Are Film Critics Politically Biased in their Reviews?

[Felya]

"Bad actors"

What is a bad actor? Do you know?

I thought "bombed" by defenition meant people were abusing the system, creating multiple accounts and abusing the crap out of it.
All we have to go on that post is "bad actors"...
Am i a bad actor if i "dont want to see" capt marvel?

Their goal wasn’t to be disengenous. You are a bad actor, if you complain about a movie you haven’t seen, because you think it has a political agenda. Not a war movie or a political drama... no... a fucking superhero movie, because it dares to have a chick as a lead actress. The humanity!!!!

[Edge-]

So a person with an opinion is a "bad actor"

Literally not what I wrote.

Im a bad actor if i dont want to see Capt Marvel.

Also, literally not what I wrote.

We might aswell removing the "user review" system. Because is also going to have "bad actors"

Except that RT literally just made a blog post, that you linked, detailing how they're going to combat bad actors and address the abuse of these systems.

Either people created multiple accounts or didnt.
If people did NOT create multiple accounts...there was nothing wrong in the first place.

Unless they're seeing coordinated efforts to manipulate user polls, which would similarly break their rules I imagine.

Are you even reading anything you link or others post?

[Endus]

Their goal wasn’t to be disengenous. You are a bad actor, if you complain about a movie you haven’t seen, because you think it has a political agenda. Not a war movie or a political drama... no... a fucking superhero movie, because it dares to have a chick as a lead actress. The humanity!!!!

And again; the whole kafuffle seems to be about one thing Brie Larson said during the press tour, which they're lying about, because what she said wasn't remotely objectionable.

Also that she's a girl superhero, but they usually hide behind the former.

[Felya]

Im a bad actor if i dont want to see Capt Marvel.

I’m sorry, but you are. You are asking about political motivation of reviewing a super hero movie. You are not talking about hotel Rowanda or black hawk down.

- - - Updated - - -

And again; the whole kafuffle seems to be about one thing Brie Larson said during the press tour, which they're lying about, because what she said wasn't remotely objectionable.

Also that she's a girl superhero, but they usually hide behind the former.

It cannot be that simple, when people like @CryotriX are complaining there are no edgy movies, when this movie is being shit on, because of the “edgy” thing an actress said... not even in the movie.

Edit: Maybe Shakespeare was right...

[Mihalik]

Are they politically biased? Yes.

Are the reviews so fucked up and out of touch because they are biased? No.

They are so fucked up because they are all sold out to the studios. So they will rant and rave about any garbage the big studios churn out and are invested in seriously no matter whether that thing is any good or not.

[PosPosPos]

So a person with an opinion is a "bad actor"

Well, in case you haven't noticed, it's a movie review site, not a place to fling shit at actors' personal life like Twitter or Facebook.

An opinion that's wholly based on the content in the movie is acceptable; an opinion making personal attacks against the actors that isn't about their acting in the movie, isn't.

[Big Thanks]

Except that RT literally just made a blog post, that you linked, detailing how they're going to combat bad actors and address the abuse of these systems.



Unless they're seeing coordinated efforts to manipulate user polls, which would similarly break their rules I imagine.

Are you even reading anything you link or others post?

Maybe i missed it at first.
Im going to give it a read again realllllly slow.

Maybe i can figure it out on my own. (bad english here)

- - - Updated - - -

Well, in case you haven't noticed, it's a movie review site, not a place to fling shit at actors' personal life like Twitter or Facebook.

An opinion that's wholly based on the content in the movie is acceptable; an opinion making personal attacks against the actors that isn't about their acting in the movie, isn't.

Its entirely alright to "not going to see the movie"
It just shows populations personal opinions and tastes.

SJW or Not, racist, left, right, wathever the agenda or what happened in interviews with the actress.

Is alright to see a metric of who isnt going to watch the movie. IMO

[Edge-]

Maybe i can figure it out on my own. (bad english here)

Fair. If anything is confusing let me know, happy to try to re-write it in a way that's easier to understand if that's the case and would make it easier for ya.

[Big Thanks]

Fair. If anything is confusing let me know, happy to try to re-write it in a way that's easier to understand if that's the case and would make it easier for ya.

ok, ive read it again...realllly slow...

I saw nothing regarding "how they will rule out bad actors"

Here is what i saw:
1) We are going to remove the "want to see" feature
2)disabling the comment function prior to a movie’s release date
3)making some layout changes to the site

Am i blind?

[Edge-]

ok, ive read it again...realllly slow...

I saw nothing regarding "how they will rule out bad actors"

Here is what i saw:
1) We are going to remove the "want to see" feature
2)disabling the comment function prior to a movie’s release date
3)making some layout changes to the site

Am i blind?

Yes, those are all efforts to limit the impact of bad actors on their system.

