AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA THE COVERUP IS REAL
44% audience score right now. Who do you trust more?
It's still there though.
>>72007176
No way it went from like 40% 12 hours ago to 75%
>still showing as 72%, 24 fresh, 9 rotten
>even though there are actually 19 rotten top critic reviews when clicking on the top critics
it should be 42%.
I hope all the marvelshits have now realised how awful their disneytomato website is
>>72007176
They actualy managed to get people in cinema for this? What the fuck is wrong with you people? Why would you pay to see a bad movie, then rant how bad it is? You have just been fucked!
They dont give a shit about your opinion, you already gave them all they wanted when you bought fucking ticket, wake up!
>>72007176
Fuck off.
This is one of the best movies of this decade.
ayyy
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ghostbusters-is-a-perfect-example-of-how-internet-ratings-are-broken/
>>72007567
Amen sister! Go see the movie misogynist cunts! We want sequel!
>>72007621
>INSPIRE Rope
Is this a new movement to promote killing yourself?
>>72007176
>rotten tomatoes isn't corrupt they said
>BvS sucks they said
>>72007176
>The beginning was a little slow and the jokes weren't that funny, but it got better.
>Rate it 5/5
Jesus fucking Christ this people is retarded!!!
>>72007654
>BvS sucks they said
it does suck.
Only people that want to feel superior for liking something not popular like it.
>>72007652
inspire rape
>>72007614
Thank Mr. Silver
They're going after critics now
GoobyGrub has friends in high placeS!!!!
L M A O
It's real
I can't wait for the Armond White review desu ne
>>72007614
Nate Bronze is a dumb faggot who's been getting BTFO nonstop all year
>>72007207
This. Top Critics is 73%
>>72007695
Kys pls
>>72007750
Jesus christ...
>>72007614
>>72007695
it wasnt great, but it wasn't like i would leave a theater in the middle of the movie bad.
>>72007750
Isn't that from the woman who gave it a 10/10 but in her review she never actually talked about the movie's merits itself just the glory of feminism and how all the people who dislike the movie are sexist men?
100% serious question here /tv/
What do they expect to gain by circling the wagons around such a terrible movie?
Do they not realize it sets a low bar for future films?
Do they bit realize that the next production will be -even worse- because they'll cut even more corners to gauge how much they can get away with?
I'm too cynical to believe they're this stupid. They MUST be paid to shill it. Otherwise they're genuinely taken for a ride by marketers actively harming their 'noble' cause.
>>72007176
BTFO HATERS HAHAHAHA
>>72007918
>What do they expect to gain by circling the wagons around such a terrible movie?
money
>>72007918
If it makes money then it's fine
>>72007918
It's the final battle of the culture wars
>>72007846
Reminder that this was entirely reasonable given the information available
Is this still accurate?
>>72007176
But remember: the uncut KINO edition will save this movie when it releases
>>72007981
The only thing you need to tell you your cause is fucked and you need to reevaluate is when Dobson supports you.
>>72007986
No, it wasn't. Anyone with half a brain could have come to the conclusion that Trump was being extremely underestimated.
538 is a very shitty outlet. It has been consistently wrong for the past year because Nate Silver and those other clowns can't get over their own biases.
>>72007201
Seeing as most of those people haven't seen it, critics.
>>72007836
why are you so old Bill? Please don't die ;_;
>>72007176
>OP in charge of not being a faggot
>>72007750
Men have traditionally hunted ghosts? Man, what have I been doing with my life?
>>72007918
>What do they expect to gain by circling the wagons around such a terrible movie?
If it works they know they can influence a movie's box office by actively insulting it's audience and 'shaming' them into coming.
They tried the same thing with that Amy Schumer movie trainwreck but the results were inconclusive.
>Standard boilerplate fat girl wish fulfillment fantasy romantic comedy
>IF YOU DON'T LIKE THIS MOVIE YOU HATE WOMEN
>movie moderately successful
>Data corrupted because a disturbed male who hated the marketing shot up the theater
>>72008052
>538 is a very shitty outlet. It has been consistently wrong for the past year because Nate Silver and those other clowns can't get over their own biases.
