[brokencode]

Low audience vs critic reviews can also indicate review bombing. This often happens on films or TV shows targeted by rightwing media for being too “woke”.

The show that always sticks in my mind as an example is HBO’s Watchmen, which has 96% with critics and 56% with the audience.

[tick_tock_tick]

I think anti-woke review bombing is vastly overestimated. I think the opposite is more common honestly news articles get written about something being "review bombed" and then you get a much larger sea of 5 stars artificially inflating the score.

The Watchmen TV show is a horrible example as it's literally fan-fiction with little to no real connection to the graphic novel. So that fact alone pissed a lot of people off.

It completely ignored the only actual "squeal" (Doomsday Clock) to create the story they wanted to tell while borrow the popularity of the name to get attention.

Even ignoring all that did you actually even watch it? 96% is complete bullshit. 96% means some of the best TV ever made. I don't think it's a 56% but the 56% is way closer to reality then the 96%.

[brokencode]

Yup, I watched it and it was great. And the fact that the show was review bombed by rightwing trolls was well documented by media coverage at the time, whether you believe that or not.

You seem not to understand the Rotten Tomatoes score though. 96% just means that 96% of critics gave it a positive review. That says nothing about how positive the review was.

Idk how many of them would describe it as one of the best shows ever, though that’d be an interesting score as well.

[nverno]

I was a huge fan of the graphic novel, but that show disgusted me from the moment I saw how they had demonized Rorschach. I'd tend to agree with OP that many fans of the graphic novel were turned off by the TV nonsense. 'Right-wing trolls' kinda seems like crying wolf - it's an easy scapegoat, but basically impossible to prove.

[brokencode]

The show didn’t demonize Rorschach. The white supremacists in the show twisted his ideology to legitimize their beliefs and provide a powerful symbol for their cause.

You might disagree, but that’s just an example of what makes the show so good. It’s shocking and subtle and up for interpretation. It makes you think, regardless of whether you agree.

[nverno]

I can see how that could be interesting, but I didn't enjoy it cause I saw it as a perversion of an awesome character. That's a problem writers face when they reinterpret beloved series/stories. I've hated nearly all the recent TV/movie adaptations that were based on written series I love - foundation, eye of the world, the lotr show, watchmen, come to mind. One exception was the Dune movie, which I thought was rad, even though it didn't entirely align with the way I imagined it, their interpretation was great.

With these types of shows, the TV writing will almost certainly be orders of magnitude worse since the originals were written by great authors with great imaginations. So, the more the TV writers try to innovate, the more glaring it's likely to be to fans of the originals. Plus, the innovation typically involves TV writers just ham-fistedly hacking in the drama de jour. I just can't treat the TV versions as independent from the source material when I try to watch them.

[brokencode]

You weren’t supposed to enjoy the that part of the show. It was the bad guys who did it after all.

The show had realistic bad guys who did things that the audience is meant to have a strongly negative reaction towards.

I’d take that over cookie cutter cartoon villains any day.

And the idea that TV writers aren’t capable of good writing is total BS by the way. Check out shows like The Wire, Sopranos, Chernobyl, Succession, or Severance.

[hotnfresh]

Yeah, the show was incredibly good. A TV sequel to the comic is something I’d have bet money couldn’t be good—I’d have been skeptical of any sequel to it, really, but TV?—but damn is it perfect. It’s canon alongside the comic, to me. Right up there with it.

[dotnet00]

I feel like your framing of the issue is too one-sided. Many times the "rightwing media" driven review bombing is about beloved series being damaged/unfaithful. That just happens to often be traced back to politics because it's an easy way to paint all critics as bigots.

Eg Captain Marvel or She Hulk being generally disliked compared to Iron Man, Hulk or Captain America, The Last Jedi being disliked in the Star Wars community or in gaming, The Last of Us Part 2 being much more controversial than the original.

Put aside the politics for a bit and actually pay attention to the arguments and it becomes clear that people aren't specifically complaining that Captain Marvel is a woman, but that she isn't interesting or likable. Similarly TLOU2 wasn't controversial primarily because of the trans character, but because it essentially wrecked what people liked so much about the original for seemingly no meaningful reason. When faced with that, it's unsurprising that the conclusion tends to be that the series was sacrificed at the altar of politics.

This is such a common tactic in gaming when a game is controversial, just lean on the claim that gamers are typically bigots and get away with anything because most people don't want to be called bigots. It's why Steam Reviews are preferable to reviews from journalists on whether or not a game is worth playing.

