IMDb making "adjustments" to Little Mermaid reviews after mostly negative ratings

The only critics that really matter on films like this are children.

If they show up at school today excited that they saw “The Little Mermaid” this weekend, their friends will demand their parents take them.
School is out for summer.
 
Except the movie cost 200 Million dollars to make... So I am not sure if they are going to make their money back.
$200 Million Dollars sounds more like a tax dodge than an accurate cost accounting.
 
Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 95 percent verified audience rating and 58 percent all audience showing the racists once again flooding the site with fake reviews. The critics are at 68 percent.

That's misleading, because the people who went to see the movie were already woke to begin with.
 
Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 95 percent verified audience rating and 58 percent all audience showing the racists once again flooding the site with fake reviews. The critics are at 68 percent.

The 95% figure is raising eyebrows. Rotten Tomatoes seems to be dismissing many negative reviews without reason. Here's an analysis:
 
The movie The Little Mermaid starring a black actress playing in white character have received mostly 1 out of 10 Stars ratings in the website IMDb.

But the company is arguing that conservatives are giving bad reviews to this movie in bad faith because the actress is black so somehow the average is 7.1.


This is like your fellow DemoKKKrats' habit of throwing out "bad" votes they don't like.
 
Kids are woke?
They just enjoy a good movie regardless of the race of the mermaid.
Only Conservatives are outraged
you know very well that I was speaking of the people who buy the tickets. The adult wokes who raise their kids woke. Kids don’t just stroll into a movie theater alone.
 
you know very well that I was speaking of the people who buy the tickets. The adult wokes who raise their kids woke. Kids don’t just stroll into a movie theater alone.

Kids live in a different world than their parents.
They see commercials and talk with their friends to find movies they want to see
 
Why not come up with something new? You would think with all of the talent that Disney has available they could come up with something original.

Which is the main reason why these re-makes have been doing worse and worse over time.

Notice how those screaming it is racism keep ignoring that fact.

Mulan, it also cost over $200 million, and was a giant turd and made only $70 million. Cruella made back production budget in theaters, but still lost money because of the marketing budget. Others were created for theatrical release, but got shoveled onto streaming when it was realized how badly they stunk. Like Lady & The Tramp. Made for the theaters, it was realized that it largely stunk so they sent it to D+ instead.

And if somebody does not believe that, they are an idiot. First of all, who in the hell hires Tom Hanks to star in a "made for TV movie"? It was never supposed to be for D+, because it had a major star, and D+ did not yet exist when the movie was announced and Hanks cast. But the issues related to COVID and the underperforming of Dumbo had them move it to streaming instead of the theater. The exact same thing happened to "Peter Pan & Wendy".

And the new Lilo & Stitch remake? Made for theaters, but they have announced it is going to D+. Mufasa is going to theaters, as will Snow White. Both next year. And I bet both will underperform in the box office.

But here is the thing that so many are simply missing. Those live action remakes have had diminishing returns now since The Lion King. The earliest ones did great money, but the more of them they shoved out faster together, the less they made. Not unlike their rushing to convert everything to 3D a decade ago.

And the last remake to really make money was The Lion King in 2019. The budget for them has been growing exponentially, and the returns have been lowering.

TO give an idea, I remember taking my kids to see The Jungle Book in 1994. That cost $30 million, returned over $70 million. Not a blockbuster, but a decent return But then 22 years later the remade The Jungle Book again as a live action film, and it cost them over $175 million. It also made good money, and that is what really kicked off the endless remakes.

And they just kinda ignored that the second Alice in Wonderland reboot remake barely made back their production budget, and did not make back the marketing budget.

And in a few years, they are going to be running out of properties to remake. Will we be seeing a live action remake of Toy Story in a few more years? Or hey, we can go meta Mel Brooks here. In order to recoup the money lost on Mulan, they can make an animated version of the movie, based on the live action remake! Then in another 20 years after that they can try to make yet another live action remake of it.

Oh, and the guy that produced that turd called "Raya and the Last Dragon"? He is now involved in a live action remake of 1973's Robin Hood.

The sad thing is that the House of Mouse has not had a success with anything original since Moana. Oh, and that is being remade as live-action also. And I am sure we will be seeing live action Frozen announced any week now.
 
We do?

Provide some equivalent examples

Sure, like the examples you provided.

Extremists on both sides do the same thing, that is the kind of garbage that extremists do. It is as predictable as a dog piddling on a tree.

The only difference is, I actually recognize that it happens on both sides, and is generally extremists. I do not pretend it is only one side and that is the predominant opinion.
 
Yeah, how often does something original get produced?

Rarely.

That's a problem

Not necessarily.

If you are seeing a sequel or a remake, you kind of know what you are getting. Unless the producers try to "Subvert Expectations" (I'm looking at you Rian Johnson and The Last Jedi),

Plenty of independent movie makers making original ideas. They simply don't get the nine-figure budgets.
 

Forum List

Back
Top