Online Series: Masters Of The Universe: Revelation by Kevin Smith

Jussi

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
91,020
10,991
Mojo Dojo Casa House

StreetHawk

Registered User
Sep 30, 2017
25,597
9,428
To be fair, it is and it isn't. As Smith later mentioned, there is a reason it is not called "He-Man and the Masters of the Universe" like when we were kids. I had hoped, based on original marketing, that He-Man would be in it more so that sucks.
True, but would be like a Transformers show without Optimus Prime after episode 1.

Weird to split up the series like that. Cause, I have not doubts that some people will tune out of the second half because they were disappointed in the first half of the series.
 

x-bob

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
8,060
154
Montreal
The show is great and the majority of the hate is unwarranted in my opinion. Anyone who bases their opinion on the show on the fact that there is a lack of He-Man isn’t giving it enough credit for exploring other interesring characters/story lines in that universe.

I’m looking forward to the rest of the series.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NyQuil and Jussi

Jussi

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
91,020
10,991
Mojo Dojo Casa House
I quit after the first few episodes because I was bored, so what?

You still salty because you think people giving an honest review = intentionally review bombing something?

It was clear they weren't. There are literally videos on Youtube claiming Adam/He-Man dies twice which isn't true.

Also, I'm always salty. I'm a Finn after all.
 
Last edited:

Osprey

Registered User
Feb 18, 2005
27,090
9,352

It went without saying that He-Man would be back and have a larger role in Part 2. The quote doesn't confirm that he's the focus of Part 2, though. You can have a lot of He-Man without him being the main character, and Kevin Smith has said that Teela is "the center of the story" and that it's "Teela's journey." From that, it doesn't sound like the story will shift its focus to He-Man, even if he gets a lot more screen time, but we'll have to see.
It was clear they weren't. There are literally videos on Youtube claiming Adam/He-Man dies twice which isn't true.

There are over 10,000 negative user reviews and ratings for Part 1 across sites like RT, IMDb and Metacritic. Calling them dishonest because a few YouTube videos slightly exaggerated seems rather absurd and actually dishonest. I also think that it's a really bad habit to consistently cite sensationalist YouTube videos to make an argument. That seems like resorting to strawmen and pretending that they represent the other side to confirm an opinion of it instead of trying to understand it.
 
Last edited:

Jussi

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
91,020
10,991
Mojo Dojo Casa House
It went without saying that He-Man would be back and have a larger role in Part 2. The quote doesn't confirm that he's the focus of Part 2, though. You can have a lot of He-Man without him being the main character, and Kevin Smith has said that Teela is "the center of the story" and that it's "Teela's journey." From that, it doesn't sound like the story will shift its focus to He-Man, even if he gets a lot more screen time, but we'll have to see.


There are over 10,000 negative user reviews and ratings for Part 1 across sites like RT, IMDb and Metacritic. Calling them dishonest because a few YouTube videos slightly exaggerated seems rather absurd and really dishonest. I also think that it's a really bad habit to consistently cite sensationalist YouTube videos to make your side of the argument. That seems like resorting to strawmen and pretending that they represent the other side to confirm an opinion of it instead of trying to understand it.

You do know RT Audience score for tv/streaming isn't verified? Meaning it can be review bombed easily.

Oh it was a lot more than few. I was searching for reactions for the show a week or two ago and literally all the hate channels or Fandom Menace channels came up on the results.
 

Shockmaster

Registered User
Sep 11, 2012
16,006
3,373
There are over 10,000 negative user reviews and ratings for Part 1 across sites like RT, IMDb and Metacritic. Calling them dishonest because a few YouTube videos slightly exaggerated seems rather absurd and really dishonest. I also think that it's a really bad habit to consistently cite sensationalist YouTube videos to make your side of the argument. That seems like resorting to strawmen and pretending that they represent the other side to confirm an opinion of it instead of trying to understand it.

Makes one wonder why more movies/tv/streaming aren't "review bombed" if it can be done so easily. If it only takes a few trolls, then it would happen with everything. The truth is "review bombing" is just an excused used when someone is angry that something they like isn't felt that way by the majority, and usually it results in them throwing insults around. That especially goes for the actual movie critics as they like to pretend they have more virtue than the average movie-goer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kiwi and Osprey

Kiwi

Registered User
Mar 5, 2016
20,979
15,855
The Naki
I remember He-Man from back in the day (yes I'm that old) and I've got to say this thing doesn't resemble the old series very much

For a start who the hell does a He-Man remake but make him unimportant to the story your telling? One thing I remember about He-Man was the amount of He-Man you were likely to see

This whole series has me stuffed, luckily for me it sucked so I don't have to bother trying to follow or make sense of it
 
  • Like
Reactions: Osprey

Osprey

Registered User
Feb 18, 2005
27,090
9,352
Makes one wonder why more movies/tv/streaming aren't "review bombed" if it can be done so easily. If it only takes a few trolls, then it would happen with everything. The truth is "review bombing" is just an excused used when someone is angry that something they like isn't felt that way by the majority, and usually it results in them throwing insults around. That especially goes for the actual movie critics as they like to pretend they have more virtue than the average movie-goer.

