to a pre-screening, the ticket attendant would carry a list of names. Attendants show their IDs. (I have done this.)
  Or not even that. I have been asked to cosplay semi-professionally at movie premieres and pre-screenings, and allowed to just stay in the theatre and see the movie afterwards. The only proof here was that I belonged to the group.
  4. It is so easy to fake. One troll could set up a web site that makes fake ticket images and then all trolls would use that.
  
  --
  "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
2. Re:Next up, require proof of seeing by hiroshimarrow · 2019-02-26 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  It wouldn't work, because these weren't reviews... It was basically a question: Do you plan to see the movie? Y/N. No supremely outnumbered the Yes (76% to 24% before being pulled) and that is what they are reacting to.
Re: "Trolls". by Luckyo · 2019-02-26 04:42 · Score: 1

Has it ever occurred to you that you're not RT's audience?
There was not a *prefilm* review... by aepervius · 2019-02-26 04:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

Last time I went on that page to see what the fuss was about, there was no review. In fact the only thing which was there was a percentage of people which announced whether they would want to see the film or not, and that was what was down very low, and a MISNAMED tab "audience review" which tells whether people want to see it in future or not. Case in point i jsut replaced the not interrested / will view picture with words : :

"(not interrested)
Never cared for Captain Marvel. Where's the Black Widow movie?

(not interrested)
Nate J February 25, 2019 looks kind of boring honestly

(want to see it)
Chris E February 25, 2019 Not a top tier character, but interested in the big picture "

. 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
1. Re:There was not a *prefilm* review... by rundgong · 2019-02-26 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  I guess they are talking about the reviews below.
  > This movie will be the most pathetic movie of the year
  >This Movie is going to be a total disaster.
  > This looks like straight up garbage.
  > Tired of all this SJW nonsense
  Also I guess there was an unusual influx of "Not Interested" that is not normal:
  Have a look at the Way Back Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/*/...
  Early February: A few thousand votes at a sold 90% interested
  17 Feb: 86% / 3704 Votes
  19 Feb: 82% / 4606
  20 Feb: 62% / 8k
  21 Feb: 57% / 12k
  23 Feb: 52% / 18k
  25 Feb: 38% / 28k
  Perhaps this is normal, but to me it does look a bit strange.
2. Re:There was not a *prefilm* review... by TimothyHollins · 2019-02-28 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  Did the hype/ads/visibility of the movie ramp up heavily during that time? I don't know much about movie marketing, but when does the viewer interest peak?
3. Re:There was not a *prefilm* review... by TimothyHollins · 2019-02-28 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  Addendum: When did Brie Larson make all these controversial statements?
Wonder how many trolls are anti-censorship by Chewbacon · 2019-02-26 04:47 · Score: 1

...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.
1. Re:Wonder how many trolls are anti-censorship by Opportunist · 2019-02-26 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Not the best of all time by rsilvergun · 2019-02-26 04:58 · Score: 2

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/
The Trolls score another victory by sbrown123 · 2019-02-26 04:58 · Score: 2

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.
1. Re:The Trolls score another victory by jbmartin6 · 2019-02-26 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  So you also scored a victory. Trolls are the Chaos Monkey of society, breaking what can be broken for the ultimate betterment of all.
  
  --
  This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Fake news, Day 2. by scorp1us · 2019-02-26 05:02 · Score: 1, 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.

--
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
1. Re:Fake news, Day 2. by Opportunist · 2019-02-26 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Because clicks and reaction postings.
  Duh.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
that's nice by Anonymous Coward · 2019-02-26 05:04 · Score: 1

but when are they going to deal with the _ACTUAL_ problem of fake positive reviews?
1. Re:that's nice by Opportunist · 2019-02-26 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  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?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Dumb by argStyopa · 2019-02-26 05:10 · 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.

