bliz82
Joined Jan 2014
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings1K
bliz82's rating
Reviews5
bliz82's rating
I hated this show. Period. Now, I've watched recent episodes and it is gold. Like way better than before. Its actually he shame he took so long to find his groove because I guarantee any former daily show fan frustrated with Noah will likely be satisfied with Seth's first 15min. every night as supplement to Noah's awfulness. Seriously, I understand where ll the bad reviews came from; but, you people really need to give it another look---or, "a closer look" (as is the name of a consistently great political satire piece he does!). Another line to submit review. Another line to submit review.Another line to submit a review. Another line to submit a review. Pretty dumb policy IMDb.
***Attention IMDb admin, current daily show fans, and former daily show fans:
The good ratings and reviews of the daily show are dated and inaccurate now since there is a new host---a host that in mine and many others' opinions has tanked a formerly amazing funny and insightful and informative show.
Trevor Noah shouldn't be getting the benefit of high IMDb ratings for the daily show since it was Stewart and kilborn that most people have given high ratings for in the last two decades, not in the last 5 months since Noah began.Noah would likely only be at 4 or 5 stars with less than 1000 votes, rather than 8 or 9 stars out of 35000 voters.
Doing this is tantamount to reviewing a new bond film well because you liked Connery bond films in the 1960s just because it is the bond franchise. You don't review things purely based on franchise, you base it on the work and people coming next in a newer version of things.
For a better comparison, this is how IMDb differentiates the tonight show from host to host in its various carnations---with Carson, with Leno, and with Fallon are adages for separate pages of "the tonight show'. The tonight show isn't rated and reviewed in general, its generational and person to person as hosts, which is what the daily show should be as well since kilborn, Stewart, and Noah are all different hosts of different generational styles and humour and fans. You don't go to the tonight show with jimmy Fallon page and see reviews dated back to when Carson or Leno were hosting because thats absurd, right? Well, why is Trevor Noah not being treated so special this way, why is he for no reason riding the coattails of fans and respectability he hasn't earned at all. Its false advertising, and false review system, and makes IMDb seem completely useless.
Furthermore, since it is highly unlikely that IMDb would change this--- why it wouldn't i have no clue since its common sense as applied to everything else on the website in terms of franchises being differentiated by newer versions---i think the only measure to counter this would be to recast your votes to downgrade the current daily show, and to remove any reviews made prior to Noah, and to post more recent reviews lambasting him.
There should be honesty and merit and up to date ratings of things, otherwise what is the point of even having this website and people turning to it to get a good measure of what is good or bad? Rigging ratings in favor of someone defeats the whole purpose of the website. It needs to be updated and more accurate, and the different versions need to be on separate pages.
The good ratings and reviews of the daily show are dated and inaccurate now since there is a new host---a host that in mine and many others' opinions has tanked a formerly amazing funny and insightful and informative show.
Trevor Noah shouldn't be getting the benefit of high IMDb ratings for the daily show since it was Stewart and kilborn that most people have given high ratings for in the last two decades, not in the last 5 months since Noah began.Noah would likely only be at 4 or 5 stars with less than 1000 votes, rather than 8 or 9 stars out of 35000 voters.
Doing this is tantamount to reviewing a new bond film well because you liked Connery bond films in the 1960s just because it is the bond franchise. You don't review things purely based on franchise, you base it on the work and people coming next in a newer version of things.
For a better comparison, this is how IMDb differentiates the tonight show from host to host in its various carnations---with Carson, with Leno, and with Fallon are adages for separate pages of "the tonight show'. The tonight show isn't rated and reviewed in general, its generational and person to person as hosts, which is what the daily show should be as well since kilborn, Stewart, and Noah are all different hosts of different generational styles and humour and fans. You don't go to the tonight show with jimmy Fallon page and see reviews dated back to when Carson or Leno were hosting because thats absurd, right? Well, why is Trevor Noah not being treated so special this way, why is he for no reason riding the coattails of fans and respectability he hasn't earned at all. Its false advertising, and false review system, and makes IMDb seem completely useless.
Furthermore, since it is highly unlikely that IMDb would change this--- why it wouldn't i have no clue since its common sense as applied to everything else on the website in terms of franchises being differentiated by newer versions---i think the only measure to counter this would be to recast your votes to downgrade the current daily show, and to remove any reviews made prior to Noah, and to post more recent reviews lambasting him.
There should be honesty and merit and up to date ratings of things, otherwise what is the point of even having this website and people turning to it to get a good measure of what is good or bad? Rigging ratings in favor of someone defeats the whole purpose of the website. It needs to be updated and more accurate, and the different versions need to be on separate pages.
This show sucks. Badly. The ensemble is terrible acting. The writing is hacky. And viola davis is good but her emmy win was undeserving when compared to tatiyana maslany in orphan black. Davis is best part of show but they focus on the ensemble of young 90210 students and their dumb dramas. Th he plot and dialogue is cliché. The music anf tone sucks for a crime drama. The whole thing wreaks. Shonda rhimes keeps getting praisr for making garbage just like greys anatomy. Its like reviewers and critics are all dumb flaky fans who know nothing about writing and acting and directing. Like if the bar of reviewing Bieber was all tween girls. Bizarre that all the idiots drown out reason that this sjow sucks. I have no idea how or why it has an 8.2 rating. Reading other reviews it seems clear that most people find it flaky. I think this 8.2 rating is either rigged or being blindly voted by muddle aged women and black people.
Recently taken polls
1 total poll taken