Netflix Deletes All User Reviews (engadget.com) 189
Netflix has removed all user reviews from its site, just like they said they would in early July. Here's what Netflix now has to say about posting reviews on its site: "Netflix customers were able to leave reviews on Netflix.com until mid-2018, when reviews were removed due to declining use. To learn how Netflix suggests TV shows and movies we think you'll love, visit our Ratings & Recommendations article." Engadget reports: Netflix probably had reasons other than the section's decline in use, as well. For instance, it had to deal with issues like "review bombing" by trolls hoping to bring down a show's rating back when it used stars instead of the thumbs up-down system. Netflix might have decided that reviews don't lead to enough views to warrant spending resources on policing them. It has a "percentage match" system that suggests titles based on previous ones you've watched, after all, so there's probably very little incentive for the platform to keep the reviews section running.
Trolling (Score:4, Insightful)
It's probably due to trolling. IMDB is the same, certain movies are heavily trolled, e.g. Black Panther.
Re:Trolling (Score:5, Insightful)
It's probably due to trolling. IMDB is the same, certain movies are heavily trolled, e.g. Black Panther.
It's the same everywhere, just about. For a good decade now, if not more, I've felt forums and comments are nothing but a wasteland.. why I waste my time in /. I'll never know.. but I do know this: I've quit reading and posting in *all* the forums of things I like / liked. /. is the last one I've not retreated from.
Re:Trolling (Score:5, Funny)
I hear that /. is going to remove user comments soon....
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I hear that /. is going to remove user comments soon....
At which point, will it have any real reason to exist?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I hear that /. is going to remove user comments soon....
At which point, will it have any real reason to exist?
slash-woosh!
Re:Trolling (Score:4, Funny)
At that point, with noting left to read, I wonder if /. readers will start reading TFS, or worse, TFA (shiver me timbers!)...
Re: (Score:2)
TRUMP WILL HANG FOR TREASON
This article is about Microsoft, so whatever they are doing is bad because it's MiKKKro$oft.
This article is about Firefox, they changed a thing, that is bad. Or they didn't change a thing, that is also bad. Why if I were in charge it'd be the perfect piece of software that everyone would be happy with, but even though it's open source I don't even start a project about it.
This article is about A
Re: (Score:2)
You are all cows. Cows say moo. MOOOOOOOOOO! MOOOOOOO! Moo cows MOOOOOOO! Moo say the cows. YOU COWS!!
Re: (Score:1)
I had a special hatred for people who used their reviews to review reviews.
Oh, you don't agree with my opinion on that show. Thanks for letting me know it got an award. From one organization. That gives awards for twenty subcategories annually. What a fool I've been. Very classy of you to post in a system that disallows any reply.
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Has it occurred to you that Black Panther and movies like it might simply be viewed as a bad movie by a large part of the population and hence receive highly critical reviews from many people?
Re: (Score:2)
Who is kidding who, the IMDB review system is broken as fuck, dominated by PR=B$ stooges given one off 10 out of 10 reviews for trash under multiple accounts. This in turn generates 1 out of 10 reviews by frustrated normals who see those bullshit 10 out of 10 reviews. IMDB reviews are a waste of internet space until they remove the PR=B$ hacks. Have not seen the movie, will not bother, it likely is bad because they politicised it on purpose, they knew it was bad and so the politicised it to sell it to the t
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, what are you on? Comics were always heavy on social commentary. X-Men are social commentary with its mutants vs non-mutants dynamics. Frank Miller does a crapload of social commentary in his comics (often awful). Iron Man is social commentary, it was created by Stan Lee to see if he could make a selfish, drunk, industrialist weapons manufacturer, "shove him down people's throats" (Stan
speaking of trolling (Score:1)
It would not be trolled that heavily if the media is not that hell-bent on forcing a "cartoon" into a social commentary. A few points for the real social justice worker (as opposed to social justice warriors).
