Haha we tell you what to think.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/green_room_2016/
>>71868294
Well, ya if you want.
That's what critics have been since Edgar Poe made them popular.
>>71868367
Green Room wasn't that good, knock off 10 points and I agree.
>"pppeople like it! They must be bribed! Rrright?"
lol at you manbabies. The film is good, it's gonna be a success, even bigger than the original, which isn't that good in the first place, and there's nothing you can do about it :)
so ghostbusters is about the same as a marvel movie right?
after Bret Easton Ellis red pilled me on critics I've become so embittered about reviews and critics
>>71868419
Nobody cares tripcunt
HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?
>>71868448
You cared enough to reply to my post.
No, I let /tv/ tell me what to think.
>>71868294
I never took rotten tomatoes seriously.
Cucken Cucktoes & sites like it are only used by retards who can't form an opinion on their own
>b...but i only want to watch GOOD movies anon xDDDD
this is the battle cry of the retard
>>71868465
haha oh man the tripcunt is mad now. What are you gonna do about it, trippy? lmao
>>71868504
>Cucken Cucktoes
EPIC burn!
>finding dory 95%
>>71868543
>Ooh that has Ellen
>She's a lesbian! woohooo
>5 stars
>>71868530
>incoherent cuck babble
Wow look at this cucking cuck
Look how about you go cuck yourself okay bro?
Just go cuck yourself right up your cuck hole until you feel better? Okay bro? Nice.
At least IMDB reflects the opinion of people who watched any said film, so it's useful to tell what's popular (even if plebs, etc)
>>71868566
>woo it has fish
>that are under the sea
>5 stars
>>71868603
If a film has any tone of "progressiveness" in either the film or the cast it will 9/10 times be rated higher than it's worth
>>71868629
Got a citation on that?
>>71868435
Link pls.
>>71868419
more like 50 that movie was crap.
Ever since BvS RT lost a shitload of credibility.
If you look through the actual content of the reviews, most lavish verbal praise on the movie, but end up giving it scores of around 60%. So all we can surmise from this it that the movie is a predictable bland piece of schlock, but people felt bad about it sucking.
The funny thing is I had no intention of watching this movie but now I just might because of all the controversy surrounding it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, /tv/.
>>71868712
hahahaha
>>71868712
How so? It got a disappointing score, most people think it was disappointing.
>>71868825
Rotten tomatoes said the new ghostbusters is better. Check-fucking-mate.
>>71868847
As of now, but it's not been out for very long, and the early reviewers will be people invited to advance screenings by Sony. It will drop over time, as it did with BvS.
just finished buying my tickets online
going to be great on the imax big screen
>>71868424
this is bait.
>>71868912
wow, you're a fucking genius
>>71868424
>even bigger than the original
Even the positive reviewers are admitting that it's nowhere near as good as the original, so how do you figure this one?
>>71868566
>oh it's disney redoing shit that wasn't that good to begin with
All marvel/disney/pixar movies getting unanimously praised and decent films getting trashed because "not progressive enough"
>>71868842
This is pathetic and embarrasing.
>>71869144
hmm nice post but I don't see an argument here
>>71868294
>go to rotten tomatoes
>click on ghostbusters
>click on 'top critics'
>69%. 9 fresh, 4 rotten
>go to the top critics and add them up
>7 fresh, 7 rotten
>one of the fresh even states its underwhelming
can some explain?
>>71868842
Alt-right: the post
>>71868842
Wut.
>Starwars 7 black propaganda because it has one black character
>Brooklyn is a feminist propaganda even though the protagonist makes a mistake almost cheating and goes back to her husband.
>It follows is feminist... because it has women?
>The Martian is globalist because two countries co-operate?
>Room is feminist because its about a domestic abuse victim?
>Creed is black propaganda because its about a black lead?
>Spotlight is anti-white because it's anti-catholic?
Haven't seen this rest. I actually do sort of think these movies are out there, Ghostbusters and Selma are a pretty clear example.
But the rest are basically just good movies about their subject. Creed needed to change up the franchise and it makes a hell of a lot of sense why it would focus on a black character (aka son of creed).
Martian makes financial sense since China is a huge market.
It Follows isn't feminist in any way, I mean there's even a scene where a male character tells her how much easier she'll have passing the curse on as a girl.
Room is pretty great.
>>71869226
No need to, If someone is so utterly idiotic and unsecure to think what that image shows he's beyond any point of return.
>>71868461
>critics are mostly Star Wars geeks who spent the past decade harping on the prequels
>movie comes out addressing their concerns but is overall shit
>too prideful to admit they were wrong and maybe they don't have a better eye for film than Lucas
>"Dude such an awesome movie! 4/4, Star Wars is back and it isn't going away!!!"
