41 replies to this topic

[jaguar007]

Apparently the mods at IMDB had reason to doubt the credibility of the review because it is no longer posted on the site.

[00Twelve]

LOL

[Shrublands]

Wasn

[arturtle]

ah.....I reported it to the mods on imdb yesterday.Didnt expect such efficiency

[jaguar007]

ah.....I reported it to the mods on imdb yesterday.Didnt expect such efficiency

Ithink several people reported it.

[killkenny kid]

Is this a bad thing?

[Skudor]

LOL - I don't know what to think of this. It seems that a barrage of complaints has prompted IMDB to remove a review - fundamentally because it was a negative one (although based on the premise that it was a fake). I wonder whether a fake positive review written by, say, myself and posted would get the same attention. It's all slightly disturbing.

Personally I think it was too well written to be moomoo.

[Mister Asterix]

IMDb has mods?

[killkenny kid]

IMDb has mods?

lol.

[K1Bond007]

IMDb has mods?

More like 'odds'. If their so-called credible sources are saying something different than the unproven so-called unreliable sources then the unreliable, no matter how true (because IMDb isn't going to waste their time to investigate or fact check) gets thrown out. Dalton's birth year is effected by this.

[jaguar007]

While prowling around on IMDB, apparently the person who posted it just signed up for the account primarity to post the review (a sign that it is someone using a different name). Someone else also claims that the review appeared on DCINB at exactly the same time it appeared on IMDB (I cannot confirm this). People also claim that the name being used to post the review, is of the same name that moomoo, netgeek, scojo ect has used before on a different site. Again, I personally don't know, but this is what people are saying on the IMDB board.

[Skudor]

It's interesting that a new user account is normally regarded as suspect - I agree that this is definitely how I see it. But when I think about it, if I had been to watch Alcazar (or whatever it was) and then happened onto IMDB and read the positive reviews, which conflict with my own take on the movie, then mulled it over and posted it I would also be a new poster.

I doubt my review would have been as long and as extensive and bizarly familiar to Bond as this one seemed to be (which to me indicates it might be a fake - a semi casual Bond fan would not wait this long to post a review). It strikes me as a fake but not a moomoo fake - I mean there isn't a single instance of excess capitalisation or over use of exclamation marks!

[Qwerty]

Good thing? Bad thing? Does it really matter? An incredibly difficult place to conduct any form of discussion anyways.

[luciusgore]

Why would someone spend so much time writing a fake review, even if they hated Craig?

[Skudor]

Why would someone spend so much time writing a fake review, even if they hated Craig?

Good point. And why would anyone go to all the trouble of setting up whole a website just because they don't like Craig?

[Mr_Wint]

I'm glad it's gone - that may indicate that it was indeed a fake!

But, it is really sad if this review has been removed because "fans" reported it as fake, without being 100% sure.

[JimmyBond]

Why would someone spend so much time writing a fake review, even if they hated Craig?

Did you even read the review? It mentioed nothing that we didnt already know. There was no insight into anything, just speculation passed off as a review, that's all it was.

And to all those saying the pro-Craigers wouldnt do anything if it were a positive fake, well this pro-craiger would.

[marktmurphy]

Did you even read the review? It mentioed nothing that we didnt already know. There was no insight into anything, just speculation passed off as a review, that's all it was.

I'd be hugely surprised if the magazine reviews manage to say anything we dind't know. We've got the script, for heaven's sake!

[JCRendle]

It's back - under a new name "Best since Connery".

[Waffles, James Waffles.]

This guy is persistent. Who wants to read reviews when the film isn't even out yet?

The one question remains.
Will you tell us how you saw the movie
in time before the review is ?

[jaguar007]

It's back - under a new name "Best since Connery".

Yes, and on the IMDB form, net geek was the first one to point it out.

[Jackanaples]

It's back - under a new name "Best since Connery".

Yes, and on the IMDB form, net geek was the first one to point it out.

That pretty much seals it then: FAKE REVIEW. I'm sure he wrote it himself. Christ, what a loser.

[luciusgore]

It's back - under a new name "Best since Connery".

Yes, and on the IMDB form, net geek was the first one to point it out.

That pretty much seals it then: FAKE REVIEW. I'm sure he wrote it himself. Christ, what a loser.

Clearly a fake. Had it been real, the poster wouldn't have gone to the trouble of re-posting under another name. Amazing, the dedication and persistence.

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

This review is an insidious forgey. Now they have it back with a new title and they even give it 10 stars but it's the same review. This is just sick on the part of these anti's. Not all the anti's are bad but there is a faction that will do anything to try and convince the general public that the film will be bad. It could be because the marketing machine is kicking into full gear. Oh well no reviewe is going to stop me from seeing Casino Royale but I have the feeling all hell is going to break loose online leading up to the release of CR. This faction while small is strong. They have IT skill hence the way theu can mask there IP's and such. How the hell can net geek get banned and still find his way back? Netgeek may be an idiot and a ing moron but he is cunning. He claims inoccent but he wrote that review. Some say it doesn't sound like him but if youy're trying to do a perfect forgey you would not want to make it obvious that you wrote it. All in all it is a dick manuerver on his/their part and I have no respect for anyone who can say they support him and or that damned DCNB. That's my two cents.

Edited by Agent Spriggan Ominae, 23 October 2006 - 11:46 PM.

[Skudor]

I guess the poor soul must have worked quite hard on this. It's far above his usual standard.

[Cody]

Yes, and on the IMDB form, net geek was the first one to point it out.

If there was such an award, I'd totally throw him a vote for Most Annoying Troll Ever.

[jaguar007]

I had hoped the original review was false, but I was not sure. Originaly posted by a new user who posted it and never made his way onto a forum made be suspicious. After it was removed and reposted under a new name, I am now positive that it was a fake.

[triviachamp]

Now Moomoo has posted another fake review praising the film. Hoping we will let it stand since it is positive? No chance.

[JimmyBond]

It's not exactly praise, it's the same negative "review" with a positive sounding title.

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

Now Moomoo has posted another fake review praising the film. Hoping we will let it stand since it is positive? No chance.

No it's the exact same review just with a new authors name and a "positive title and rating" to trick people into reading it but it's the same bad review. That right there shows that whoever wrote weather genuine or not has an alterior motive to try and put people off to the film. That's a dick move and very sneaky mallicious crap!