Could you be a bit more concrete? Anyone can spout this shit about anything.
>>72008053
>Critics have Agenda
>Audience score have agenda
The correct answer is 2nd week takings.
>>72008074
nice try but this is the real score
>>72007986
Then why did people like Scott Adams predict the exact opposite months before those articles went up?
>>72007953
It's dropped even worse
>B-b-but it's got "Certified Fresh" Ratings
>Y-YOU'RE JUST A BUNCH OF MANBABIES
>F-FUCKING SHITLORDS
Good. White men a bully pulpit for thousands of years. We've been telling them to dial it back for Fifty, stop killing black kids over nothing, great women like human fucking beings.
Guess what? They haven't gotten the message.
The hateful criticism directed as this movie is coming from all the usual white male suspects. Everyone with a conscience is honestly sick and tired of hearing their shit. Time to start shutting them down so at least they won't warp anybody else to their backwards views and steal the spotlight from four brave girls bad enough to give white America the finger.
>>72008114
>The correct answer is 2nd week takings.
As silly as seeing everything get a B- or above like a bunch of dumb kids at an elite prep school, CinemaScore does a good job of predicting box office.
>>72007981
>The Ghostbusters movie reception is the final, universal verdict on feminism
Jesus Christ. It's sickening that people think this way
>>72008129
KEK it's funny how the DC fans thought Disney was bribing people to give Marvel a high score while also bribing to give DC films a low score and now both Marvel and DC fans believe Sony are bribing critics to give Ghostbusters a high score.
>>72007176
jay sherman has the only review and the last review anyone needs to hear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VuGSzJfRco
>>72008112
Sure, it started with the UK elections. 538 declared a Labour win, then got blown the fuck out.
Next, you have the entire US presidential election with 538 being wrong about Trump at EVERY single opportunity. Nate himself was crying on Twitter how he's being haunted by Trump.
And not just that, there was a colossal fuckup on the Democrat side in the Michigan primaries that absolutely humiliated 538.
538 is out of touch and still hasn't adjusted itself to call things correctly. This will likely go all the way until November when Nate finally kills himself after Trump is elected.
>saw movie on wednesday
>didn't hate it
how do I avoid being ripped apart
>>72008149
sorry mate but right now as I look at my screen it is at a 73%. Nice bait
>>72008192
post what you liked about it
>>72008192
You hated it, you're just being guilted into not admitting that you did.
>>72008160
I don't want predictions.
I want to see final figures.
That's the best way to know how audiences really reacted.
>DCucks still mad about critics destroying that piece of shit
>>72007918
The critics liking it don't care about quality, they care about their agenda.
People like them are why film criticism has become complete and utter shit for the most part and it was never great to begin with.
>>72007176
>Banned in China
Literally the only place where any shit film can squeeze money out from.
JUST
>>72008156
There are people that take this seriously, and its over a movie reboot about catching CGI ghosts with proton beam backpacks.
>>72008192
When you say "didn't hate it" that makes it sound mediocre, which is about how most people are rating it, even when they give it "good" ratings.
>LOVED IT, though the editing sucked
>BEST MOVIE EVER, though there was no cast chemistry and it wasn't funny
>I PISSED MYSELF LAUGHING, but the CGI was shit
>>72007750
These days I'm having trouble deciding wether or not WaPo is worse than HuffPo.
>>72008172
>he thinks only one company is capable of bribery
>The Ghostbusters movie reception is the final, universal verdict on feminism
So a colossal failure then?
APOLOGIZE
>>72008210
i went in with fairly low expectations but was pleasantly surprised
>all the characters were enjoyable, a cast led by McCarthy doesn't seem like it would be but no one was annoying
>referenced the original without being TOO on the nose
>decent laughs throughout, no jokes fell flat
>Chris Hemsworth was 10/10
>some creative effects especially towards the end
it's definitely a movie that if you go in expecting to hate, you will find reasons to, but if you're open minded it's pretty fun
>>72008280
it was more of a fun movie if not necessarily a great one
>>72008296
Eh, maybe it's not that serious. It's more of a case of feminists thinking they're invincible and hence picking the wrong battles.
