Picard Will Lead "Radically Altered" Life in New Star Trek Series

As for my serious point. You keep talking about the "anti-sjw crowd" review bombing movies. What you keep refusing to acknowledge is the "sjw crowd" doing the exact same thing in reverse. I almost hate to point this out but in most cases they're going to cancel each other out or at least make the difference irrelevant.

I don't think there is any kind of symmetry between the groups, that would balance the effect. People angry that the world is changing are more likely to spend their time lashing out IMO.


There's a problem with your reasoning. Well, more than one problem if you wish to stick to the opinion that The Last Jedi wasn't worse than any other Star Wars movie. I actually have a simple system to rate that movie compared to the other Star Wars movies. I saw The Last Jedi in the theater. I haven't watched it through since. I've tried to watch it on at least three different occasions but I can't get more than 20 minutes into the movie without shutting it off and that includes just having it as little more than some background noise.

People can have legitimately different opinions about movies. There is no objectively worse movie of the series. My vote would go to the first two prequels. Those are unbearable for me. I don't like TLJ either, but it doesn't come anywhere near the execrable level of Jar-Jar, or Anakin professing his love while talking about sand. But still that is just my opinion, the rating system doesn't have to agree with me to be valid. Though most system put the first two prequels at the bottom.

IMO there are only three really good SW movies. Star Wars in the original form I saw it in 1977, ESB, in it's original form, and Rogue One. I never really enjoyed any other SW movie, and I don't see the point about trying to argue which is objectively worse, and thinking any rating system that didn't agree with you was broken.
 
Then educate me, because i"ve rated a movie or 2 on each site, and the only difference was on IMDB it's a 10 point scale and on RT it's a 5 point scale.
RT only has two scores, generally positive and generally negative impression. The RT percentage indicates what portion of the reviews were positive, but it says nothing about the scores themselves. E.g. a movie could have had a hundred reviews in total, generally posititive, but each only giving a 6/10 score, and it would have a 100% RT rating.
 
I don't think there is any kind of symmetry between the groups, that would balance the effect. People angry that the world is changing are more likely to spend their time lashing out IMO.
LOL, I can't believe you can say that with a straight face when the "SJWs" are constantly angry about everything. If the character is white then that's why. If the villain is black then why is he black, if he isn't black, than why are blacks excluded, if there is no gay character then why isn't there one. And why is the female character looking good, that's sexist! She should be ugly! But you should like her just the same as if she was beautiful! And if they literally can't find anything to be angry about, then they'll say this movie had 1 percent more white crewman working on it than minorities, therefore the creators are racists! And why was the producer wearing an offensive* shirt in private?

*= we don't like it

They are mad as hell, and it's only gonna get worse if we don't put a stop to it right now.

Now we are at the point, where they are baiting us, by putting out articles even before anyone has a chance to say anything about a movie like: "This movie has a female protagonist therefore white males will hate it" And such nonsense.
 
They are mad as hell, and it's only gonna get worse if we don't put a stop to it right now.

Now we are at the point, where they are baiting us, by putting out articles even before anyone has a chance to say anything about a movie like: "This movie has a female protagonist therefore white males will hate it" And such nonsense.

A big part of this is Seeking rage clicks from both sides to elevate social media activity. I believe there's two explanations.

Marketing departments are full of Social Media Addicts who want to justify effing around on social media all day and getting paid for it. They oversell SM importance to top brass. They also have their own self-metrics which does not comprehend good buzz from negative buzz.

And/or, Marking departments are full of SJWs who lie to the parts of the Brass that care about income.
 
Radically Altered:

1. Hardcore Drug Addict
2. Works a street corner soliciting fresh cadets
3. All the STD’s
4. Butt Chugs Wine
5. Vapes
6. Switched to Orange Pekoe

Not sure if we saw the same preview but looks like the same Picard just old and tried of bureaucratic BS. Star fleet was pretty full of itself and the later shows really pokes at its hypocrisy and smugness.
 
Last edited:
Know what would mess me up is if they brought John de Lancie in for some good old fashioned fuckery along with Sir Ian McKellen because that would just be funny.

