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

Rotten Tomatoes is finally addressing its troll problem. The review aggregation website has unveiled a new initiative to "modernize its audience rating system through a series of product enhancements," -- the first of which includes banning user reviews and comments prior to a movie's theatrical release. Getting rid of pre-release user reviews means internet trolls will not be able to flood film pages with negative scores before a movie comes out. As we saw earlier this week, Captain Marvel was at the receiving end of what appeared to be a targeted campaign to lower the upcoming movie's audience rating. Rotten Tomatoes is not banning user reviews entirely. It says it will offer this functionality to users once the movie has hit the theaters.

Further reading on Rotten Tomatoes: Movie Studios Are Blaming Rotten Tomatoes For Killing Movies No One Wants To See
Hollywood Producer Blames Rotten Tomatoes For Convincing People Not To See His Movie
Rotten Tomatoes Scores Don't Correlate To Box Office Success or Woes, Research Shows
DC Fans Angry Over Rotten Tomatoes 'Justice League' Ratings
Why Don't We Care About The Rotten Tomatoes Scores Of TV Shows?
Real Moviegoers Don't Care About Rotten Tomatoes.

Comments

Common

[Zorro]

Meet Sense.

Re: Common

[Anonymous Coward]

By the time the real reviews start flooding in, the trolls can no longer keep up. At least not with a big movie like Captain Marvel. You see it all the time. Once the movie hits, the review aggregate starts climbing. But this will address the potential negative impact for opening weekend so Rotten doesn't inadvertently screw its own metrics.

Re:Common

[penandpaper]

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!

Re:Common

[Mashiki]

Yeah well, this wasn't "freeze peach" the term used by progressives and authoritarians when someone calls them out on their bullshit. Don't let your stupid hurt you anymore then you just did with that post. There's also no proof of review bombing despite all of the media outlets reporting that's the case. Rather it seems to directly centered around the main actress(Brie Larson ) being a misandrist, and a racist, while engaging in over sexism towards the primary audience. Not the number of progressive fluff pieces that have ranged from "she didn't say anything wrong" to "she doesn't have to apologize for it."

So what's the real thing going on? People are simply saying that "they have no interest in it." Before rottentomateos scrubbed it the main "not interested" group was made up of old accounts greater than 8 years. Feel free to look up the archived snapshots if you want, wayback, archive.co, whatever go have fun. So what's that really mean? RottenTomateos is removing and modifying it because of likely either the studio or the progressive sphere of influence so people can't say they don't want to see it. What's this similar to? When netflix removed the star rating system after people said that Amy Schumer's comedy special was absolute bullshit. Then they remove the downvote option from showing up outside of your own account. So now, netflix only upvoting - which everyone can see.

What does it appear to be that they're doing? Pushing user reviews out, and pushing critic reviews only. I'm sure that works out really well when you're in the league of fart sniffers.

Oh speaking of how well is the moving going to do? They've already revised the opening weekend downward twice, and now are expecting it to not clear $100m on opening weekend. Of course the 'you're a sexist, racist, nazi, misogynist, etc' because you don't want to watch the movie is already pulling it's bloated corpse through various left wing media sites.

Re:Common

[penandpaper]

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.

Re:Common

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:Common

[Mashiki]

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.

Re:Common

[Mashiki]

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?

Re:Common

[Mashiki]

Small dicks + raised as toxic macho assholes = army of neckbeards

I'm surprised you didn't put incel, neonazi, and alt-right in there. You could get all the progressive talking points in a row. It obviously couldn't be the lead actor spewing bullshit and attacking the core demographic for the movie. I mean, your and her methods seem to be the same, just like with ghostbuster 2016.

Re:Common

[penandpaper]

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).

Re:Common

[Mashiki]

When in doubt, double down on stupid huh? That's pitiful. That didn't work for EA, or the actors of Ghostbusters 2016 either.

Re:Common

[lgw]

[nothing but personal abuse]

This is why Slashdot has a Flamebait mod. It's often abused as an "I disagree" mod, but this sort of thing is what it's intended for.

Re:Common

[kaatochacha]

I don't really care what most actors and actresses say.
I do care, however, if my deciding to not see a movie somehow makes me a (fill in the blank) -ist. Which is what we're seeing.
People aren't rating the movie, they're rating their desire to see it.
 

Re:Common

[sexconker]

The fanbase was plenty flexible and accepted a crappy remake of Star Wars (A New Hope) when TFA came out.

The fanbase supported Rogue One / Star Wars Vietnam even though it was full of crappy characters no one cares about in a setting no one cares about with a plot that was entirely pointless.

The fanbase then went in on faith again for TLJ, but in lower numbers (mostly due to fewer repeat viewings).

The fanbase thought the TLJ was so bad that they let Solo burn.

The fanbase may or may not come back for Episode 9.

Disney/Lucasfilm can attack its fanbase and shit out crappy movies that destroy the characters all they want. One day they'll realize that the fans they hate so much are the customers they desperately need.

Re: Common

[Kyr Arvin]

The whole noise brigade over Ghostbusters in 2016 just proved the point. All you care about is making yourself the victim, your own failings remain unacknowledged, you are blind to the hysteria of the self-proclaimed persecuted white male.

Ghostbusters 2016 was an unfortunate example. It was definitely hit hard by the troll brigade who were super offended that women were taking over a franchise that was first built by men. AND it was a pretty bad movie. Both were true, but they get conflated because subtlety and detail when talking to complete strangers on the Internet is non-existent.

