And yet you didn't seem to understand it, based on what you posted in response to it. Oh for fuck sakes.
What proof are you looking for? Are you seriously doubting that there are in fact a number of online trolls who prematurely criticized her and/or the movie not on its merits but because its star is Black? I'm pretty sure that one could probably use the magic of Google and come up with a number of such comments if one were honestly doubtful that they existed.
I won't be seeing this movie because it's not something that interests me and my kids are adults, but seeing the videos of little African American girls reacting to seeing a Disney princess who looks like them makes me support the re-imagining 100%. If you can't get behind that then. Go. Fuck. Yourself*. *The collective Yourself.
I am not going to go out of my way to see it or pay cash out of pocket. But when it inevitably comes to D+ four months or so from now, I'll probably watch it because why not. I will likely continue to be a D+ subscriber as long as they keep coming out with decent Marvel and Star Wars content, so the only cost is two hours or so of my time. And then I can judge for myself if it was terrible, great or somewhere in between.
That's been true of every live action remakes since Cinderella. Emma Watson couldn't carry a tune worth a damn an refused to wear the iconic dress because wrong-headed BS over corsets and I didn't see any hate campaigns aimed at her over it. Yep, this. It's a cheap, pandering cash grab that will be no better or worse than all the others but it's cool that black kids get to see themselves reflected in the media that me (and probably your own daughters if they're older than 25) didn't get growing up. CHUDs can die mad about it.
This, exactly. I've never watched The Little Mermaid, I don't understand the appeal of it (or any of the other pre-Frozen, highly problematic Disney princess movies), and all of my knowledge of it comes from just your basic cultural osmosis stuff, plus my first boss, who had a wicked sense of humor and loved to rewrite song lyrics, singing "no need to hesitate, you got to fornicate, go on and fock de girl." But it's impossible to deny the impact that seeing themselves represented in a beloved heroine has on kids, and that's enough.
Yeah, one thing that I remember happening in the wake of Star Wars opening in 1977, was that nerd culture got a bit cooler. Suddenly, the bullies weren't as quick to make fun of us for liking SF. They found other things, of course, but they didn't go after us for SF anymore. The fact that the movie made piles of money and was insanely popular helped shift our culture in some pretty profound ways. And good ways. Science, the space program, and even the arts (lots of people became fans of classical music because of John Williams), have all been impacted. How much of that would we be missing out on today, if it hadn't been for the OT Star Wars? Kids today seeing people look like them in iconic roles are experiencing the same kind of rush we got from Star Wars. What kind of world are they going to create because of it? What kinds of things that the majority of people would agree were created because of it that is a net gain for us all is this going to result in? Can't really see too many negatives to it.
My nearly 32-year old daughter just got back from watching it and she and her group of friends all loved it.
The Little Mermaid's 'review bombing' is just a sign of what's to come IMDb releases statement in response to 22,000 1-star reviews That last sentence pretty much proves the CHUDs are targeting this film. So fuck anyone who says otherwise. @shootER nailed it. /thread
They go after the big targets for the big attention. Which shows how cynical and fake "the culture war" shit really is. "The Craft: Legacy" really is the cartoon of woke they try to paint everything else as, but they didn't go after it, because it was straight to video, and cost lunch money to make. I half wonder if Mindy Kaling didn't deliberately troll the CHUDs with her Velma Elseworld for a rating boost from hate-watches. In which case, bra-fucking-vo.
I look at start wars as being more inclusive of stupid in sci-fi. Even when I first saw it and was very young I could see science had no place in it. It was magic fantasy, not sci-fi. Light sabers made no sense to my pre-teen physics understanding. The planets made no sense to my scientific understanding. Force powers were magic. Hyperspace was magic. There was not even an attempt to explain anything. This is why I always loved Star Trek over things like Star Wars and other fantasy magic garbage like Doctor Who. Yes, star trek physics often fails and relies on some gobbly gook explanation, but there was a big attempt of established cannon tech. It tried to point to real science and interest you in actually learning science. In the end crap like Star wars brought in the dummies. It made the fans like Peter Griffon welcome and able to pretend they were fans of sci fi while they get drunk and wish they were boba fet or han solo. There is nothing to learn about in star wars cannon compared to learning star trek science. Drunk and stupid has become a category of geek culture that should be led into a disintegration chamber for the sake of humanity. A New Hope should have ended quickly when the millenium fuckstick ran into a planet of debris at hyperspeed. Even I knew that if you had to calculate your trajectory so as not to run into a planet or a star, this also meant rocks from an exploded planet.
Well, obviously little rocks don't project their gravity wells deep enough into hyperspace to interfere with the Falcon's hyperpath.