“Oh my good friend Jean Luc, you have grown too old let’s send you on an adventure so you can feel young again”
 
Am I the only one that doesn't want Q in the show? I feel like his story was best done during the course of TNG, and ended with "All Good Things", at least with Picard on camera. It would be strange if Picard has all these things coincidentally happening 20 years later.
 
LOL, I can't believe you can say that with a straight face when the "SJWs" are constantly angry about everything. If the character is white then that's why. If the villain is black then why is he black, if he isn't black, than why are blacks excluded, if there is no gay character then why isn't there one. And why is the female character looking good, that's sexist! She should be ugly! But you should like her just the same as if she was beautiful! And if they literally can't find anything to be angry about, then they'll say this movie had 1 percent more white crewman working on it than minorities, therefore the creators are racists! And why was the producer wearing an offensive* shirt in private?

*= we don't like it

They are mad as hell, and it's only gonna get worse if we don't put a stop to it right now.

Now we are at the point, where they are baiting us, by putting out articles even before anyone has a chance to say anything about a movie like: "This movie has a female protagonist therefore white males will hate it" And such nonsense.
If that's all you get out of so-called "SJW' arguments, I don't know what to tell you. I think you should look a little more than what's on the surface to see the "why" behind the complaints. It seems like you just see complaints and stop reading into it. Or you've already decided the complaints have no merit.

And I'm sorry, but complaining about women being sexualized =/= women need to be ugly. I think that comment says more about you than them.
 
If that's all you get out of so-called "SJW' arguments, I don't know what to tell you. I think you should look a little more than what's on the surface to see the "why" behind the complaints. It seems like you just see complaints and stop reading into it. Or you've already decided the complaints have no merit.

And I'm sorry, but complaining about women being sexualized =/= women need to be ugly. I think that comment says more about you than them.
I didn't decide the complaints have no merit, the complaints are pure lunacy.
I don't read anything into things. I operate on facts. And equal representation in a country where black population is half of white population is not fair, it's inherently unfair. And they don't even want equal representation. Even when that's achieved they won't stop until every "evil" white male is excluded.
WTF does sexualized even mean? It's a made up bullshit term. Since we have a sexual drive we see attractive people sexually all the time. There is no switch to flick off. So the only way to prevent me from "sexualizing" women is to make them unattractive.

I fully stand by my comment, and it says that I don't try to hide my sexual drive, and I don't stand on a pedestal preaching to others how they should suppress their sexual drive.

Because I always take it for granted that sexual moralizing in public is a sign of hypocrisy or worse and usually a desire to perform the very act that is being condemned.

Or there is a saying in my country that also applies: It's always the one who shouts the loudest whose house is burning.
Meaning the worst sexual predators will be the loudest to label others as such.
And it also applies to racists as well: The one who tries to constantly patronize minorities and "help" them, and give them unfair advantages are the ones who think less of them. Thinking they need their special help to achieve anything in life.
 
Last edited:
As for my serious point. You keep talking about the "anti-sjw crowd" review bombing movies. What you keep refusing to acknowledge is the "sjw crowd" doing the exact same thing in reverse. I almost hate to point this out but in most cases they're going to cancel each other out or at least make the difference irrelevant.

Beyond that I wouldn't take the scoring of anything on either IMDB or RT as accurate. My tastes differ from others so I'm not going to agree with many scores. However, on average I can use IMDB scores with an offset depending on the genre of the movie or show and get a rather good idea of whether I would like it or not.
Captain marvel pretty much proves they didn't. The movie did very well(400 mil in the U.S. and 1.1 or 1.2 billion total). Not only that, but it's cinemascore was an A (A+ is the highest rating), and yet somehow by 9 or 10 AM on the day of release it had tons of negative reviews. Clearly SJWs didn't counter the review bombers.
 
