Blatant sabotage of rating on new film

@Maya​ 

Thank you. It looks like action may have already been taken, and the solution was to weight the ratings a little differently (or perhaps to exclude bot or sock accounts).

Although the percentage of "1" ratings has gone up slightly from 90.8% since my post to 91.9% now, the overall weighted rating has also increased from 1.5 to 2.6.

I wish something more could be done about "hate rating," where numerous people learn about the existence of a movie from one central source and then all go to IMDb to rate the movie out of spite without watching it. But I realize IMDb is in a difficult position here because it's very difficult to see this phenomenon in the raw data.

I am confident that is what is happening here, though, where certain media sources are the only ones covering this movie, they criticize the movie for political reasons, their audience downvotes the movie, and then they report on the low IMDb ratings in a feedback loop/echo chamber.

As even some of those articles I have linked to note, the film is rated by critics on rottentomatoes.com with an 83% to 88% "fresh" score, which is essentially the opposite of the low IMDb user rating. I can't remember any other film with such wildly different ratings by critics compared to IMDb users.  That is another clue that something is rotten here other than the word "rotten" in rottentomatoes.com. 

When the user ratings for this film are publicly released on Rotten Tomatoes, expect the number to be similarly low, also due to "hate rating."  

@Maya​ 

Update: the rating has now been increased to 3.0, which undoubtedly reflects additional corrections to counteract some of the sabotage. Thank you for looking into this.

@keyword_expert​ Your welcome! 

@Maya​ 

And now the rating is up to 3.6, still with 91% votes for a "1" rating.

I am glad to see some of the sabotage being addressed via the corrected weighted average for this film.