1. Wakanda is not real (and for that matter, very different from the real Africa).
2. Africa needs real help. Not from us, but from their own hard work.
3. Making Black Panther successful doesn't atone for your "sins" (if any).
Here we have another ignorant motherfucker who has never read history, comics and thinks the Ayn Rand is insightful.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Wakanda is not real (and for that matter, very different from the real Africa).
OMG! You mean there isn't really a country in the middle of Africa with cloaking technology and magical super-metal that can do almost anything you can imagine? I had no idea that it was all a lie! FAKE NEWS! FAKE NEWS!
2. Africa needs real help. Not from us, but from their own hard work.
... not sure if racist troll ... in fact, not really sure WTF is meant here...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Trolling (Score:4, Informative)
Blacks in the U.S. had a much lower rate of fatherless homes and crime before the "War on Poverty" started in 1964 [washingtonpost.com] and the government took over as the "Dad" in families, incentivizing single motherhood. In 1950, the single motherhood rate for blacks was under 20%. Now it's over 70%.
When you pay trillions of dollars per year for something over decades, you shouldn't be surprised when you end up with more of it.
Re: (Score:2)
What part of "The percentage of children under 18 living with an unmarried mother has increased substantially since the 1960s, with the largest increase seen among blacks" do you think doesn't support my conclusion?
If you look back before the war on poverty (which this article doesn't go back that far), you'll see a decline for decades after the civil war.
Maybe you should say something specific about what you think is incorrect, rather than just accusing someone of lying?
Re: (Score:3)
For example, the article that you linked gives another possibility: "we should give less-educated women more reasons — like educational and career opportunity — to postpone motherhood." In other words, this is a s
Re: (Score:2)
That's only if you assume that article is the only evidence. The link was just a quick google result meant to just show the correlation, because many people who blame the legacy of slavery, or racism, or something inherent with blacks don't realize crime, poverty and single motherhood had already gotten much better 100 years after slavery, before the welfare state war on poverty. None of the "explanations" commonly given in left-wing nor in racist circles even correlate with the timeline of the facts, let a
Re: (Score:2)
The comment about "only evidence" was in response to the question about it showing correlation. Since he wanted more info, I gave him more info. That in no way agrees with the "initial response" which stated the link in no way supported my point. Quite the opposite.
Also, your link actually says Sowell is committed to empiricism, among the other opinions of the anonymous wiki writers. You can also tell by the tone of the article that the people writing it don't know anything about economics, for example. You
Re: (Score:2)
*Yes, the act of characterizing all people because of their skin color is bigoted and racist. Even if you're on the left!
Re: (Score:2)
Read up on marginal cost in economics.
The extra money for being a single Mom isn't the only reason, i.e. it's not sufficient by itself, but it is enough to push many people over the line between getting married and not getting married, and to remove some of the stigma.
So if before someone unmarried were to get pregnant and then say "You need to marry me and help take care of this kid", with extensive government benefits in the mix, they're much more likely than before to say "You're too much trouble, I'll j
Re: (Score:2)
Africa needs real help. Not from us, but from their own hard work.
The implication here is that Africa is in trouble, to whatever extent that's actually true, due to their own laziness. Is that what you meant, or is that just an unfortunate side-effect of your lack of care over the words you use?
Re: (Score:1)
Add to that, supporting a movie that goes out of it's way to make fun of a demographic that is 'okay' to attack now makes it distasteful.
Can you imagine the outrage if the races were reversed? a bunch of white men and women hooting and hollering like chimps at a black man?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm frankly a little confused about the social commentary that Black Panther is supposed to make.
On the one hand, it seems to cater to the myth that wealth is the result of natural resources and that if only white men hadn't taken Africa's resources, then Africans would be wealthy.
On the other hand, Wakanda seems to be racially exclusionary and have draconian closed border policy.
Much as I enjoy seeing well-muscled hunks of any race strut their stuff on screen, the premise of Black Panther just seemed too s
Re: (Score:2)
The premise is that the Wakandans were wrong in their behavior. The conclusion of the movie flatly states as much.
