is it true that disney pays off reviewers for big blockbusters?
Yep
Nope
also....
>rt
>>69330245
>inb4 these were from before they started paying.
>>69330245
If they are sure they can sell toys by promoting the franchise, yep.
>>69330245but... john carter was really good
Tomorrowland is 40% way too high.
Bribery confirmed.
Read the critics consensus on each one. Perfectly describes every Marvel movie.
>>69330245
No.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF5DhLDUQb0
>>69330245
Probably not. There is such a thing as a critic screening though, where the studio endures the most comfortable, enjoyable context for the critics to see the movie in, with (I believe) free catering for the critics. Obviously a more successful company can afford to make this more luxurious for critics, if they have a real reason to.
>>69330245
after those colossal flops, yes
>disney has flops
>proof they dont pay off reviews
>>69330313
I think you and I might be the only ones who think so.
Feelsbadman
>>69330245
How else do you explain BvS getting a 27% on Rotten Tomatoes?
>>69330245
Of course they do.
>>69330486
Critics just got it wrong
>>69330486
I'm op, I think a lot of content was cut leaving the story muddled.
I liked BvS, but the "Disney pays off critics" is dumb
Civil War had easy to follow plot beats and very clear character motivation, BvS had motivation, but you had to look at different scenes to piece it together, an extended cut with more fleshed out characters will probably help
>>69330486
They just fucked up. That is like saying IFC, a independent film company paid off crtics somehow to give Boyhood high ratings, or like WB paid off critics to give Fury Road good reviews. Critics fuck up. Back then they gave 2001: A Space Odyssey mixed reviews and it took a few years for critics to finally realize they were wrong.
>>69330313
>>69330464
You're not alone, it is good, there was just terrible marketing.
I also thought Lone Ranger was a fun old style Western movie. Not perfect, but I really enjoyed it.
>>69330438
Ultron and Tomorrowland both came out around the same time. Not only that but Ultron got very average reviews compared to the first.
How does one know when the reviews are bought or not?
>>69330667
It's always baffled me that the Disney media machine could fuck up marketing something so badly.
Just make some toys and a shitty cartoon out of it in the months leading up to its release.
There, you have millions of kids dragging their parents to see the movie, the parents are like hey that wasn't so bad and they recommend it to their friends and their shitty kids.
It's not hard to market to fucking 8 year olds, put John Carter on a fucking cereal box.
>>69330245
If they did they would probably save it for multibillion dollar investments like the MCU to avoid suspicion
They wouldn't do it for minor flicks like this or everyone would expect it and boycott or something
Aren't WB, Fox, Sony, Universal just as rich as Disney? Why don't they pay off critics as well?
>>69330865
>minor flicks
two of them lead to an executive getting fired
the other lead to cancelling tron 3
>>69330920
>Aren't WB, Fox, Sony, Universal just as rich as Disney?
lol
>>69330791
you need to go to "respectable" news providers that don't rely on a piddly sum offered by larger media companies to peddle their trite garbage
>>69330245
It is if you're a DCuck
>>69330865
>minor flicks
>300 million budget movies (since you people love to add the 100mil plus marketing budget too) that barely did their original estimated one worldwide
>>69330926
>>69331017
This is a multibillion dollar production studio we're talking about here. The MCU existed during this time, did it not? Compared to the MCU these films are minor... HOW ABOUT I USE THE TERM PERIPHERAL HMM?
>>69330486
People want the Marvel formula, seeing the same movie over and over y'know.
>>69331099
Even if it isn't it is a staggering figure. Now X-Men is getting early trash despite its popularity in previous iterations. Perhaps we as amateur film reviewers underestimated the degree to which the public is already on the MCU's side?
>>69331017
>one executive and a cult sequel are just as important to a corporation as a multibillion dollar investment spanning longer than a decade
It's hard to believe that they wouldn't take every conceivable precaution with these movies. I don't get why people get so riled up over paid critics
>>69331098
they literally fired executives over how badly John Carter and The Lone Ranger performed, why wouldn't they have bribed critics if that's all that was needed for a good bo?
and tomorrowland taking a shit killed their plans for tron 3
>>69331180
I meant to reply to
>>69330926
>>69331098
>MCU
I've seen anons complaining about reviews for Jungle Book and Zootopia though. What makes Tomorrowland different?
>>69331247
Tomorrowland was a steaming sack of poop
>>69330865
>John Carter
>260+ million dollar budget
>The Lone Ranger
>225 million dollar budget
>Tomorrowland
>190 million dollar budget
Really minor flicks right?