>>72008313
>247 rotten
WHYYYYYYYYYYY
>>72008190
>538 declared a Labour win, then got blown the fuck out.
Did they decisively say "this will happen" or simply report percentages?
>Next, you have the entire US presidential election with 538 being wrong about Trump at EVERY single opportunity.
Link something please.
>And not just that, there was a colossal fuckup on the Democrat side in the Michigan primaries that absolutely humiliated 538.
And how did they do with the other states?
Given the amount of predictions they made, it's easy to cherrypick a few instances where they were wrong. That's statistics for you.
>>72008334
Shill.
>>72008313
Apologize
>>71980504
>>72008334
I am probably going to wait until the Extended cut releases and then buy that (since I own the Extended cut of Spy and really enjoy that).
>>72008334
That's reasonable enough, though obviously the decent laughs part will be very subjective between people. I've heard others say all the humor is incredibly forced and a lot of people overplay their part.
>>72008359
They make predictions.
>Link something please.
see
>>72007846
>>72008374
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hcSpSC8T0M
>>72008336
To be fair the theatrical release was butchered in the editing room.
But there is also a fair share of pic related.
>>72008397
L M A O
>>72008425
Why are women allowed to make reviews like this?
>>72008377
No leg to stand on? You haven't exactly contributed anything.
Me asking for >>72008052
to defend extreme vague claims != endorsing 538
>>72007301
>marvelshits
>disneytomato
Stfu cuck
>>72008384
that's not a bad idea, one of the biggest issues is there's weird editing at times and there's a lot of scenes cut awkwardly short/scenes shorter than a minute that serve only a minor purpose
>>72008390
the actors all play the kind of characters you expect them to (McCarthy is excitable smart oaf, Wiig is uptight, etc) i'm kinda glad they went all out with their characters, Ghostbusters is meant to be a bit ridiculous and muted characters wouldn't really fit into that
So what is the opening day box office? Will they release the results?
>>72008112
I'm not the other guy but every one of those articles paints Trump as something that needs to be stopped and gives hope that something new can defeat him in each one, or wishfully believing that he is showing some signs of slowing down.
Some far left media did the same with articles about how Bernie can beat Hillary, framing Bernie as a better alternative.
538 is garbage and Nate was clearly wishing against Trump for the last year. /pol/ is doing the same thing for Trump now in the general, even though it's quite clear Hillary will win, but they aren't a "reputable" source.
>>72008467
After the weekend, having been skewed by early international release.
>>72008425
>Getting a BA in Flick Filosphy
>Not doing your 4 year residency in the Gobi Desert to be a practicing kinosurgeon
Fucking millennials
>>72008192
I didnt hate it either, but theres a problem in that, its not bad enough to recommend to see how much they fucked up and its not good enough to recommend as its own movie, I have no desire to revisit it at all, I can still watch the original Ghostbusters and have a laugh even today, the new movie has a completely different tone from the original and is more slapstick than sarcastic dry humour, the actors have no chemistry in what is essentially an ensemble movie.
It was by no means a trainwreck, but it was so weak that it is just going to be a footnote people in future will look at and say "there was a Ghostbusters reboot?" like the Robocop remake, its not awful, but its just really fucking lame and has no character of its own, its riding on a brand name and has nothing particularly interesting going for it in acting, script, direction setting or music. Theres nothing to take away from this.
5/10. The worst score in my opinion is this kind of score. The "forgettable" rung of movie scores.
>>72008485
>even though it's quite clear Hillary will win
Someone hasn't seen the new polls
>>72008170
>what are jokes
>>72008466
>Ghostbusters is meant to be a bit ridiculous and muted characters wouldn't really fit into that
Sure, but in the original the world felt real. Best description I can find for this film is that it's like they mixed it with a cartoon.
>>72008456
Straight from Nate Tin himself:
>I didn't read the polls and made predictions based on biased reasoning
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/
>>72008485
Trump hasn't spent anything on the general campaign yet and he's barely behind. If he can match even half her spending, she's done.