If it is social commentary, the theme of the movie seemed to be that black people are responsible for improving lives of black people. I found it to be a very right leaning narrative.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps. At the same time, Wakanda's wealth derives from control of natural resources, which is a rather left-leaning narrative.
And even what you mention doesn't strike me as "right leaning". Saying that "black people (as a group) are responsible for improving lives of black people (as a group)" is some kind of weird progressiv
because now they are the target of the reviews (Score:5, Insightful)
before they had tons of dvds, they needed reviews to predict which ones to stock up.
now they control production and presentation. they will tell you what to watch and when. and you will watch and like it.
Re: because now they are the target of the reviews (Score:3)
but yeah, people will also eat up the PR spin that it was because of trolls or, gasp, GDPR.
Re: (Score:1)
They haven't got rid of the star ratings though, so bad shows will still get low ratings. It's more likely that the cost of moderation vs the utility of the reviews made it not worth continuing.
Re:because now they are the target of the reviews (Score:4, Insightful)
They haven't? It doesn't show in most UIs anymore. I can only give a thumbs up or down rating.
Re: (Score:1)
My smart TV still has star ratings.
Re: (Score:3)
Might be a nice perk of not getting updates. If you're lucky you don't get loud autoplaying videos for each movie/series while browsing either.
Re: (Score:2)
My girlfriend laughed at me for getting angry at that abomination of a feature. You pause for a second too long to read the description and BLAMO blaring trailer in your face. No, Netflix, I don't want to watch the trailer for every goddamn trash Bollywood film you've inflated your library with, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
It's worse when it's not a Netflix Original and instead of trailer it's just a clip reel with bad stock music.
Re: (Score:3)
And they do a crap job of that. Without previews, the only way to know what a show will be like is to check it out. Get 5 minutes in, see that it is crap because the stand up comedian thinks we should all laugh at "Trump Stoopid", and bail on it. Now it counts as "viewed" and they ask if you want to see more like it.
I canceled my membership.
Re: (Score:1)
I think the star ratings are DVD only. The streaming system seems to be an opaque "percent match" number, controlled entirely by NetFlix algorithms.
NetFlix had a pretty good run, but the decline was inevitable once they became both a content producer and distribution.
Re:because now they are the target of the reviews (Score:5, Insightful)
When they had DVDs they had to keep physical inventory, and ship physical inventory, so predicting demand was important to their logistics planning.
Now they have unlimited inventory, and shipping is essentially instant and with zero marginal cost - so in that regard, demand prediction is less important.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: because now they are the target of the reviews (Score:3)
âoeWagnerâ(TM)s music is a lot better than it sounds.â -Edgar Wilson Nye, 1898
âoeThe movie is more entertaining than youâ(TM)ll feel.â -Netflix, 2018
What on earth? (Score:2)
before they had tons of dvds, they needed reviews to predict which ones to stock up.
They still have physical discs, they still need to know which ones to stock... however I would guess the queue is a WAY more useful metric for what to stock as you can put un-released discs there.
now they control production and presentation. they will tell you what to watch and when
They no more "control" production and presentation of all movies than a third grader with a steady cam does. They offer internal selection, yes
Re: (Score:2)
> they will tell you what to watch and when. and you will watch and like it.
Nope. *I* decide what and when I want to watch. And If I watch crap like Hardcore Henry [imdb.com] I tell others about it.
Re: (Score:2)
You should absolutely watch Singularity [imdb.com]. It is not in any way a god awful abomination of a movie, nor should everyone who was involved in it be disappeared to a CIA black site (in Minecraft).
Re: (Score:2)
Crap Recommendations (Score:2)
It has a "percentage match" system that suggests titles based on previous ones you've watched, after all, so there's probably very little incentive for the platform to keep the reviews section running.
Which of course doesn't work very well because Netflix didn't consider the fact the user stopped the video after 15 minutes and has no way to indicate they didn't like the movie
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix didn't consider the fact the user stopped the video after 15 minutes and has no way to indicate they didn't like the movie
There are thumbs down / up buttons. I use them liberally.