It also makes you wonder why it's not countered. If a small number of people can easily post thousands of negative reviews, a small number of others can easily post thousands of positive ones to cancel them out. "Review bombing" rarely involves fake reviews, IMO. The vast majority of the time, it's just large numbers of people who are legitimately disappointed and upset. The ratings that they give may be the lowest possible to show their disgust, which I don't condone, but they're still unique individuals who disliked the product.

What I think that some people don't realize is that people who are disappointed or upset enough by a product tend to seek out review sites when they need to express their dissatisfaction. Often, it's people who don't normally write reviews but had to this time. By definition, that may add up to "review bombing," but I don't see anything wrong with that. If you need to vent somewhere and maybe even create an account to do it, you still count as someone who disliked the product, just as someone who wants to gush and maybe even creates an account to do it counts as someone who liked it.

That said, if there's significant, malicious review bombing, it would be in the non-review ratings (in which people submit a score but not a review), since those can be submitted quickly and without having to write anything out. In that case, you would expect the ratings associated with the written reviews to not line up with the overall rating (ex. mostly positive reviews when the overall rating is negative). For 'Revelation', though, the reviews at RT, IMDb and Metacritic do roughly line up with the overall ratings (i.e. they're mostly negative), which suggests to me that the ratings are not being artificially lowered by fake accounts.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Shockmaster

Shockmaster

Registered User
Sep 11, 2012
16,006
3,373
It also makes you wonder why it's not countered. If a small number of people can easily post thousands of negative reviews, a small number of others can easily post thousands of positive ones to cancel them out. "Review bombing" rarely involves fake reviews, IMO. The vast majority of the time, it's just large numbers of people who are legitimately disappointed and upset. The ratings that they give may be the lowest possible to show their disgust, which I don't condone, but they're still unique individuals who disliked the product.

What I think that some people don't realize is that people who are disappointed or upset enough by a product tend to seek out review sites when they need to express your dissatisfaction. Often, it's people who don't normally write reviews but had to this time. By definition, that may add up to "review bombing," but I don't see anything wrong with that. If you need to vent somewhere and maybe even create an account to do it, you still count as someone who disliked the product, just as someone who wants to gush and maybe even creates an account to do it counts as someone who liked it.

That said, if there were any significant and malicious review bombing, it would be in the ratings, since those can be submitted quickly and without writing reviews. In that case, you would expect the ratings associated with the written reviews to not line up with the overall rating (ex. mostly positive reviews when the overall rating is negative). For 'Revelation', though, the reviews at RT, IMDb and Metacritic do roughly line up with the overall ratings (i.e. they're mostly negative), which suggests to me that the ratings are not being artificially lowered by fake accounts.

Also on the flip side of all this - if there's a movie that gets mostly positive reviews from audience and mostly negative reviews from critics, why don't the critics ever get accused of "review bombing?"
 

Supermassive

HISS, HISS
Feb 19, 2007
14,612
1,090
Sherwood Park
Also on the flip side of all this - if there's a movie that gets mostly positive reviews from audience and mostly negative reviews from critics, why don't the critics ever get accused of "review bombing?"
Reviewers used to get mercilessly trolled on sites like Rotten Tomatoes. Not sure if that's still a thing, as I don't pay much attention to reviews from critics or fans anymore. In the same way that reviewers used to treat horror movies poorly, I think the fans are treating this show with more contempt than it deserves. Reviewers with less of a personal attachment to the 80s cartoon seem to appreciate it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jussi

Osprey

Registered User
Feb 18, 2005
27,090
9,352
Also on the flip side of all this - if there's a movie that gets mostly positive reviews from audience and mostly negative reviews from critics, why don't the critics ever get accused of "review bombing?"

We're talking about a phenomenon in which a lot of people leave often unfairly negative reviews to express disgust and send a message. I'd say that critics hardly ever do that because it's their job to be fair. They're supposed to judge something without expectation and for its overall inherent quality, not really for whether it gives fans what they expect or the marketing was misleading.