--
-Styopa
Fake news and censorship, it is all so tiresome by Rasatsu · 2019-02-26 05:17 · 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?
1. Re:Fake news and censorship, it is all so tiresome by Silverhammer · 2019-02-26 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  "Was /. always this moronic or is it just nostalgic memories clouding my view?"
  No, it is significantly worse now, since BeauHD and msmash became the primary editors following the latest change in ownership.
  And I went out of my way to sign on for this comment, just so people could see my five-digit ID and understand what I mean when I say I remember what Slashdot used to be like.
2. Re:Fake news and censorship, it is all so tiresome by Skubman · 2019-02-26 19:00 · Score: 1
  
  Wish I had stopped AC'ing soon enough to be able to mod this up. I've been on /. since 2004. I still miss the old sections for news.
  
  --
  -This signature is strictly to prevent comments ending with questions or propositions.-
3. Re:Fake news and censorship, it is all so tiresome by x0 · 2019-02-27 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  "Was /. always this moronic or is it just nostalgic memories clouding my view?"
  No, it is significantly worse now, since BeauHD and msmash became the primary editors following the latest change in ownership. And I went out of my way to sign on for this comment, just so people could see my five-digit ID and understand what I mean when I say I remember what Slashdot used to be like.
  But if it weren't for /., where would you get your daily 'the sky is falling, we're all going to die 8 degrees hotter!' news?
  
  ...sigh
  
  m
  
  --
  In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
I dare say that this would be worse for movies by Opportunist · 2019-02-26 05:23 · Score: 1

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.
Re:"Trolls". by ArhcAngel · 2019-02-26 05:27 · Score: 1

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
Re:Is RT owned by Disney? by Opportunist · 2019-02-26 05:32 · Score: 1

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 superhero movies" and "people who care about feminism" is fairly small.
The studios hope, and so far correctly, that people wanting to see superhero movies will still go in the (more and more vain) hope that the movie will still be a superhero movie and that they can somehow tune out the "look, I'm female, I'M FEMALE!!!11!!" parts that invariably get stuffed between the action.
Could we just go back to having strong, female leads that don't feel the compelling urge to show off that they are female every other scene? We see that you're female. We noticed it. We don't care. Go and show us a story!

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
100% false and a coverup by slashmydots · 2019-02-26 05:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

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!
1. Re:100% false and a coverup by slashmydots · 2019-02-26 09:17 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Oh look, an SJW hiding behind an anonymous post. I've NEVER seen that before. Fuck off with your sexist man-hating.
2. Re:100% false and a coverup by thegarbz · 2019-02-26 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  Theory: "Everyone - leaves an honest answer to the question "do you want to see this movie""
  Reality: "Everyone - I may leave an honest answer but I couldn't be fucked opening the website"
  As a matter of interest do you think that Brie Larson is the first actress / director to shit in the bed right before a movie is released? Where were the 44000 angry white men the last 20 times this happened?
  Yes this was a trolling campaign. Real men don't give enough shits about this. And fuck my karma but let's face it, getting incredibly hot headed and worked up about something incredibly trivial someone may have said is a thing ... but not a thing that happens to men.
The Audience Scores are scores I trust by Distan · 2019-02-26 05:43 · Score: 2