>>72008466
That reminds me of Sam Raimi's Spiderman 1. There is some scenes that were a few seconds longer but they decided to cut it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHjkaA7i3VI
>>72007176
Is there a site to rate reviews?
>>72008595
It's amazing to witness
>>72008531
i agree with most of those complaints. mostly i just wonder if this movie would be getting the same amount of hate if it was it's own Specterstoppers original IP instead of a reboot, or if it would just slip through the cracks/get popular
>>72007176
Bill Murray cameos as a scientist that doesn't believe in ghosts. He is later killed by the ghosts
>>72007981
But nearly every box office analyst predicts it to be in a near tie with The Secret Life of Pets.
The only way Ghostbusters will debut at the top of the box office is if moms force their kids to sit through it, rather than taking them to see the animated talking animal film.
>>72008397
A prediction with what confidence?
>>72008567
Isn't this the most honest thing someone can do? Admit when they're wrong about something and adjust their behavior based on new information? Sounds very Bayesian to me. Your greentext makes it sound like you didn't read the entire article or at least interpreted it based on the title.
>>72008710
>adjust his behavior
He's now telling Trump's best option is to pick a hardcore social conservative for VP to win.
He talked about how he was generally right but that's not enough since every outlet was generally right in the past and his selling point was that he could call close races.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OG83qBuQ_A8
>>72008788
Why is this being spammed in every single Ghostbusters thread?
Why are plebs pretending to care about film criticism now?
For years you iqlets called Brody and White pretentious and anyone that agreed with them hipsters. Has your taste film improved now or are you still the tasteless drones you were when you cried hipster and that fun should be allowed since film is supposed to be """entertainment"""
or is this another excuse to shitpost and stay away from developing better taste again?
>>72008059
Don't worry, hell be fine
Why are so many faggot desperate to prove its a bomb. On the same par as the faggots desperate to prove its a hit.
Its a fucking film, just dont go and see it. I'm not going to see it because it looks wank but I'm not gonna sit and cry as if its a fucking war between SJWs and NEETs.
When you faggots go outside someday you will realise there really arent that many overt SJWs in public at all.
>>72007176
The real show of how bad it is is that it's the only movie I've ever seen on RT where the audience score is lower than the critics and not just a little, it's like half of what the critics gave it.
>>72008842
There's not many overt ones, but that's because of internalized SJWism that our society promotes.
>>72008842
It's trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls senpai.
You're one of those impressionable dum dums who take it too seriously.
>>72008635
He doesn't need to spend as much since he is an icon. Everyone knows about him to an extent. He has always been somewhat relevant.
>>72009075
As opposed to Hillary Fucking Clinton, a literally who that no one knows?
C'mon son.
>>72007465
Agreed people also need to wake up and see rotten tomato is a comprised website now, anything they say is good people will go to.
>>72008824
Noooooooo ;_;
>>72007176
damn /pol/ was right again and I hate to admit it
>>72009121
What did /pol/ say?
>>72009075
But at the same time so is she.
People knew who Hillary was since her Husband was President. She and Donnie are about as relevant as one another. The only difference is people both hate and love Donald enough to never stop talking about him. People are aware of Hillary but most people don't really expect much from her. Trump is either the end of the world or the salvation of America. Hillary is just not Trump.
>>72009140
>>72009102
Yeah, I wasn't saying Hillary isn't an icon, just that trump has always been around and is now constantly being talked about by both sides.
Back to Ghostbusters 2016. Fuck that movie.
>>72008276
>Catching
>>72007981
Jesus fucking Christ, how can people take this crap so damn seriously? Reading comments like that, and the way people are parading this movie around like the messiah of Hollywood, you'd think this film is like 'The Birth of a Nation', 'Citizen Kane' or 'Schindler's List' or some shit. ...Nope, it's a flick about bustin' ghosts and shooting them in the dick. Bravo.
>>72009189
Clintons have always been around too.
It's okay to admit that Trump is running a lean campaign that puts seasoned politicians to shame, man. It's fine.
