Do you agree with the sentiment that Disney pays for reviews?
>>69686487
>Guy in Dakota with unknown little blog about movies checks his email
>New message
>It glows red unlike all other messages
>It's from Disney
>It's titled *CONFIDENTIAL*
>He assumes it's spam but message won't move
>He decides to open it
>"Mr. ___ ! We know that you own a blog about movies and we offer once in a lifetime opportunity! You see, soon one of our subsidiary studios, Marvel Studios, is going to clash with our damned RIVALS WHO WE HATE, Warner Bros. We offer you: to write a negative review about "Batman vs Superman" and a positive one about "Captain America: Civil War". Payment guaranteed!"
>He closes the message
>It deletes itself
>Evil laugh from the headphones
>Evil smile appears on his face
>He is bought by Disney now
>DCucks actually believe this really happened
No. Zootopia was a modern animated masterpiece. Its flaws only make it better. Literally the best piece of cinéma produced so far in 2016.
>>69686487
don't forget alice in wonderland, Cars 2, maleficent, and fucking hell even movies like Atlantis and Oliver and Company are rotten. movies I personally love, but don't go blaming others for buying out reviews. like those who loved BvS and blame disney.
No, marvel movies are usually watchable and not too convoluted, this makes them have a generally good score.
I think that either BvS or MoS being considered in any way worse than the waste of time known as Thor 2 is ridiculous, bit that's not what RT% measures
>>69686487
ExceptJohn Carterwas a really excellent movie.
>>69686683
I mean shit it doesn't even make sense.
Even IF BvS were to be critically reclaimed, it wouldn't hurt Marvel one bit. In fact a healthy competition would benefit both of them as people who are interested in either would watch the other just to see how it compares. This isn't console wars were someone has to decide on a console forever.
DCucks are literally going mental hoops because their movie was absolute shit, it's unbelievable.
>>69686604
So if Disney bribed you would you turn it down? Seriously it's just like half an hour of your time 4 like 100 bucks.
>>69686487
Nope, critics just mostly have shit taste.
Lots of upper-class, self-righteous, liberal, English majors who assess movies based on their own personal fee-fees
>>69687559
And not instead write reports of Disney trying to bribe me and potentially others which is a HUGE story that gives me millions of readers and gains me more profit than any bribe I could ever receive?
Maybe if I were an actual retard with a simplified world view I would
>>69686487
Through the looking glass is going to be shit?
Why is Johnny having such a rough time? Why is everything awful flops? Is that why he is going on rants about Trump?
>>69687328
>Even IF BvS were to be critically reclaimed, it wouldn't hurt Marvel one bit
This. I have never met a marvel fan (or comic fan in general) who has not seen every batman film. The flash autists at my local comic shop bash MCU non-stop and yet they are there opening night at civil war with all the other comic fans.
The success of one company does not hurt the other. Iron man and the dark knight both succeeded spectacularly in the same summer back in 2008. Both scored 94% on RT and were rewarded at the box office. There were a total of 4 superhero movies that year (5 if you count bolt).
There is room for everyone to succeed.
>>69687728
The first one was already shit and was super self-contained. The plot of Thru the Looking Glass is literally "The Mad Hatter is sad, Alice must go back in time to make him less sad"
>>69687559
BvS currently has 331 counted reviews. You are alleging that around 300 of those were bribed.
Now how the fuck would this bribing scheme work? What are the logistics behind it? How do you bribe 300 people around the world without at least one telling media that Disney approached and tried to bribe them? We are also not counting small blogs, youtube vlogs and other shit like that which are predominantly against BvS as well. Even my local municipal newspaper wrote a bad review on BvS. Were they all bribed by Disney as well?
This shit is ridiculous.
>>69687806
I feel like I need to post a thread I made the exact day the BvS reviews came out because I predicted this shit
http://archive.4plebs.org/tv/thread/67355808/#67355808
>>69687849
Yeah its pretty fucking odd how they all played the 'it's humorless' card
But then don't shit all over films that are dramatic for not having humor
>>69687806
That is the thing with conspiracies. When more than 10 people are involved they don't tend to last long. /pol/ truthers love their fanfiction version of reality but the logistics behind any big conspiracy are daunting.
In the Disney bribery myth you have to involve all the bribed reviewers, the disney executives and marketing team who dreamed the idea up, the people in accounting who will need to get money to those hudnreds of people being bribed, and the people who have to explain to auditors where all that money went.
The bribes would have to be huge. Critics are risking their career and reputation over the bribes. Even worse, the rewards for being the whistleblower that brought down disney would be enormous. It would launch the career of an up and coming film critic as "the only honest man in tinsel town", plus grant them a million dollar book deal. Whistleblowers linked to major scandals always get lucrative book deals and all he has to do is be the first person to refuse the bribe and come clean.
