Today, we will examine the concept of review bombing, analyse the reasons why it occurs and how it impacts others.
Bombing Runs
Ben Kuchera popularised the term “review bombing” in a 2008 article that discussed backlash to the game Spore having a limited number of installs. This resulted in disappointed gamers leaving negative reviews on sites like Amazon in hopes that bad press would force change.
Since then, review bombing has become synonymous with a particular type of response to films and TV shows. This is where rating sites like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes are flooded with negative reviews. They can be used in both sporadic and highly organised fashions. They sometimes happen before projects are even officially released, and are reactionary in their content. For example, see reactions to Ghostbusters (2016), Star Wars: Episode VIII: The Last Jedi, The Little Mermaid (2023), Snow White (2025) and even films like The Promise.
Entitlement and Identity
Many of these reactionary campaigns focus on popular/big-budget action-adventure-oriented media. Using them as vehicles to attack perspectives that have been historically marginalised within cinema. Such as those of women, people of colour, LGBT+ people and those who suffered under imperialism. There are, of course, many blockbuster films that focus on marginalised perspectives and also have political messages. So why are only particular films bombed?
Essentially, the targets are often chosen because they are new big releases that deviate from a historical “norm” that certain insular in-groups hold as important. Whether it be pre-existing media or historical narratives. A “norm” which didn’t include certain evidence and perspectives because of historical, cultural and political biases. As a result, these in-groups are resistant to addressing social injustice based on historical marginalisation, as it would challenge their view of something crucial to them. Because these projects’ size draws broad attention and deviates from the bomber’s preferred narrative, review bombing is used to assert dominance regarding what stories are told. All done to hold onto a certain high ground. Whether it be through fandom gatekeeping or national pride. This tracks with research suggesting that reactionary sentiment is fostered by the idea that someone’s status of relative privilege may be threatened.
Effects and Response
While studios often ignore review bombing campaigns, many workers and fans, particularly those who are marginalised, can be made to feel unwelcome or can be driven out of fandoms and the industry through the hateful atmosphere they perpetuate. Plus studios are more than happy to abandon social consciousness to make more money if pressure becomes too much. This serves only to embolden the hatemongers and drive away marginalised people. Thus, measures are needed to dilute potential harm.
Both Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb have tried to mitigate the impact through differing measures. IMDb introduced weighted average ratings and a warning label for when it detects unusual voting activity. RT, meanwhile, has a verification system for audience film ratings that requires proof of ticket purchase to be verified. They then allow people to see the difference between raw audience scores and verified ones. Additionally, they limit reviews until the project’s official release date. These approaches have merits but also their own problems. RT’s measures emphasise cinema runs over other distribution methods, and have implemented nothing for TV ratings. IMDb’s approach, meanwhile, is very poorly signposted. Plus, allowing for ratings to take place after one public screening is ripe for abuse.
Something like an improved version of RT’s system is probably one of the best methods to combat the bomber’s impact. It showcases the difference between potential review bombers and those who care enough to be verified. This, along with better community tools to flag potential troll activity, perhaps requiring written contributions for reviews to be accepted and allowing more time after a project is released to verify activity, could help. Ultimately, a comprehensive system transformation is needed to combat this hateful rhetoric.