They're taking the "want to see" feature and making it less prominent as it caused confusing for users and was easily manipulated by "bad actors".

They're disabling comments pre-release because "bad actors" who hadn't seen or had no plans to see a movie were shitting them up.

Changing layout is part of a larger redesign, apparently.

Those are all part of their efforts to tackle "bad actors", and it applies to "bad actors" across the board, not just those who think Captain Marvel is the worst thing to happen on earth because they think Brei Larson said something mean or some stupid bullshit.

[Endus]

Oh, what about the intense, consuming love between 2 mass murderers? Portraying the law enforcement as being just as corrupt and horrible? Taking on MSM - in the damn 90s, before the culture wars?

This was fun, and it was not boring, there was nothing PC about these movies. There were no real heroes, just darkness... with maybe a glimpse of hope.

There were plenty of light-hearted films in the '90s. And there's plenty of dark, uber-violent films in the 2010s. The distinction you're trying to draw only exists in your own head.

[Big Thanks]

Yes, those are all efforts to limit the impact of bad actors on their system.

They're taking the "want to see" feature and making it less prominent as it caused confusing for users and was easily manipulated by "bad actors".

They're disabling comments pre-release because "bad actors" who hadn't seen or had no plans to see a movie were shitting them up.

Changing layout is part of a larger redesign, apparently.

Those are all part of their efforts to tackle "bad actors", and it applies to "bad actors" across the board, not just those who think Captain Marvel is the worst thing to happen on earth because they think Brei Larson said something mean or some stupid bullshit.

This is my last post replying, i really dont want you to hate me xD

While i agree not going to see a movie for political reasons is dumb...its still OK to have a metric to show it...because it shows the reality of the world!!!

Is it a "sad reality"? YES! Its sad people are racist and anti feminism and stuff like that.

But its the reality of the world!
We need to see it in some kind of metric.

Well, we dont "need" to see it...but is kinda cool we can see just how the world is.

[Cthulhu 2020]

It's judgement by the Internet, and it's appropriate IMO.

If only we could verify that the people rating a movie had actually seen it, and weren't just a bunch of randos who saw a post on 4chan whining about SJW crap as a measurement by which the movie should be viewed.

[Felya]

Sarah Jeong Lite. I can't see any edge in this whatsoever. It's boring, and irrelevant.

Dude... there are movies like those you listed, but just like the movies you listed, are not Hollywood. Antichrist by Lars Von Trier covers every note you just stated and is critically acclaimed. This is your subjective view... Natural Born Killers and Pulp Fiction we’re both written by the same guy and he still writes movies.

[Big Thanks]

If only we could verify that the people rating a movie had actually seen it, and weren't just a bunch of randos who saw a post on 4chan whining about SJW crap as a measurement by which the movie should be viewed.

It was not a "rating"
It was a poll asking if you will go to the cinema to see the movie or not.

[Felya]

There were plenty of light-hearted films in the '90s. And there's plenty of dark, uber-violent films in the 2010s. The distinction you're trying to draw only exists in your own head.

Antichrist is far “worse” than anything he listed. Even during the pulp fiction years, Gregg Araki was making far edgier films than Quintin Tarantino. Both Harmony Corin and Larse Von Trier were beating Tarantino, if edginess is what people want. Both, the “All Fucked Up” and “Europa” trilogy, kick the shit out of Tarantino... then you have Peter Greenaway... how can anything be darker than this...



Edit: How can I forget... just go watch a bunch of Warren Herzog...

[Celista]

Yes, reviews are political and a whole bunch are commercial. Glowing reviews for cash isn't a phenomenon that was limited to GamerGate.

[Felya]

The idea is that these movies were MAINSTREAM, they were representative for the culture of the 90s. People were more inclined to accept edginess and dark humor and not cry about whatever injustice just because a few words. I will give you a quote from an article that made me angry a while ago.

No, they were not. Miramax was not MAINSTREAM. They became mainstream, after their release.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miramax

Miramax was founded in 1979 by brothers Bob and Harvey Weinstein, and was a leading independent film motion picture distribution and production company before it was acquired by The Walt Disney Company on June 30, 1993. Shortly thereafter, Pulp Fiction was released.

Pulp Fiction is what made Weinstein into the Hollywood giant. It was an independent film distribution company. Basics...

[Shaderas]

Pulp Fiction is what made Weinstein into the Hollywood giant. It was an independent film distribution company. Basics...

Oh man, didn't know that about Weinstein... interesting! Learn something new every day

[Felya]

Oh man, didn't know that about Weinstein... interesting! Learn something new every day

Yeah, fucking Disney owns everything. Oh shit... I just realized my avatar is Disney... that’s going to change...

- - - Updated - - -

Were these movies culturally iconic or not? I am not referring 5 years after release, I am talking about ON RELEASE.

Then your issue is audience... that film got enough of an audience to break into mainstream.