Who wants to bet this will get review-bombed? - Interview with the Vampire (2022) Discussion

[–] ReelReviews14 (1132) 2 years ago

Sadly, I think the REVERSE phenomenon is likely to occur. There seems to already be a concentrated effort from the entertainment industry and mainstream media to drum up artificial "support" for this crapfest and roll out oodles of fake GLOWING reviews to convince the public how "good" the show is, before anyone has even SEEN it.

Mostly likely, AMC and their sycophants have paid studio plants and bots all over social media, posting all sorts of comments gushing over this series, when there's NO WAY that these are real, unbiased critics who have actually SEEN the show. ALREADY, it sits an insanely perfect "100%" critics score on Rotten Tomatoes (by contrast, the beloved, iconic 1994 CLASSIC film only has a 64% critics score on RT), with no information available which of these "critics" have already "screened" the show and concluded its a flawless masterpiece: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/anne_rices_interview_with_the_vampire

Likewise, Facebook is being flooded by trending "reviews" on IGN right now that proclaim it to be some kind of masterpiece and do damage control from the news that the show is ruining the source material, by claiming all the changes to Rice's story and vision are some kind of natural, organic, necessary "update" to the material, total BS considering it's a historical fiction story that written in 1976 and takes place in the 1700s-1800s, and NOBODY complained in 1994 when it stuck with the original novel's depiction of the characters and setting. IGN's puff piece disguised as a "review" laughingly gives the show a "9/10" rating (only because they probably realized a "10/10" would cause readers to realize the "review" is fake): https://www.ign.com/articles/anne-rices-interview-with-the-vampire-premiere-review-first-2-episodes

Hopefully, the public sees thru this forced media blitz for what it is, and some HONEST viewers and REAL critics can expose this dumpster fire for what it REALLY is!

reply

[–] Kowalski (61931) 2 years ago

LMAO...THERE'S ONE OF THE REVIEW BOMBERS NOW.☝🏾

reply

[–] ReelReviews14 (1132) 2 years ago

Yes, we've seen this kind of tactic before, like when Sony Pictures came up with an imaginary "critic" in the early 2000s named "David Manning". The studio execs then wrote their OWN gushing puff pieces about movies, telling the gullible public how "good" films like The Animal, A Knight's Tale, etc., were, claiming they were exerts from "reviews" by this ficitonal "David Manning" person. They'd include quotes from Manning's "reviews" saying utterly bottom-of-the-barrel trash like Rob Schneider's The Animal was "Another Winner!", hoping to get gullible viewers to not research the film on their own and see the film after "Manning" told them how "good" it was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Manning_(fictitious_writer)

The most recent example was last year's godawful West Side Story remake, which bombed horribly and is a rare example of a failed Steven Speilberg film. Hollywood and the mainstream media simply ignored the fact that the general public loathed the film and wouldn't go near it, and just PRETENDED like the new West Side Story was a smashing success and that audiences LOVED it. They'd live in their own alternate reality and write silly stories like "ZOMG, why was Rachel Zegler SNUBBED from the Oscars? GASP!"

Fortunately, no one fell for the propaganda. Hopefully that will also prove true with Interview with a Turd Pile

reply

[–] Kowalski (61931) 2 years ago

MY DAUGHTER REALLY LIKES WEST SIDE STORY...BOTH VERSIONS.

PEOPLE WHO HATE ON THINGS THEY HAVE NOT SEEN ARE NOT WORTH LISTENING TO.

reply

[–] ReelReviews14 (1132) 2 years ago

>> PEOPLE WHO HATE ON THINGS THEY HAVE NOT SEEN ARE NOT WORTH LISTENING TO. <<

I remember some Snyderites lectured us about that when we (CORRECTLY) warned them that Batman v. Superman would be a disaster. ("You can't JUDGE something until you've actually SEEN it, troll!) We then caught several of them hypocritically declaring that they thought the remake of Robocop would be garbage and they would refuse to actually watch the film, based SOLELY on the fact they didn't like trailer (and ironically the trailer looked nowhere near as bad as the trailer for BvS did)

Furthermore, those who weren't caught being hypocrites had to eat crow when the film DID come out and Jesse Eisenberg's performace as 'Lex Luthor' was indeed universally scored and poorly received in the role, just as we correctly PREDICTED it would be MONTHS earlier.