[brokencode]

The defense of “you shouldn’t change anything about my beloved series” is pretty flimsy.

If you don’t change anything, then what’s the point of watching/reading/playing the same thing over and over? Doesn’t any series just get incredibly boring without variation?

Great literature, TV, and films say things. Sometimes you might not agree. But at least it makes you think. Ideally, each entry in a series should say different or evolving things. Just look at how The Wire explores different aspects of Baltimore’s crime epidemic in each season as an example.

And I’m not saying Captain Marvel is great or even good by the way. I thought it was just another boring superhero move, and a D or F tier at that. Same goes for a lot of your other examples.

But I do think even beloved series have to have room for adaptation and experimentation. Because otherwise, they stagnate and can get to a point where they’re no longer worth watching.

Just look at Mission Impossible for example. Each film is well made and has fun action. But do we really ever need another one? Doesn’t essentially the same thing happen every time? Isn’t Ethan Hunt always going to save the day and risk everything for his friends and the mission?

[spoiler]

> The defense of “you shouldn’t change anything about my beloved series” is pretty flimsy.

Nobody said that. You're building a straw man and putting words into people's mouths (or comments, rather).

Of course there's always going to be changes when adapting for different media. People dislike when important things change.

> If you don’t change anything, then what’s the point of watching/reading/playing the same thing over and over? Doesn’t any series just get incredibly boring without variation?

I've re-read lots of books, and there's many reasons I do it. Sometimes it's as stupid as missing the characters. Sometimes I'm co-reading with a friend who just recently started the series and I recommended it; so it's like a little book club. Sometimes it's nostalgia, etc.

Similarly regarding TV shows. Sometimes I just wanna share the moment with another person, see their reaction etc.

Games are a whole different situation though. Not sure why you even put that in there. Do you play games often? I feel like you either don't, or just play a genre of games I don't. It kinda baffles me why you'd even ask what the point of replaying games is...

> Great literature, TV, and films say things. Sometimes you might not agree. But at least it makes you think. Ideally, each entry in a series should say different or evolving things.

I both agree and disagree... I like the way something like BSG or Arcane (TV show, great btw) or even Buffy "says things" where they're not, ... literally spelled out in a patronising way?

> But I do think even beloved series have to have room for adaptation and experimentation. Because otherwise, they stagnate and can get to a point where they’re no longer worth watching

I kinda agree with this, though. There's some great successful examples of this (JoJo's Bizarre Adventures or Supernatural come to mind)

[brokencode]

You’re truly all over the place here, but as to your “straw man” point, I was responding to these comments:

> Many times the "rightwing media" driven review bombing is about beloved series being damaged/unfaithful.

> The Watchmen TV show is a horrible example as it's literally fan-fiction with little to no real connection to the graphic novel. So that fact alone pissed a lot of people off.

Both are implying that new entries in a series should stick closely to previous entries. I don’t think being “unfaithful” or changing certain details is wrong if it’s necessary to tell a different story or provide a new experience.

And for games, are you really going to defend how developers make essentially the same Call of Duty and Halo over and over again and sell it for $60?

I never said that games have no replay value, and now you are the one attacking a straw man. I’m criticizing when new entries in a series bring nothing new to the table.

I can see how my wording there could lead to misunderstanding, but still, I thought it was clear based on context what I meant.

[spoiler]

> Both are implying that new entries in a series should stick closely to previous entries. I don’t think being “unfaithful” or changing certain details is wrong if it’s necessary to tell a different story or provide a new experience.

Telling a different story that's consistent with the established lore is fine. Dedicated fans get annoyed when established lore breaks; especially when it's something important.

And about writing original stories: I'm all for it! That's not what's happening though, is it? They use the original work as a platform to tell their lame/modified stories or spread some political message (bait&switch the audience basically).

A more honest thing to do would be to put into credits something like "Original stories (loosely) based on {series title}". Then at least people would go in with the correct expectations, and maybe even be pleasantly surprised by the semi-original story.

> are you really going to defend how developers make essentially the same Call of Duty and Halo over and over again and sell it for $60?

Isn't this happening with TV shows and films recently, though? They're all the same cookie cutter TV shows with nearly identical ensemble of characters and the plots look like someone just filled out the same rigid story template.

> I never said that games have no replay value, and now you are the one attacking a straw man. I’m criticizing when new entries in a series bring nothing new to the table. > > I can see how my wording there could lead to misunderstanding, but still, I thought it was clear based on context what I meant.