Possibly I'm overlooking the part where they account for POSITIVE "review bombing." Review sites start making money , and become incentivised to curate the reviews or remove them entirely. And if course, you would all be equally opposed to the bombing if it were done to a product or individual you disliked. Of course.
Looks like Rotten Tomatoes didn't try to account for positive or negative review bombers, they just limited reviews to people that could actually prove they saw the project they were trying to review, and among those actual viewers, the reviews were overwhelmingly positive. But of course you support the right of internet randos to claim to speak authoritatively on subjects of which they actually know fuck all. Of course.
I saw it. It wasn't bad. If you've seen the Little Mermaid then you've seen this movie. I wasn't distracted by the actress's black skin. I thought Scuttle's bizarre rap sequence was the bigger problem. Rap music has no place coming from a seagull's beak.
I've read some reviews that said that it was creepy seeing non-anthropomorphized sea creatures singing and such.
We can actually check this out. "Ender's Game" was written by an open seething bigot towards LGBT people. The movie should be review bombed into a smoking crater if review bombing were a "both sides" thing. 6 out of 10 with critics, 62% audience score. Not great, but not bad. You've let me down, Cinema Antifa. I begin to believe...that Cinema Antifa doesn't exist! I've lost my faith!
In one post, you managed to: Ignore that the proof you had previously demanded was laid out in the article Engage in "both sides-ism" Establish a straw man/whataboutism combo as to how the reviews for Little Mermaid might be inflated because of woke fans who haven't seen it artificially inflating its numbers Show the hypocrisy of attributing to the collective "you all" a belief that no one has expressed despite always insisting you personally deserve treatment as an individual and don't get labeled for beliefs you have not personally stated Further show hypocrisy in thinking that any of the "you all" would be under some obligation to tsk tsk if there were woke review bombers operating when you disavow any such obligation for yourself to act and speak when something is not directly affecting you or something you personally did. Bravo! The one thing that I don't get is the point where you talk about "Review sites start making money , and become incentivised to curate the reviews or remove them entirely." What point were you trying to make with that part?
That advertisers and studios themselves lean on them to de-emphasize or minimize negative reviews. The "proof" of review bombing being proven by verfied ticket purchases is horse shit. Just because someone does jump through the extra hoop of proving it doesn't mean they haven't seen it. Amazon couldn't do that shit with Rings of Power, so they just straight up HID anything under a certain number of stars for awhile. As for the positive ones, x% out of how many? As for the critics, read between the lines. "Halley Bailey is amazing, buuuut..."
I mostly agree w this this, but speaking as one of those former Not Like Other Girls™ type of chicks, the "problematicness" of Disney princesses have been greatly exaggerated for all the films, but especially this one. Ariel doesn't seem out being human because of twu wub with a guy she saw for .02 seconds, but because King Triton did the equivalent of taking the doors off her room because he'd read something he didn't like in her diary. The condition Ursela gave her about true love's kiss was an added bonus, but wasn't the sole motivator by any means. Of all the classic princess films, Sleeping Beauty was the absolute worst of the lot that rightfully killed fairly tale flicks for the next three decades, but even that one gave Prince Philip a chance to speak about being able to make his own choices about love. It's an easier watch when you realize Aurora/Briar Rose is the McGuffin and the fairies are the protagonists. But all the strum und drag about the messaging in these movies as though human beings don't make otherwise successful women feel like shit for not being married with 2.5 kids by age 30 is just... way too much haha.
No one with a working brain cell or knowledge of Disney remakes past, say, Beauty and the Beast expected this to be anything more or less than a cheap cash grab, but Halle Bailey's casting has fuck all to do with the shit writing.
So I think this is operating under a misunderstanding of how Rotten Tomatoes makes its money. RT is owned by Fandango. It makes its money from a cut of the service fees Fandango charges users, plus licensing its stuff to web sites that talk about the Tomatometer and the like. See here: https://www.wired.com/story/behind-the-scenes-rotten-tomatoes/ Plus it has some advertising on site. As such, RT doesn't really have an incentive to say to Disney or whoever "We'll pump up the reviews of Little Mermaid in exchange for some sweet advertising dollars," and if Disney were to say "Nice review site you got there...It'd be a shame if something were to happen to it," it would likely have very little impact.
I will correct the above, slightly, out of fairness. Going to the RT website now, for instance, I can see ads for Elemental, Disney's upcoming animated film. So it's at least conceivable that Disney could threaten to pull ads if RT didn't agree to play ball. And it's conceivable that whatever it makes from those ads is enough to sway RT to juice its algorithms. However, I will say that such a threat would probably do Disney more harm than good for reasons that should be obvious.