>>72007854
this
To say BvS sucks means you haven't watched the movie or didn't give it the light of day. It is more accurate to call it mediocre or underwhelming. Then again, I assume the initial disappointment would be much greater for someone who hyped themselves up for it, didn't see no spoilers, and were then let down by Zack 'The Hack' Snyder, as I was.
>>72009294
pleb
>>72007981
I wonder if white knights like Dobson are going to support this movie financially or are they going to expect others to do it for them. Likes and upvotes are easier to make than buying a cinema ticket.
>>72009294
apologize
>>71980504
>>72009323
>are they going to expect others to do it for them.
That one
>>72009294
The early reports from Zack saying it would be too smart for most audiences.
>>72007981
Why has this inflation loving faggot not killed himself yet?
>>72009524
He feeds off your tears, goobergoyim
>>72008462
>muh cuck
marvelshit btfo
>>72007981
These people do love inflating the importance of this one unwanted remake.
>>72009781
What was Zelda's tweet about?
>The blinding, brain-smacking mayhem can't wipe out the movie's core of good feeling. Even after the action goes bust, the film's gifted stars continue to radiate their own nuclear-powered, Amazonian brand of bonhomie.
Michael Sragow
Film Comment Magazine
What that mean?
>>72007986
It was legitimately wasn't. Nate has come out and said he was wrong and he made mistakes by refusing to incorporate data that WAS available to him simply because he was of the opinion that It didn't matter.
>>72009781
>Dobson
What a faggot.
>>72007621
>>72007652
>>72007736
DAY OF THE RAPE WHEN
>>72009835
Her dad died
>>72008076
this, I could have had a job
>>72009905
It's not too late, we should get together.
>>72007836
Why does bill Murray looks so shrunken?! he didn't look so bad in space jam
>>72009962
ok you be Sam, I'm Dean
>>72007981
>Cohen
/pol/ is always right. Fucking shekel grubbers
>>72009989
What?
>>72007750
>>72007981
holy fucking christ I want off this ride. Trump save us.
>>72009969
Bill Murray is like a penis, and right now he's flaccid.
>>72010035
I was getting a supernatural vibe. Guys hunting ghosts...
>>72010009
>Fucking shekel grubbers
That particular merchant obviously isn't good with handling his monies and influence.
>>72010074
>Guys hunting ghosts...
Yeah, like hunting ghosts inside each other's pants, no thanks.
>>72010117
looks like the hunt for a Sam continues.
The critic gets to choose if the 2.5/4 they turn in is a fresh or a rotten. The actual ratings given for critic reviews stamped fresh for this film are largely around a C, even when they're attached to review titles talking about how great it is.
Ok guys what if
Hear me out here
Just what ifThe movie's not that bad?
>>72009781
>inflating
>>72010176
So its an average movie, which is the worst place to sit with a reboot because its forgettable. Noone can be naive enough to think this will be a really good movie, its a blatant reboot cash grab, when has such cynicism made for a genuinely good movie.
>>72007176
>44% audience score
>4.0/10 IMDB
>banned in China
I am going to end my life today.
>>72010176
It's not that bad.
It's also not that good.
The reason people are hoping it bombs is so that it can send a message to Sony and other producers that they can't just keep blindly rebooting everything they have the rights to until they strike oil and have a new 'super franchise cinematic universe'
Ghostbusters was practically guaranteed to succeed as long as they didn't fuck up. But they created a separate continuity from the classic and put all their eggs in one basket when they decided to take the internet trolls head on and call everyone who hated the movie a misogynist.
>>72010272
No, don't do it, Feig.
>>72008125
click of the top critics reviews and look at each review, it really has 19 bad reviews
>>72010176
I just want it to bomb so studios don't see pic related as a valid tactic to exploit anymore.
>>72010282
>they can't just keep blindly rebooting everything they have the rights to until they strike oil and have a new 'super franchise cinematic universe'
Jesus christ this
Every studio thinks they're sitting on their own untapped version of the MCU.
Watching them all (particularly sony) scramble to try and set them up and fail miserably each time isn't enough to justify these crappy reboots anymore.
