From: Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Will Smith's "Bright" a disaster in the making
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Subject: Re: Will Smiths "Bright" a disaster in the making
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 09:17:09 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <p1tll3$v30$1@dont-email.me>
References: <88606c34-b6e5-48a4-a7b6-bfb445b5cf36@googlegroups.com>
<p1i0mc$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>
<4a92c1c7-da06-44cb-b9bc-3425ee300caa@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 14:17:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a4298bd3eda5b828e26e5866ed30201f";
logging-data="31840"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+JBHMAxo/POntQhHmxB2Ye"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.5.0
In-Reply-To: <4a92c1c7-da06-44cb-b9bc-3425ee300caa@googlegroups.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/02ebthgMuEJ9CX2KODS2SdoXmQ=
Print Article
Forward Article
On 12/26/2017 4:19 AM, RichA wrote:
> 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.

I think you have it backwards.  It seems far more likely that the 
professional theater reviewers have been 'salted' with encouragement to 
give bad reviews to BRIGHT specifically because it threatens their 
theater going universe.

Along those lines, it is interesting how different the critics' opinion 
is from the public's opinion on both BRIGHT and STAR WARS THE LAST JEDI.

https://qz.com/1165113/rotten-tomatoes-scores-for-star-wars-the-last...