Same with Ghostbusters
>media outlets spend months defending films from "sexist pigs"
>act surprised the same outlets and individual critics inflate their scores because they don't want to be proven wrong.
>>71868842
Wait. I'm as red-pilled as any sane human, but how exactly is It Follows feminist propaganda?
If you can make any argument about it, it would be that it is abstinence propaganda.
has anyone figured out who owns rotten tomatoes yet? or how its funded?
>>71869460
>who owns rotten tomatoes
me
>>71869344
>I don't need to present an argument because if your opinion is different than mine is you are too far gone to even bother arguing with.
Liberal logic.
>>71868842
Jesus Christ that's embarrashing.
Please stop.
>>71868294
>BvS 30%
>Ghostcunts 75%
WEW LAD.
REV UP THE MENTAL GYMNASTICS ENGINES.
>>71868294
why does anyone care anymore?
People will see what they want to see. if they want to see dog shit, why does anyone care, it's their money they're pissing away.
The message will probably be lost on them anyway, if there is a message to be had.
>>71868842
>Mad Max
>not feminist propaganda
>Shaun the Sheep
>not furry degeneracy
>Mission: Impossible
>not manlet shilling
step it up, senpai
>>71868461
yo ho ho he took a bite of gum gum
>>71869614
see >>71869344
Poor insecure attention whore, I pity you. Must be terrible, to feel constantly threatened by everything.
>>71869614
The term you're looking for is "argument ad lapidem."
>>71868461
TFA definitely wasn't as good as that. it is pretty much a remake of a new hope, and Rey is a total mary-sue, but most of us overlooked or forgave those things because it was still a decent film that was at mostly faithful to the originals. It's definitely better than the prequels and is by no means a bad film.
>>71870864
>rushed storyline
>mediocre new characters
>forgettable John Williams score
>blandly shot
>millennial dialogue
>cold, calculated rehash of original
>chicken-shit Phasma
>Ma-Ray sue
Mediocre at best desu
>>71870864
>TFA definitely wasn't as good as that
That's not up to you little boy. 92 and 89 percent of people chose the fresh option, so yes, it objectively is as good as that. It couldn't possibly be anything but as good as that because that's how RT works. 92 and 89 of people gave it a fresh rating and the site reflects that.
>>71868424
This must be trolling, but it's literally the same exact trolling every time.
Step 1. Call them manbabies
Step 2. Claim the original was never good anyway
Step 3. Tell them there is nothing they can do about it
Step 4. Emote
Is it really just one lonely idiot that no one likes?
>>71869299
Some reviewers inflate their score just a little so it isn't rotten. The ones that give a rotten review are probably getting hatemail from SJWs as we speak.
>>71871310
>tfw can't wait to see based Armonds and Kyle Smith's reviews
>>71869875
I don't get your post. BvS was a masterpiece, so Ghostbusters must be a trainwreck.
>>71868294
Always good to see /tv/ absolutely buttblasted that their pet shitty websites is under fire.
>p-please random website, tell.me what to like, tell me buzzwords to understand what is good and what's not!!!
You fucks deserve everything bad coming your way.
Obligatory video about critics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwD2GgWKIrs
mainly on vidya but applies to movies as well
A Future News Story We'd Hate to See
>BLOGGER SHOOTS AND KILLS FILM CRITIC FOLLOWING NEGATIVE REVIEW OF MOVIE
>>71868465
Poor tripfag, you thought u would be welcomed by the redditors? These monkeys became racist Nolan hating autists in a matter of months. And everyone still hates tripfags.
wouldn't be the first time Sony have done this type of shit http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1368666.stm
>>71868294
Ahh dont worry. The THIRD MOVIE is going to suck hard as hell by the year 2021
>>71871954
>Lines like "Another winner!" and "This year's hottest new star!" were used on posters
>"We would never, never, never, ever do that,"
lol
>>71868294
Here's how I do it. I watch a movie; decide where on the scale I would put it (0). Then I compare what other reviewer sites, like Rotten Tomatoes have placed the same film (50) and decide not to follow those reviewers anymore as they're obviously shilling. Sometimes, if I'm fencing sitting on a film and I see a review that's less than 80, I simply don't watch it. Because I know that their (80) is going to be a (30) to me..
>>71871702
No it doesn't. Go back to /v/.
>>71871904
>dat gif
I almost had a goddamn stroke watching that bitch yelling this over and over.
>>71872046
Yes it does. Do you honestly think anyone will want to give this movie a bad review if it means no more early screenings no more exposure no more exclusive interviews and thus no more traffic?
Only plebs every took that site seriously
>>71868419
>>71868694
Kill yourselves.
HEY YOU WOMEN
>>71868842
Yeah, how come masterpieces like Der Ewige Jude aren't on that list?