RT only has two scores, generally positive and generally negative impression. The RT percentage indicates what portion of the reviews were positive, but it says nothing about the scores themselves. E.g. a movie could have had a hundred reviews in total, generally posititive, but each only giving a 6/10 score, and it would have a 100% RT rating.
Look at the details. It gives an average score for both pro and for user scores

EX:
upload_2019-7-31_2-44-30.png
 
Captain marvel pretty much proves they didn't. The movie did very well(400 mil in the U.S. and 1.1 or 1.2 billion total). Not only that, but it's cinemascore was an A (A+ is the highest rating), and yet somehow by 9 or 10 AM on the day of release it had tons of negative reviews. Clearly SJWs didn't counter the review bombers.

You mean except for the fact that to see the introduction of Captain Marvel before Endgame meant it required you to see it in the theater pumping up the $ for theater viewing. It's the only reason I went to see it in the theater and wish I hadn't bothered since it didn't actually make any difference. Besides that I didn't find it to be a very good movie and the best thing I can say about it is that it was forgettable.

So now you're wanting to move the goalposts with regards to "review bombing". Now it only counts if it's in the first 12 hours or so of the release of the movie and nothing after that counts? Or is it that the reviews and scores from the first hours of release have more weight in the long run counting for 5 or 10 or 15 times what later reviews do? I haven't bothered to look up what scores the movie has but unless it's sitting around a 3 or 5 out of 10 I don't think you have a point.

Also, what about the reviews before the movie came out? How exactly were those "professional" reviews rating the movie and talking about it? I don't particularly remember even in general what they were since I don't normally pay attention but weren't those reviews a bit SJW-biased? I can definitely remember some backlash regarding what Brie Larson said about the movie before it was even released. Are you taking that into account?
 
look how they manipulate the audience score though "% of users that gave it 3.5 or higher". so that 55% isn't the movie score and im sure not all sub-3.5s are trolls if that's what they are trying to filter.
now that I look at it again, the critic score is "% that gave it positive" so again just 3.5+. doesn't give a real rating imo.
 
I don't need a rating site to tell me which movie is bad and which movie is good. And honestly I don't remember a good movie coming out of hollywood in ages. At least not among the big budget ones.

We are at the point where I wouldn't even watch their movies for free, they are so uninteresting.
 
I don't need a rating site to tell me which movie is bad and which movie is good. And honestly I don't remember a good movie coming out of hollywood in ages. At least not among the big budget ones.

We are at the point where I wouldn't even watch their movies for free, they are so uninteresting.

welcome to the club, hopefully we got your membership cleared before you turned 30. luckily in the club we have about 100 years of cinema where for the most part the actual movie makers for better or worse were able to be artists... or at least get something that wasnt tied to a burger king advertising campaign into a wide release. go explorer the backlog. get deeper than rt or imdb. dont listen to anyone especially who calls you a hipster or an old guy. these are the people that actually get emotional over a purple guy punching cgi people.
 
I use reviews to inform as to whether a movie or show could be entertaining- but never to know if they will.

Case in point: every Tarantino movie after Inglourius Basterds. Just watched the one in theaters and it seems that he's going downhill with respect to cinematic cohesion, but they're always highly rated by professional reviewers.
 
In my little imagination I wish they could return to the wreck of the Enterprise-D, salvage it, refit it, and give Jean-Luc his ship to command again. The way the Enterprise D was totaled is a disgrace imo. That, and NEVER, EVER leave Riker in command of a starship.
 
You mean except for the fact that to see the introduction of Captain Marvel before Endgame meant it required you to see it in the theater pumping up the $ for theater viewing. It's the only reason I went to see it in the theater and wish I hadn't bothered since it didn't actually make any difference. Besides that I didn't find it to be a very good movie and the best thing I can say about it is that it was forgettable.

So now you're wanting to move the goalposts with regards to "review bombing". Now it only counts if it's in the first 12 hours or so of the release of the movie and nothing after that counts? Or is it that the reviews and scores from the first hours of release have more weight in the long run counting for 5 or 10 or 15 times what later reviews do? I haven't bothered to look up what scores the movie has but unless it's sitting around a 3 or 5 out of 10 I don't think you have a point.

