MovieChat Forums > Daniel der Zauberer (2004) Discussion > Vote rigged by German movie forum

Vote rigged by German movie forum

posted 15 years ago by neomagic
9 replies | jump to latest

Just read the hidefdigst review of I Can Do Bad All By Myself. It was hinted at that the movies dismal rating as opposed to Rotten Tomatoes 62% fresh rating was due to a racially inspired smear campaign.

So after looking at the bottom 100 list I searched in German movie forums and found some sort of long running campaign on a huge site called cinefacts.de
People there have been voting 1 on Daniel der Zauberer like crazy and given Superbabies 2 10/10 votes. Daniel Kübelböck was a candidate on some German version of American Idol and used to be an extremely controversial figure at the time with many people hating his guts.
Most likely people who voted never even saw that movie (neither did I).

I am very disappointed by those idiots who mess up a chance of having some worldwide taste-o-meter regarding movies.

Is it possible people actually vote I Can Do Bad All By Myself down because it is a "Black movie"?

[–] gustofsummer 15 years ago

Speaking of "idiots who mess up":

Some time ago there was a discussion going on whether or not an AMERICAN movie has to be the worst movie of them all, resulting in a massive vote of 10s from US-users for "Daniel der Zauberer".

I think the movie received so many votes because Daniel Küblböck is very unpopular in Germany.

[–] user-7630 15 years ago

Daniel der Zauberer was bottom #1 some time ago until the vote got rigged by the American users who didn't wanna "lose" to a German movie.

Daniel Küblböck is very unpopular in Germany, but that doesn't change the fact that this movie really is completely terrible in every way and extremely painful to watch. Much worse than the second place, Baby Geniuses 2. It totally deserves to be called the worst movie of all time.

[–] Crazy_Gibberish 13 years ago

It is so impossibly bad, it doesn't need any help getting to the bottom. They may be giving the film a bunch of 1's sight unseen, but this doesn't mean they're undeserved. You can pick up the DVD from German Amazon, without subtitles though. Küblböck spends the whole movie wearing grandma sweaters and screeching like a dying cat while Boris and Natasha stalk him in the bushes. Nothing at all actually happens. He ignores his pursuers and goes about his business which is apparently causing people's ears to retreat into their heads at his horrible shows.

I found this WAY more irritating than Baby Geniuses 2, which I thought was more profoundly depressing than infuriating.

[–] eimpson 13 years ago

"Rotten Tomatoes 62% fresh rating"

1. Less than 60 percent is rotten, meaning this is only barely fresh. 2. RT gives a lot of leeway in what it considers a positive review - one thumb up and one thumb down still passes for "fresh." Put those two facts together and you've got some serious grade inflation problems where a low "D" is passing and a lot of bad movies still get that low "D." I'm not arguing that IMDB's system is statistically superior - as many users don't seem to realize there are numbers between 1 and 10 - but Rotten Tomatoes is pretty bad as a citeable source.

[–] Ehrgeiz 13 years ago

Votes may be manipulated because of the extreme dislike towards Daniel Küblböck, the main actor, back then. But this is an incredible bad movie, and it has earned its place. It was so bad, that even the Daniel-Fans would not watch it.

[–] puschit-1 9 years ago

The thing is, if people try to rig ratings by voting 1s and 10s regardless of actual content, then they are actively devalueing ALL of their votes! See, IMDb uses an algorythm to spot these things and users that shell out 1s and 10s left and right will have less impact on the ratings, called an "weighted average".
The OP might rejoice a bit knowing this. Vote stuffing still works but not to the amount you might think.

[–] BQQ 9 years ago

I've looked at the movies on the bottom 100 that I have rated, and I've seen all of them. Not this one, thus I haven't rated it.

"I don't want a bloody avatar!" -paraphrased from BQQ's annoyances with IMDb's stupidity

[–] kadajawi 8 years ago

I'm watching it right now, the only way possible, as a drinking game. It IS bad. Like, I'd rather watch paint dry. I'd rather watch uncle Harry's 3 hour holiday video that has no cuts whatsoever. The acting is beyond atrocious. It makes the acting in Ed Wood movies look like Oscar worthy performances. The camera work is worse than in that Travolta Scientology movie. The plot makes no sense... it's hard to write anything this bad on purpose.

Really, a bunch of 10th graders with no movie making experience at all, using their smartphones, would make something better than this.

And then there is the soundtrack... this guy can't sing. At all.

The worst thing is... the "movie" was created by a director and a producer who should know, who have experience. If these people weren't involved, if the "star" wasn't well known back then, this film would never ever have ended up on IMDb.

[–] plusplus (467) 4 years ago

It was on TV the other day and I made the mistake to watch it. Can't be that bad ... I've thought ... let's give it the benefit of being something different ... could be bold ... a few gems have low ratings too ...
I'd value a failed experiment for its ideas, even if poorly executed.

I was wrong.
This movie rightfully deserves its ranking at the very bottom. Story, acting, sound, it's cowardly uninspired and lacks production quality.

Still, it preceded a lot of other movies starring rejected TV show contestants, YT advertizers, instapeople or social media personalities, making it kind of a pioneer in the genre of untrained actors in an embarrassing teeny cash grab. Milking somewhat limited fame is the only reason why it got made.