>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
>>217484746why in the fuck would Starfleet have a "waiver" for anybody to not wear shoes? Is it just for shoes or can that be done for any other clothing?
>>217485573Most likely a religious waiver or is related to certain aliens that don't wear shoes for cultural reasons. So she probably used culturally to do it, as is tradition for a lefty white woman.
>>217484403they know they are fake this time because it has more bad reviews than views.
>>217485609Nobody knows the view count, it's only seen by Amazon and they can just say whatever number they like.
>>217485627I'm replying to a bot or a retard, i cant be sure which.
>>217485573There's probably species in the federation that have hooves or some shit
>>217484403>chudsYou faggots are still saying this?
>>217484476Why does this bitch look like she was made in the oblivion character creator? This isn't even a black thing this is some dysgenic american race mixing nonsense.
>>217484403The show sucks but when you put in a bunch of women and poc you can use that as a shield from criticism . Ingenious
>>217485589>>217485656okay but she's humanoid (yeah I know she's over 400 years old, how quirky!) and has no reasonable excuse, that's the point
>>217484746Holy shit that's embarrassing
>>217484403sorry but not even paul giamotti is enough to make me want to see this. lets just agree to disagree, you say your show is good, i (privately) think its in fact quite bad. i will never watch it. the end.
That's never how people on the internet vote on anything though. Look at google reviews on foot places, people will vote it 1/5 because something went wrong or because it was too busy that had nothing to do with the restaurant. Many tv shows on imdb are rated in extremes but that aggregates in the end. I guess technically it's review bombing, but it just shows a general dissatisfaction with the product that one should take into account
Is blaming fans for hating something that sucks part of the marketing budget before production even starts nowadays?
>JUST Tic-Tac-Toe my shit up senpai!
>>217485885journos will do it for free
>>217485885It's just insane at this point. They are acting like they didn't already make 3 other massive budget garbage trek shows that all flopped both with trek fans and normies.Who is falling for this?
>>217484403>make shit show and get bad reviews>but the critics reviews>trusting a paid shillJust make a star trek people actually want to see and stop with the self insert and pandering to people who don't even watch the series. Fucking christ this isn't a complicated situation.
>>217485885>>217485907These darned Trump voting, racist, homophobic, fake Trek "fans" strike again!!
>>217485907>Who is falling for this?No one, the outrage is performative. They know they are making garbage propaganda. At best they hope by trying to deflect they can get a few more viewers to watch.
>>217484403i am so tired of film critics. when 85pc of them laud dreck, i know they're either unqualified, or blind, or being willfully dishonest. Worse, since they are opinion writers, they cannot be called out. they can actively lie and obfuscate and no one can prove a damn thing because its just opinion lol.
>>217484746It's also in their interest to >>217484597>Journos think everyone is supposed to have the same "rating curve" where they rate something "objectively". Exactly the opposite. Journos and movie critics rate things based on paid promotions/access from studios, their 'professional image', politics and generating clicks via controversy first and objectivity last. This is why it's so common for critic and audience opinions to be opposites now, the critics are rating films on the basis of profit and notoriety, maintaining an image of (what they assume) is sophisticated taste and whether the film/creators strictly fit into their political world or not, whereas the audience are rating it on enjoyment and major political faux pas exclusively. Always remember that film critics are just literature/arts majors too dumb and boring to hack it as writers or real journalists. >>217485959This guy gets it.
>>217485294>I need muh heckin brand to continue for all of eternity despite it being dogshitWhy are normies like this?
>>217484486They readily share their intentions as they have every time prior? The initial response is ignored on rotten tomatoes now because it happens so frequently
>>217485959a lot of these "critics" are ideologically supportive of whatever pandering slop the studios put out. Keep in mind that most journos want to be covering politics and the ones who don't still make everything about politics either directly or indirectly
>>217484403I really like the series. I havent laughed that hard in a long time. Its like watching money and careers burn on screen.
>>217484403I´m surprised people even gave this a watch honestly. What´s the point of Star Trek without the part about exploring new planets and civilizations? I could be entirely wrong as i signed out as soon as i finished watching the trailer but it seems the focus of this is going to be the teenage drama resulting of cadets relationships. Even if Star Trek is about accepting differences and whatnot i find that, as a premise, flawed and uninteresting. Now i understand media is trying to naturalize situations and behavior but they are just so terribly dense on their approach. Being pushy and preachy only ends on people just skipping that kind of episodes... or in this case the show altogether. Which i guess defies the purpose right? You have to keep those things more subtle and on manageable doses so that the audience don´t immediately go away. If people don´t listen it doesn´t matter how loud you are.
>>217484476why are fat people allowed in starfleet again? it is a professional organization with fitness requirements, is it not?this is the fucking future and we have ozempic now, you cannot tell me being a fat fuck is normal in the future.
No one bothered to check if it was an actual article.
>>217484403Their favourite talking head told them it's bad, so they review it 1 without watching it.
>>217486055>What´s the point of Star Trek without the part about exploring new planets and civilizations?DS9 did a pretty good job of it. Though they did explore sometimes on that show too. DS9 had I'm sure some faggot tng autist will come call ds9 shit in response to this but they are wrong. Even then I'm sure that autist will have to admit ds9 is magnitudes of orders better than anything nutrek
>>217486105>favouriteopinion discarded
>>217486055the real meat of star trek has always been philosophical. this is why tng is so fucking good. there are five lights, darkmok and jalad at tanagra, shit like that. its very much a show that at least encourages thought, encourages free thinking.being a free thinker has never been prized by the state, which is why schooling is non-optional in this country. you must be taught not how to think but what to think.
>>217486115I bet your favourite talking head told you that.
>>217486055Hot 20 somethings in magical/scifi school being girl bosses and chads while engaging in love triangles and other melodrama garbage is usually guaranteed a sustainable audience of teenage and girl-child watchers, no matter how bad or preachy the show is. However, unlike Wednesday, the magicians, Gen V, motherland: fort salem etc. the star trek brand is considered lame and (bad) nerdy by the usual slop-watcher crowd, thus this flopped hard.
>>217486221Women only want scifi if the fictional women in said scifi are oppressed
>>217484486Shhhh
>>217484403>new show get slammed because it's ass>I-IT'S REVIEW BOMBING!Tell that to The Acolyte. We know how it ends.Next usual BS is saying that the actors are getting death threats because they are black and/or women, lolIt doesnt work anymore.
>>217486221I never watched this show but that blonde girl has some legendary boobs
>>217485959There's only one man you can trust
>>217484746>Regulation footwear is a requirement>I just don't like wearing them if I don't have to>Well you have to, that is what a requirement is.
>>217486112DS9 was the beginning of the end tho
>>217484403Does this nigga have tic tac toe in his hair??
>>217486665kek
>Starfleet Academy>Cool does it take place at the Academy?NO!