Re:Common

[JoeDuncan]

Do you understand now, or would you like me to draw you a picture?

I don't care one way or the other, but now I do want you to draw me a picture, please.

Re:Common

[lgw]

"Trolling", as defined for the Slashdot mod (somewhat different than the current usage) is what you're talking about. An insincere post designed to provoke emotional reaction. "Flamebait" was misnamed from the beginning: it was always for "flaming" posts (which, to be fair, usualy provoke a response in kind, escalating until Godwin).

Re:Common

[lgw]

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.

Re: Common

[Straif]

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.

quiet, blessed quiet

[PopeRatzo]

Can you imagine a world where you had to actually have some first-hand knowledge of something before you could express an opinion?

Me neither.

Re:quiet, blessed quiet

[Dunbal]

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?

Re:quiet, blessed quiet

[Nidi62]

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.

Re:"Trolls".

[steelwraith]

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?

[RhettLivingston]

They could take this a step further by requiring some indication of actual attendance. This might be as simple as only accepting reviews posted by the app from the theater during or within a half an hour of a showing until the movie has been released on DVD or for streaming. Or perhaps every review could require a photo of a unique ticket stub assuming there is some way to validate them reliably.

The audience score is the only aspect of Rotten Tomatoes I find to be of value. The scores from movie critics just don't seem to have a strong relationship with whether or not I'm going to enjoy a movie. Actually, maybe that's not quite correct. It does sometimes seem like a movie with a very low critics score and a high audience score is usually great. So there may be a strong inverse relationship.

Re:maybe require proof of attendance initially?

[AmiMoJo]

I'm picturing Comic Book Guy with his laptop strapped over his shoulders, furiously typing

Worst. Movie. Ever.

Re:maybe require proof of attendance initially?

[WankerWeasel]

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.

Re:"Trolls".

[Anonymous Coward]

For such big strong alpha males you guys sure do shit your diapers a lot.

I guess that's another word lost ...

[cascadingstylesheet]

... "troll" means someone trolling for responses by posting something they don't really believe - or, they don't care whether they believe it, they just care that it is inflammatory and will get reactions.

What exactly does that have to do with fake movie reviews? Yes, you could troll with those, I suppose, but the concern is the negative scores, not the trolling per se.

"Troll" has evolved to mean "someone acting bad in my opinion on the internet".

Re: I guess that's another word lost ...

[TigerPlish]

A troll is someone who posts on the Internet with the intention of ruining something for someone else.

No, that's not what a Troll is. A Troll posts something with the deliberate purpose of getting a rise out of the other party. That's nowhere near "ruining something for someone else." That's an asshole.

If people keep expanding the meaning of Troll, then soon everyone will be a Troll. I just looked it up in Webster's and that, indeed, is what is happening.

Re: I guess that's another word lost ...

[s4080326]

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.

What reviews?

[dasunt]

When I checked Rotten Tomatoes last week, I saw no bad reviews.

I did see that about 29% of people planned to see the movie. That isn't a review or a rating.

Re:What reviews?

[dasunt]

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?

Re:What reviews?

[Mashiki]

No, RT decided to start scrubbing long time accounts that were heavily active, and their "no interest" posts on billet page. What they're doing is removing "no interest" posts because it makes the movie look bad. Nothing more, nothing less.

Re:What reviews?

[Opportunist]

Next up: Pissed off users voting up all other movies to surpass the number of people planning to see Marvel.

If a movie is worth trolling it’s worth watc

[xack]

To see what the fuss is about. Trolling backfires in this regard.

Top 100 Best Movies of All Time

[110010001000]

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

Re:Top 100 Best Movies of All Time

[110010001000]

The flaw is the entire system. I mean give me a break, I liked Black Panther, but it has a 98% rating and is listed as the #1 movie OF ALL TIME. They should call the list something else.

Re:Top 100 Best Movies of All Time

[Sir_Eptishous]

Who can take this site seriously?

People who think superhero films are the height of film making.

Re: Top 100 Best Movies of All Time

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Great and what about the real problem

[DrXym]

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.

Re:Great and what about the real problem

[DrXym]

"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.

Next up, require proof of seeing

[mysidia]

  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.

There was not a *prefilm* review...

[aepervius]

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.

Re:troll = dissatisfied movie-goer

[RedK]

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 the best of all time

[rsilvergun]

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....

The Trolls score another victory

[sbrown123]

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.

Dumb

[argStyopa]

They weren't reviews.
They were "do you want to see this film" that a clickbaity blogger parsed as "review bombing of our feminist victory film" and the activist left-wing media has gotten triggered themselves into righteous snow(flake)storm.

That they don't even understand fundamentally what they are angry about is really the ironic icing on the cake.

Fake news and censorship, it is all so tiresome

[Rasatsu]

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?

100% false and a coverup

[slashmydots]

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!

The Audience Scores are scores I trust

[Distan]

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.

Re:If a movie is worth trolling it’s worth w

[Mashiki]

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.

I don't want to see it.

[oogoliegoogolie]

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.

Re:I don't want to see it.

[RuiFRibeiro]

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

[Opportunist]

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?

It's largely a moot point anyway - subjective

[bb_matt]

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...

She actually didn't say that

[rsilvergun]

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...

What did she say that was racists and sexist?

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:Actors need to grow up

[swillden]

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"?