>>69331135
It's not a conspiration and Disney is not paying off critics, they are just from a generation that glorifies what's already done, with references as the only way of humor. How many more 80s reboot shit movies are we going to endure? They despise risk taking. Everybody is looking back, not forward. The want the same thing the already enjoyed so creativity is dead. Everything "ambitious" is labeled as pretentious to the point most people on this same board wouldn't be able to tell those terms apart.
Disney knows this, they learnt their leason HARD. Not even Pixar is doing new things anymore. The new Star Wars flick is just like the first one with more CGI and less quality (despite Isaak and Driver being great as always). DC won't try anymore, Fox won't try anymore, blockbusters will be the same movie over and over from now on and plebes couldn't be happier
>>69331180
It's not as if the majority of the MCU received glowing reviews. Besides Iron Man, Avengers, Guardians, and the Captain America sequels, most entries received average reviews.
>>69331390
In the grand scheme of things, yeah.
These movies served as market research more than anything else. If they lost money on John carter then it's cut and dry, no more science fantasy adaptations. If they lost money on lone ranger then they don't adapt any grandparent's series. But the moment a single MCU movie bombs then everything goes down the shitter and all their phases and preproduction, post production etc time and efforts are wasted and it's all over.
>>69330245
no that's dumb, but it's not so simple as that, they're leading the capeshit trend and have established themselves as the leading voice in the genre so most reviewers don't want to be excluded from the events and shit, in a sense Marvel is controlling the narrative, so yeah the reviews are biased but not because disney is throwing around payouts.
>>69330245
>>69330313
>>69330464
>>69330667
>>69330804
I remember something about the director insisting on taking the reins for marketing and running it into the fucking ground.
>Disney's head of marketing during the production was M. T. Carney, an industry outsider who previously ran a marketing boutique in New York.[42] Stanton often rejected marketing ideas from the studio, according to those who worked on the film.[43] Stanton's ideas were used instead, and he ignored criticism that using Led Zeppelin's "Kashmir", a song recorded in 1974, in the trailer would make it seem less current to the contemporary younger audiences the film sought. He also chose billboard imagery that failed to resonate with prospective audiences, and put together a preview reel that did not get a strong reception from a convention audience.[27] Stanton said, “My joy when I saw the first trailer for Star Wars is I saw a little bit of almost everything in the movie, and I had no idea how it connected, and I had to go see the movie. So the last thing I’m going to do is ruin that little kid’s experience.”[44] Following the death of Steve Jobs, Stanton dedicated the film in his memory.[45]
>Although being based on the first book of the series, A Princess of Mars, the film was originally titled John Carter of Mars, but Stanton removed "of Mars" to make it more appealing to a broader audience, stating that the film is an "origin story. It's about a guy becoming John Carter of Mars."[46]
Film about a grossly-outdated, 100-year-old book with no modern relevance would need some spectacular marketing for a good presentation, and they let an autist run it. Director ruined his own flick.
>>69330920
Disney has a monstrous amount of money just from their theme parks, the movies aren't even the their biggest product, but they fuel a lot of their more profitable divisions creatively.
>>69331550
The final title is better than John Carter of Mars imo, the latter doesn't even sound like a movie title
>>69331668
I agree John Carter of Mars is fucking retarded, but I think A Princess of Mars may have been better than John Carter, even with the >princess reaction from insecure normie men. None of them are good, though.
>>69331518
>"they would never bother to pay reviews for non- MCU films"
>anons complaining about paid reviews for Zootopia and Jungle Book shortly after release
>>69331842
I wasn't on /tv/ for a while so I missed the zootopia jungle book stuff.
>>69331550
That's the problem with trying to adapt a princess of mars though. Everything it directly inspired has already been adapted, so what is actually an adaptation of the original idea that's been copied all these years actually comes across as a cheap knock-off to the average viewer.
I saw it in theaters and one of the few other people there actually said after the movie that the arena scene was directly ripped off from attack of the clones.
I almost flipped my shit.
I really enjoyed all of them desu
>>69331736
A Princess of Mars still sounds weird, but I'm no marketer so I'm sure they could have pulled it off if they tried
>>69331527
This is convincing.
>>69332019
I enjoyed all but tomorrowland
>a film that literally ends on its' climax
>>69331969
To be fair it's not impossible that the director drew some inspiration from attack of the clones, if not unconsciously
>>69332052
As is often the case I'm sure this plays a part in it rather than some massive marketing conspiracy but it would be silly to dismiss any other factors
>>69330245
I will never not forget tomorrowland for it bombing and cancelling Tron 3.
Screw you, I wanted more Daft Punk soundtracks and neon lights.
