After 'Little Mermaid' remake endures harsh reviews, IMDb steps in, alters review system for movie
Film critic Christian Toto observed that review websites often appear to protect movies 'embraced by the left'
By Alexander Hall

The Internet Movie Database (IMDb) activated an "alternate weighting calculation" in order to compensate for alleged "unusual activity" among audiences reviewing the new "Little Mermaid" remake.

"The Little Mermaid" is one of many live-action remakes of iconic, animated Disney films from the late 1980s to the 1990s.

The new film has been criticized from a variety of perspectives, ranging from the racial recasting of what was originally a White character to criticism of Asian actress Awkwafina's rap song "The Scuttlebutt" and Wesley Morris lamenting in The New York Times that the children's film lacked "kink."

The movie's mixed reflection appears to have extended to its reviews, to the point IMDb has stepped in.

The live-action "Little Mermaid" adaptation's page on IMDb has a warning label declaring, "Our rating mechanism has detected unusual voting activity on this title. To preserve the reliability of our rating system, an alternate weighting calculation has been applied."

IMDb described these "weighted average ratings" as a process where "we accept and consider all votes received by users, not all votes have the same impact (or 'weight') on the final rating. When unusual voting activity is detected, an alternate weighting calculation may be applied in order to preserve the reliability of our system."

The process does not appear to be transparent, however. The site explained: "To ensure that our rating mechanism remains effective, we do not disclose the exact method used to generate the rating."

The weighted average rating system makes a massive difference, raising a 4.7/10 original "unweighted" average up to 7/10.

One notable factor is that reviewers across multiple countries and continents panned the film, possibly implying that this was not entirely caused by one centralized campaign. Thousands of collective users from the U.K., Brazil, Canada and Mexico have given the 1/10 score.

Christian Toto, host of the "Hollywood in Toto" podcast, told Fox News Digital that ratings websites appear to protect films with diverse casts or narrative amenable to the political left.

"We've seen major movie sites like IMDb.com and Rotten Tomatoes routinely tweak its system to combat so-called 'review bombing.' The films in question are often those embraced by the left or stories that feature 'diverse' casts or storylines. Think Amazon's 'Rings of Power' series," he wrote. "Why are they singled out for protection?"

He added that while there may indeed be some genuine "movie trolls" condemning the film, this incident highlights how only some films are protected by these institutions.

"Yes, some movie trolls could be trying to sink a film for any number of reasons, but the same holds true for faith-based films or that rare conservative product," he wrote. "Does IMDb rush to protect those titles from possible review bombing? If not ... why not? Why only their select titles? Did those sites suss out 'unusual activity' around titles like 'What Is a Woman?'

He proposed one solution, however.

"What's needed here is transparency. What triggers 'unusual activity'?" he asked. "What does that mean, exactly? What if that activity is the honest feedback on a given film? Then what? If consumers can't trust these sites to accurately capture audience reactions, then what's the point?"

Fox News Digital reached out to IMDb.com for comment. This article will be updated with any response.

-------------------------
The REAL truth is....both of the forum idiots are OWNED.
-BOTH of them have no clue who their owner is.
-They are both card carrying narcissists.
^These are PROVED facts.

Edited: 06/01/2023 at 03:41 PM by Fish Killer

"Yes, some movie trolls could be trying to sink a film for any number of reasons, but the same holds true for faith-based films or that rare conservative product," he wrote. "Does IMDb rush to protect those titles from possible review bombing? If not ... why not? Why only their select titles? Did those sites suss out 'unusual activity' around titles like 'What Is a Woman?

The weighted average rating system makes a massive difference, raising a 4.7/10 original "unweighted" average up to 7/10.

-------------------------
The REAL truth is....both of the forum idiots are OWNED.
-BOTH of them have no clue who their owner is.
-They are both card carrying narcissists.
^These are PROVED facts.

Proof???


no, just maga bullshit like trump.

who is going down.

hard.

Absolute prood:

"The weighted average rating system makes a massive difference, raising a 4.7/10 original "unweighted" average up to 7/10."

I can see that the idiot can't read!

Idiot.

-------------------------
The REAL truth is....both of the forum idiots are OWNED.
-BOTH of them have no clue who their owner is.
-They are both card carrying narcissists.
^These are PROVED facts.

Love me some Black Mermaid!

mr. high iq can't spell and has no proof.

like a good "christian," he always builds people up.

he's a sinner man.

a walking contradiction.

doesn't care about the facts.

it's all about the fiction.

lol

coming from the Middle East, what color is Jesus?

"The weighted average rating system makes a massive difference, raising a 4.7/10 original "unweighted" average up to 7/10."

I can see that the idiot can't read!

Idiot.

-------------------------
The REAL truth is....both of the forum idiots are OWNED.
-BOTH of them have no clue who their owner is.
-They are both card carrying narcissists.
^These are PROVED facts.