>>69686487
When I first saw the Tomato Meter for BvS compared to the audience score, I admit the thought crossed my mind that maybe Disney was paying for reviews.
After seeing it though, I doubt it, at least in that case.
I doubt they pay, but I do think their shit is overrated. Age of Ultron was a letdown, especially after The Winter Soldier. I enjoyed Guardians of the Galaxy, but it doesn't hold up to repeat viewings.
The overly positive reviews aren't due to bribes, just bandwagon thinking.
>>69687990
>>69687990
Lack of humor and light-hearted fun is not the reason for why BvS failed so hard. BvS was not only unentertaining in a summer blockbuster genre where entertainment is bread and butter, it was also actively posing itself as anti-fun.
You can have funny quippy entertainment like MCU and be successful or you can be serious and dark entertainment like TDK and X-Men and be successful. Snyder did neither and now DCEU is on the verge of collapse.
>>69686487
of course they do.
but so does every other studio.
the fact that BvS was such a cesspool of human waste that paid reviews couldn't even save it is what made is so funny.
>>69686487
I think they can make it very obvious to critics what movies they need to like if they want to stay on their good side
Which means the Billion Dollar IPs need to get good reviews
The thing is you can't get a good review on an endlessly awful film but you can spin a mediocre film either way.
(ex: Star Wars)
>Disney makes a fun film like John Carter
>gets bad reviews
>Disney makes a cynical artless cash in like Civil War
>gets good reviews
Disney wanted John Carter to be a series but it got sunk by bad reviews...I think they learned their lesson
>>69688266
>unentertaining
>>69688369
Who is in the pic? That's an uncanny can.
I think a lot of people on the internet don't understand how film ratings work and they aren't film critics. Meaning they don't spend all day watching shit films which allows them to say the latest Marvel movie is in fact a 7/10 film.
Film reviews are written for a specific audience. The guy writing for Entertainment Weekly isn't some 16-year-old with impossibly high expectations. He knows his audience will think it's pretty good so he gives it a 7/10. He doesn't have some weird chip on his shoulder about "normies".
If Disney could shit out an average film for a few hundred million then they deserve to be shot.
>Disney pays reviewers
>In other news, water: wet.
>>69687152
This. Just came out at the wrong time and with the wrong marketing.
And honestly, only Alice there deserves the low score.
>>69688446
If it was entertaining then it would not fail
>>69688369
Do you have some examples of shit or mediocre films that got glowing reviews? Or are there just a few mediocre films that got maybe 10% higher ratings than you feel was justified?
The Force Awakens is a bad example because people aren't even slightly objective about it. You ask someone why the didn't like it and they go on some rant about Star Wars instead of whether or not the film was enjoyable.
>>69688700
>fail
>>69688705
The Force Awakens is a bad film
its an awful star wars movie
It shouldn't have gotten good reviews but Disney just shelled out a billion for it so they made sure it got decent grades.
one could easily spin it to being "a rehash" or "uninspired" but instead they spun it "classic star wars" or "its what you loved about star wars all over again"
plus basically every Marvel film has been mediocre from a film making stand point. So instead of spinning it "this is stupid" its spun "its FUN"
If they were truly awful you probably couldn't get away with it because people would notice the obvious bias.
>>69688476
she's on snapchat Rogue Tripplett
roguenyx
not sure if she's a real girl or a guy just posting a girls photos...Im not sure if you can do that on snapchat. For an attractive female she really likes cock pics
>>69689080
Nice ty
Of course not.
I do however think that reviewers are ridiculously biased and will gobble up anything that Disney shits out
>>69689040
If they paid, then how come audience reviews are also possitive everywhere?
Only a loud minority didn't like the movie.
"Antman/Civil War/Force Awakens were shit! Only most of critics and the big majority of audiences (millions of normies) liked it! They probably paid all of them!"
Daily reminder that RT is owned by WB.
>>69689439
>paid
I don't think Disney is literally giving them a check for a good review. Plus audiences like any film if it's not "boring"
>>69689817
Right and critics write for those audiences.
Hence, critics weren't paid or persuaded. They just write for audiences who like these films.
I had absolutely no idea there was another Alice in Burtonland movie.
>>69688705
The force awakens is the perfect example. It honestly doesn't deserve those ratings. Most people like it because it's a Star Wars film and many don't know better, so as long as the film has lightsabers, jedi vs sith and chewbacca it's all good.
Now regarding BVS and CW, the former didn't really deserve that critic score and the user rating shows this.
