There are three (possibly more) strong factors that make this seem extremely abnormal and indicates that the manbaby/breitbart crowd is the strongest of the likely factors.
Go check out a bunch of other movies on IMDB and compare to the images we’ve posted here and come back! This usually works better if most of it sinks in on your side and you might see a hole I missed. Win-Win!
This is pretty much what I tell myself every time The Matrix trilogy comes up in conversation. Just helps me resist the temptation to say ‘Matrix trilogy? You mean there were two more films?’
(Fun fact: The Matrix was itself a trilogy distilled to a single film.)
I had very fond memories of the original but I watched it again last year and to be honest, it hadn’t aged well (much like The Goonies). The jokes weren’t funny and Bill Murray was a dirty skeeve. I guess it was good at the time but time has moved on and I’m not 11 anymore.
I watched the new Ghostbusters and was surprised at how much better it was than the original. Not everything worked, but the characters were generally better (apart from Erin Gilbert who was all over the place) and the nods to the original were generally nicely done.
I also didn’t notice a lesbian vibe from it. I thought Holtzmann was stuck in the 10 y.o. ‘boys are icky’ stage (e.g. the comment at the end about “safety lights are for boys”) and playing at being grown up. Maybe people are getting confused because there’s 4 women on screen not needing a man to validate them.
Wow, I didn’t know there were more Matrix films.
Makes me wonder if they’re ever going to get around to releasing those Star Wars prequels Lucas has been talking about forever. Or a fourth Indiana Jones… Nah, that’s a horrible idea. That would be almost as bad as making a sequel to Highlander.
I don’t hate it. I think it’s got some good moments but I also see it as a lot of missed opportunities. At the very least they had a chance to fill in Winston’s backstory, making him the genuine badass he was originally supposed to be. And as I said previously Janine should have picked up a proton pack instead of being reduced to putting the make on Tully.
Hell, she didn’t even get any the snappy lines. Her wit was one of the best details of the original.
Right on.
I disavow knowledge of any movies aside from the Matrix and the Animatrix (because it actually bothered to delve into some back story.)
I really like the Animatrix. From what I’ve heard, and could be wrong, the Wachowski sisters didn’t really plan on sequels, but the success of the first film convinced them to get on board with a trilogy. In my imagination there are two versions of the Matrix, the one that includes the fun and slightly campy Gibson-esque original film that did for cyberpunk what Star Wars did for space opera (with some Animatrix thrown in for backstory), and then the version that includes the whole trilogy which is still fun in its own right, but not as distilled and a lot more self-conscious of itself. And I’m okay with that dichotomy. It is fiction after all. Having two versions of it doesn’t bother me.
Interesting, but not very useful.
What you’ve given is a minor factor that I’d consider more of a footnote in any analysis (data analytics is my career, so I’m not talking out of my butt here), and it would sensibly be included with other causes of minor statistical shifts… but it’s not terribly meaningful without the ratios of all the other scores, comparative ratios of other movies, and going back to the source article how many and what ratios of those ratings came before the movie was released.
It’s far less significant than the comparison of trends between this movie and others (use the scores by age range and gender as well as the score breakdown on IMDB, like the original article did and like I was doing). Also significant is the known fact that there was a specific and concerted effort to downrank the trailer by the same group (manbabies) which we can conveniently say is almost entirely restricted to one data point. We can’t say the same with anti-manbaby crowds, though they certainly were a factor, if statistically less significant (when they should be a vast majority in a civilized world)
Cool, I don’t think we’re disagreeing. If there was somewhere to grab a tidy data frame from it might be fun to kick it around a bit in R but honestly I found the figure I was after and I’m not too motivated to take it further.
Yeah, we probably aren’t! I was half getting in front of anybody looking at it and saying ‘see, THAT explains it’. It’s an easy trap to fall into and I’m a bit oversensitive to that.
It’s alright… just go drink a nice whiskey sour, beer, or glass of wine, and you’ll be fine…
(also, not clicking those links! I don’t need to know, honestly).
I don’t HATE it, but it’s aggressively mediocre. (If the first movie hadn’t happened, it would be a minor side note comedy that some people fondly remembered.)
What’s amusing is that, amongst the manbabies, a new cult of revisionism to claim that it’s REALLY GOOD NO REALLY IT’S ALMOST AS GOOD AS THE ORIGINAL.
Regarding Ghostbusters 2:
I love this for so many reasons (source):
The love for the orginal Ghostbusters is in no way challenged by a different version. They are separate entities that can be appreciated, or not, on their own merits. It simply allows for this little girl, my little girl, to envision that she too can put on the backpack and fight the good fight.
Okay, the daughter of Harold Ramis giving it a thumbs up. Not only am I seeing this movie, I’m taking several friends to watch it at the Alamo Drafthouse and there’s going to be a bottle of bubbles on me so we can toast to the memory of Egon.
Do you want to get banned? Cause that’s how you get banned.
But Ben Stiller is '10s 50, and Bill Murray was '80s 34, so adjusting for inflation…
Edit: Whoops, please ignore the vitriol and my apologies.
How would you classify your own personal investment in this movie? Because there’s certainly an overconcern that goes beyond your personal interest in the property.
There’s really an aura of concern driving trollies all over this thread about protesting “not being allowed to not like it” which doesn’t match any of the rhetoric here.
The issue is not liking or not liking but the framing, rhetoric, and protesting far too much over a fluff movie.
Well, I think it’s heavily related. But it’s not just men being more likely to give a rating of 1. It’s men being more likely to give a rating of 1 to things that were rated by more women. What it helps us understand is that the lower ratings “from men” are really extremely low ratings from a small portion of men, rather than a consistent 1 or 2 points lower. That is, most men don’t go out of their way to tank ratings for movies women like. This all supports the idea that the problem is with a small set of men who are particularly prone to give 1’s to these movies. For brevity, perhaps we could call them, “manbabies.”