Of course, none of them were willing to fess up that THEY had been wrong, and apologize to us for CORRECTLY "judging" that Eiseinberg-as-Luthor was AWFUL casting.

I imagine the same will be true when Encounter with a Turdpile is released and it sucks just as much as we are warning you guys about now!

reply

[–] Kowalski (61931) 2 years ago

LMAO...YEAH...YOU AND THE OTHER SUPER DICKS WERE RIGHT ABOUT BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN...YOU GODS AMONGST MEN.

EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID .🤣

reply

[–] They4cedTheVax (318) 2 years ago

Nobody cares about what your daughter likes, except you.

reply

[–] Kowalski (61931) 2 years ago

AWW...THE DIPSHIT WITH THE STUPID NAME THINKS HE CAN IRRITATE ME...YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW WHO YOU ARE SPEAKING TO,DO YOU?...IT WOULD ALMOST BE CUTE IF YOU WEREN'T SUCH A MORON.😘

reply

[–] Satan2016 (23758) 2 years ago

West Side Story: original 7.6, remake 7.2! Bombed because people prefer trash TV to movie musicals.

reply

[–] ReelReviews14 (1132) 2 years ago

>> Bombed because people prefer trash TV to movie musicals. <<

Apparently the makers of the movie musical Sing 2 didn't get that memo when they released the film the SAME YEAR as Woke Side Story, and Sing 2 ended up being a HUGE hit for the studio, grossing over $410 million dollars on an mere $85 million budget. Hilarious considering the director of Woke Side Story was 20X more famous, and yet Woke Side Story couldn't even gross the BUDGET of Sing 2!

reply

[–] Kowalski (61931) 2 years ago

THAT WAS A DUMB POINT TO STAND ON...SING 2 IS AN ANIMATED FILM...AND A SEQUEL TO A RECENT HIT...WEST SIDE STORY WAS AN UPHILL BATTLE NO MATTER WHAT.

reply

[–] TheArgentinian (6578) 2 years ago

*eyeroll*

reply

[–] Satan2016 (23758) 2 years ago

Big Media pays me well to tell you:

You are a paranoid loon who doesn't like anything made after 2000. You watch youtoob trolls trash everything then regurgitate it on Moron Chat.

I just read five reviews and this will be a big hit with Anne Rice fans and other sane people. You might prefer gay porn.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14921986/news/

reply

[–] ReelReviews14 (1132) 2 years ago

>>> You are a paranoid loon who doesn't like anything made after 2000. <<

Funny, all the TV shows I've been watching lately in the past month are: The Orville, Cobra Kai, Stranger Things, and Superman & Lois. Last time I checked, all four shows are being made in the present day for "modern audiences", and are not reruns from the 1990s or earlier.

>> You watch youtoob trolls trash everything then regurgitate it on Moron Chat. <<

I didn't need to watch a single youtube to realize the remake of Interview would be an abomination. Just a quick glance at the casting and storyline told me right away they would be crapping all over Anne Rice's vision.

>> I just read five reviews and this will be a big hit with Anne Rice fans and other sane people. <<

Anne Rice "fans", or SJW loudmouths on the internet? $100 says its the latter. I haven't met a single Anne Rice fan who is looking forward to this trash.

>> Big Media pays me well <<

The ONE comment you've made here that is probably accurate. I have no doubt they are paying people to promote how "good" the show is on social media, and convince the public to watch this dumpster fire.

reply

[–] Bateman (560) 2 years ago

Chafing at the limitations of life as a Black man in 1900s New Orleans, Louis

Oh yeah, that sounds just like Rice's novel, all right...

reply

[–] Kowalski (61931) 2 years ago

THE WORD BLACK IS VERY JARRING ISN'T IT?

reply

[–] Bateman (560) 2 years ago

About as much as the date of 1900, considering we're supposed to be talking about a plantation owner from the 1790s.

reply

[–] Bloodworth79 (5601) 2 years ago

I can't believe they pay people for that.

