Who will be the first critic to ruin the 100%?
Armond?
>>68244294
If that faggot ruins the %100 we know it's because he's a contrarian faggot at this point.
Zachary Sneider
>>68244294
His reviews aren't counted in top critics because he's a meme contrarian.
>>68244459
kek
>>68244359
>at this point
he's been a contrarian his entire career how fucking new can you be?
glib facsimile
They're all paid
https://es.scribd.com/doc/308457900/Tweet-List
>>68244667
oh, there are people that actually believe this.
>>68244667
>I have here in my hand a list of two hundred and five people that were known to the Head editor-in-chief of Rotten Tomatoes as having taken payment from Disney, and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the Critic's Consensus!
>>68244294
>>68244294
Armond got kicked out of RT years ago once Ebert withdrew his defense of his contrarianism after he praised Transformers 2.
Lurk more, newfag.
>>68244801
I agree with this poster! Disney are a reputable company, and the spurious accusation Disney would ever engage in unscrupulous business practices such as bribery is hilarious. Disney have a long history of family friend values. These DCuckolds, as they are called, are just rectally infuriated by the superior quality of Disney's movies. Captain America: Civil War (in cinemas May 6th) is going to be absolutely epic!
Disney totally buys reviews
right dcbros
>>68244914
The irony of your post is that although Joe McCartney's methods, his aggressiveness, rudeness, overall offensiveness, might be criticized, history has shown he was corrected that the US State of Department was overrun with Soviet spies. What's the line of argument here?
>disney would never do that
>movie reviewers aren't corrupt
???
>>68244294
it's probably shit , just like age of ultron. last good cape shit was dark knight
>>68245365
Delete this
>>68245456
BvS*
>>68245365
The fact that movie got 50% should prove they do. It deserves way less. It's also different when a whole multi billion dollar franchise rests on its the public remaining receptive to their particular brand over a direct competitor.
>>68245365
>Tomorrowland is STILL at 50% despite how trash it is
Even paid shills have their limits.
>>68245505
If Disney buys reviewers how come nobody has spilled the beans that they tried to hire them? Would be massive clickbait to expose disney.
aka, give me some real proof.
>>68244955
GO
BACK
TO
>>68245505
Considering BvS still got 27% they must have paid their fare share of reviewers to be kind too.
>>68245536
Contracts, and also, give it time. Consider the NSA. Everyone knew the government was spying on everyone, but if you said it, you were a conspiracy nut. It was plainly obvious. They managed to keep that secret for a long time. It was just obvious, though, the same way this is obvious.
>no no disney just make such fuggin ebin movies xDDDD
Shill or Reddit? I don't even like DC. I fucking hate everything like a true /tv/ patrician.
>>68244294
Do they round up? Like if there are 250 reviews and 1 is negative, would it still be 100%?
>>68245659
>Disney is as powerful as the NSA
Better watch out Anon, I hear the Goof Troop murder-rape dissidents.
>>68245734
Disney is the world's second largest media conglomerate. It's more powerful than the NSA. That's not even conspiracy or exaggeration. It's literally a fact. I hope you're a shill because otherwise you're retarded. Disney are capable of far more heinous practices than bribing reviewers, and in fact Tarantino was on the Howard Stern show talking about how badly they jewed him when Star Wars came out around the same time as Django Unchained.
>>68245427
Not that guy but I disagree completely, how exactly did history show he was correct? There will always be spies in some capacity, what McCarthy was arguing for was a complete infiltration of the US government, which simply isn't true.
On the other hand, it's obvious a large part of critics work in a symbiotic relationship with the studies, the idea that they somehow function isolated is ridiculous.
>>68244546
Not his ENTIRE career; early on he did some real shit.
>The company was created by Senh Duong and since January 2010 has been owned by Flixster, which itself was acquired in 2011 by Warner Bros.
So even though WB owns Rotten Tomatoes, somehow Disney is paying them off? To shoot their own franchise in the foot?
>>68245930
But why is there no proof then?
>>68244955
I take it you like London has Fallen?
>>68246101
RT don't produce the reviews, they just collect them.
>>68245997
The Venona Project shows the extent of the infiltration, and it was every bit as immense as McCarthy argued. It shouldn't even need demonstrating when someone beloved of the administration like Alger Hiss was shown to be a spy. McCarthy was right. It was a willful blindness by people then, and it's the same one now, because the people in the universities, in the media, and on the left of government are all vaguely committed to Marxist ideals, and McCarthy is a bad, evil, wicked man for daring to call them on it.
>>68246368
So you claim something without any kind of proof of who and what departments were supposedly infiltrated? Got it.
>>68246279
You seem to have missed the point.
All that 100% means is that 14 people liked the movie
>>68246493
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Americans_in_the_Venona_papers
There you go, dipshit. I'll do your homework because you're a lazy cunt who'd rather remain deluded and believing the shit he's told is true, a commitment I'm sure you'll stick to so steadfastly you'll find some braindead reason to balk at the staggering number of government officials who were shown to have connections to the Soviet Union.
