The rating is now 6.4, it was much lower. Makes no sense considering Metascore is 60.
Look at the breakdown: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1289401/ratings/
> Our rating mechanism has detected unusual voting activity on this title. To preserve the reliability of our rating system, an alternate weighting calculation has been applied.
Men rate it 4.9, women 6.4. Just throw away all the male votes then!
it's all rigged..
share[deleted]
OH eM GEEEE
Greta is a WHOPPERR LOL.
Oh well.
Did you really expect that your opinion mattered to a bunch of woke freaks?
Seriously?
DO you THink ThaT is does maTTer to them????
oh ,wait , thtas new , to me anyway
so "woke freaks" now includes people worried about the environmernt as well as people who give women and non whites the time of day?
People worried about the environment try to save energy by their own will. Woke people fulfill their "duty" just by watching a movie about a freak telling them what is already obvious.
shareNot one of the Gender or Age brackets is even as high as the average???
HOW THE HELL DOES THAT WORK?????
LOL
Some how they averaged a bunch of 4s and 5s and 6s and got 6.6 as their total average. WOW.
SOOOOOOOOOO Reliable.
Why does EVERY big entity LIE these days????
WHY?
This kind of trickery gives IMDb a bad name. As negative as the original score was you couldn't call it review bombing because only 17,5% of the voters gave it a 1. There was (and is) still quite a bit of variation in the scores per group. And the final unadjusted score of 5.2 wasn't actually that bad: numerous other well known blockbusters have similar or worse scores. The current score definitly doesn't reflect the opinion of IMDb users.
shareIT'S ALL THE BACKWARDS MONKEYS VOTING 1 STAR OR LESS...THEYARE THE PROBLEM...THIS FILM IS NOT GREAT BUT IT ISN'T LIQUID SHIT EITHER...A 5,5.5 IS FAIR.
shareIMDb already had a bad name for those of us who miss the message boards. Moviechat is nice, but it's apparent there are only a few hundred users each day, whereas the old IMDb message boards had millions of daily users.
shareWell said. There is a long-running "bottom 100" list and the original 5.2 rating wouldn't put Grrlbusters anywhere near that list. It was not rated as one of the worst ever made. While the Ghostbusters fanbase was certainly frustrated to be given a new movie resembling nothing of what fans ever envisioned for a third Ghostbusters movie, which is a COMPLETELY understandable movie fan reaction, it wasn't like it was a life or death matter for them! It was not that serious. There is no evidence of any coordinated effort by them to sabotage the movie's scores. Authoritarian SJW media scolds telling us this was happening and yammering on about the 'toxicity' of 'incel manbabies' was not proof of anything.
Of course no one took this movie as seriously as the SJW activists did. When media sycophants coordinated their own very personal attack campaign against the movie's detractors, it was THEY who engaged in sabotage - it was they who turned heated yet commonplace entertainment discourse aggressive and toxic. Even participants from the film, evidently whom are too fragile and unprofessional to handle a negative movie review, piled on to the condenmnation of all the wrongthinking moviegoers. Nevermind that moviegoers have a right to their opinions as part of a process known as 'customer feedback', which USED to be something companies relied on to help shape their products. It didn't USED to be that that customers were only allowed to have approved opinions.
Yet still to this day the main legacy of this movie, according to the media, is that of how 'misogynistic and toxic' Ghostbusters fans are. Toxic because they were offered a brainlessly politically correct, unfunny mess of a movie that was a disrespectful stain on a franchise that once brought them so much joy. They felt betrayed, and for daring to say such a thing, THEY were vilified.
If you follow ratings I guess that's something to consider. I just watch trailers and make a decision. For this one, I skipped it. It wasn't my movie. One of my renters enjoyed it. She never saw the original so I guess this wasade for her.
sharerigged
shareIt's such corrupt bullshit. No chance in hell this movie rates higher with Ghostbusters fans than Ghostbusters 2 (as per their IMDb scores). Find even ONE fan who's watched all Ghostbusters movies and would claim Grrlbusters to be better than any of the others.
It's not like I'm saying that its IMDb rating needs to be 1.0/10. I just happen to believe that ANY opinions about movies, no matter how positive or how negative, should be allowed to be expressed freely. And IMDb users are supposed to have the freedom to vote those opinions on this site accordingly, per the availability to vote any movie 1-10. IMDb had never before prior to this movie stated that certain movies were 'off-limits' (and they still don't officially state that). No one had any reason to believe that politically correct social agendas would play a role in how you were allowed to vote on a movie.
How could IMDb even objectively distinguish between movies targeted for disproportionate 'trolling' and ones that aren't? How do they know that troll-voting has never happened to many, many movies prior to Grrlbusters in 2016? Or DO they in fact know that it happened to many movies prior to that, but just never cared to step in until the fat woke ladies in ghost hunter constumes came along? With there being a "bottom 100 rated movies" list, what prevents the assumption that any ONE of those movies were victims of this 'unusual voting activity' they claim? All of those movies have lower scores than Grrlbusters had at its lowest before the rigging kicked in, too. What made IMDb decide to care enough to start intervening? Or rather, WHO told them to care enough to intervene?
🤓
share