>Criticism is one thing, and it’s a fair thing, but Starfleet Academy is the latest release that is being targeted by a review-bombing campaign, and it’s a pretty ugly one. As of writing this, Starfleet Academy holds an abysmal 35% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, compared to its 85% critics’ score. Over on IMDb, the damage looks even worse, with the show having a user rating of 4.8/10 score, with 38.2% (or over one thousand) of the nearly three thousand reviews giving the show a score of “1”.Why are chuds and incels like this?
They should have have replaced the ugly black girl with a cute Asian girl. Chuds would immediately love the show.
or maybe fans just don't like it very much?
>>217484476It's got chink eyes based on the picture
Mike "THE NOT GAYS" and "THINK OF STARVING AFRICAN CHILDREN" Stoklasa couldn't be more woke and he hates this shit. Maybe it's just that bad, did they think about that?
I'm gonna be honest, I don't care about "chuds and incels" and I'm sick of hearing about them.
>>217484403>show sucksthere's plenty of star trek woke shit with good reviews, this is just bad.
>>217484403>not one word explaining how this is a review bomb and not simply upset viewers
>>217484553Journos think everyone is supposed to have the same "rating curve" where they rate something "objectively". Like "yeah you can critique our show but this isn't literally Tommy Wiseau's The Room so you can't just give us a 1/10 that's reviewbombing, at least give it a 4/10 or something!". In reality non-autists don't care about the rating curve, if they dislike an element on a fundamental level they will just slap a 1/10 on that shit and won't watch. And if they like something they'll slap a 10. Look at all those 10/10 spams on Taylor Swift concerts. All those normalfag women don't give a fuck about a "balanced" rating, it's Tay Tay so it's a 10. Simple as that.
CHAIRFART ACADEMY FARTSTREAK ACADEMY FATFREAKS ALLDUMMIES TARDREEK ICKYDUMMIES Fire Pronoun4Pedos Note that in SLOPTREK the SLOBFREAK ASSDUMMIES are 900+ years in the future after SLOPTREK PICANCER aired.Despite having the ability to point to point interplanetary beaming introduced in the JJ ANUS movie rehashing Discount Kahn with his rejuvenation blood, NO NEW TECHNOLOGY has been popularized, created, mass-produced since then. A 900+ year gap from STAR TREK NEXT GENERATION to FARTMEET ACADUMMIES.
>>217484403Obviously they loved it and only gave it a negative review because they hated it
>>217484403Why does he have tic-tac-toe on his head?
>>217484476Is the hologram stretched because they're using the wrong aspect ratio?
>>217484671He's an alien. He's probably wondering why humans play a hairstyle
>>217484403>1300 people watched the premierTrust me, not enough people care to "review bomb" it.
>>217484403No those are normies bombing it. If something is ass it will taste like ass to everyone.
>watch it for giamattihe really should have stayed away from this piece of shit show.
>>217484403>review bombThat's what "journalists" call it when actual viewers think something is complete shit. All these journos are vultures who live off of whatever new comes out. If it doesn't survive they wont have anything to write articles about week after week. Its in their best interest to constantly glaze all this crap just so they keep getting a paycheck
>>217484403when did a bad review turn into the viewer's fault?
>>217484751You liked it, but you pretended not to because you hate it
>>217484759>keep posting the same jokeit wasn't funny the first time around either mate.
>>217484403>There's no way that the viewers disagree with the critics review that much it has to be a coordinated attack by incel chuds
They literally claim this with ever show.
>>217484776You're only pretending to hate the joke because you hate it
>>217484746The writer doesn’t understand technobabble. It should be plausible because it’s impossible for your brain in the past to understand what they’re talking about. She’s talking about something we can experimentally verify today as untrue. Also, it demeans her attempted characterization of edginess and boldness when she tries to back up her choice with science rather than just saying “I like it”.
>>217484597It's a lot of things like they aren't actually fans of legacy franchises and they say, "Hey this isn't that bad, especially when it had some fun characters I can relate to". They'll criticize things for being too similar to what they know of and love it when something does something "new" like completely overturning everything about that franchise. Also nepotism comes into play where they know people at the companies and who make the shows and just want to support their friends.
>>217484403listen chuds, if you're gonna review bomb a show because its 'woke', stop giving it 1 star
>>217484843If they thought it deserved more, why would they rate it so low?
>>217484403At least these quality actors got paid. For a shit project
I think the journalists are sold out hack-bombing me with defensive articles
>>217484958they should have had a more ethical job like robbing the elderly
>>217484403Mmmmm.I consider Elia Kazan one of the very best directors of all time.
>>217484818>i signed the waiverseither there is a beauraucratic accepted way to go barefoot, or coworkers who insist you dress to code. there can't be both. it does not make sense. if you followed the required process to work that way, say so and be done with it. the end.but of course 'i did the paperwork' has to be followed with a bunch of snarky 'if you were smart you'd do it too' bullshit, because HECKIN' girlbossin'
>>217484818>i did the paperwork>and it's a health benefit i think>and i just like to, okay?nothing says "comfortable with their own decisions" like hastily scrambling out multiple lines of reasoning to anyone that speaks up about it
>>217484403Getting bad reviews is not "review bombing". Nu Trek is shit.
>>217484403Chuds are unable to create things, they can only destroy.
>>217484597People won't put a 1/10 rating on something they intend to watch or keep watching.1/10, universally, means something was so unappealing that, not only does the person reviewing wish they had never had the misfortune of consuming the product, they would advise against anyone else trying it also.The camera work, sound design and acting might all be objective 7-10/10's, but if the writing is utter dogshit, everything else suffers.You can only be as strong as the weakest link.Of course, the journalists assume the critics are totally unbiased, and don't have a vested interest in being "easy to work with", so they don't understand the discrepancy between the average viewer and the "professional" kinosseur.
Star Trek was always fucking gayKirk, Spock, Khan, that chink, all fucking gaygay costumes, gay aliens, gay ship, gay weapons, absolute homo show for basedfags
>>217485148You, are gay.
>>217484746I love how they created a new race that talks like a 21st century smarmy liberal
>>217484403>review bombedNo such thing
>>217484403I have alt right fatigue
>>217485294>no more Star TrekAnd that’s a good thing. It ended in 2005 anyway.
>>217484403>Star Trek is failing, Discovery and SNW both cancelled>"we'll make a new show and lean into all the shit people hated about them"Do they just hate Star Trek or what? These decisions are just insane.
>>217484403At the risk of being "le contrarian /tv/", I like this show so far.
>>217484403>Last 3 Major trek shows have been massive soul crushing disasters>New one made by the same people comes out>NOOO HOW CAN THEY NOT LIKE IT ITS TARGETED HARRASSMENTHow many fucking chances do they think they deserve? Seriously. I wouldn't get on a plane with a pilot who crashed his last 3 flights. It's just self preservation at this point to hate nu trek
>>217484746>leftoids are now doing the chud "touch grass" science, which is entirely pseudoscienceWhat the fuck is going on in the world man
>>217484403>review bombedcan they ever, EVER just admit people think it is shitEVER?
>>217485294Dead star trek would be a huge blessing at this point. It's literally the only ray of hope there is for it.Old trek is still there for everybody at least
>>217485413that would break the brainwashing
>>217485413>Can shills stop being shills?Impossible, I'm afraid
>>217484403>brand new old show for boomers isn't liked by boomersmany such cases
>>217484746
