If you need to B*tch about something... this is the place — Page 243

moviefreakedmind said:

Apparently the humor is incredibly low-brow. Based on specific examples, it sounds like humor I’d expect from a direct-to-video American Pie sequel. Also, it sounds like a remake, not a reboot.

TV’s Frink said:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ghostbusters-is-a-perfect-example-of-how-internet-ratings-are-broken/

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/men-are-sabotaging-the-online-reviews-of-tv-shows-aimed-at-women/

Yeah, that comic book with a sexy catwoman was just aimed at men and was sabotaged by women.

SilverWook said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Apparently the humor is incredibly low-brow. Based on specific examples, it sounds like humor I’d expect from a direct-to-video American Pie sequel. Also, it sounds like a remake, not a reboot.

I thought that scene was like something I’d see in American Pie, not one of it’s direct-to-video sequels.

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ghostbusters-is-a-perfect-example-of-how-internet-ratings-are-broken/

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/men-are-sabotaging-the-online-reviews-of-tv-shows-aimed-at-women/

Yeah, that comic book with a sexy catwoman was just aimed at men and was sabotaged by women.

It doesn’t work that way.

yhwx said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ghostbusters-is-a-perfect-example-of-how-internet-ratings-are-broken/

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/men-are-sabotaging-the-online-reviews-of-tv-shows-aimed-at-women/

Yeah, that comic book with a sexy catwoman was just aimed at men and was sabotaged by women.

It doesn’t work that way.

You’ll have to elaborate. From now on just assume that I’m too stupid to understand what you’re implying.

moviefreakedmind said:

yhwx said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ghostbusters-is-a-perfect-example-of-how-internet-ratings-are-broken/

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/men-are-sabotaging-the-online-reviews-of-tv-shows-aimed-at-women/

Yeah, that comic book with a sexy catwoman was just aimed at men and was sabotaged by women.

It doesn’t work that way.

You’ll have to elaborate. From now on just assume that I’m too stupid to understand what you’re implying.

In this case, you can’t just take the fact that men tend to give media with women led casts lower ratings, reverse it, and just say it’s true.

yhwx said:

In this case, you can’t just take the fact that men tend to give media with women led casts lower ratings, reverse it, and just say it’s true.

Realistically, most men probably aren’t going to find Sex and the City, which was the articles prominent example, as enjoyable as women do. The average male rating was a little below 6/10 and the average female rating was higher than that. Sounds like sabotage to me. By the way, the Ghostbusters remake has a 73% on Rotten Tomatoes.

EDIT: From now on yhwx, if you just post some passive and unclear comment I’m not going to respond to it. I can’t read minds. Make yourself clear in the first place. You could’ve just said this in the first place, without the “it doesn’t work that way” crap. It’s a waste of time, and each post costs Jay two cents.

Jeebus said:

Sex and the City is a show for women, it’s written for them. Men aren’t gonna think its as good as women do, because they’re not who the show’s for. So they rate the show lower. It isn’t an intentional act of sabotage, men don’t gather at secret meetings and talk about how they’re gonna rate shows poorly to demean women or some shit. And it’s not what I think yhwx was implying, that they hate it because the cast is female led. It’s just marketing. Comic books are marketed at men, so they include drawings of attractive women wearing provocative clothing. Things are marketed to specific groups, and the people outside those groups aren’t gonna be interested.

The irony is that the implication is that these men shouldn’t be rating Sex and the City in the first place, which is I why I brought up the comic book being for men and women should keep their mouths shut, because it’s the same mindset. I don’t care about either. I don’t care what ratings my media gets. Listen, I’ve had a rough night and hell, if I cared about critics’ reviews then I wouldn’t love the fuckin’ Eagles man!

Neglify said:

TV’s Frink said:

I’m seeing it tomorrow night. Not super excited but trying to be open minded.

I’ll be very curious to hear your thoughts on it. It has doubleofive’s stamp of approval already.

Jeez, and to think I used to trust this guy.

Whether it’ll be watchable for me depends on how Adam Sandler-esque the humor is. If it’s to the extreme of the trailers, then I would probably walk out, not that I would ever spend money on this movie in the first place. I almost never see films in theaters, so for me to go it has to look really good.

My partner and I just bought a moka pot, some espresso powder and cups. I usually don’t drink coffee, except for an occasional espresso, and we don’t have too much space in the kitchen, so we never bought a coffee machine, but she got tired of that instant coffe stuff, that she was using for the past years, that’s why we got the moka pot. So far, the first attempt was a failure, we had no idea what exactly to do and the result was very bitter, I guess we have to figure it out and try it a few more times. The only good thing coming out of it was that we found this tutorial.

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:
and each post costs Jay two cents.

it does?

Well, hosting a website does cost money.

Also: this.

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

yhwx said:

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ghostbusters-is-a-perfect-example-of-how-internet-ratings-are-broken/

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/men-are-sabotaging-the-online-reviews-of-tv-shows-aimed-at-women/

Yeah, that comic book with a sexy catwoman was just aimed at men and was sabotaged by women.

It doesn’t work that way.

You’ll have to elaborate. From now on just assume that I’m too stupid to understand what you’re implying.

Jesus, I wasn’t playing a game in the religion thread. I didn’t understand, I asked you to elaborate, and you did.

I don’t know what you’re talking about. He always posts tiny sentences that are usually five words or less that don’t mean anything and he expects me (or anyone else for that matter) to know exactly what he’s thinking.

TV’s Frink said:

“You’ll have to elaborate. From now on just assume that I’m too stupid to understand what you’re implying.”

I thought that was directed at me since I said something similar to you in the Religion thread. If that wasn’t your intent, I apologize for misunderstanding.

I just meant that he clearly thinks everyone can read his mind and understand what he means without him even giving something that resembles an explanation. I told him to assume I’m stupid so that he’ll just explain himself in the first place instead of playing this “you don’t get it” game that takes up half a page of a thread.

moviefreakedmind said:

TV’s Frink said:

“You’ll have to elaborate. From now on just assume that I’m too stupid to understand what you’re implying.”

I thought that was directed at me since I said something similar to you in the Religion thread. If that wasn’t your intent, I apologize for misunderstanding.

I just meant that he clearly thinks everyone can read his mind and understand what he means without him even giving something that resembles an explanation.

Reasonable criticism.

I told him to assume I’m stupid so that he’ll just explain himself in the first place instead of playing this “you don’t get it” game that takes up half a page of a thread.

You’re not stupid, so please don’t lower yourself to that level.