What's next? A gritty Doug reboot that tries to stir up excitement for the DC universe by adding Quailman to the Justice League?
>>72007846
>Donald Trump Is The Nickelback Of GOP Candidates
What did they mean by this?
>>72007981
>Geeks and Nerds are not a minority group
Maybe because media has set the bar very low for "geek" and "nerd"
>>72010928
He meantHey college students, you haven't heard of me yet but I'm the statistical magician that predicted all of the races in the last election. I'm hip with your memes and hate nazis like Donald Drumpf! Stick around and provide ad revenue for me!
>>72007201
Holy shit, that's awesome. Fuck this movie.
>>72007176
spookino confirmed
>>72010990
Its true, you can make everything look like kino if you put it in black and white and translate the name to french
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EImwBEZLeP0JAJAJAJAJAJAJAAJ
>>72010990
If I was ever to make a movie I would make it in black and white simply because it makes literally anything look good. That looks like a whole other movie.
>>72011082
Cherrypicking shots also helps. If all the squares were the ghostbusters making dumb faces then it wouldn't be kino
>>72011118
Fair point, nitpick the scenes where they are saying things in deadpan manner instead, I saw the movie, theres alot of that.
>>72007981
>original feminists of the 20th century are thrown into the shitstorm that is Ghostbusters (2016)
hilarious.
>>72007176
>42% rotten tomatoes score with the top critics
Wew.
What's interesting about the ratings is that for the audience, it specifies that it needs to be 3.5/5 or higher to be considered positive, but for critics it just has to be generally positive, and when you look at the "fresh" critic ratings, they're often 2.5 and 3/5.
>>72011359
Actually i think it's the critics themselves that decide wether their reviews are to be counted as positive or not. That's why a 2.5/5 can be both
>>72007176
>Check score at the top
>9 rotten
>Check the actual reviews
>19 rotten
Yeah, nothing fishy going on here.
>>72011146
Pretty interesting. I could see it working
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urGNDYR6Xyo
>>72008597
I remember a lot of scenes in the trailer during the day and with the spider-man suit and then in the movie they were during the night and with the wrestling suit
>It's OK. It's not a disaster. And it doesn't vindicate the naysayers. This film fails to fly not because it stars women, but because that's the only good idea it had.
>>72007176
This can't be real
>>72011659
Nah, they'll use the "sexist pigs sabotaged us" tactic, like they used the "racists pigs sabotaged us" with F4 and Annie
>>72010272
take me with you
>>72007176
they should put a notification when you click top critics which says
"OH TOP CRITICS HUH? YOU A MISOGYNIST? WHY YOU NEED TOP CRITICS FOR? YOU PIG! FUCK YOU. FUUUUUUUUCK YOOOUUUUUUU"
>>72007750
You could switch all those women with super popular men actors and id feel the exact same about the movie. It just doesnt look good. It looks like a shit reboot.
The film's ok. Maybe a little worse than Ghostbusters 2. Just tries too hard to pander to the original with 'subtle' references, and the jokes kind of fall flat.
I don't understand the shit-slinging going on here. It's a bit silly to get all riled up by a movie.
I mean if you want a better Ghostbusters 3, go play Ghostbusters: The Videogame
>>72011816
I wouldn't say they're particularly popular women actresses. An equivalent would be if they took successful men who normally star in quirky romantic comedies and put them in Ghostbusters.
>>72007953
>freewheeling marveleously cast
>not as good as the other two
>>72011844
this is the newest shill tactic atm
nothing else worked so now theyre down to "eh its ok"
their ceiling at this point is this movie being able to be considered "meh"
>>72007176
>2.5 metacritic
That's a little too harsh imo. but it's 4/10 at best tbqh
>>72008156
>white male suspects
Latino male here. I seriously dislike the movie. What now?
>>72008280
>mfw every positive review is basically this isnt a good movie and the cast have no chemisty but 8/10 i liked it.
Ugh, gamergate is at it again...
>>72011845
My point being the script was the biggest issue. To spin it into hating women if you think the movie looks bad. Is just downright evil.