>mfw I watched it
>>71868294
You dumb DCucks desperately want to turn this issue into "MAJOR COMPANIES BRIBE RT" but the truth is the new Ghostbusters got good reviews because of feminist pressure. For months Sony have been running a smear campaign that accuses everyone who dislikes the movie of being a misogynist. Some of the critics praised it because they're virtue signaling feminists who only care about agenda, some of the critics praised it because they're terrified of being labeled a misogynist. Now stop drawing attention from what's really going on.
>>71872218
>stop drawing attention from
*stop drawing attention AWAY from
This film emphasizes a larger problem for me, which is that Rottentomatoes aggregates based off of the percentage of critics who give a positive rating vs. all critic reviews accepted. And what you're seeing here is shitloads of 3/5 of 6/10s to be on the positive side [just barely] so reviewers can rest easy and not worry about people accusing them of being mysoginist (because the crew and others have been making this a point for months). I mean, let's take a sampling of reviews:
> Ghostbusters isn't remotely on par with the original, but by no means terrible. Chris Hemsworth steals the film completely.
>Original Score: 2.5/5
>The new film will do well enough. I wouldn't watch it again. Mind you, I wouldn't watch the original Ghostbusters again.
>Original Score: 3/5
> For all its warm-hearted fun, well-crafted thrills, careful nostalgia and girl-powered gadgetry, this fast-paced family film doesn't always feel like a natural fit for Hollywood's favourite genre-bender.
>Original Score: 3/5
These are all considered positive reviews with equal weight to people who said "I WANT TO HAVE FEIG'S BABIES" or "THIS IS THE WORST THING TO HAPPEN SINCE HITLER" in the Tomatometer's scoring. This is not a movie with tons of 4/5 and 5/5 reviews, it's basically just above the waterline of "it's shit" or"it isn't" by RT's standard level.
I think the bigger problem is a lot of critics are like "it isn't as good but it's not the worst?" and if you're trying to enter with no emotional attachment to ghostbusters and be objective, well, you can try but HUMAN BEINGS ARE NOT RATIONAL. We love cinema because we get invested into the story being told/shown to us. When you remake a classic beloved film people WILL COMPARE IT TO THE ORIGINAL. Sure there may be a population of younger people that hasn't seen it, but I'd wager that population is fairly small and young, i.e. their parents will have seen the original.
>>71872218
The smear campaign for the remake is 100% fueled by misogyny. An all male cast would NOT be received this way.
>>71872245
a lot of the reviews on there are literally "9/10 it was okay"
>>71868294
They don't review anything though
>>71872300
One of the bigger problems is when a review is borderline (2.5/5), they don't ASK the critic what the net opinion is but instead guess. Sometimes in a way that seems contrary to the tone of the review as a whole.
Here's an excerpt from a review considered positive by RT:
>Even the spectral Slimer shows up, still devouring hot dogs, but this time with a girlfriend in tow, and a penchant for joyriding – and you can be sure that the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man will get a look in somewhere. All this is pure fan service – and while nostalgia usually plays well to the crowd, the film, if we’re being honest here, comes to a lurching, clunking halt every time one of these avatars of the past puts in a reappearance.
>Several scenes where the Ghostbusters try out Holtzmann’s weapons in the alley behind their offices, and destroy everything in their path along with the bull’s-eye target, perhaps encapsulate the hit-and-miss nature of the comedy here. The humour does not always work, but is blasted so relentlessly at the viewer that the odd good line strikes home.
Basically, a review that says that the film is a huge hit and miss but just lobs tons of shit so the
>odd good line strikes home
Is considered a positive review? What the fuck?
>>71872287
whoa shitlord, hold on, this much feminism cock being shoved down your throat will hurt you
>>71868294
Why does anyone even care? I get that critics can help determine if a movie is for you, but their final word isn't gospel. Just enjoy what you want to enjoy.
>>71868294
>pic unrelated
>>71872300
The reviews are more like "It was a phenomenal ground-breaking experience, the best motion picture of the year 6/10"
>>71872903
Critics are a key part of shitty internet flame wars. I'm pretty sure all the top Sony execs spend their free time on /tv/, so buying up high reviews is essential to their shitposting.
>>71868543
that movie is going to decimate fish populations like after nemo released. everyone wants a similar fish when they are already rare
>>71873097
are you for real? is that an actual thing that happened?
>>71872287
>>71872439
shotgun comedy
>>71872667
Not an argument
>>71873116
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/05/18/finding-nemo-wasnt-so-entertaining-for-real-clownfish-now-conservationists-worry-about-finding-dory/
>>71873116
maybe
>>71872133
That's not how this industry goes. As long as you don't break NDA and such you can compare the entire production to Hitler and you're not gonna be "blacklisted".
>>>/v/
Apologize
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435036/captain-america-superheroes-dumbed-down
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428730/star-wars-demystified
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436732/finding-dory-political-indoctrination-pixar