I fail to see how someone "has no way to indicate they didn't like the movie"
Re: (Score:2)
TigerPlish has this right - plus streaming services DO use the fact that you stopped after 15 minutes.
For instance, check out this article about why "Everything Sucks" was cancelled by Netflix: https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
I've read several articles about how Spotify uses a track's "skip rate" (how many people skip it after listening to just a small amount of it) to judge whether to move it from smaller playlists up to bigger playlists - and whether or not to recommend more songs like that to you.
Anothe
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't realize that. I was wondering why they did not have the standard movie covers. I actually don't like it very much that they change it from the box covers I recognize. But I see the point in why they do it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hideous really. The artwork displayed against a movie or TV show should be at the behest of those that made the show, not algorithms that determine which image is most likely to get you hooked in. The whole thing is deeply anti-art, and logical progressions would be shows that are modified according to your tastes. Perhaps scenes are removed, or shown in a different order. Maybe different product placement is digitally inserted into the show, based on your preferred brands.
"The internet's great poetic
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see the logic in using their own artwork since it's expensive and time consuming but I have no attachment to the original marketing material and doesn't bother me if Netflix decides to change it.
Rarely does the writer/director have any say in marketing and even if they did they most want as little to do with the process as possible. That DVD cover and poster you love so much is very likely created by something who had little to no involvement in making the actual film.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't. Maybe the poster is an important cultural and artistic artifact, maybe it isn't. But Netflix driving headlong down this road is still a folly, automated review and recommendation systems are the death of art. They'd be far, far better off employing real critics, with real skills and real insight - rather than this piggy-backing on individual users collective daily whims.
I miss the stars (Score:4, Informative)
Turd up or Turd down isn't really of any use to me.
If it's Turds down, I'll probably never bother even putting it in my queue.
Their recommendation system is at best, horribly broken. Anything below 92% appears to be just a wild guess at best, and a feeble attempt to draw traffic to something I have no interest in.
There are many other different web resources to scour Netflix for things worth watching, I use instantwatcher.com
http://instantwatcher.com/ [instantwatcher.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If it's Turds down, I'll probably never bother even putting it in my queue.
You had turd up and down before as well. Ultimately even 5 star review systems tended to bias in the way of "liked / hated"
Sure, blame the trolls (Score:3)
I'm sure it has nothing to to with the fact that they had trouble gaming the "best guess for you" ratings on their self-produced content.
Netflix's suggested ratings used to work extremely well, back when they were only offering third-party content - I could pretty much count on my opinion matching pretty closely with their algorithm's prediction. But then they started producing their own stuff, and amazingly it always was displayed as between 4.7 and 5 stars as their "best guess" for me - so I'd watch it, expecting something great, but most of the time the content was mediocre at best, so my actual rating would end up being 2-3 stars.
I suspect they got rid of the star rankings because of their own show's relatively bad real-world performance - but that still left the problem of less-than-glowing written reviews. So the final solution was to get rid of those as well.
Re: (Score:2)
It probably doesn't help that their "self-produced content" often involved various has-been celebrities.
Re: (Score:2)
At least for movies on Demand I get to see Rotten Tomatoes and Audience Scores under the movies so I have some idea of what is garbage.
Trolls (Score:1)
Is why we cant have nice things. Thanks again, idiots.
If you can't take the heat (Score:1)
delete the kitchen
The wisdom of the crowd... (Score:2)
Only the latest company to figure out that the wisdom of the crowds only works if the crowd is a small, thoughtful hand picked group with no trolls in it. That kind of thing simply doesn't exist in large numbers.
Most modern tech companies are founded on the concept of making a platform - any kind of platform - where the users do all the work for them. Anything the company has to do itself at scale using humans is very costly - any kind of moderation, screening or ratings. So they'll try everything they
Re: (Score:2)
Only the latest company to figure out that the wisdom of the crowds only works if the crowd is a small, thoughtful hand picked group with no trolls in it. That kind of thing simply doesn't exist in large numbers.