>>72010719
This was making me real nettled until I got to the retard label. I wish there were more things like this where the hollywood liberals who take part in social justice warrior bullying are labelled for who they are and what they do. I don't want to accidentally support one of these fuckers in any way.
>>72009887
So Dobby tells her to calm her tits? Surely not. This seems more recent than that, Femthor wasn't around when Robin died, was she?
>>72008194
73 is all critics, you fucking tard.
>>72007854
Very few things are that bad though. Like the only things I know of that are on that level would be something like the Fred movie.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1595842/
>negative reviews written by males
>intelligent and articulate
>negative reviews written by females
>i-it's bad but not that bad, you sexist shitlords
Makes you think
Checked out some reviews due to curiosity.
It's weird, the positive rated ones aren't very positive.
From Rolling stone:
>A subplot about a victim of bullying (Neil Casey) who uses the paranormal to take vengeance on a cruel world is too much of a middling thing. And Feig, clearly enamored of the miracles of new technology, leans way too hard on the VFX pedal. By the last third, Ghostbusters is so awash in digital dizziness you can hardly see the characters for the megapixels.That's a shame, because the four actresses are something to see, capable of maneuvering through dead spots in the script like the pros they are.
>Slime Ghostbusters all you want for its lazy reliance on CGI gimmicks and its lapses in pacing — but there's no faulting the ladies.
>2.5/4
>>72010985
have fun staying mad manchild
>>72007918
>What do they expect to gain by circling the wagons around such a terrible movie?
Attention.
>>72009104
>rotten tomato is a compromised website now
Honey, its been compromised for several years now.
>>72012540
Comprised*
>>72012442
that's literally the same thing that happened to the theatrical cut of BvS except that every reviewer chose to set their review as "rotten".
>>72007176
It doesn't matter If misogynist manbabies give GB low scores, in China it will be a huge hit.
>>72012442
>you can hardly see the characters for the megapixels
Haha what? Megapixels are nothing to do with CGI
>>72012759
It's banned on China shillpai
>>72007621
I literally read INSPIRE PEPE in the thumbnail
>>72012759
It's banned in China tho
>>72008425
>...fascist, even.
can we stop giving literally who's on twitter attention pls
>>72012759
China won't allow movies that deal with the undead or ghosts. They either censor that stuff out or they ban it.
After what they did to the main theme I'm not going to watch it
>>72008446
Because no sane man would fuck a woman who can't shut up about MUH SEXISM, so they have to let out their sexual frustrations.
>>72007621
>empower women
>inspire rape
I am in support of this movement.
>>72012791
>>72012802
>missing the joke
>>72012887
you got it backwards. Because no one will fuck them, they turn to sexism, feminism, and identity politics.
>>72007981
Sounds like a troll. How delusional all you people? I'm surrounded by "SJWs" and not a single one of them gives a fuck how this movie does at the box office. RIght now they're a lot more concerned with BLM and Trump's possible presidency. All the nerdy ones are talking about Pokemon Go. Stop trying to turn this into some stupid culture war that only exists in your head.
>>72012759
>retarded autists are going to take the bait, guaranteed
>>72012924
As long this goes down as another piece of evidence women are not funny and comedies should not be made around them we win the next time your anecdotal SJW make it their flavor of the month.
>>72012963
tips
>how dare you call us privileged basement dwelling manbabies?
>acts like privileged basement dwelling manbabies by getting this worked up over a stupid fucking movie as if they don't have real things in life to worry about
>>72012975
cool story m8
>>72012985
We are just adding this to the collection of undeniable evidence women are not funny and lose you money, no more no less
sorry
>>72012985
No one in the first world has anything real to worry about. It's why first world politics are such a mess/joke.
>>72013011
And instead of letting the movie speak for itself you decide to spam dislikes on videos and 1/10 on imdb?
>>72007301
holy shit i thought this was just memeing, but it's true
what the fuck?
how have sony done this?
>>72010990
german title of 'Der Geistjäger' sounds better to me
>>72013067
Sorry you internet queer strawman shit does not matter. The film will speak for itself today and the normies don't care about internet critics just as they would cringe if they read the SJW drivel we are getting from the positive reviews being spammed with the most soggy knee bullshit we have seen in a long time.
