Filter to 1-star and note how many reviews are direct copies of each other - many referencing that the Obamas are executive producers.

  • barsoap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Just to prove you wrong: 32% difference, and yes it’s objectively terrible. Even higher differences can easily occur organically without review bombing when critics happen to be smelling their own farts – which yes is what a definite 100% of those 37% critics who reviewed it positively were doing. I’m seriously worried about their mental state.

    • phillaholic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Velma was absolutely review bombed. 39% is on par for what it is considering TV has on average higher rankings than movies do.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Be that as it may it’s still objectively terrible and has more than 30% difference, which was my actual point.

        As to review bombing: It would likely not have caught so much flak if it was stand-alone and not a Scooby Doo reboot – then it would simply vanish alongside other terrible shows that few people ever saw and even fewer rated, with middling score because of course there’s always some people who like something for inexplicable reasons, and without attracting a larger audience those are pretty much the only people who vote because they’re the only ones who care.

        But it had a brand name, it walks all over the original (and I don’t mean race swapping who gives a fuck, I mean thematically), is neither witty nor funny nor insightful so… yeah. No need for an organised campaign to draw ire, and if some racists spent time review-bombing it over the race swap then all the better: They wasted their time as noone likes it anyway.