Isn't this quite the opposite, that rather than relying on a few brown-nosing/ax-to-grind reviewers we'll just look at the actual, full user statistics? Now one good thing about Netflix collecting the viewing behaviors of everyone is that they should have a pretty good idea what other users have the same taste as me. I don't care about an IMDB-like rating telling me what "people" think, I want to know if I'll like it. I'd rather try spinning recommendations off that like here's some new shows, here's some c
Sad for me... (Score:2)
Definitely a loss of functionality. I read the reviews a lot, when shopping titles outside my usual fare; shopping a new genre; trying to decide whether to take a chance on an obscure title, or some B movie I'd caught wind of.
Here is your answer (Score:5, Insightful)
“And the thing about so much of what this movie is, I think white men, critics would enjoy it, would enjoy my work, but often I think there is a critic who will damn it in a way because they don’t understand it, because they come at it at a different point of view, and they’re so powerful, Rotten Tomatoes.”
Brie Larson adds:
“What I am saying is if you make a movie that is a love letter to women of color, there is an insanely low chance a woman of color will have a chance to see your movie, and review your movie.”
Larson informs us that more than 63 percent of reviewers are white and male. (Almost the same percentage of women to men in university), and only 18 percent are both white and female
Only 4.1 percent are female and from underrepresented groups
“I don’t need a 40-year-old white dude to tell me what didn’t work about ‘A Wrinkle in Time,'” Larson added. “It wasn’t made for him. I want to know what it meant to women of color, biracial women, to teen women of color.”
Now to my thoughts There are the reasons that quasi-official sites like Netflix are removing reviews. This is a pretty big problem, and the movie industry needs positive reviews, and the trend in movies is proving a to be a little problem. The people who make such blatantly sexist movies must hear that they are good, and if people do notlike them, they must have a a target of blame. To them, The all female Ghostbusters did not fail because it wasn't funny and because it was sexist in nature, It failed because of thos fucking teenage boys. As Kaling decrees. https://www.indiewire.com/2016... [indiewire.com]!
What is amazing is that ability to scream about racism and sexism, and simultaneous replace it with sexism and racism so blatant and in your face that you can proclaim people pointing out the problem with your work is somehow racist and sexist. The worm ouroboros as it were.
But anyhow, there is the problem - White males.
Re:Here is your answer (Score:4, Insightful)
Making a movie for women isn't sexist. It doesn't hurt men.
And the problem isn't white males. You even quoted the damn explanation of the problem but somehow saw the phrase "white male" and had some kind of Pavlovian response.
The problem is movies being reviewed almost exclusively by people who are not the target audience and who don't understand them.
Geeks should understand this very well. How often do critics slate great sci-fi movies that we love and which become cult classics? The views of sci-fi fan critics get buried by the ones who thought LaLa Land was better.
Re:Here is your answer (Score:4, Insightful)
The people making these movies deliberately took movies targeted at male audiences and then put in an all-female cast. I think it's not surprising that "the wrong" audience watches them and then gives them a low rating.
Furthermore, not being in the target audience doesn't mean that people have nothing to say about it. The Birth of a Nation was targeted at (and a favorite of) white males like Woodrow Wilson, but African Americans certainly had every right to comment on it and criticize it.
Re:Here is your answer (Score:4, Interesting)
The people making these movies deliberately took movies targeted at male audiences and then put in an all-female cast. I think it's not surprising that "the wrong" audience watches them and then gives them a low rating.
And let us not forget that Ghostbusters was target at children.
Furthermore, not being in the target audience doesn't mean that people have nothing to say about it. The Birth of a Nation was targeted at (and a favorite of) white males like Woodrow Wilson, but African Americans certainly had every right to comment on it and criticize it.
The concept of males "not understanding" is yet another sexist idea that some women have, an extension of yet one more of their stereotypes. I watched "Steel Magnolias" a movie obviously made for women, and I "got it". I had no problem with it. Wasn't ordinarily my type of movie, but I didn't get bored and stop.