>the movie is mediocre but its a shot to the balls of white man I love it.
>>72013084heißt es nicht "Die Geisterjäger", weil es mehrere sind ?
If this shit gets trough with good reviews and +-0 in earnings nothing will remain holy to them .
It will dissolve into a shitstorm of unknown proportions
>>72009887
>King Harkinian is dead
>>72007953
Why do you think 73% is a good score? In modern ratings 7/10 means average
>>72012442
>but there's no faulting the ladies.
What he did he mean?
If its for McCarthy & Co he would write "actresses".
But he wrote "ladies", it reads as "women".
Sorry if its reads "Better than mediocre because female leads" i cant respect it as better or constuctive than viewers rating "1".
>>72013084
Dont know if he relates it to hemsworth. The pic looks like he is the only ghostbuster.But yes "Die Geisterjäger" would be correct. Better than write "die ghostbusters" kek
>fucking white males
>>72007614
> Internet user review scores
> shows were people on the Internet think of a movie
> they hate it
Seems like it's working as intended
>>72014634
>brobabiez
When I read bro(insertinsulthere) I don't think of the average geeks who criticized this movie. I think of Chad Thundercock. Do they really think Chads are the ones burying this movie?
Any news on the midnight release numbers?
Usually every summer blockbuster touts how great it was, but haven't seen anything yet.
Odd.
>>72014634
>MTV
Their network is for people to hate-watch these days, so of course they were going to post something like that.
>>72014675
Its a Freudian slip that they hate masculinity because they get no chad thundercock like most feminist.
I checked the reserve seating all the way out to next Friday in Baltimore MD at Lowes and Cinemark (our two largest theaters) and there is none as in no one has reserved shit.
>>72014634
I read the rest of it for curiosity, it's even worse. I don't think I saw anything of criticism in the article that wasn't blamed on soggy knees.
>female critics
How the fuck is it that Ghostbusters has a lower Average Score AND Fresh% but is "Certified Fresh" while "The Infiltrator" is not?
God Rotten Tomatoes is a shit system
>>72007301
This is sony you unbridled cuck
Plenty of Disney movies have gotten shitty reviews this year
>>72012194
No, that is basically it.
>>72014971
Because """""""critics""""""" opinions matter so much
>>72014971
What the fuck. Now THAT is bullshit. If you have to worm and twist the facts to look good then its just contradictory to your argument, because its an act, its not actually good.
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/07/real-men-confirm-the-new-ghostbusters-didnt-ruin-their-childhoods-after-all
>>72015066
Its because he has Top Critics only (which desu you should always do with Rotten Tomatoes)
Many of the other critics bitched that Infiltrator was "too boring and predictable", which is probably due to the fact its BASED ON A TRUE STORY
>>72014971
Did you really think they were going to allow ghostbusters to be seen as bad after they've spent the last year antagonizing men?
>>72007465
Except barely anyone is going to see it, judging by the posts on theater attendance.
>>72015176
>Tfw I have a pass for a free movie
>Probably going to see Cranston's new movie
>Ghostbusters starts 5mins after Cranston's should end
>Thinking about theater hopping to see if its as bad as it seems
>Worried I might get outed as the only one in the theater
>>72008156
Cherokee Nation reporting in. I thought it was hackneyed bullshit.
>>72014992
Those movies weren't Disney's top priority. Disney needed their cape shitfest to succeed deter competition from WB and Fox
>>72007176
Studios want this movie to succeed because it will mean they can make a bunch of all female and or minority remakes of good films. Without even trying.
Feminists, the retarded sheep that they are, are supporting this movie solely because it has women. Just like minorities usually go to see something if it has an actor form their country of origin or skin color.
Everyone should want this movie to fail, or say its shit if it actually is. Because then Hollywood will have to start trying to come up with new ideas, not look for work to rehash.
>>72015644
Choctaw here, man you Cherokee are fucking dumb. You can't spot an obvious troll.
3.4 MILLION
.
4
M
I
L
L
I
O
N