Also, what about the reviews before the movie came out? How exactly were those "professional" reviews rating the movie and talking about it? I don't particularly remember even in general what they were since I don't normally pay attention but weren't those reviews a bit SJW-biased? I can definitely remember some backlash regarding what Brie Larson said about the movie before it was even released. Are you taking that into account?

1. You didn't need to see Captain Marvel for endgame. Even the credit cookie was largely irrelevant to endgame, since her appearance in Endgame was played like it was the fist time they met.
2. The point was that negative reviews poured in from people who likely never saw the movie, because they came in before 9am on Friday.
3. At the same time, cinemascore interviews actual attendees and the movie got an A.
4. Reviews were positive. The backlash was all based on her comments which were nothing, but the a-sjw crowd was very butthurt by them and it was very predictable. I can look on [H] and tell when a movie or TV show will get review bombed before a single person has seen it.
 
Fair enough, that must be a new feature. Or I've just missed it forever.
I'm not sure. It may have happened when they dumped the "want to see" feature. I simply don't recall what it looked like before this new UI came out. I find it a bit more useful if it's a really close call, but I'm generally more interested in what the pros are writing, but I'll admit that it's a bit more art than science on my decision. I'm also pretty open to anything with decent reviews, since I pay 20/month for 3 movies/week at AMC, so I often look and think, "is this 2 hours of my life I'll never get back?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meeho
like this
I don't need a rating site to tell me which movie is bad and which movie is good. And honestly I don't remember a good movie coming out of hollywood in ages. At least not among the big budget ones.

We are at the point where I wouldn't even watch their movies for free, they are so uninteresting.
So you don't need a reviewer to know if a movie you haven't seen is any good? OK

I see 50-100/year. There are some stinkers, but most I see are pretty good. Sometimes I disagree with critics, but they're still useful in picking movies.
 
I use reviews to inform as to whether a movie or show could be entertaining- but never to know if they will.

Case in point: every Tarantino movie after Inglourius Basterds. Just watched the one in theaters and it seems that he's going downhill with respect to cinematic cohesion, but they're always highly rated by professional reviewers.
Didn't see that one (also need to watch Hateful 8). I liked Once upon a time in Hollywood, though the first act is a bit slow. The last 2 acts were great for me.
 
So you don't need a reviewer to know if a movie you haven't seen is any good? OK

I see 50-100/year. There are some stinkers, but most I see are pretty good. Sometimes I disagree with critics, but they're still useful in picking movies.
No, I don't need a reviewer, because 99% of the time what they say turns out to be completely bunk anyway. I've watched some utter junk that was very highly rated, and would've missed some good ones if I gave any credit to the mainstream reviews.

Actually I misspoke earlier, because I did see a movie I enjoyed recently. Which bombed at the box office, and was reviewed unfavorably by most.

Not to mention the passive aggressive stance of the mainstream nowadays. "You must like this" or "if you like this then you're a..."

If you can't make a decision whether a movie is worth watching going by the synopsis or the trailer, then that's on you.

For example I know it's not worth for me to watch any MCU movies without even looking at the trailer. The only exception to the rule was deadpool1, and then deadpool2 turned out to be utter garbage, but it was still as praised as the first one, how can I believe the opinion of others then?

I think I'd have a better time if I took an inverse filter for reviews and watched what they really disliked.
 
Last edited:
No, I don't need a reviewer, because 99% of the time what they say turns out to be completely bunk anyway. I've watched some utter junk that was very highly rated, and would've missed some good ones if I gave any credit to the mainstream reviews.

Actually I misspoke earlier, because I did see a movie I enjoyed recently. Which bombed at the box office, and was reviewed unfavorably by most.

Not to mention the passive aggressive stance of the mainstream nowadays. "You must like this" or "if you like this then you're a..."

If you can't make a decision whether a movie is worth watching going by the synopsis or the trailer, then that's on you.

For example I know it's not worth for me to watch any MCU movies without even looking at the trailer. The only exception to the rule was deadpool1, and then deadpool2 turned out to be utter garbage, but it was still as praised as the first one, how can I believe the opinion of others then?

