Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

TheBlackSwarm t1_j6pec6e wrote

These types of posts are getting annoying.

10

Skavau t1_j6pdvvk wrote

I feel like I'm seeing double. A thread basically about this was posted yesterday.

7

Skavau t1_j6pe44i wrote

>In fact, the episode is actually so self-contained that you could treat it like a 74 minute movie if you aren’t interested in watching a fungal zombie apocalypse show and it would absolutely be worth it.

This is personally why it didn't do much for me, albeit it was obviously not anywhere near a 1/10.

6

Lantore t1_j6pgjmy wrote

And that’s a perfectly fine take! I’m in the “I loved it” crowd. She’d a few tears for sure, but can see how people think it doesn’t do anything for the main story. I can argue it does, but that’d be spoiler filled.

0

Skavau t1_j6pgtg7 wrote

It does, but arguably not much - and what it does in terms of >!Joel's characterisation!< could've been accomplished in other ways.

It was obviously an emotional and very well crafted mostly bottle episode, and in terms of that it was about as high quality as you're gunna get, but in the context of the overall series you could honestly skip it and not miss much.

2

__War_Eagle__ t1_j6pdkku wrote

Sorry everyone didn't enjoy the episode as much as you did.

This must be keeping you up at night.

5

Ragefan66 t1_j6pghrb wrote

Huge difference between 'I didn't really enjoy that episode' and something being so bad that it's rated a 1/10.

&#x200B;

Like I literally could not point to a single movie or TV show I've ever seen in my entire life that would be considered a 1/10 lol.

I could give less of a shit about people's ratings, but I do think it's an interesting topic seeing how many people are just truly seething at this episode enough to log into IMDB and rate something a 1/10...when a 1/10 is something on par with what my golden retriever would write and direct

4

GaryTheCabalGuy t1_j6pgtxw wrote

Go read the user reviews for some of the 1/10. There is more behind those than just not enjoying the episode.

1

stumpcity t1_j6pexeb wrote

>For those of you that look at IMDb ratings,

Here is the first problem: People really shouldn't be looking at these ratings. People just do it out of habit or reflex, and never really stop to think what these ratings represent, or if they're even remotely reflective of the people who are watching the show.

So even before you get to the part where viewer-submitted ratings are suspect from jump precisely because of how they've become the first stop for the lazy malcontent who wants to feel like a culture war activist without even having the courage of their own convictions (which they likely just stole from the comments section of a YouTube grifter's rage channel anyway)....

User-submitted ratings are only ever representative of what a extremely tiny self-selecting minority of the general audience presumably thinks. So even if every single one of those ratings being collected for their average actually was created in good faith (and as you and I both know, they routinely are not, it is part of the online grift cycle now, permanently) you're still looking at a rating that almost solely represents the views of 18-49 year old men who would even bother leaving a rating after watching something in the first place.

For whatever reason, people just accept this collection of ratings as a useful representation despite the fact it's anything but, and never has been. It's wild how people will thoughlessly accept that these numbers are trustworthy for no other reason than they're on imdb, despite knowing without a doubt that the only people actually contributing to these numbers are an extremely limited volunteer sampling of an extremely narrow-focused demo, many of whom are only there because they mistakenly believe the registering of their bad opinion counts as political activism in any way.

TL:DR - review bombing isn't a problem if everyone stops acting like those numbers have inherent worth in the first place, because they don't.

4