Right. Sorry then; it wasn't clear to me what you meant. We agree, then, I think. But the point you tried to make is even muddier now. I know you're not saying JK Rowling wrote seven Philosopher Stones, but I'm not sure what you mean. I sure everyone understands it's normal for stories to evolve over the course of a series?

[brokencode]

Yes, the same thing is happening for movies and TV shows. Practically every major movie is either a boring superhero movie or a remake. It’s because movie studios don’t want to take a risk on something new and creative that could flop. They want dependable profits.

I just pointed out Watchmen as a rare example where the producers took a big risk by making it about racism and violent extremism. Even though it was a superhero show, it felt fresh due to the new take and ideas.

It rankled a lot of feathers in the process, likely reinforcing Hollywood’s desire to continue making cookie cutter shows instead.

And about Harry Potter - it did a great job of evolving throughout the series to stay fresh. The kids grew up, learned new types of magic, and had constantly changing relationships for one thing.

Also, the series constantly introduced new and interesting characters or killed off extremely popular characters as well.

There was even an installment that heavily made use of time travel, which I thought was depicted in a really cool and satisfying way.

[darkerside]

You can take a risk and make a bad movie. Just don't cry politics when people hate it because it sucks.

[brokencode]

Sure, that happens all the time. A lot of new shows just pay lip service to political viewpoints and pick actors seemingly to check corporate boxes.

The Rings of Power is a recent example where almost every strong and noble character is either black or a woman or both. It serves no purpose in the story.

Watchmen was a rare example where they actually took on racial issues rather than just pay lip service to them.

[cameronh90]

Conversely, I find that often very "woke"/political films are rated overly highly on RT compared to how much I enjoy them. I'm not right wing, it just isn't going to make me enjoy an otherwise mediocre film.

Black Panther, for example, was a perfectly fine film... but who isn't bored of Marvel stuff now, and is it really worth 96%? Higher than The Dark Knight? And even that was probably somewhat overrated due to Health Ledger's passing...

[hotnfresh]

BP’s middling MCU. Coulda been a contender for very best, but they played it too safe. We shoulda followed killmonger for a while and not seen Wakanda at all until well into the film. That’d be harder to pull off, but it coulda been a good movie period, not just good for Marvel. As it is, it whiffs at what it’s going for because it doesn’t commit.

One of the worse end fights of a marvel film, too, which is saying something, and really matters since that’s like 30 damn minutes of the film.

Lots of good elements and performances. Middling MCU film overall.

[takeda]

It works the other way look up Sound of Freedom 60% critics, 99% (not long ago it was 100%) audience. You can't make it any more obvious.

[brokencode]

Yup, Sound of Freedom was pushed very heavily by rightwing media.

There were daily articles on news sites like Breitbart about how it was the best movie of the year and how biased critics were trying to destroy it. About how readers should watch it to help support a conservative alternative to Hollywood.

[mikrotikker]

And vice versa for leftwing media for being too "offensive".

And example would be Dave Chapelles specials.

[flangola7]

What movies have that happened to?

[mikrotikker]

Sorry i added an edit. An example would be Dave Chapelle special.

[flangola7]

That was over justified problems of transphobia, and not nearly the same scale of reaction. I also wouldn't really call a compilation of stand up sessions to be a movie, though that is neither here nor there.

I can't actually think of any films that attracted the same foaming at the mouth as you see by conservatives.

[jilpk]

It wasn't justified though. The humorless hordes who complained not only could not take a joke, but also were irate at everyone else not being similarly offended.

Perhaps his set isn't to the comedic tastes of everyone, but there's an easy solution to that: don't watch it if you don't like it.

[mikrotikker]

> can't actually think of any films that attracted the same foaming at the mouth as you see by conservatives

Could that be because you are stuck in an echo chamber and experiencing confirmation bias? "The outrage is legitimate when we do it"

[ceejayoz]

Feels like if it were widespread on both sides it wouldn't be all that challenging for you to come up with an example. What's the prominent leftist equivalent of Ben Shapiro ranting for 43 minutes about the Barbie movie? (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ben-shapir...)

[flangola7]

I have pondered that possibility at length but have yet to see any compelling evidence or reason to believe that it is accurate. Some outage is legitimate and some is not, and a qualitative assessment like I performed will reveal which is which. "Both sides" are very different entities, far from being two sides of the same coin despite the common shallow rhetoric that tries to persuade otherwise.