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.
1. Re:The Audience Scores are scores I trust by jeff4747 · 2019-02-26 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  You made this post as if this is a new phenomenon. It's not.
  People who are so into film that they become a professional reviewer are looking for something different than mass-market viewers. We plebs want to be entertained. The pros want art. It is very rare when a movie serves both.
  This was true back in the day when movie reviews were printed in newspapers, and continued to be true when put on TV, and continues to be true today.
  And it's also true in other settings. The pro reviewers have different desires than the rest of us when it comes to cars or video games. I don't care about a manual transmission option on a car - I'm just schlepping the kids around and commuting through heavy traffic, and a manual makes that worse. 0-60 is almost irrelevant.
  But to a car enthusiast/reviewer, a slush box is a horrible thing and low 0-60 or good quarter mile are important.
2. Re:The Audience Scores are scores I trust by david_thornley · 2019-02-26 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  A good reviewer can write a review that tells me whether I want to see a movie, regardless of whether I agree with the reviewer's taste. If the reviewer wants art, and I want cheap entertainment, and I can tell whether the entertainment's good enough from a review, that's fine. If the reviewer wants art, and I can't tell whether it'll entertain me, that's a bad reviewer.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
3. Re:The Audience Scores are scores I trust by jeff4747 · 2019-02-26 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  A good reviewer can write a review that tells me whether I want to see a movie, regardless of whether I agree with the reviewer's taste.
  When they are writing a review. Because that information requires them to describe the movie so that you can make a guess based on what you like in movies vs what the reviewer likes.
  When the reviewer is coming up with a 0-100 score as in the post above, it can only reflect the reviewer's opinion. You can't read between the lines because there are none.
4. Re:The Audience Scores are scores I trust by AHuxley · 2019-02-26 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  Art and what was a script created to keep people entertained was easy to review.
  The issue is people can see past the politics and want better/fun/art movies back.
  Not to pay for an hour of party political reeducation.
  Then have less ability online to tell the world about how much politics was used in the script and for other movie fans to avoid such a political product.
  To find a much better quality movie and support that.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
5. Re:The Audience Scores are scores I trust by swillden · 2019-02-26 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  FWIW, I find exactly the opposite. My interests track closely to what the reviewers like and tend not to be correlated to the audience score.
  
  Remember that RT.com is now owned by Fandango (and Warner Brothers) and no longer serves the purpose of providing honest feedback on movies.
  Do you have any evidence that they've changed their methodology? I mean, they just aggregate reviewer opinions, so it's hard to see how they could bias those scores. Maybe by deciding which reviewers to include/exclude, but I don't see any evidence that they've changed that.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
6. Re:The Audience Scores are scores I trust by jeff4747 · 2019-02-27 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sorry, do you need a safe space in your movies?
RT missed a big opportunity to clean its ratings by Solandri · 2019-02-26 05:43 · Score: 1

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.
It's just a list by sjbe · 2019-02-26 05:47 · Score: 1

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.
Good films by sjbe · 2019-02-26 05:53 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:Good films by Sir_Eptishous · 2019-02-26 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  Using that rationale, I wonder what your taste in music is like.
  
  --
  We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Re:If a movie is worth trolling it’s worth w by Mashiki · 2019-02-26 05:57 · Score: 2

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...
I don't want to see it. by oogoliegoogolie · 2019-02-26 06:03 · 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.
1. Re:I don't want to see it. by RuiFRibeiro · 2019-02-26 07:58 · Score: 2
  
  Have you been living in a cave all those years? Try to flip the channels of any cable operator any time of the day, and good luck into not finding a feminist series or movie broadcasting.
Re:If a movie is worth trolling it’s worth w by Opportunist · 2019-02-26 06:09 · Score: 2

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.
Re:I can't find the video now by Mashiki · 2019-02-26 06:24 · Score: 1

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.

Oh, you mean like how downvotes and negative comments are removed from vids on youtube, Sometimes in blocks of 10,000 at a time when the actions of a company are stoking an anti-consumer mindset? Why don't you go troll through some alt-left, progressive, and communist forums and see what you find. It'll start with downvoting on sites that allow it, when it doesn't garner the next reaction, they start attacking people tied to the company including doxing. And if that doesn't work, they escalate to threats.

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.
Fun reminder, women are more likely to be engaging in trolling and attacks especially if the target is female.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:If a movie is worth trolling it’s worth w by RedK · 2019-02-26 06:27 · Score: 1

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
IMDB has the best list of "best" movies by turp182 · 2019-02-26 06:31 · Score: 1

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
Re:My heart by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2019-02-26 06:39 · Score: 1

Like all dictators, they view the Bill of Rights as something that slows down the rapid changes to law and society they want.
It is a foolish belief not supported as wise by history.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
streisand effect by bongey · 2019-02-26 06:39 · Score: 1

Great : removing pre-release reviews= REALLY BAD MOVIE.
Re:If a movie is worth trolling it’s worth w by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-26 06:48 · Score: 1

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
but...but by Hentai007 · 2019-02-26 07:06 · Score: 1

THA MOVIE HAVE A LADIE IN IT!
Actors need to grow up by bongey · 2019-02-26 07:26 · Score: 1, Interesting