And the biggest aspect of the movie was that there was no jarring content - the reason that the movie was overwhelmingly female starred fir right in.
I howled at "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" Another "chick flick" that ended up crossing over to allowing everyone to enjoy it - it made good sense.
These are good stories, shot and edited well.Touching and both touching and funny. I suppose some of our more radical posters would see some sort of Patriarchal contamination in me just mentioning 2 movies about wome getting married, but that's their problem - I only mention those because they were fine movies.
Re: (Score:3)
And let us not forget that Ghostbusters was target at children.
Not really. Most of the jokes would have gone over the heads of kids. Like the original it was aimed at adults, with adult humour.
The concept of males "not understanding" is yet another sexist idea that some women have
It's not a question of "not understanding", it's a question of being the target audience and having experiences that make the movie relevant to you.
I'm a bit old for Disney movies these days. I do have a certain appreciation for the old Transformers animated movie though, because it was a part of my childhood. It's not that I don't understand Disney movies, or even don't enjoy th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they dont understand is just a excuse for we made a shit movie and dont wanna own up to it.
Occam's razor says it is true. One of the worst avenues to improve is to refuse to take telling.
Ocean's 8 received a 67 percent favorable rating with professional reviewers, and a 47 percent among non-professionals. https://www.rottentomatoes.com... [rottentomatoes.com] Okay - mixed reviews. But perhaps rather then simply demanding that everyone love the movie, perhaps instead of telling anyone who had a criticism of it they are white males, therefore not relevant, and that the movie "wasn't for them" and that because they
Re: (Score:2)
And let us not forget that Ghostbusters was target at children.
Not really. Most of the jokes would have gone over the heads of kids. Like the original it was aimed at adults, with adult humour.
To be certain, I'm speaking of the original "Ghostbusters" My attic full of Ghostbuster toys and my son and his friends playing with them and their anxious wait for the new movies and two competing cartoon shows would indicate that they were indeed children's movies. That they had adult jokes that children might not get is not unusual in children's movies.
The concept of males "not understanding" is yet another sexist idea that some women have
It's not a question of "not understanding", it's a question of being the target audience and having experiences that make the movie relevant to you.
Well t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm speaking of the original "Ghostbusters" My attic full of Ghostbuster toys
It was the 80s, they made Robocop toys and a cartoon... Despite the film being very much adults only. I mean, there was some pretty strongly implied oral sex at one point, and I remember how conservative ratings were in the 1980s US...
Well then, tell the moviegoing public which films that are allowed to see or not see and which ones the holder of penises are allowed to comment on.
Surely if they read the review and it was talking about how the movie was really relevant to black people they could just decide if that was something that interested them or not.
I think white men, critics would enjoy it, would enjoy my work, but often I think there is a critic who will damn it in a way because they donâ(TM)t understand it
She says there are white men who would enjoy it... And then you claim she is blaming the entire wh
Re: (Score:2)
I think white men, critics would enjoy it, would enjoy my work, but often I think there is a critic who will damn it in a way because they donâ(TM)t understand it
She says there are white men who would enjoy it... And then you claim she is blaming the entire white race. That is not a logical chain of reasoning.
And really, she couches that statement is such soft language, and speaking off the cuff. You are reading a lot into it that isn't there.
Not dissimilar to a white supremacist saying he isn't racist. You take the totality of ther statement, not that she thinks that white men, critics would enjoy it. Cherry picking is something best reserved for AGW deniers, and creationists.
Re: (Score:2)
I think white men, critics would enjoy it, would enjoy my work, but often I think there is a critic who will damn it in a way because they donâ(TM)t understand it
She says there are white men who would enjoy it... And then you claim she is blaming the entire white race. That is not a logical chain of reasoning.
And really, she couches that statement is such soft language, and speaking off the cuff. You are reading a lot into it that isn't there.
Not dissimilar to a white supremacist saying he isn't racist. You take the totality of ther statement, not that she thinks that white men, critics would enjoy it. Cherry picking is something best reserved for AGW deniers, and creationists.
