Skip to main content

7 Messages

 • 

430 Points

Wed, Feb 19, 2020 7:15 AM

My review of the Star Trek Picard episode "Absolute Candor" was removed without note of why...

As described in the title my review was simply removed and I wasn't informed about it. It's just gone and there isn't even a note about why it was removed. I also want to mention that up to the point of removal it had moved up to being rated as the second most helpful review of this particular episode.

The particular contribution number that is still flagged as approved is:
#200214-095950-799604

If there is a problem with the review I at least would like to know about it so I may either challenge the criticism or modify the review. If someone just deletes because they don't "like" what that person wrote then it doesn't put IMDB in a very positive light...

Responses

7 Messages

 • 

430 Points

7 months ago

Two whole days and not even a simple "we'll look into it"?

Can I take that as an answer then and just put IMDB in the same category as rotten tomatoes?

Champion

 • 

2.6K Messages

 • 

93.8K Points

7 months ago

IMDb has admitted they've fallen behind lately on replying here on GS. 

1.6K Messages

 • 

57.4K Points

IMDb has admitted they've fallen behind lately on replying here on GS.

Where? I missed that post.

Employee

 • 

1.1K Messages

 • 

33.6K Points

7 months ago

Hi there, thanks for reaching out. If a review was removed it was flagged as breach of policy for our guidelines. If you believe this to be in error you are welcome to resubmit your review after taking a look at our guidelines. 

7 Messages

 • 

430 Points

7 months ago

Dear Elizabeth,

even though I appreciate your response it doesn't contain any information that actually answers my question. If you guys simply remove a review without informing the person that contributed the review about the WHY, how can I even know what was wrong with it?

And if you 're telling me that random people at IMDB can simply delete content without leaving any trace on who did it and why I'd call that rather questionable. I just want to know the reason and I'll be willing to have you tell this here in the open even if it may be remotely considered embarrassing for me.

So please don't just point me at the generic guidelines. If I have broken them then it should be easy to tell where and how. I don't know what I did wrong in this case otherwise I wouldn't be asking.

7 Messages

 • 

430 Points

7 months ago

Alright, this is the full unedited review (WARNING: it contains spoilers) with the title: "Alex Kurtzman's "Absolute Cancer"

"I saw the title of the episode "Absolute Candor" and after the previous episodes my mind immediately replaced the second word with something more fitting while still hoping that at the end I may want to change it back to what the original title is. Long story short => I didn't - it is "absolute cancer".

STP suffers exactly the same problems as STD. All of the characters are unlikable. And we had 4 episodes now focussing on introducing these characters. So what do we have?

1. A socially awkward female scientist - she's not awkward in a fun kind of way but in a REALLY annoying one. Whenever she's on screen I just want her to keep her mouth shut and disappear asap.

2. Han Solo Lite and his crew of identical copy-paste holograms which are all played by the same actor. He tries to be cool but actually isn't and the whole thing with the holograms just gets confusing because I have no idea what hologram I'm currently looking at and the writers don't seem to be interested to clear these things up. So usually I see someone talking to the actor that plays that Han Solo character and due to the hair cut and clothes you know it's not the captain but a hologram. Still you won't have any idea WHAT hologram that is until someone casually drops it in the middle or at the end of a conversation. This episode it was at the end of a conversation and I've already forgotten what that hologram was supposed to be.

3. We got Rafi, who is supposed to represent a (fired) security officer. Her whole behavior is not very Star Fleet (which is probably why she was fired in the first place). She has a foul mouth but other than that there is nothing interesting about her.

4. In this episode we are introduced to Elrond.....I mean Elnor. It's easy to confuse these two as they basically are the same in terms of visual design. In terms of personality there is not much to him. He's basically a kid and a sword fighting assassin. How a sword fighter is supposed to be effective versus phasors and disruptors is a mystery to me. And he's not very consistent in his behavior. "I'm not helping you as you are just here because you need me now!". A minute later: "I'm helping you because you need me". His inconsistency just proves how consistently poor the writing is.

5. Let's not forget JL himself (I HATE that "nickname"). The show managed to make me despise Picard. He's running around being a preacher while he himself literally abandoned everything and everyone around him. And yes, people make mistakes. After making mistakes you cannot run around acting like a morally superior person. Picard is exactly doing that which makes him look a huge narcissistic dirtbag. Maybe JL isn't such a bad name for him as this is NOT the Jean-Luc Picard we knew from TNG but more like Jake-Lucile Picard.