I think I'd have a better time if I took an inverse filter for reviews and watched what they really disliked.
I don't want to read a synopsis. In some cases, i see movies where I have no idea what they're about. Don't care. And yes, there are movies that are critic proof and I go no matter what, but look you see what you want, but reviews matter for a large chunk of movie goers.

And since reviews don't matter, you would have gone to Deadpool 2, no matter what, so no system is foolproof.

I've seen roughly 80 movies in the last 12 months. Some sucked (Lego Movie2, Pikachou and Dumbo come to mind...oh and Mary Poppins 2), but most were at least decent, and some were brilliant. Most well reviewed movies I've liked, but some, like Widows, I didn't love. As I recall, the latest Shaft flick got marginal (perhaps mostly negative) reviews, but I read a few reviews and decided I'd probably like it, and I did.



But to be clear, if I wasn't paying 20/month to see pretty much as many movies as I want (up to 3/week). I'd be less adventurous if I was paying 7-15/movie, but I'd miss a lot of enjoyable flicks and only miss a few of the bad ones...but I like most of them.

Anyway, this is way off topic.
 
I don't want to read a synopsis. In some cases, i see movies where I have no idea what they're about. Don't care. And yes, there are movies that are critic proof and I go no matter what, but look you see what you want, but reviews matter for a large chunk of movie goers.

And since reviews don't matter, you would have gone to Deadpool 2, no matter what, so no system is foolproof.

I've seen roughly 80 movies in the last 12 months. Some sucked (Lego Movie2, Pikachou and Dumbo come to mind...oh and Mary Poppins 2), but most were at least decent, and some were brilliant. Most well reviewed movies I've liked, but some, like Widows, I didn't love. As I recall, the latest Shaft flick got marginal (perhaps mostly negative) reviews, but I read a few reviews and decided I'd probably like it, and I did.



But to be clear, if I wasn't paying 20/month to see pretty much as many movies as I want (up to 3/week). I'd be less adventurous if I was paying 7-15/movie, but I'd miss a lot of enjoyable flicks and only miss a few of the bad ones...but I like most of them.

Anyway, this is way off topic.

I don't see many movies in theaters. But for the most part, I prefer the professional reviewers to the audience score(which mainly seems generated by teen boys and twenty somethings), and usually the critics steer me right, but sometimes not.

Blade Runner 2049, was highly rated by both critical and audience score, and it was a let down to me. It's a pale shadow of the original Blade Runner which is one of my favorite movies.

Nothing can ever match our personal opinions with certainty, which is why arguing about it, seems pointless, and yes way off topic.
 
I don't see many movies in theaters. But for the most part, I prefer the professional reviewers to the audience score(which mainly seems generated by teen boys and twenty somethings), and usually the critics steer me right, but sometimes not.

Blade Runner 2049, was highly rated by both critical and audience score, and it was a let down to me. It's a pale shadow of the original Blade Runner which is one of my favorite movies.

Nothing can ever match our personal opinions with certainty, which is why arguing about it, seems pointless, and yes way off topic.
We agree on these for the most part. I'll have to wait on 2049. I don't think it was a masterpiece, but I didn't hate it. However, I don't recall loving Blade Runner the first time around. It's grown on me over the years. I guess i should rent 2049 and watch them both back to back (but then I'd have to decide which version of BR to compare it with)
 
When I see this stuff I am always reminded of the whole, - We don't have money anymore thing in TNG. Then we see Picard on his palatial estate/vineyard. I guess his family just won the game of musical chairs when they decided to end commerce and money.
 
When I see this stuff I am always reminded of the whole, - We don't have money anymore thing in TNG. Then we see Picard on his palatial estate/vineyard. I guess his family just won the game of musical chairs when they decided to end commerce and money.
I would imagine that is his families vineyard that his brother had been looking after.
 
When I see this stuff I am always reminded of the whole, - We don't have money anymore thing in TNG. Then we see Picard on his palatial estate/vineyard. I guess his family just won the game of musical chairs when they decided to end commerce and money.

Maybe they don't really own it but are allowed to live there and produce wine. Plus by then the federation has dozens of planets they own so real estate isn't likely at a premium.
 
Back
Top