I forget to add, the old chestnut "I'm not a racist - I have plenty of Negro friends!" a favorite of people claiming that they aren't racist.
Do you not understand the sandwich concept? You weight the start and finish heavily, and the fluff in the middle very little. It's a great way to decipher the bafflegabe spouted by many. I try to avoid it myself, but it tends to creep in to racists and sexists statements, such as her saying she wouldn't have a career if it was up to white males. That is the impor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is movies being reviewed almost exclusively by people who are not the target audience and who don't understand them.
If it was a great movie, that wouldn't have mattered. The target audience will find it one way or another.
Of course, I don't expect much from people who blame the failure of a movie on others. Not to mention they decided the target viewership before they even knew what they wanted in the movie, so it never would've been great in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Making a movie for women isn't sexist. It doesn't hurt men.
I have no problem if there is a movie made that shows women roasting men on spits and feasting on their testicles. If they choose to hunt man like some folks hunt elephants and tied up lions that are tame. Let's get that straight. Then again, I'm not going to condemn men if they take umbrage at that.
And the problem isn't white males.
How do you do that complete discarding of evidence? All of those quotes I posted exactly lay the problems with the all female reboots directly at males. Directly at white males to be specific. Kaling and Larson
Re: (Score:2)
This is is leap of logic that makes no sense. She is clearly saying that the problem is the lack of reviews by women of colour, and the obvious solution is to publish reviews by women of colour. How does any of that require 40 year old while men to be banned from writing reviews?
It means that at very best that the reviewer must identify their sex in order to have their review validated as acceptable or not acceptable. A white male would automatically lose validation while a non-white woman would gain validation.
Review sites like Rotten Tomatoes work by averaging scores given by reviewers, although they already toss some low scores on movies. This means that at best, in order to marginalize the numerical value of one group, another must be promoted.
So now identity politics has
Re: (Score:2)
It means that at very best that the reviewer must identify their sex in order to have their review validated as acceptable or not acceptable.
Only if you take it to an absolutely absurd extreme which is not what is being suggested.
Maybe when a critic notices that the movie doesn't seem to be aimed at them and realizes that they might not be the best placed person to judge its merits, they could decline to review it and let someone more suited do the job?
No "validation" or enforcement required, just a polite suggestion.
Re: (Score:2)
It means that at very best that the reviewer must identify their sex in order to have their review validated as acceptable or not acceptable.
Only if you take it to an absolutely absurd extreme which is not what is being suggested.
How will the women who are angry at white males reviewing films that are not made for white males know that the white males and their negative reviews are being kept from negative revieiwing these movies? How do you propose keeping men from making negative reviews? It has to be remembered that sites like Rotten tomatoes have two groups. A professional group that it is possible to remove males from and replace them with women of color, who are vetted for a predisposition to rate female only films in the way
Re: (Score:2)
Making a movie for women isn't sexist. It doesn't hurt men.
And the problem isn't white males. You even quoted the damn explanation of the problem but somehow saw the phrase "white male" and had some kind of Pavlovian response.
The problem is movies being reviewed almost exclusively by people who are not the target audience and who don't understand them.
Geeks should understand this very well. How often do critics slate great sci-fi movies that we love and which become cult classics? The views of sci-fi fan critics get buried by the ones who thought LaLa Land was better.
Then the people who are upset about that should leave more reviews. Or ignore the reviews.
Re: (Score:2)
Making a movie for women isn't sexist. It doesn't hurt men.
The book was not sexist. Why do you give a free pass to anti-male stuff and call it "for women"?
The book was a story with a female as the protagonist. It was a great story. It was neither for males nor females. It was just a story that was very interesting. Why bring identity politics into it?
I am a white male. I do not see a story about a white male and think to myself, "This must be a great book that appeals to me.", so why was a story about a white female spun as a story that appeals to women? It makes n
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you give a free pass to anti-male stuff and call it "for women"?
What stuff specifically are you referring to?
Re: (Score:2)
Creating a feminist agenda out of whole cloth from a story that has no side at all in the supposed Gender War that people keep trying to sustain.
