MovieChat Forums > strangluv
strangluv (58)
Posts
Replies
Since the fake, rigged score is still up, and with the same rigging saga having recently reared its ugly head with another movie (woke Little Mermaid), how about one more rant?
Only a very obviously, self-evidently BAD movie would need these kind of protections and manipulations. Plain and simple, a movie has to strike a cord of being <i>egregiously</i> poorly executed in some significant way to inspire a level of public hatred, so strong that Hollywood, journalistic media AND film websites have to ban together in trying to suppress it (or specifically for any movies with woke-lefty principles behind them).
The fact that the media spent more time smearing people who disliked this movie than defending it on its own merits, tells you how badly it failed. The fact that there isn't a SINGLE memorable scene or quote to come out of the movie (because have you ever met an actual fan?), tells you how badly it failed. Especially in light of the franchise-birthing movie it bears connection to - a classic that is still quoted and referenced after 40 years. And as I've mentioned elsewhere, the fact that an embarrassed Sony studios quickly shelved a sequel, and then a much better Ghostbusters movie was created as a (MUCH needed) apology to the fanbase tells you how badly it failed.
Yet despite these facts, you have utter imbeciles in these threads who spew unthinking bullshit such as "it was voted against by manbaby TROLLS who never watched it" or "people didn't give it a fair shot originally due to TROLLS". Ok you bitches, let's go ahead and assume that downvote/'review bomb' sabotage is real (even though it reeks of a media-invented conspiracy theory to stifle criticism of pre-approved movies). Can you think any other instances where this type of thing has hurt movies that would otherwise have NOT so been badly received by the public? Sure, you've heard of movies ranging from highly-acclaimed to under-acclaimed having their share of people who heavily criticize them, but how many been victims of loud and organized sabotage campaigns?
A competently made movie with enough strength of quality to stand on its own, will invariably be able to dodge being brought down by massive 'widespread review bombing'. There is something innately, unavoidably terrible about a movie that would inspire that reaction in the first place. Indeed it wasn't just that Grrlbusters pushed grrl power wokeness, and thus was sabotaged by anti-woke people. Plenty of movies have managed to avoid this treatment that promoted feministic and other politically correct themes. Mad Max: Fury Road, Black Panther, Hidden Figures, Moonlight, Wonder Woman and Barbie are some examples of these, in recent times, that actually have good reputations. It is obviously idiotic to place sole blame on 'sexist bigots' for Grrlbusters' miserable failure, when that same crowd of bigots didn't drag down these other aforementioned movies.
Some movies are just really fucking bad. In fact we all know of movies known to be so universally reviled, so embarrassingly, unwatchably bad that they were even shunned and disowned by their own film companies. Hey fun fact: Grrlbusters was shunned and disowned by Sony studios!
As far as I'm concerned, IMDb has destroyed itself. When it decided to rig this piece of shit movie's score in the name of political correctness, there was no way it was going to stop there - and indeed it didn't as we can see recently with Little (Diversity) Mermaid. They, and Rotten Tomatoes and almost the entirety of the film review industry are little more than whores now.
'Arrested' is a bit of stretch, and 'rape' even more so. You really oughtn't be throwing the latter word around with respect to a KIDS show that depicted no sexual relationships. Also keep in mind that these relationships both on TV, and in real life were less controversial back in the heyday of the show. Not because age of consent of laws didn't exist (they did), but there just wasn't as much parental strictness around dating. There was more of an independence in the way that Gen-X era teenagers went about their lives. The social taboo we have around high schoolers dating younger (college-aged) adults is really more of a post-2000 or late-90s thing.
(Despite that, I'm sure this type of dating happens even now.)
When you think about it though, most 16-17 year-old girls are probably not being raped or molested by their 19-20 year-old boyfriends. As long the age gap is more on the narrow side, it's really hard to make the case that these relationships usually have a 'victim', whatever other issues there may be (not saying there aren't any). However, if you can provide an example of some guy being jailed for simply for having a 3 years younger girlfriend, let me know. Because as far as I know, without proof or a compelling case made to police that sex took place, there is little grounds for arrest. Parents can certainly use THREATS of police to end a relationship, which probably does happen often, but actually GETTING an arrest made on the grounds of a 3 year age difference is a different story.
"Why didn't they just have the characters be closer to the actors' age? How does that impact the story? It's not like it's set in high school."
I agree. I just started watching this show out of curiosity while browsing Hulu (because I began reflecting on its wild but brief/fleeting popularity back in the 90s including the 'dancing baby' weirdness). When Ally said she was 27 in one episode I did find that rather jarring. Calista Flockhart may have not been much older than that, but as an actress over 30 there was no reason she couldn't be portraying her own age in a show whose premise did NOT necessitate making her younger. The show's premise in fact, concerns a woman who while successful in her law career, is rather 'worn down' by life and haunted by her biological clock and failure to fulfill her dreams of a big family. Uh, doesn't that sound like someone closer to <b>37</b>? What would make an evidently intelligent woman think it realistic to have finished building her career AND her big nuclear family less than a decade out of high school? No one ever told her there are only so many hours in the day?