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/*/...
1. Re:Actors need to grow up by Socguy · 2019-02-26 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  That's it? You're upset because BL said that she wants more people to be included in a press tour?
2. Re:Actors need to grow up by thegarbz · 2019-02-26 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  You cannot just be a complete ass and expect people not to react. https://web.archive.org/web/*/... [archive.org]
  You can however be a complete arse and expect most people to not give a shit. It's quite interesting you stopped at Feb 19. Notice that Feb 19 - Feb 20 more than doubled the total number of responses and at Feb 21 there were more responses than any other movie on record?, all this a full week after the femnazi mouthed off and it hit the media?
  You know what we call that? A coordinated campaign.
  Interestingly it's not the actors needing to do anything. They aren't the ones complaining. It's RT that's complaining their platform is being misused, and they're not wrong. Go picket somewhere else.
3. Re:Actors need to grow up by swillden · 2019-02-26 14:05 · Score: 2
  
  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"?
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
RIP Stan Lee by LordAba · 2019-02-26 07:32 · Score: 1

At least Stan Lee is dead, otherwise he'd be rolling in his grave.
Wait...
It's largely a moot point anyway - subjective by bb_matt · 2019-02-26 07:47 · Score: 2

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...
RT had to respond by Socguy · 2019-02-26 08:50 · Score: 1

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.
Ratings that are too late by holophrastic · 2019-02-26 09:12 · Score: 1

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.
Ignoring what we do not like by Ogive17 · 2019-02-26 09:47 · Score: 1

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."
RT lost me over a decade ago by Dan+East · 2019-02-26 10:19 · Score: 1

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.
Re:If a movie is worth trolling it’s worth w by david_thornley · 2019-02-26 10:24 · Score: 1

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
Movie is low quality by AHuxley · 2019-02-26 10:52 · Score: 1

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"
Actually it's mostly if you haven't watched by rsilvergun · 2019-02-26 12:03 · Score: 1

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).

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 /.. 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.

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/
Box office #s are down because movies are made by rsilvergun · 2019-02-26 13:43 · Score: 1

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/
Um... wouldn't the actresses views by rsilvergun · 2019-02-26 13:45 · Score: 1

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/
Honestly I hadn't even noticed a damn thing by rsilvergun · 2019-02-26 13:49 · Score: 1, Insightful

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/
1. Re:Honestly I hadn't even noticed a damn thing by Mashiki · 2019-02-27 16:02 · Score: 1
  
  You missed a few things. I'll give you bonus points if you actually go look up why the press is defending her.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
The problem isn't whether you want to see it by rsilvergun · 2019-02-26 13:52 · Score: 1

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/
RT doesn't need to be paid for that by rsilvergun · 2019-02-26 13:54 · Score: 1

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 didn't say that by rsilvergun · 2019-02-26 13:59 · Score: 2

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/
What did she say that was racists and sexist? by rsilvergun · 2019-02-26 14:00 · Score: 2

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/
Rotten Tomatoes is right by sikisken · 2019-02-26 17:00 · Score: 1

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.
Re:If a movie is worth trolling it’s worth w by Opportunist · 2019-02-26 20:04 · Score: 1

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.
Identity politics reason by mapkinase · 2019-02-26 21:56 · Score: 1

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.
Sigh by Millennium · 2019-02-27 01:15 · Score: 1

Yet another nice thing that the creeps and trolls and other abusers have ruined for everybody. Why can't they just grow up?
True, but Trump's comments come by rsilvergun · 2019-02-27 04:57 · Score: 1

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/
Re:If a movie is worth trolling it’s worth w by Opportunist · 2019-02-27 05:10 · Score: 1

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.
Supergirl hasn't had a movie since 1984 by rsilvergun · 2019-02-27 08:33 · Score: 1

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/
Re:If a movie is worth trolling it’s worth w by Mashiki · 2019-02-27 16:07 · Score: 1

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...
Re:If a movie is worth trolling it’s worth w by AmiMoJo · 2019-02-27 21:03 · Score: 1

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