PIXAR IS FUCKING DONE
>>63017399
Nah. It was obvious that Inside Out was meant to be their flagship movie for this year. My family is still planning to see this on Friday.
>>63017399
>>63017609
thank god. tired of these meme reddit flicks.
>i cried more at the first 45 minutes of up than any other movi ;__;
then you cant have seen many movies, right? damn
>>63017399
I'm amazed the Pixar hype train could be stopped. I'm glad, though. Don't have to hear about how I'm an emotionless asshole for not being in love with a mediocre, unoriginal animated movie.
>>63017399
Inside Out is worse tho desu to be a senpai
>>63017609
>>63017399
Both these films will make (and I mean this quite literally) billions in toy sales.
DUDE
MINIONS
L M A O
>>63017675
the point of the Cars pic is that PIxar has had failures before and is just as big as it ever has been
>>63017399
>>63017609
How does Metacritic even come up with a score for movies? Most reviews are either good or bad unlike video games where most review sites use a 1-10 scoring system.
>>63017399
84% on RT with 51 reviews counted currently.
>>63017836
>unlike games
>>63017872
You know what I mean. Most movie critics don't assign a score to their reviews so how does Metacritic come up with a number?
>>63017898
10s in google tell me they apparently do
http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-hunger-games-mockingjay---part-2/critic-reviews
>>63017898
>Most movie critics don't assign a score to their reviews
wut
>>63017399
Not really Pixar, desu. They had their A-team on inside out. The only one with any talent was bob peterson who they axed completely.
>>63017753
Pixar could make cars 14 and it would be as big as it has ever been, when people say they are done they are talking quality not success. Not that I agree... I think they are making good movies as often as before, but they are making bad movies in between.
>>63017934
They don't. The majority of critics just say whether a movie is good or bad. Unless Metacritic only counts reviewers that do use some sort of scoring system. That's the only way it makes sense.
>>63017836
Average of the scores weighted based on readership.
>>63018025
I still don't get it. How did Metacritic decide that the NYT review of Mockingjay Part 2 was a 90 in this example >>63017922?
>>63017399
>>63017675
Up was shit. People who praise the beginning are seriously something else.
>They're happy, oh, no, lateral tracking shot, a miscarriage by character we have no real reason to give a shit about
Fuck that.
Up was shit.
The movie was made by the B team. It means nothing.
>>63017993
>majority of critics just say whether a movie is good or bad
*citation needed*
the majority of reviewers score either on a letter sytem (e.g. A, B, C D) that is easily converted to numerals, or a 4 or 5 star system
I was at the movies with my brother and a preview for this came on. We agreed that the problem was the title: it suggests there were bad dinosaurs.
There were no bad dinosaurs. NONE.
>>63018147
I don't believe that's the case but regardless my question here >>63018072 stands. How did Metacritic decide that the New York Times review was a 9 when they don't use any such scoring system?
