• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

What is going on with Rotten Tomatoes removing features in response to the response against Brie Larson?

 
 
 
Well, that's because she never said anything offensive. If you focus on what she said, it's really hard to be outraged about it.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
Well, that's because she never said anything offensive. If you focus on what she said, it's really hard to be outraged about it.
Click to expand...
You forgot that she was a woman and she expressed an opinion​. That riles up a lot of guys these days.
 
Displaying their rage makes them feel powerful. There's a major disconnect between how they feel about how they look and how they actually look.
 
Both sides of SJWs. No one should punish or praise an actor's politics by goosing the rating either way. So making the videos or articles about Larson's speech if given the full context is totally fair, but taking it to the ratings is lame. However, What about saying in a review on IMBD, for example, "I give it an 8 regardless of Larson, but Larson turned me off with her speeches." Should that be somehow be discouraged?

I will probably see the movie in a couple weeks and will likely think that it is about average for the MCU. But I am often easily entertained if I don't have a critical bug in my butt. If I feel critical better avoid entertainment until the mood passes.
 
repoman said:
However, What about saying in a review on IMBD, for example, "I give it an 8 regardless of Larson, but Larson turned me off with her speeches." Should that be somehow be discouraged?
Click to expand...

Really? You need an answer to that? How do you feel about people being paid to post fake reviews?
 
Patooka said:
repoman said:
However, What about saying in a review on IMBD, for example, "I give it an 8 regardless of Larson, but Larson turned me off with her speeches." Should that be somehow be discouraged?
Click to expand...

Really? You need an answer to that? How do you feel about people being paid to post fake reviews?
Click to expand...

?

That type of review is probably a real one. Lots of people on IMDB that also write text really take pains to judge movies on their own. But at times they talk about the press surrounding the movie.

There are also people who would say in a review, "Larson was dead on correct in her full speech, which neckbeards did not fully discuss. However the movie was disjointed and boring despite some good aspects. 6.5/10"

Weighing user reviewers on how long they have been there and stability is a good thing. A movie review score being brigaded in either direction is not good. RT and IMDB are in an unenviable position.
 
Perhaps I'm not being clear;

"I give it an 8 regardless of Larson, but Larson turned me off with her speeches", has nothing to do with the movie and should be disqualified

"Larson was dead on correct in her full speech, which neckbeards did not fully discuss. However the movie was disjointed and boring despite some good aspects. 6.5/10", has nothing to do with the movie and should be disqualified.

"This movie is great/awful", should be disqualified if the reviewer is being paid for a specific slant on the review without providing their honest opinion on the movie.

Another example that isn't politically charged would be the Metro video game bullshit after the more recent game changed its distribution methods. I don't have a problem with sites like IMDB or RT regulating their sites to minimize review bombing. Far as I'm concerned, that's a step in the right direction.
 
The best part about this whole “controversy” is that it demonstrated clearly and loudly just how little power and influence these incel cucks have. They tried to make it a big thing and organize a major boycott against whatever the fuck they defined as an SJW this week, but just fucking failed miserably and nobody outside of their pathetic little echo chamber paid them any attention except to laugh at them.

That’s great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom