WYATT_JORDAN FWIW that’s the entire film industry. Every film studio on earth manipulates people into watching movies. They spend literally millions of dollars in promotion to push their product. So I think this argument falls flat.
In the sense that all advertisements are manipulation, sure. But usually movies are advertised for their quality.
But there was a very specific type of manipulation that this movie involved. It preyed on reflexive contrarianism. This movie was ‘banned’ and the director played up that their speech was ‘censored’. So there is a particular audience that influencers directed that messaging to.
And part of that censorship was tied into politics. Not only was it banned (a moving being unrated isn’t exactly rare), but it was played up as it was banned because it has a message that They don’t want you to see. And that was played up by some influencers that regularly complain that they want politics out of movies. Particularly when the controversial parts were largely absent throughout most of the movie.
I also think it’s manipulative when other movies (usually low budget barely competent filmmakers) get their friends and family or bots to flood the ratings on imdb with 10s.
WYATT_JORDAN I saw it and it’s not as bad as the anti-promoters are making it out to be.
That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement.
WYATT_JORDAN Sorry if you didn’t like a film that other people enjoy.
I’m not the one who is complaining about it. It seems that other people are upset that I think the movie is bad and explained why.
Do you think the movie spent an appropriate amount of time with the vigilante standing over a table of weapons?
Did you think they appropriately developed the vigilante’s motivation for becoming a vigilante?
Did you think the movie told a coherent story with a beginning that develops the motivations of the characters, and provides a resolution for those motivations?