Re: (Score:2)
Gender... War?
What?
Re: (Score:2)
Right. You are under the impression that it is a fight for equality, not a fight for supremacy.
Here is real inequality:
Was out with my girlfriend. She wanted to pay for lunch. She paid for lunch. The person at the counter handed the change back to me. Why?
That is inequality.
An example of fake inequality for the cause of supremacy:
There are not many female software engineers; therefore, we need to create more. Spend millions of dollars training and recruiting females. Make laws forcing females into board lev
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, and for a film like Ocean 11, that's probably the usual target demographic, and that demographic doesn't like having political ideology shoved down their throats when going to a movie, nor do they identify with an all female cast.
Re: (Score:3)
I read the book, A Wrinkle in Time, when I was a kid. I loved the book. I thought it was awesome. I did not see the movie; although I wanted to. If it is not a re-creation of the book, but rather a sexist screed, should they be surprised that it failed where the book succeeded? Seriously, the book was awesome. WTF people?
Re: (Score:2)
I read the book, A Wrinkle in Time, when I was a kid. I loved the book. I thought it was awesome. I did not see the movie; although I wanted to. If it is not a re-creation of the book, but rather a sexist screed, should they be surprised that it failed where the book succeeded? Seriously, the book was awesome. WTF people?
The trend is pandering not to people who want inclusivity or equality. The modern trend is toward females being elevated to gender and race based supremacy.
Re: (Score:2)
The trend is pandering not to people who want inclusivity or equality. The modern trend is toward females being elevated to gender and race based supremacy.
Whoever is doing that shit needs to stop. If there is an all out war between males and females, it is obvious what the conclusion will be. In the meantime, they are making life miserable for millions, possibly billions of people on this planet.
Wrinkle in Time (Score:2)
I didn't find that the racial composition of the cast made a major difference to the s
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree that there were elements of religion in the book. Regardless of any literary merit, it was fun to read. I have not read it recently, but I am not the typically jaded and cynical adult, so I suspect I would still enjoy it. Many MANY books that I have read fall apart under close examination as an adult. I tend to let the delusions fly so that the story itself can be enjoyed.
Re: (Score:2)
Mods, downvote parent troll.
That would make no difference on it's truth, and would be the same thing that Kaling et al demand, which is suppression of disagreement, especially as they say - from white males.
Activist groups have long demanded suppression of statements that do not agree with their narrative, and when it is the truth, it needs suppressed even more. The problem of course, is that for whatever short term success it might have, the truth always comes out.
And despite any oppression, the misandryst movies will fail beca
How about kyword meta data instead stars (Score:1)
Id rather viewers had keywords that could be tagged to shows that way we could weed out what we care not to watch...
Load of Bull (Score:2)
Everybody knows Netflix has hit peak finantial performance from sheer user-base growth alone, so they now have to cut the losses And that's mostly by reducing the number of views popular, expensive content. This is absolutely no different than what Spotify is doing with their Discover system - they will suggest you stuff based on your tastes BUT most of it will be stuff they play for cheap from their catalogue. Or worse, suggest you stuff their catalogue owners want you to listen.
So this is not about trolls
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
netflix, you're greenlit & transgender dragons (Score:2)
Or it might be because Netflix content sucks, and they don't want to have 200 movies with shit reviews on them ?
I know that if I had a product that sucks, I would certainly hate to give people ability to comment on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix Endgame (Score:2)
Let's Be Clear: Why Netflix doesn't WANT User... (Score:2)
...Reviews:
They have their own pathetic and stupid (even for "ostensible" AI) rating system. It goes like this:
"Oh, you LIKED this movie? Here are 254 other movies your SURE TO LIKE, too!!!"
But, of course, none of them are even vaguely interesting to that viewer, because each movie has probably 10 (or more) unique features that the viewer might chose to use to select similar movies: Actors, plot-lines, Director, subject matter, characterization, music, etc, and Netflix has NO IDEA what YOUR interests are