Someone I know said they get money to post in support of Democrat ideology.

reply

[–] asom (6571) 2 years ago

Wait, this IS gay porn :P

reply

[–] Bossdog677 (1458) 2 years ago

Who wants to bet it will suck?

reply

[–] prometheus1816 (1053) 2 years ago

It already sucks to me. I hate Tom Cruise with the heat of a thousand suns but I prefer that version than this one. Why? It is not even an adaptation of Anne Rice's books. It's a huge wokefest with people parading around saying words. Louis was a plantation owner who owned slaves, but can't have that now because it's not PC. Also Claudia was not black and she was not a teenager. She was five when Louis turned her. But can't leave the story alone. Instead they're debating Anne's work and Anne's memory with this farce. And Diana Gabaldon has the gall to be pissed at how they've adapted her Outlander books. At least they're a hell of a site more faithful than this crapfest.

reply

[–] Jeepster (1048) 2 years ago

Find myself agreeing with you Prometheus, I don’t mind so much that Louis is black but the fact that ok they had to go & make Claudia black as well, because you know it’s a thing in this show. It’s actually prejudiced to say that he wouldn’t have cared or loved a white child but I’m sure to get slammed here over that. Her being a teenager I don’t like either, takes away from the character & doesn’t add to it.

Louis did come from a family that owned a plantation in this, they did include that, only it was a sugar plantation that his father ran into the ground when he died so there’s that. Whether or not there were slaves working on it is anyones guess. Who knows probably.

While I don’t despise Lestat in this, whoever this is seems to be an interesting choice. Actually I thought Stuart Townsend did a decent job in “Queen” which I hope IS remade/redone by somebody. Seems to me if you wanted to revisit these novels you could’ve picked something that wasn’t done already such as “Tale of the Body Thief” but ok.

reply

[–] asom (6571) 2 years ago

I don't think it will be review bombed.

Just because it's pretty good.

I don't think that review bombing is a thing. I mean, yeah, there are some that will un-justified give movies an one just because it's flawed and beside being a bad movie it's woke on top of that, so instead of a 4 they give a one. That happens but it's not as generalized as you would like to imply. And it usually happens to movies/shows that anyway suck and critics are paid to rate them high so "review bombing" is just an excuse.

As an example: RoP vs HotD: race swapped characters. Woke themes (women = good, men = bad, patriarchy, etc) and still only one of those 2 shows have abysmal audience scores, on all the sites. The other one is ratted pretty high.

So your pathetic excuse of "review bombing" doesn't work.

Also I expect this one to have an audience ratting in upper seventies or even in the eighties. Just because although it can be argued that has some woke elements it actually is, like HotD, a decent - even good - show.

Will see soon.

And I will take that bet. If it's "review bombed" (that means an audience ratting under 50) I would not post on this forum for a month. If you lose the bet and it has a ratting over 60 you don't post on the forum for a month and you publicly admit that "review bombing" is not a thing. If it's between 50 and 60 it's a draw. Deal?

reply

[–] ReelReviews14 (1132) 2 years ago

>> If it's "review bombed" (that means an audience ratting under 50) I would not post on this forum for a month. <<

That is NOT what "review bombed" means at all. "Review bombed" is an internet phenomenon where some newly released entertainment property is IMMEDIATELY subjected to an avalanche of bogus "reviews" (positive or negative) from "reviewers" who couldn't have possibly even viewed the show/movie yet. They just had a "review" ready to go in advance and blast all over social media to create a narrative.

For example, the 1959 "so bad its good" Ed Wood classic "Plan 9 from Outer Space" currently sits with an audience score of 45%. That's not because it was "review bombed". That's because the majority of people who watched the film over the years have consistently and sincerely felt it sucked, and then wrote a review accordingly that they posted online!

