From: RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Will Smith's "Bright" a disaster in the making
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.107.148.138 with SMTP id w132mr18568158iod.138.1514279981367;
Tue, 26 Dec 2017 01:19:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.157.39.12 with SMTP id r12mr824183ota.4.1514279981221; Tue,
26 Dec 2017 01:19:41 -0800 (PST)
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!g80no2611535itg.0!news-out.google.com!b73ni9947ita.0!nntp.google.com!g80no2611529itg.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 01:19:40 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <p1snhq$u38$1@dont-email.me>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=184.75.212.45;
posting-account=8Vsz_woAAABQPV3Epo66m_rYvK1EHzOV
NNTP-Posting-Host: 184.75.212.45
References: <88606c34-b6e5-48a4-a7b6-bfb445b5cf36@googlegroups.com>
<p1i0mc$d5d$1@dont-email.me> <c21ebc11-aa4c-4d43-a79a-a17e40ef7d9e@googlegroups.com>
<p1kik8$id9$1@dont-email.me> <5086ce66-fe4f-4569-80ff-c542ff3b9601@googlegroups.com>
<p1ljr8$uek$1@dont-email.me> <13ff5230-e73e-4d34-afa8-3b002bd5d4ae@googlegroups.com>
<p1snhq$u38$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <4a92c1c7-da06-44cb-b9bc-3425ee300caa@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Will Smiths "Bright" a disaster in the making
From: RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 09:19:41 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 55
Print Article
Forward Article
On Tuesday, 26 December 2017 00:43:25 UTC-5, Obveeus  wrote:
> On 12/25/2017 10:09 PM, RichA wrote:
> > On Saturday, 23 December 2017 07:57:15 UTC-5, Obveeus  wrote:
> >> On 12/23/2017 2:28 AM, RichA wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 22 December 2017 22:30:17 UTC-5, Obveeus  wrote:
> >>>> On 12/22/2017 9:27 PM, RichA wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 21 December 2017 23:11:58 UTC-5, Obveeus  wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12/21/2017 8:24 PM, RichA wrote:
> >>>>>>>
https://www.google.ca/search?source=hp&ei=R148WqGxDMSpjwSYt7uICw...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Can't even find it on Rottentomatoes.com which is very interesting.  Paid-off to bury it?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'll skip making the obvious joke about why you cannot find BRIGHT.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/bright
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not there when I looked.
> >>>>
> >>>> Odd since it was there a day before your post when I looked.
> >>>>
> >>>> As for the film, it is much better than the rottentomato reviews would
> >>>> have you believe.  Perhaps the film side of the reviewer world is still
> >>>> smarting from the idea that evil Netflix will convince people to watch
> >>>> films in the comfort of their own home instead of the theater?  BRIGHT
> >>>> is not the crime procedural I feared it might be.  It is a bit of
> >>>> sci-fi, but it is just as much alt.history as sci-fi.  Mostly, though,
> >>>> it is a buddy cop flick in the vein of 40 HOURS or BEVERLY HILLS COP.  I
> >>>> know some reviewers don't like the idea of sci-fi having any nudity or
> >>>> swear words, but really there isn't even much of that...and certainly
> >>>> not so much that it should have been a problem for sci-fi viewers.
> >>>> Maybe they were worried about their 8 year old kid's fragile ears and
> >>>> eyes?  Whatever the case, the film is entertaining and manages a bit of
> >>>> funny and a bit of social preaching.  Some of the transitions are a bit
> >>>> rough and the fight sequences are definitely a bit too filled with quick
> >>>> cuts and wire work and such, but the plot is solid enough and does its
> >>>> job creating characters and a world that is interesting and in focus
> >>>> enough to warrant a sequel.
> >>>
> >>> It seems like "Alien Nation" again.
> >>
> >> It did have some ALIEN NATION feel to it and that was a good thing.  I
> >> actually would have preferred even more of an ALIEN NATION vibe than it
> >> had since that was what I was hoping for.
> >>
> >> Side note:  At least the reviewers haven't scared people away from the
> >> film.  IMDB shows that 11,000+ people watched and rated it
> >> yesterday...and the ratings are all skewed towards the top half of the
> >> spectrum without looking like a bunch of relatives just chimed in with
> >> obligatory 10s.
> > 
> > Netflix has $90M riding on it, not including whatever promotion cost.  I'm sure they hired a few
homeless to salt the mine.
> 
> Salt the mine?  You think Netflix is hiring homeless people to set up 
> IMDB accounts?  Checking...over 35,000 ratings on IMDB now.

No, they'd hire "content producers" (filler-people, people who normally churn-out inane articles to
fill websites, no shortage of liberal arts grads who need the money) to open multiple accounts.