The rest of the story is not really moving forward with this episode. The dialogues are terrible and non sensical. The plank of wood that is running around on the borg cube is having forced romantic moments with that other plank of wood. The sister of the one plank of wood is still behaving like a psychopath while going for incest...

The ship is ugly and we don't know anything about that ship except that it has shields, holograms and is controlled by apparent body movement of Han Solo. Oh and we have Jar Jar Trek lens flares *groans* - what a joy....NOT.

Something from the end of the episode: The ugly ship of our main cast is attacked by an older random Romulan Bird of Prey. There is not attempt to communicate from either side(!!!). Also apparently our ugly ship (no idea what the name is) is poorly equipped in terms of weaponry but rather quick (where have I seen that before? *yawn*). Halfway throgh the fight Han Solo suddenly remembers that he actually has weapons and a tactical officer hologram.

They are unable to shake the Bird of Prey until they get help from another ship that warped in. Together they somehow defeat they heavily damage the BoP cutting of a wing. Btw. there was no talk about what they are targetting or why. No tactical discussions on disabling the ship or something similar. Stuff just happens and suddenly the BoP is kaputt...

The second ship is heavily damaged which our crew notices. Instead of them offering their assistance the other ship has to ask them for help and to be beamed over. And I'm not kidding - they actually have a discussion on whether helping the pilot of that second ship is a good idea or not. What the actual.....? How is that even a discussion that happened?

It should've been: "The other ship is heavily damaged and will smash into the planetary shield any moment." and Picards response should've been: "Beam the pilot to our ship!". THIS would be the proper reaction. What has actually happened just shows how far away from Star Trek we are.

Anyway after they beam over the pilot we see that it is Seven of Nine - Jeri Ryan. I'll take a look at the next episode to see how they make her character unlikable and then I will be done with this show.

Regarding Star Trek Picard the only thoughts I have are: What a waste of money..."

7 Messages

 • 

430 Points

7 months ago

Excuse me but a "user" review is an opinion piece written from my point of view. When I write that I "HATE" a certain phrase that is used in the show, how exactly am I breaking the rules? You may agree or disagree with my point of view - I don't mind that. Still how is the word "hate" a problem in itself?

In addition STP stands for "Star Trek Picard" and STD for "Star Trek Discovery". If I had written "it has the same problem as (!!!)an(!!!) STD" then I could understand it as the context would be different with me referring to a disease. But the context should be clear especially if you know both shows. And I think I made it clear with the sentence that followed.

And Picard running around like a narcissistic dirt bag is an honest assessment. He is IN FACT running around acting like he's morally a superior person while he actually isn't. I could've used more colorful words to describe him but I think this is tame enough.

And the Star Trek Picard show is already way more "colorful" with its language. This means I can't even use the words they are using in my review. And yet there are still people that apparently feel more offended about what I'm writing about the show than the absolute trash that carries the name Star Trek these days.

Btw. I flagged my "review" (opinion piece) as "Spoilers" so I can make specific references to the plot and explain the actual problems I see with the writing. As always people may disagree with my point of view. (this is why there is a yes/no button regarding "is this review helpful?")

And just as a side node:
1. I didn't tell anyone "do not watch it" - I just gave an assessment that I don't like the show/episode
2. I didn't attack any of the actors. Everything negative came down to the characters not the people portraying them.
3. I didn't attack anyone that likes the show. If people enjoy STP => good for them

Oh and if anyone has a problem when I write:
"Whenever she's on screen I just want her to keep her mouth shut and disappear asap."
I would've written the exact same thing if that scientist character was a man. If the writers and show runners put a woman in this kind of role than it's not my fault but theirs. I can easily present cool, funny and strong female characters from past science fiction shows (Babylon 5 for example). 

7 Messages

 • 

430 Points

Hey, I'm not even angry with you. I can appreciate what you're trying to do. In the end you're somewhat in the same position as me (we're both just uses of the system I guess) although you seem to be more willing to accommodate the apparently ever changing arbitrary rule sets in terms of what is considered "offensive content".

I'm not quite as willing to "adjust" myself. If IMDB staff simply removes something they consider fine (according to their set of rules) but someone else "feels" is offensive then they as the provider of the platform make themselves untrustworthy.

I put Rotten Tomatoes already in that kind of category as they are blatantly deleting "unwanted" reviews. If IMDB goes the same route (I've considered them reliable when it comes down to user reviews) then I'll look for movie and TV information elsewhere. There are other platforms.

7 Messages

 • 

430 Points

In her own words:
"Ivanova is god."

Employee

 • 

695 Messages

 • 

19.8K Points

7 months ago

Hello nodlimax

I have re-instated the review.

Thanks for your patience whilst we looked into this.