I think that the better question to ask from your example is why audiences aren't criticized as much for inflating ratings. There should be an equivalent term for that. As I mentioned above, an overly positive 5-star review is not much different than an unfairly negative 1-star review, IMO. I've also seen examples of "review bombing" in reverse, such as with the Bruce Willis movie Cosmic Sin. Note the 62% audience score and then click on "1000+ ratings" underneath it to see that most of the reviews are 1 star or less, suggesting that someone (likely behind the movie) has submitted well over 500 5-star ratings to massively inflate the score. As I said, you can pretty much tell which overall ratings have been skewed by fake accounts by comparing them to the actual submitted reviews.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Supermassive

Jussi

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
91,020
10,991
Mojo Dojo Casa House
Makes one wonder why more movies/tv/streaming aren't "review bombed" if it can be done so easily. If it only takes a few trolls, then it would happen with everything. The truth is "review bombing" is just an excused used when someone is angry that something they like isn't felt that way by the majority, and usually it results in them throwing insults around. That especially goes for the actual movie critics as they like to pretend they have more virtue than the average movie-goer.

You have no idea how popular hate channels are. There's a lot of fragile nerdy white males out there.

Trying to deny it is hilarious and sad.
 

Osprey

Registered User
Feb 18, 2005
27,090
9,352
You have no idea how popular hate channels are. There's a lot of fragile nerdy white males out there.

Trying to deny it is hilarious and sad.

Those channels certainly seem popular with you, since you keep an eye on them and bring them up in just about every argument that you make. To be honest, if anything is hilarious and sad, it's that fixation and the need to frequently call people "manbabies," "incels" and "fragile nerdy while males," which, ironically, seems indicative of a fragile, hateful persona.

As the saying goes, what we see in others is a reflection of ourselves. For example, people who are honest assume that others are honest and people who lie assume that others are lying. How we act is how we tend to believe that others act. When we accuse and insult people, we reveal as much or more about ourselves, IMO.
 
Last edited:

Jussi

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
91,020
10,991
Mojo Dojo Casa House
Those channels certainly seem popular with you, since you keep an eye on them and bring them up in just about every argument that you make. To be honest, if anything is hilarious and sad, it's that fixation and the need to frequently call people "manbabies," "incels" and "fragile nerdy while males," which, ironically, seems indicative of a fragile, hateful persona.

As the saying goes, what we see in others is a reflection of ourselves. For example, people who are honest assume that others are honest and people who lie assume that others are lying. How we act is how we tend to believe that others act. When we accuse and insult people, we reveal as much or more about ourselves, IMO.

No matter how much I try to block them, Youtuebe keeps recommending them plus they show up in search results.

I'm doing that because I'm evil and feel no sympathy for these "people".

You do understand that the way you're so hard trying to defend them makes it easy to think you're one of them? Are you really Jeremy from Geeks+Gamers?
 

Shockmaster

Registered User
Sep 11, 2012
16,006
3,373
No matter how much I try to block them, Youtuebe keeps recommending them plus they show up in search results.

I'm doing that because I'm evil and feel no sympathy for these "people".

You do understand that the way you're so hard trying to defend them makes it easy to think you're one of them? Are you really Jeremy from Geeks+Gamers?

Oh, you even know them by first-name. Osprey must have a point. :laugh:
 

Supermassive

HISS, HISS
Feb 19, 2007
14,612
1,090
Sherwood Park
We're talking about a phenomenon in which a lot of people leave often unfairly negative reviews to express disgust and send a message. I'd say that critics hardly ever do that because it's their job to be fair. They're supposed to judge something without expectation and for its overall inherent quality, not really for whether it gives fans what they expect or the marketing was misleading.

I think that the better question to ask from your example is why audiences aren't criticized as much for inflating ratings. There should be an equivalent term for that. As I mentioned above, an overly positive 5-star review is not much different than an unfairly negative 1-star review, IMO. I've also seen examples of "review bombing" in reverse, such as with the Bruce Willis movie Cosmic Sin. Note the 62% audience score and then click on "1000+ ratings" underneath it to see that most of the reviews are 1 star or less, suggesting that someone (likely behind the movie) has submitted well over 500 5-star ratings to massively inflate the score. As I said, you can pretty much tell which overall ratings have been skewed by fake accounts by comparing them to the actual submitted reviews.
Every Christian movie benefits from inflated ratings. Pastors literally tell their congregations to log on and give five star reviews to faith flicks, to, you know, counter the evil secular reviews. It’s quite hilarious to see, as you point out, hundreds of five star and one star reviews, and nothing in between. I think we’ve determined that audience scores are, for the most part, meaningless.
 

beowulf

Not a nice guy.
Jan 29, 2005
59,361
8,958
Ottawa
It was clear they weren't. There are literally videos on Youtube claiming Adam/He-Man dies twice which isn't true.

Also, I'm always salty. I'm a Finn after all.
Well it might not be wrong either we just don't know about the second one eh! :p
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->