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/plan-9-from-outer-space

So if Encounter with a Turdpile ends up with a less than 50% audience "approval" score on RT, that is not evidence that it was "review bombed". That is just evidence that it sucks!

reply

[–] asom (6571) 2 years ago

"So if Encounter with a Turdpile ends up with a less than 50% audience "approval" score on RT, that is not evidence that it was "review bombed". That is just evidence that it sucks!" - correct.

But if a show has a high score that means that there were NOT a lot of low scores so obviously it is not review bombed,

Right now this one is around 80% on rotten tomatoes which is a rather accurate rating. I would rate the first episode around that and the second one lower.

A review bomb is meant to drastically change the score, if you have only a few that rate it too low or too high it is not really review bombed ...

reply

[–] ReelReviews14 (1132) 2 years ago

>> But if a show has a high score that means that there were NOT a lot of low scores so obviously it is not review bombed <<

Again, I think it was REVERSE review bombed. A bunch of paid studio shills and marketing execs wanted to create a phony "internet buzz" for this dumpster fire, so they flooded social media with glowing "10/10, A MASTERPIECE!!!" type puff pieces disguised as "reviews". It's like when Ron Paul ran for President and his fanboys would create 20 sock puppet accounts and keep rating Paul as the "winner" of EVERY debate/event, to the point where the bogus "poll" said "97%" of voters think Ron Paul is the "most presidential" candidate and the "winner" of EVERY debate. Insanely POSITIVE comments are just as deceptive as insanely negative ones.

>> Right now this one is around 80% on rotten tomatoes which is a rather accurate rating. I would rate the first episode around that and the second one lower. <<

Untrue. Encounter with a Turdpile currently has an insanely high 98% "positive" score from critics (down a mere 2% from the flawless 100% PERFECT "positive" score it had the day before its release, a near statistical impossibility that EVERY single critic who screened it in advance ALL concluded it was wonderful). Again, by contrast, the BELOVED 1994 CLASSIC film adaptation only has a mere 64% score. You can even compare that any sort of now iconic film... Alfred Hitchcock's 1960 masterpiece "Psycho" isn't even rated as "highly" as Encounter with a Turdpile. No one seriously believes that some divisive new "woke" TV series is THAT beloved.

>> A review bomb is meant to drastically change the score <<

Encounter with a Turdpile ALSO had an insanely high "98%" audience score the DAY it premiered. Most of those "reviews" couldn't have possibly even seen the show yet, as the "Reviews" were submitted two days BEFORE the show even aired on Oct. 2. AFTER the show aired, its now down to 77% as REAL reviews start to come in.

reply

[–] asom (6571) 2 years ago

"Encounter with a Turdpile" lol.

"Untrue. Encounter with a Turdpile currently has an insanely high 98% "positive" score from critics" we are talking about audience reviews. Nobody in his right mind looks at the critics score anymore ...

"Encounter with a Turdpile ALSO had an insanely high "98%" audience score the DAY it premiered."

Well, I've seen the episode 2 or 3 days before it premiered. And in my opinion the first episode honestly is around 80% - give or take.

But anyway, "review bombed" means negative scores, since it drops. ;)

For the opposite side we need a different term, lol

reply

[–] GRiM (93) 2 years ago

I'm one of your review "bombers".

I think any show or movie that race swaps an established character black or white deserves a 1 star rating.

reply

[–] TheArgentinian (6578) 2 years ago

You're pathetic.

reply

[–] GRiM (93) 2 years ago

No I'm honest. Race swapping or painting white exclusion as "inclusion" is pathetic.

reply

[–] TheArgentinian (6578) 2 years ago

Poor whites. Excluded from every form of media :(

reply

[–] Jeepster (1048) 2 years ago

Like it not of course that’s going to grab your attention but I still didn’t hesitate to check this out, at least for the first episode. Not bad, not great but not a total loss. Will try to catch a few episodes before I have a final assessment.

reply