[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Home]
4chanarchives logo
How fucked are they now? How fucked are they now? How fucked
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.

You are currently reading a thread in /tv/ - Television & Film

Thread replies: 37
Thread images: 8
File: we wuz busters n sheit.jpg (121 KB, 680x478) Image search: [Google]
we wuz busters n sheit.jpg
121 KB, 680x478
So when it comes to critics screenings are they fucked? I mean there may be some small chance it isn't total shit but if they know its shit will they screen to critics? The highly negative backlash to trailers means if its shit and they show it to critics that will be the final nail in the coffin of the film, yet if they don't people will speculate it's because the studio has no faith in it and don't want critics slamming it before wide release.
>>
i think it will be a silent hit.

it's basically ghostbusters with judd apatow comedy. No one really cares about the original ghost busters, except dweebs .
>>
>They think critics will trash the movie

It's 80% on RT, guaranteed
>>
>>70383144
>a silent
Lost me there

This movie is going to get people so worked up no matter if it's good or bad.
>>
>>70383098
The main problem with the movie is that they somehow managed to cram in really stereotypical roles and really bland "jokes".

It's like they didn't even look at the original except the name and have them hunt ghosts in New York.
>>
>>70383098
It will release to critics.
They will give either praising or neutral reviews to avoid backlash. That's the truth. We're talking high 70 to 90 on RT just so critics won't be seen as bad evil men.

Armond White will release a negative review which will be the most accidentally honest review he made in years. Then HE will get backlash.
>>
File: image.jpg (85 KB, 783x369) Image search: [Google]
image.jpg
85 KB, 783x369
>>70383098

>He thinks the critics won't praise it for it's "subversive" humor, "strong" female leads, and "biting" satire
>>
File: cuck.jpg (248 KB, 1920x1080) Image search: [Google]
cuck.jpg
248 KB, 1920x1080
>>70383177

well, that's why AVGN is telling people not to watch it.

He knows people will enjoy it, but for the "wrong" reasons.
>>
File: 1462321575318.jpg (126 KB, 1092x1037) Image search: [Google]
1462321575318.jpg
126 KB, 1092x1037
>>70383144
>>70383176

"...as I drift into the abyss"
>>
>>70383235
I've yet to see anyone on /tv/ actually talk about the show. They just complain because Rotten Tomatoes fucked their mother with it's big red throbbing approval rating.
>>
The critics will be afraid to give it negative reviews. They'll give it mixed at worst and praise it to hell at best.
>>
>>70383265
sounds like you were molested as a kid
>>
>>70383098
Its going to be a huge success. Everyone here is so fucking deluded and just believe what they want to believe. And tv is always wrong. You think anyone is going to view this through a neutral lense? Nah.
>>
>ITS WAY BETTER THAN THE TROLLS PREDICTED
>RACIST DRUMPF SUPPORTING SEXIST WHITE MALES BTFO

t. liberal film reviewers
>>
>>70383235
>The show is drawing people into spending $199 for a DNA test mainly. I may have been much younger watching the first version, but I liked that version a whole lot better. At least they in the first version where not trying too hard.

What does this even mean?
>>
File: image.jpg (86 KB, 640x419) Image search: [Google]
image.jpg
86 KB, 640x419
It'll get at least 80%
>>
File: image.jpg (87 KB, 640x486) Image search: [Google]
image.jpg
87 KB, 640x486
>>70383332

Maybe higher.
>>
File: laugh550192.jpg (92 KB, 613x1024) Image search: [Google]
laugh550192.jpg
92 KB, 613x1024
>>70383332

Bridesmaids was actually funny.
Ghostbusterettes really does not look like it will be.
>>
File: 12.49.01.png (97 KB, 669x464) Image search: [Google]
12.49.01.png
97 KB, 669x464
>>70383332
>>70383349
The RT score is generally misleading, sometimes plain retarded I don't get why /tv/ uses it as their main critic reference. Bunch of paid brain amputees and hobby critics with borderline retardation telling you not how good the movie is but how many of them liked it? It's basically a platform thriving on misleading their users with polarizing scores. Fucking hell
>>
i saw the original recently and i didnt think it was that great.

not really interested in the reboot anyway.

i liked bridesmaids more than the original, yet i dont want to see the reboot because its so forced and that enormous black woman will be extremely annoying. she will be loud and not funny and gross. like an even shittier vesion of queen latifa, if that were even possible
>>
>>70383509
>75 based on 40
RT is based on more pal.
>>
>>70383571

RT counts the opinions of literal who bloggers though.
>>
>>70383626
And?

It creates a larger representative sample from all strata, not just "professional critics" it is a fine guide for popular consensus.
>>
>>70383098

>literally nobody can give this is negative review and if they do, it's a career suicide
>>
>>70383669
again it doesn't show you how good a movie is but how many liked it. So a meh movie with the average positive review will score a lot higher than an actually good movie that might be dividing some of the critics. It's just paints a wrong image for most people who take this as the average critics consensus like you said, but that's not the case. I'm not saying the concept of RT is a failure it's just many don't know how to read/interpret the score not even or well especially here. i mean the average rating is on RT and in the case of spy it's even lower than Metacritic but who gives a fuck it has 94% approval let's shitpost on /tv/ how great it was recieved
>>
>>70383669

>Counting the opinions of literal plebs
>>
>>70383841
No review shows how good a movie is, only if the reviewer liked it.

RT does exactly the same just more opinions.
>>
>>70383098

It's going to get an 85% fresh. Reviewers will be too scared to criticize it like the new Roots.
>>
>>70383842
A review only exists to confirm your own bias.
>>
>>70383349
>>70383509
It would be very good if the movie was about Jason Statham character
>>
>>70383841
>actually good movie that might be dividing some of the critics.
Give me five examples of movies like that having rotten scores.
>>
>>70384111
didn't say anything about rotten scores friend try getting the point again while I'm off to work

bye
>>
>>70383884
No review CAN show "how good" a movie is as it's entirely subjective.

It's not like we can tier reviewers based on how close they come to the "objective true quality" of a film. There IS no objective true quality.

Instead, individuals tier reviewers according to how well their tastes mesh.
>>
>>70384063
Nah, too much of a good thing would just ruin it. The movie was good as it was. It had a more ensemble cast feel than other McCarthy movies.
>>
>>70383300
It's not just /tv/. It's YouTube. It's Facebook. It's the *normies*. Do you think /tv/ is big enough for Hollywood to publicly acknowledge?
>>
>>70383098
Plebs don't understand that the new Ghostbusters is a deconstruction of the comedy genre.
>>
>>70383626
This is the biggest indictment IMO.

If I had more time on my hands I'd try to direct /tv/'s energy towards establishing just as bullshit/legitimate review blogs, infiltrate RT, and fuck the system hard enough that it destroys its credibility.
Thread replies: 37
Thread images: 8

banner
banner
[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at [email protected] with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.
DMCA Content Takedown via dmca.com
All images are hosted on imgur.com, send takedown notices to them.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.