What, so now that Ghostbusters is getting good reviews we all suddenly agree that critics are reactionary assholes who are often prone to bandwagoning? What happened, /tv/? Does this also mean Civil War might not objectively be mankind's greatest achievement?
>>71872654
Theatrical cut is still shit
>>71872654
APOLOGIZE
>>71872654
>surprised that nu-male ldealogues are scared of giving it a bad review and just cowtowwing to SJWs
cannot wait for movieslob to defend it
Civil war was fun
>DCucks trying to latch onto Ghostbusters now
Desperation is a hell of a drug
Sony and the cast, among others in Hollywood, have been building a narrative for MONTHS that people who are against the movie are misogynist filth. The critics have been hearing this and rather than poke the beehive by giving it a bad rating, plenty are giving it 2.5/5 or 3/5 (or 6/10) so it gets the fresh tomato instead of the rotten one on the site and people don't accuse them of being part of the misogynist trolls.
The fact that the average review score is 6.6/10 is really telling in this regard, as well as the content of many of the "fresh" reviews not really aligning to the rating.
>>71872723
No it wasn't.
>>71872743
Uh-huh. I'm sure it's a fucking conspiracy.
>>71872731
I don't care about any of this internet drama, just enjoying the butthurt.
>>71872654
they were right about BvS, is shit
>>71872654
>>71872795
I'm not alleging a conspiracy where Sony individually got critics to agree to give it good scores. I'm saying the cast and crew have built up the narrative that if you hate the movie, you're misogynist. Now critics have to decide whether or not they want to potentially face backlash in the court of public opinion over this. Given the number of reviews on RT that are basically
>well it didn't kill my dog so it's okay I guess 2.5/5 FRESH
it's telling that a lot of critics didn't really like the film but rated it marginally positive.
They pushed the review embargo date to the premier of the movie. That's a sign that your early screenings and audience reactions were poor, so you tried to delay the reaction as soon as possible.
The movie is out in some regions but not the US, people don't want to piss off Sony by releasing the reviews early enough to ruin the air date because something doesn't have to be illegal for it to be harmful. Sony's house when it comes to press materials, behind the scenes invites, interviews with actors, etc. - if they do not want to provide these, they don't have to. And if you shit on a film that cost 180M+ to produce to advertise, they aren't going to like you if you upset opening weekend. This applies even if the Embargo doesn't apply
The combination of the two means most people are staying back on the reviews, out of fear of public backlash or Sony essentially blacklisting them.
It's telling that the "Top Critic" reviews (people that Sony can't really afford to blacklist) are much more critical then general reviews, where Sony can easily blacklist those who don't fall in line.
>>71872654
YOU'RE A FUCKING WHITE ALIEN
>>71872939
What movie is this for?
>>71872956
Why don't all studios do this for every movie?
>>71873002
BvS
I don't know if anyone else pointed this out yet but the 2014 remake of Annie was also done by Sony. It's as if that was a low budget movie to test the "you're bigoted if you don't see this movie" marketing campaign before this one.
>>71873168
>in regards to misogyny
Most movies aren't reboots of beloved movies with all female casts.
Having both allows you to say "you liked the original because it had MEN, you hate the new one because it has WOMEN".
Just like Gamergate trolls said stupid shit about women months out and they were able to twist.
>in regards to blacklisting critics
It's hard to pull the card every time, they usually only do it in cases like where the movie cost a shitload of money and they want to salvage the opening weekend to minimize the gigantic loss.
>>71872654
>yfw the DCucks were right all along about the critics
>>71873236
> It's hard to pull the card every time, they usually only do it in cases like where the movie cost a shitload of money and they want to salvage the opening weekend to minimize the gigantic loss
Just not with BvS, though. WB must be saving it for "Fist Fight" with Charlie Day.
civil war was a thousand times better than BvS. Civil war also wasnt that good.
>>71875481
Civil War was a big piece of shit.
>>71872654
Nah, the theatrical cut is shit. The UE is pure capekino. You are correct in that Civil War is also shit.
>>71873456
BvS wasn't an all female reboot
>>71875655
and yet it still managed to be way better than BvS.
>>71876224
The only thing it managed to be was a giant piece of shit.
>>71875743
>The UE is pure capekino
The same film that has a man dressed like a bat hitting an alien in the head with a sink.
>>71875743
The theatratical was a good movies with flaws. The ultimate cut only "correct" the pacing and add more exposition.
Shit movies by your taste okay i guess
But critics were litteraly HATING on the movie like it was acid thrown to their face
>>71872654
>Does this also mean Civil War might not objectively be mankind's greatest achievement?
I've always said CW was shit. Marvel just makes commercials for their products at this point.
>>71876824
>But critics were litteraly HATING on the movie like it was acid thrown to their face
But why. It really wasn't that bad. I've seen movies far worse then this get 60+ scores on RT.
>>71872697
>Bring.
>Hime.
>Home.
The Redditor.
>>71872654
It just means WB didn't bother to bribe reviewers like Sony does.
>>71876891
>>71876941
BvS just had too much alpha masculine qualities to be embraced by "progressive" critics.
>>71872939
>someone actually wrote this