>>68244294
They kicked Armond off RT because he goes against consensus. Makes you wonder what the point of the site actually is.
>>68245365
post Age Of Ultron
>>68244982
your newfag is showing
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/critic/armond-white/
T O P C R I T I C
O
P
C
R
I
T
I
C
A storm is brewing
I'm related to a reviewer who got over $5000 worth in "gifts" along with her press screening ticket just for Civil War. And that just the gift basket, dunno what else they gave her.
A contract signed before (sometime around 2013) by her and probably other reviewers forbids her to mention the "gifts" or disclose the contract itself, along with asking them add the word "fun" to their reviews of marvel movies and to give disfavorable mentions to films that directly compete with the Marvel features.
The thing is that as long as the movies are actually "fun" they don't mind. It will take for a major disaster in some new Marvel movie for some of them to actually turn on Disney and disclose the shenanigans going on.
When this happens, its over for the mouse and probably for the "film journalism" industry as well, as she told me this kinds of deals go back to the 90s when Disney needed to regain the monopoly on animation features.
>>68246776
Your friend huh? FOH, faggot, like any one would be stupid enough to buy this shit. On fucking 4chan, nonetheless
>>68246776
my dad works for nintendo
>>68245365
because that's the movie that made them buy all the reviews after John Carter and Lone Ranger were massive flops
hell, just wait and see how Pirates Of The Caribbean 5 will be over 75% and "a breath of fresh air and the best one since the original"
>>68246719
But Age of Ultron was good. Yes it had flaws but having flaws does not mean a movie is bad or every movie would be bad.
It's 75% fresh, 6.7/10 average is right on the money for accuracy.
This thread is so fucking shit. Capeshit ruined this board.
>>68246921
Age of Ultron was dogshit. It was the same exact thing we've seen, except staler and with an even more generic plot. You can literally cannot justify 75% fresh for that piece of shit unless you are getting paid.
>>68246776
Nobody believes you
>>68247042
I believe him.
>>68246660
it says on that page that they still don't know what kind of if any degree of involvement anyone on that list had, what kind of proof is that
>>68247168
You're right. :^) There isn't a Marxist Globalist agenda starting with Roosevel and ongoing to this day, and it isn't plain as fucking day in front of you :^) People like Alger Hiss, Lauchlin Currie, Harold Glasser and Harry Dexter White, all on that list, all pushing pushing that agenda, were true American patriots :^) Senator Joe McCarthy wasn't loved by the common American person and only hated by the vanguard intelligentsia with Marxist ideologies, and we haven't inherited solely their account of events as objective truth, with McCarthy demonized primarily for telling the truth :^) Universities don't churn out Marxist drivel, and the media doesn't have a left wing bias -- no, no, it has a right wing bias, in fact, with maverick outliers like Australian shitposter Rupert Murdoch, vilified by the media, actually embodying the media! :^)
You're a fucking faggot and you deserve your slavery. You're actively choosing easy delusion and lies over critical thought. It's not even that you disagree with me. It's that when events are put together, it's fishier than your mother's cunt.
>>68246660
What are people supposed to get out of that list? Half the people it lists are irrelevant, the others are assumption, with a few individuals actually involved with the government at any substantial level being confirmed spies.
McCarthy claimed that there was a widespread inflitration to such a level entire departments were compromised and full of spies, that's why everyone thought he was a nutjob, not because the existence of spies within the US government was improbable.
And don't talk about "doing my homework" and being a lazy cunt, I wasn't going to bring this up, but in your first post you spell McCarthy as McCartney, so I can only assume you are some 15 year old who find out some Wikipedia article last week trying to act like you actually know anything about the subject.
>>68246536
What's the point? They all make similar observations but that's because the point is quite obvious - movies about terrorists blowing up half of London are in poor taste when there's real anxiety about that happening.
>>68247724
It's very gracious of you that you weren't going to mention a typological slip I made between two superficially similar names, similar slips of which literally everyone on the Internet has made at various times, unless I pointed out that you're a shiteating cunt, which you are. The list is there. It shows the extent of the infiltration. It shows the agenda they are pushing. It takes willful blindness to not see it.
>>68247558
Why do you think the media has a left-wing bias? Isn't your biggest news station fox news, an unapologetic right-wing media outlet with a tenuous relationship with fact?
>>68248073
not that guy but nbc, cbs and some smaller cable channels are left-wing shillfests
>>68248073
Because Rupert Murdoch and his empire is the only large scale right wing media outlet. The rest are left wing; literally all of them push a left wing agenda, and cast aspersions over anyone or anything that doesn't toe the line. You're right, though, Fox is the largest, and it's the largest because the common people are right wing in their beliefs, and with a lot of effort, the vanguard elite are trying to push them the other way. The only exception is the news website Breitbart. Fox and Breitbart are both helmed by mavericks who imagine themselves as opposing the establishment. The left wing media is the establishment, a vanguard elite with a contempt for the common people.