Fact is, <i>career-hyperfocused</i> women throughout their 20s tend to be so consumed in a life of grinding and 'climbing the ladder' that babies (let alone DANCING ones) are rarely at the front of their minds. It would be rather illogical to be fretting about 27 being 'too late' when you CHOSE to put your career first. Still, this understandably starts to change after these women reach their 30s and 1) they are feeling in a more secure place to settle down 2) the countdown on their unused eggs becomes hard to continue ignoring. While Ally's just a TV character, she seems to be one who pursued the classic feminist career path while thinking that classic traditional motherhood was just as easily within reach. This would indicate that she is unbelievably naive, and doesn't comprehend the importance of time, sacrifice and patience in building a life...not to mention the hard work that 'having it all' will ALSO take to continue maintaining.
Was Ally written to be simply THAT clueless in her understanding of life? Or was she maybe written as say, an illustration of how second wave feminism's promises to women could be horribly misleading enough to turn them into confused messes?
Hmm.
And regarding the 'racism' - simply comforting his preteen son by opting not to force him to kiss someone he didn't want to, wasn't exactly equivalent to being like "good, I don't WANT you kissing one of THOSE folks". That Dan (a man who had close black friends and loved blues music) was struggling with an answer for DJ's dilemma but didn't want to push him, was not a man exhibiting the bigotry or hate of racism. After all, HIS patience and willingness to talk out the the matter was certainly more successful than Roseanne's hysterical coercion attempts ("you BETTER kiss her and not make us look like bigots") in ultimately convincing DJ to go through with the kiss. And if Dan were really a racist, would he have really been as happy as he was with DJ's final decision? Please, trying using your brain.
You're kind of right, in the sense that the virtue-signaling of the woke crowd never actually improves their lives. They only seem to get more bitter and unhinged the more that they actually get what they demand! (Which is quite often, if the now seemingly endless political and corporate pandering to LGBTQ and 'BIPOC'/diversity are any indication.) They just never seem to get happier.
Of course they are paying absolutely no price. Voicing any open opposition to their culturally-ingrained leftist agenda is much, more likely to cause you to pay a price today.
^This and then some!
And let's just ignore the ratings skewering that would be caused by the pro-woke mob jumping in to give it 10s to protect against the trolls, combined also with interference from IMDb and probably Sony studios as well to skewer it even more. Let's just ignore that the rating jumped from up from years sitting at a 5.4, to suddenly a 6.9. Everything is certainly on the up and up there.
It is definitely an accurate reflection of moviegoers that its rating is higher than Ghostbusters 2. We know how secretly, actually beloved that 2016 is among the Ghostbusters fanbase. After all, it only had a planned sequel be immediately canceled and was excluded from a new DVD boxset release. That's definitely a 7/10 movie. Totally honest rating.
Agree with you completely, SASKIA47. Great points, with this one being especially pertinent:
<i>So their system should already be weeding out bot bombardment. So why Ghostbusters of all things gets a further application on the ratings is to me clear political posturing.</i>
This was a case of a politically preapproved movie being promoted by woke media as a 'cause', therefore leading IMDb to do their part to protect and elevate it. They certainly would never go through this kind of trouble for a movie for with say, overtly conservative or Christian themes that got bombarded with a bunch 1 votes in a campaign from angry liberals (something I bet it'd be easy to find happened to for example, a Dinesh D'Souza documentary).
Still, even that doesn't entirely explain the mystery of why the movie sat at a 5/10 for years, before shooting up to nearly a 7. The automatic answer from the usual (woke crybaby) suspects is to complain about how 'troll votes' skewered the initial score, yet that doesn't explain why it took YEARS before fixing this troll vote problem allowed for an actual score jump (and a big one). I can only pinpoint the fact that it was almost immediately following the announcement of Ghostbusters 2021 that 2016's score started climbing up. We know that that a lot of feminists were quite upset by the announcement, bemoaning the fact that the GB fanbase of 'toxic manbabies' were being rewarded with a movie they actually wanted.
So you look up one day and suddenly GB 2016's score is nearly two whole points higher.
Draw your own conclusions (which are pretty easy).
Pretty close, but <b>5</b> would actually be the most correct rating and IS the rating it sat at for years before the sudden and unexplained jump by almost 2 points that occurred more recently. What could possibly justify such a major abrupt ratings jump?? It trended ALL the way up to a 6.9, managing to jump up ahead of Ghostbusters 2. I've never once prior to this POS flick heard of such a highly unusual voting trajectory and administrative manipulations taking place on an IMDb movie page. Not ONCE.
This movie is almost definitely a citable turning point when politically correct wokeness, which while not new, essentially 'Pearl Harbored' its way through Hollywood and entertainment culture, putting us in an ongoing war ever since.
Wrong forum - this is the disaster that is Ghostbusters 2016 (aka Girlbusters).
(That's ok, just type the name of 2021 movie into the search bar, and the forums will come up.)
View all replies >